GEORGE CLAXTON: Was there a reason to not grant compensation for other birth defects?

from the files of George Claxton

In 1981 the Veterans Administration published their "Review of Literature on Herbicides, Including Phenoxy Herbicides and Associated Dioxins". Volume 3 concerned the review on birth defects from herbicides. On pages 185 and 186 the following is stated:

"The results for TCDD in particular and to a lesser extent for 2,4,5-T and 2,4-D in a manner of nonhuman species are cumulatively so compelling that it is difficult to believe that humans might not be susceptible to the reproductive effects of these compounds. The two most satisfactory studies were those of applicants in New Zealand and Vietnam Veterans in Australia. These are negative overall, but both give the suggestion that exposure of the male parent to Agent Orange might be associated with heart defects."

The VA has already granted compensation for spina bifida in the children of Vietnam Veterans whose fathers were exposed to Agent Orange and dioxin. Was there a reason to not grant compensation for other birth defects?

Could the problem of funding be a consideration factor?How about protection of industry? If the answer is funding, why is there no question of funding when this country is going to war? The irony is obvious. If the answer is protection,the answer becomes diabolical. Ask yourself why the veterans in Canada are suing Dow and Monsanto for exposure to dioxin laced herbicides. This action was taken because of the Canadians exposure in Gagetown, New Brunswick.

I rest my case.

Faithfully submitted,
George Claxton