The Pesticide Experiment... recently cancelled

[Guest guest]

SSRI-Research@

Mon, 18 Apr 2005 01:24:12 -0000

[sSRI-Research] The " Pesticide Experiment " ... recently cancelled

 

 

 

EPA Nominee Challenged in Senate Over Children's Pesticide Experiment

 

Thu, 07 Apr 2005

 

AHRP applauds Senator Barbara Boxer for pledging to hold up the

confirmation of Stephen Johnson, the President's nominee to head the

Environmental Protection Agency, until he pulls the plug on " the

appalling, unethical, and immoral " children¹s pesticide experiment

which the EPA suspended but did not cancel.

 

The New York Times refers to the experiment as " a little-known

research program. " It was little-known until AHRP raised vigorous

objections. See: http://www.ahrp.org/infomail/04/11/03.php

 

And most recently, Vera Sharav Statement at the Anthrax band reunion

press conference (April 1, 2005) which reached a global audience:

See: http://www.ahrp.org/ahrpspeaks/AnthraxBand0405.php

 

This immoral human experiment - cynically called, CHEERS--was

sponsored by the EPA in collaboration with the American Chemistry

Council. It was suspended last year after " negative public reaction. "

But the EPA left a backdoor open through which the agency plans to

reinstate the experiment. EPA convened an " outside panel " to evaluate

the study. Given what we know about such advisory panels, the process

is corrupted by conflicts of interest. See:

http://www.ahrp.org/infomail/04/02/19.php

 

Unlike legitimate tests for vaccines and medicines whose risks can be

justified by the potential benefits, pesticide experiments offer zero

possibility of a health benefit--neither for the human subjects, nor

society.

 

Human pesticide experiments defy the essence of the Hippocratic

oath, " First, do no harm, " the Nuremberg Code, the Declaration of

Helsinki, and the Code of Federal Regulations. Pesticide experiments -

whose aim is to demonstrate no harm from exposure--are

scientifically invalid. To assess the harmful effects of exposure to

pesticides is properly done through epidemiological studies over

time.

 

Senator Boxer stated: " Until it's canceled, I will do anything I can

to stop this nomination. This program is the worst kind of thing;

it's environmental injustice where children are the victims. "

 

Let¹s get our senators to support Sen. Boxer!

 

Contact: Vera Hassner Sharav

212-595-8974

 

 

THE NEW YORK TIMES

April 7, 2005

Nominee Is Grilled Over Program on Pesticides

By MICHAEL JANOFSKY

 

WASHINGTON, April 6 - Stephen L. Johnson, President Bush's nominee to

lead the Environmental Protection Agency, encountered unexpected

turbulence at his Senate confirmation hearing on Wednesday as Senator

Barbara Boxer of California threatened to hold up his nomination over

a small but controversial pesticide program in Florida.

 

Appearing before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee,

Mr. Johnson, a 24-year veteran of the agency who has been acting

administrator since his predecessor, Michael O. Leavitt, became

secretary of health and human services, was greeted warmly by

Republicans and faced predictably pointed questions from Democrats

over recent agency initiatives, including emission control rules put

into place last month.

 

Ms. Boxer's objections were based on a little-known research program

near Jacksonville, Fla., sponsored by the agency and the American

Chemistry Council, that offered money to low-income families willing

to allow the agency to measure the effects of pesticides on their

children under one year of age. The project, called Children's

Environmental Exposure Research Study, or Cheers, was suspended last

year after negative public reaction that prompted the agency to call

in outside experts to assess its feasibility.

 

The program was limited to families in Duval County that routinely

used pesticides inside their homes. It offered parents $970 over two

years if they made sure their young children went about their usual

activities as the use of pesticides continued. Researchers would then

visit the home every three to six months to collect data.

 

In a letter that reached Ms. Boxer several hours after she raised her

concerns, Mr. Johnson said, " No additional work will be conducted on

this study subject to the outcome of external scientific and ethical

review. "

 

But that was well short of her demands. Calling the

program " appalling, unethical and immoral, " Ms. Boxer implored Mr.

Johnson " to pull the plug on this program tomorrow. " In an interview

later, she said she would do whatever she could to hold up Mr.

Johnson's confirmation so long as the program had any chance of being

revived.

 

" Until it's canceled, I will do anything I can to stop this

nomination, " she said. " This program is the worst kind of thing; it's

environmental injustice where children are the victims. "

 

Mr. Johnson, 54, is the first career employee at the agency with a

formal scientific background to be nominated to lead it. Trained as a

biologist and pathologist, he led the agency's pesticide and toxic

substances office before rising to several senior positions under Mr.

Leavitt and his predecessor, Christie Whitman.

 

In his opening remarks, Mr. Johnson assured committee members that

under his leadership, decisions would be made on " the best available

scientific information " and that they would be made through a

process " as open and transparent " as possible.

 

But fielding questions from other Democrats and Senator James M.

Jeffords, Independent of Vermont, who warned Mr. Johnson against

becoming " a rubber stamp for White House policies, " Mr. Johnson made

it clear that he would strongly support preferences of the

administration.

 

That became especially evident in an exchange with Senator Thomas R.

Carper, Democrat of Delaware, who pressed Mr. Johnson to explain why

the agency provided the committee with detailed analyses of the

administration's pollution-reduction bill, known as Clear Skies, but

not two competing bills. The measure has stalled in the last two

sessions of Congress.

 

Mr. Johnson said the agency had more pressing matters to address, but

he vowed to do whatever he could to help the committee pass effective

antipollution legislation so long as it was built on Clear Skies.

 

" I appreciate the work the committee has already done on this issue, "

he said, " and I look forward to working with you to advance this

important legislative initiative. "

 

Responding to friendly questions from Senator George V. Voinovich,

Republican of Ohio, Mr. Johnson returned to the theme of sound

science as the overarching imperative for all agency decisions. But

Mr. Jeffords threw the concept back to him, asking Mr. Johnson why

the agency chose a cap-and-trade program for its recently announced

mercury rules for power plant emissions, rather than a program that

demanded the use of best available technologies.

 

Mr. Johnson's answer reflected his willingness to balance economic

considerations with new environmental regulations. He said that new

guidelines for sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides emissions were also

helping to reduce mercury emissions and that forcing plant operators

to do more would prove too expensive.

 

" It's a much more cost-effective approach, " he said of the cap-and-

trade program.

 

As he left the hearing room, Mr. Johnson smiled when asked about Ms.

Boxer's concerns and said, " Today was a pleasure being before the

senators, and I'm looking forward to swift confirmation so I can run

the E.P.A. on a full-time basis. "

 

Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company

 

FAIR USE NOTICE: This may contain copyrighted (© ) material the use

of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright

owner. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to

advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral,

ethical, and social justice issues, etc. It is believed that this

constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided

for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. This

material is distributed without profit.