Consequently, their use is raising questions and opposition that should have been raised long ago about urine testing.)

May 2, 1999

WHY YOUR BOSS WANTS A PIECE OF YOUR HAIR
St. Louis Post-Dispatch
letters@pd.stlnet.com
http://www.stlnet.com/
http://www.stlnet.com/postnet/index.nsf/forums
By Al Stamborski
Section: Business

Some employers think hair analysis is a more accurate way to test for drug use. But critics raise many questions, from racial bias to possible contamination.

A conflict is brewing over a relatively new weapon in the war on drugs in the workplace. Armed with scissors, employers are snipping locks of hair from job applicants and employees. Lab analysis of the hair aims to show whether the person used marijuana, cocaine, methamphetamines or other illegal drugs in the previous 90 days. That’s a much longer look back than the three or four days usually provided through urinalysis, which is still the drug test of choice for most companies when deciding whether to hire or fire someone.

Hundreds of employers around the country—banks, factories, police departments—have turned to hair testing in recent years, either to supplement urine testing or to replace it. They say drug users have learned to "beat" urinalysis by adulterating their urine or by abstaining from drugs for a few days.

In this area, Harrah’s Casino tests the hair of job applicants. So does the General Motors plant. Anheuser-Busch uses the test for applicants and some others, and is expanding its use to include all employees. A-B will conduct the tests on a somewhat regular basis, not just when someone is suspected of being a drug user or after an accident in a plant.
(Marijuananews note: Allen St. Pierre at NORML tells me that Anheuser-Busch employees are the largest single source of calls about hair-testing at 1-900-97NORML)

The brewery’s plan angers its biggest union, and a lawsuit has been filed in New Jersey.

"The Teamsters do not condone the use of drugs," stressed Gary Scott, one of the union leaders here. But the union, like other critics, questions both the accuracy and the fairness of the tests. Even some scientists fear that blacks are more likely to be caught by such tests than whites because dark, coarse hair might absorb more drugs than does light, fine hair.

While such matters are being reviewed and fought over, employees won’t have the option of refusing to take the test—unless they want to be fired on the spot.

"All you have to do is say ‘no’ and go get a job elsewhere," Chairman August A. Busch III told protesting Teamsters on Wednesday at the company’s annual meeting.

Scientist has doubts

Hundreds of studies have been undertaken on hair testing. Some scientists are convinced of its accuracy and value as a drug-testing tool. Others aren’t sure.

Most of the research has been done by scientists who operate companies that seek hair-testing contracts or by scientists whose work is financed by hair-testing labs, said Dr. Bryan Rogers, associate medical director of Barnes Care Corporate Health Services here.

Rogers said he is "not at all" convinced of the accuracy of hair testing, and he informs customers of his reservations. Nonetheless, Barnes will collect hair samples and forward them to a lab if asked, as it has been by one or two area employers.

"We’re a business just like anybody else," he explained.

Bruce Goldberger, a toxicologist at the University of Florida, Gainesville, has done independent research on hair tests for years. Last summer, he testified before a congressional panel looking into new ways of testing workers for drug abuse.

Despite years of lobbying by the hair testing labs and others, the federal government has not approved hair analysis for federal employees or anyone in a federally regulated industry, such as airlines, railroads and nuclear power companies. Urinalysis, for the most part, is the only approved drug test for this group of workers, who make up about one-tenth of the nation’s work force.

"The state of knowledge with hair analysis is still at an immature level," Goldberger told the Post-Dispatch, echoing his testimony.

While the basic techniques used by the handful of hair testing labs in the country are common and reliable, Goldberger said some problems must be resolved before he can endorse hair testing in the workplace, especially if it is to be used by itself and not in tandem with urine testing.

Hair color bias is issue

The possibility of color bias, for example, must be further examined, he said. While this appears to be a race issue to many, he noted that anyone with dark hair might be more likely to be caught by the tests than a person with light hair. A black person with light gray hair might be less susceptible to being caught than a white person with dark, coarse hair.

