REPLY: THIS IS REAL! EPA TO ALLOW PESTICIDE TESTING ON ORPHANS & MENTALLY HANDICAP

[Guest guest]

Hello . Sharon,

If you would have gone to the web site

http://www.organicconsumers.org/epa6.cfm#as you would have seen a link to the

information on snops the reply is below, PLEASE READ IT.

It is my opinion that Snoops does not seem to give the correct information on

everything take aspertame or splenda which is a sweet toxin they say all of that

research is Urban legends, its ok to consume those chemicals, how about

chemtrails, I see them every day, but according to snops they do not exist, how

about all of the people that have died from cholesterol meds is that too an

urban legend, check it out your self. getting back to what you have read in

snopes is below:

 

RE: Q & A Section

 

1) Question: I read on Snopes that this alert is false. Is that true?

 

Answer: The Snopes/Urban Legends posting is actually in regards to an EPA

proposed study called CHEERS and an alert we had sent out regarding that in late

2004 (http://www.organicconsumers.org/epa-alert.htm). It is not directly related

to this alert. The Snopes posting did a great disservice to that issue in their

inaccuracy and lack of research into this issue. We spend massive amounts of

staff time researching these issues, confer with outside experts on the topic,

and cite dozens of references. The Snopes website, while valuable with most of

its information, is not always accurate, and that is the case here. In fact,

you'll find they reference only a couple of newspaper articles to backup their

stance on this issue. Fortunately, enough concerned citizens, several

nonprofits, dozens of mainstream newspapers, and many congress members, actually

did their research on the EPA study and found that study was, in fact, very

problematic. In fact, in early 2005, the EPA CHEERS study was permanently

dropped, thanks to pressure from Congress. In August of 2005 Congress went a

step further and mandated the EPA pass a rule that bans all testing of chemicals

on children and pregnant women, without exception. That is what this alert

pertains to. Snopes hasn't posted any information about this particular alert,

and we hope they do their research this time. We ask our readers to do your

research, as well. No single alert or single website will provide you with all

of the information you need. We provided dozens of links on our alerts to

external resources that allow you to further research and reference all of the

information we provide. If you have questions, we're always happy to help out

craig

 

2)Question: I read the EPA website and part of the introduction of the rule,

claims the rule is to prohibit all such testing and to establish sanctions. That

sounds like a good thing. So what's the problem?

 

Answer: The EPA is proposing a rule that they would like to have approved.

Anytime you are marketing a product, you sell its best points and hope that

people won't look too deeply and find its flaws. The EPA website and the

introductory description of the rule are very long winded and flowery, claiming

this rule abides by the congressional mandate to ban all testing of women and

children, without exception. In fact, if you read the rule, which is 30 pages of

fine print, there are multiple exceptions. We have noted those in our template

letter to the EPA and on our action alert page. This is a specific layout of the

problematic text as taken directly from the actual EPA rule. In short, these are

the loopholes in the document that need to be removed, as mandated by congress,

which says the rule must have no exceptions.

 

3) Question: The rule says these waivers apply when the IRB sees a benefit of

the test for the children involved, and also calls for supplementary protective

measures when necessary. That sounds like a good thing. So what's the problem?

 

Answer: Actually, you are referencing a point made under subpart §26.405 of the

rule. That subpart is designed to only address " research presenting the prospect

of direct benefit to the individual subjects. " In that subpart, it says that

" more than minimal " risk to children subjects is acceptable if there is a chance

it could benefit the child. Outside of that subpart, there are no stipulations

requiring that the studies be beneficial to the test subjects. Anywhere else in

the document where this type of situation is noted, it is under an " or " clause.

In other words, the loopholes for this rule state that the rule can be

disregarded if the study was done overseas, OR the test subject's guardian

consents, OR if the study may be of benefit to society as a whole, OR if the

study may be of benefit to the test subject, etc. The study also calls for

supplementary protective measures when necessary but outlines no criteria for

how this " necessity " is defined or determined. Without a clearly defined line of

what is acceptable and what is not, it's at the whim of the IRB, EPA

administrator or third party research organization to determine whether or not

supplementary protective measures are necessary. In that sense, it could simply

mean the IRB might determine, for example, a test subject should wear safety

goggles when being doused with atrazine. In other words, without specific

definition of what defines a situation that calls for further supplementary

protective measures, this becomes a simple, flowery token statement with no

meaning and no teeth.

 

 

 

 

= = = = = = This is a forward message = = = = = = =

 

Original sender's name: Sharon Agan

Original sender's address: gametrailgirl

 

>Boy, you had me going for a minute there - but went to " snopes.com "

>where they investigate all the " urban legends " and " rumors " for

>validity. Many are true, many are false. This one is a little bit of

>both. Go to: http://www.snopes.com/toxins/cheers.asp to read more

>about it before deciding to leave the country.

>

>