EPA WILL USE POOR KIDS AS GUINEA PIGS IN NEW STUDY ON PESTICIDES

[Guest guest]

a

 

Thu, 24 Mar 2005 07:28:30 -0000

 

EPA WILL USE POOR KIDS AS GUINEA PIGS IN NEW STUDY ON PESTICIDES

 

 

 

EPA WILL USE POOR KIDS AS GUINEA PIGS IN NEW STUDY ON PESTICIDES

 

 

EPA WILL USE POOR KIDS AS GUINEA PIGS IN NEW

STUDY ON PESTICIDES

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), led by

Bush appointees, plans to launch a new study in which

participating low income families will have their children

exposed to toxic pesticides over the course of two

years. For taking part in these studies, each family will

receive $970, a free video camera, a T-shirt, and a

framed certificate of appreciation. In October, the EPA

received $2 million to do the study from the American Chemistry Council, a

chemical industry front group that includes members such as Dow, Exxon,

and Monsanto. The EPA's Linda Sheldon says the study is vital, because so

little is known about how small children's bodies absorb harmful

chemicals.

As of press time, none of the EPA's employees are offering to have

their own

children take part in this research project. The Organic Consumers

Association is calling on the nation's citizens to demand the EPA

forgo this

project before its scheduled launch in early 2005.

 

http://muhammadfarms.com/News-Nov9-13-2004.htm

 

_____

 

 

Wednesday 23rd March 2005 (05h21) :

EPA Nominee Advocates Human Guinea Pigs

2 comment(s).

http://www.interventionmag.com/cms/...

 

EPA Nominee Advocates Human Guinea Pigs Stephen Johnson, Bush's

Nominee To Run The EPA, Advocates The Testing Of Pesticides On Humans

- Even Children - For The Benefit Of Large Chemical Companies Gene C.

Gerard March 19, 2005

 

President Bush recently nominated Stephen L. Johnson, a 24 year

veteran of the Environmental Protection Agency, to be the agency's new

administrator. Mr. Johnson has been the acting administrator since

January, and prior to that oversaw the EPA office handling pesticides

and other toxic substances. In nominating Johnson, Mr. Bush described

him as " a talented scientist " and having " good judgment and complete

integrity. "

 

Yet his record as the Assistant Administrator for Toxic Substances

casts serious doubt on whether Johnson is suited to lead the E.P.A.,

an agency directly affecting Americans' health and many significant

industries, including automobiles and agriculture. During President

Bush's first term, Johnson was a strong supporter of pesticide testing

on humans.

 

During President Clinton's administration, the E.P.A. would not

consider the results of controversial trials that tested pesticides on

people. But after Mr. Bush was elected, Johnson changed E.P.A. policy

to resume consideration. However, a panel of scientists and ethicists

convened by the E.P.A. in 1998 determined that these types of trials

were unethical and scientifically unsuitable to estimate the safety of

chemicals.

 

In 2001, the trials considered by the E.P.A. gave paid subjects doses

of pesticides 100 to 300 times greater than levels that E.P.A.

officials considered safe for the general public. The E.P.A. evaluated

three studies that year from Dow Chemicals, Bayer Corporation, and the

Gowan Company. The Bayer and Gowan studies were conducted in

third-world countries, where volunteers were more readily available,

while Dow conducted their study in Nebraska.

 

In the Dow study, human subjects were given doses four times the level

that the E.P.A. knew produced adverse affects in animals. Although

subjects suffered numbness in the upper arms, the Dow doctors ruled

that this was " possibly " related to the pesticide. Other subjects

complained of headaches, nausea, vomiting and stomach cramps. Again,

the doctors in the Dow study determined that these symptoms were

" possibly " or " probably " related to the chemical. But in the final

analysis of the study, Dow concluded that the pesticide did not

produce any symptoms. And yet the E.P.A. considered it.

 

It's wasn't surprising then that in October of last year, Johnson

strongly supported a study in which infants will be monitored for

health impacts as they undergo exposure to known toxic chemicals for a

two year period. The Children's Environmental Exposure Research Study,

dubiously known as CHEERS, will analyze how chemicals can be ingested,

inhaled, or absorbed by children ranging from infants to three year

olds. The study will analyze 60 infants and toddlers in Duval County,

Florida who are routinely exposed to pesticides in their homes. Yet

the E.P.A. acknowledges that pesticide exposure is a documented risk

factor for some types of childhood cancer and the early onset of asthma.

 

Other aspects of CHEERS are equally troublesome. The participants will

be selected from six health clinics and three hospitals in Duval

County. The E.P.A. study proposal noted that " Although all Duval

County citizens are eligible to use the [health care] centers, they

primarily serve individuals with lower incomes. In the year 2000, 75

percent of the users of the clinics for pregnancy issues were at or

below the poverty level. " The proposal also cited that " The percentage

of births to individuals classified as black in the U.S. Census is

higher at these three hospitals than for the County as a whole. "

 

The E.P.A. is targeting the poor and African-Americans for the study,

presumably in the hope that they will be less informed about the

dangers of exposing their children to pesticides, and will therefore

continue to expose them over the two year period. The study actually

mandates that participants not be provided information about the

proper ways to apply or store pesticides around the home. And the

parents cannot be informed of the risks of prolonged or excessive

exposure to pesticides. Additionally, the study does not provide steps

to intervene if the children show signs of developmental delay or

register high levels of exposure to pesticides in the periodic testing.

 

Parents receive $970 for participating in the study, but only if they

continue over the two year period. This is a powerful inducement for

these impoverished parents to keep exposing their children to

pesticides. Even some E.P.A. officials have been troubled by the lack

of safeguards to ensure that these parents are not swayed into

exposing their children to the chemicals. Troy Pierce, a scientist in

the E.P.A.'s Atlanta-based pesticides office, wrote in an e-mail to

his colleagues last year, " This does sound like it goes against

everything we recommend at EPA concerning use of (pesticides) related

to children. Paying families in Florida to have their homes routinely

treated with pesticides is very sad when we at EPA know that

(pesticide management) should always be used to protect children. "

 

Additionally, it was disclosed that the American Chemistry Council

gave $2.1 million to the E.P.A. to fund CHEERS. The council is

comprised of many pesticide manufacturers. These manufacturers have

known since the 1970s of the long term toxicity of the pesticides

being tested in the study. But since this study only lasts two years,

there will likely be little or no obvious short term effects.

Consequently, once the study is concluded, this will allow the council

to proclaim that the E.P.A. found no side effects, and in turn allow

them to lobby Congress to weaken regulations on these chemicals.

 

Stephen L. Johnson is a scientist of the worst kind. Testing of

pesticides on humans provides no health benefit to the subjects, or to

society at large. But it does help chemical companies who claim that

their products are not dangerous. And that is not who should be

leading the E.P.A.

 

by : Gene C. Gerard

Wednesday 23rd March 2005

http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=5576