External contamination is another issue. In drug users, drug residue is believed to be carried through the bloodstream to the hair, where it is trapped inside the shafts. But even people who don’t use drugs sometimes have the residue on their hair because they are around drug users. Marijuana smoke, cocaine "dust" and other residue can get into the hair at parties, bars and other public places. While most hair labs say they can wash away such outside contamination before testing the inside of the hair, not everyone in the scientific community is convinced that such thorough washing can be done or that it can be done by all labs.

Such lack of standardization of labs is another stumbling block for Goldberger and others. Some labs have better equipment and technology than do others. While the federal government regularly inspects the urinalysis labs used by the federally controlled industries, there is nothing comparable for the hair labs.

"I think it will take a few more years for these issues to be totally resolved," Goldberger said.

Issue raises emotions

Another Florida researcher appears to have more faith in the process.

"Hair testing is a reasonably accurate and reliable technique, comparable to urinalysis," said Tom Mieczkowski at the University of Southern Florida in St. Petersburg. He cautions that "urinalysis is not 100 percent accurate, either."

(Marijuananews note: I received an email today from a man who failed a urine test and had his name posted on a trucking industry bulletin board as a "drug-user." He was not even applying for a job as a driver!)

In his 10 years of research, he hasn’t found any evidence that color of hair has much effect, if any, on the hair test. As for external contamination, hair would have to be soaked in a cocaine solution for 48 hours before it would cause a problem in the test, he said.

Mieczkowski said the same sorts of arguments being used against hair testing today were brought up 20 years ago with urine testing. And they’ll be hauled out again to challenge the coming generation of drug tests, which will analyze saliva, fingernails and sweat.

Any form of drug testing is "so emotionally charged," he added. Yet, he noted, little opposition arises when hair is tested for things other than illegal drugs—such as heavy metals, toxins and medication.

Supporters of hair testing say there are enough safeguards to prevent false positives. A hair sample is subjected to two different lab tests before being declared positive. Positive results are then reported to a company’s medical review officer, often a physician, who can consider other reasons for testing positive, such as use of prescription medicine or excessive eating of poppy seeds, which could lead to a positive result for opiates.

There are so many safeguards in such testing programs that by the time people are sent to drug treatment programs, fewer than 1 percent continue to deny having used illegal drugs, Mierczkowski said.

Even the CEO was tested

At GM, "I don’t know of anybody, when we’ve told them they test positive, that they disagree with us," said Dr. Douglas Van Brocklin, supervisor of the automaker’s testing program throughout North America.

Mierczkowski had this advice for those innocent people who flunk drug tests, either because of a fraudulent process, unreliable analysis or incompetent lab: "You sue their butts off."

But that’s easier said than done, said Lewis Maltby of the American Civil Liberties Union.

"There’s absolutely no law that says an employer has to use reliable testing except in the federal testing program," he said. "You can use a Ouija board, and it’s perfectly legal."

The ACLU opposes the hair tests because it feels they are not accurate. The group also believes that drug testing in general is overdone by many employers.

"If someone gives an employer reason to think he’s abusing drugs on the job or coming to work on drugs, then by all means test him"— with a urine test that’s analyzed at a federally certified lab, Maltby said.

"Our objection is to people having to prove their innocence when they have given their employer no reason to think they’ve done anything wrong," Maltby said.

The beer company wouldn’t provide someone to talk about its testing program. But in written responses to some questions, the company said, "The goal of these programs is to balance our respect for the individual with the need to maintain a safe, productive and drug-free workplace. These programs are working: Pre-employment testing has screened out users who would have otherwise been hired, and post-employment testing has resulted in employees receiving needed rehabilitation and, in a few cases, leaving the company when they have been unwilling to remain drug free."

The hair tests are not just for the rank-and-file workers, but for all employees, the company said. Even Busch has had his hair snipped and tested, it said.

Copyright: 1999 Post Dispatch
See
The Kubbys Hair-Test Themselves To Prove
That They Are Not Using Any Drugs Less Safe Than Marijuana.