Officials mull drug-testing hair

Some experts don't agree on how accurate the test is.
LONG ISLAND NEWSDAY
Men pay to make it grow. Women spend lavishly to dye, cut and coordinate it with their wardrobe. But these days, hair isn't just a key accessory to looking good.
It also can give government agencies a way to determine who might be abusing drugs in the workplace.
The federal government is reviewing whether to expand its employee drug-testing guidelines to include analyzing hair for evidence of illicit drug use.
As screening methods for hair, saliva and sweat have improved in recent years, there has been a long-running and often contentious debate over whether these should be added to the current gold standard, the urine test.
Forensic experts agree there are benefits to urine and hair analysis. Although urine testing can find traces of a drug for about five days after being ingested, trace amounts of a chemical substance entrapped in the cortex of a hair strand can be found up to three months later.
But in July, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration backed away from a proposal that would allow federal agencies the leeway to include saliva, sweat and hair testing along with urine tests, officials said.
Leah Young, a spokeswoman for the administration, said in July that the proposal, first introduced in 2004, was in its final version but was withdrawn because several government agencies had expressed concerns. She declined to comment on the status of the proposal last week.
The agency decided to extend the review process after gaining access to new research related to hair analysis that raises questions about environmental contamination and drug absorption, officials said.
Hair testing, in which strands of hair are plucked and sent to an independent laboratory for analysis, has been around for nearly two decades.
Problems
Researchers have disagreed about the accuracy of the test. Some medical experts and civil-rights advocates argue the test is unreliable and racially biased because those with blonde, straight or light hair seem to be able to escape detection for illicit drug use at a higher rate than those with coarse, nappy, braided or dark-colored hair.
Others say hair testing is reliable and allows for a longer window for detection. They also say the technology has improved significantly and can detect drugs in any color hair or texture.
"Differences in hair color ... are just some of the questions raised that we are reviewing," Young said.
Unlike urine screening -- which has standardized testing guidelines that each laboratory must follow -- there are no rules for hair analysis.
"It is a reliable science, the detection of drugs in the hair, but it is important to note that the hair has to be tested by reliable methodology," said Dr. Bruce Goldberger, professor and director of toxicology at the University of Florida College of Medicine.
"Historically, this area of testing for drugs in the hair has not been regulated to any extent, so the methods and the techniques haven't been standardized," Goldberger said. "The technique used in one lab may vary with what is done in another laboratory, and you might get slightly different results. If the tests are done properly, you should get the same results."
Made headlines
Private citizens are also starting to rely on the test in custody and divorce battles. Earlier this year, hair testing made national headlines when Ohio University football coach Frank Solich introduced his results to fight a drunken-driving plea.
After pleading no contest following his Nov. 26, 2005, arrest, Solich unsuccessfully fought to overturn his conviction by claiming he was drugged, based on a hair test performed by Toxicology Associates, Inc., which showed the presence of GHB, also known as the date rape drug. The coach's hair sample was collected 40 days after the arrest, according to published reports.
But as hair testing has gained a wider audience, the number of lawsuits challenging positive tests from hair analysis, usually for cocaine, has increased dramatically with pending cases in New York, New Jersey, California, Florida and Illinois.
Regulations posted on the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's Web site in July say "in the proper context, drug testing can be used to deter drug abuse in general.
"To be a useful tool," the regulations state, "all testing must satisfy good forensic laboratory practices, and the testing procedures must be capable of detecting drugs or metabolites at established cutoff concentrations."
Georgia Pestana, chief of the Labor & amp; Employment Law Division in the New York City Law Department, said in an e-mailed statement, "Agency drug testing policies and practices have been designed to comply with Constitutional and statutory requirements."