WHY YOUR BOSS WANTS A PIECE OF YOUR HAIR

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.

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."

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.

Such is the case with random or blanket testing, which Anheuser-Busch
plans to do.

Scott, the union leader at A-B, asked, "How much of my life do I have
to expose to August Busch? The real issue here is having a safe
workplace, not what I do on my four weeks' vacation."

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. .o.o. 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.