Bayer Crop Science / Crop Life America Plotted Bush Human Pesticide Testing Poli

[Guest guest]

SSRI-Research@

Thu, 01 Jun 2006 00:47:04 -0000

[sSRI-Research] Bayer Crop Science / Crop Life America

Plotted Bush Human Pesticide Testing Poli

 

 

 

 

 

ALLIANCE FOR HUMAN RESEARCH PROTECTION (AHRP)

Promoting Openness, Full Disclosure, and Accountability

http://www.ahrp.org/cms/

 

FYI

 

The Bush Administration's proclaimed concern for the " value and

dignity of human life " is contradicted by it endorsement of pesticide

experiments on children.

 

Organophosphates, derived from World War II-era nerve agents, are

banned in England, Sweden and Denmark. In the 1990's the National

Academies of Science criticized EPA's regulation of these pesticides.

The Clinton administration began moves to ban the agents but the Bush

administration changed course.

 

The Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) reveals

in a press release (below) that well before the Bush Administration

unveiled its September 12, 2005 Proposed Rule on human pesticide

experiments, pesticide industry trade groups and lobbyists-Crop Life

America and Bayer Crop Life Science-met with the ffice of Management

and Budget (OMB) and officials of the Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA) on August 9, 2005 and plotted loopholes to exempt the ban on

pesticide testing in children.

 

PEER obtained copies of the notes of that closed door meeting.

<http://www.peer.org/docs/epa/06_26_5_EPA_HumanTesting_meetingnotes.pd

f>

 

This fundamental moral issue has roused thousands of U.S. scientists

in the EPA to publicly object to EPA's imminent approval of a score of

powerful, controversial pesticides. They have expressed their

unprecedented objection because of " compelling evidence " showing that

these " pesticides damage the developing nervous systems of fetuses,

infants and children. "

 

According to PEER's press release, " These meeting notes make it clear

that the pesticide industry's top objective is access to children for

experiments. " The primary objective of these corporate giants was to

circumvent restrictions on the use of children in poisonous toxic

pesticide experiments through deft loopholes incorporated into the

text. The final Rule allows testing on workers and allows dosing

experiments on infants and pregnant women using non-pesticide toxic

chemicals. The Bush administration approach has been faulted by both

EPA's own Scientific Advisory Panel and its Office of Inspector General.

 

Among the ghoulish text changes to the Rule urged by the pesticide

industry lobbyists:

 

.. " Re kids-never say never " (emphasis in original);

 

.. " Pesticides have benefits. Rule should say so. Testing, too, has

benefits " ;

 

.. " We want a rule quickly-[therefore] narrow [is] better. Don't like

being singled out but, speed is most imp. "

 

.. " Distinguish testing kids from using data on kids who were tested " ;

and

.. " Some workers may legally be children, albeit old enough for DOL "

[Department of Labor coverage].

 

Under the leadership of Bayer-whose infamous corporate forbearer, I.G.

Farben, was intimately involved in human pesticide experiments at

Auschwitz death camp-the pesticide industry successfully overturned

the moral principles that define permissible medical research in a

civilized society. The Nuremberg Code (1947) was universally endoresed

by the entire world to guard against the likes of Bayer from ever

again being in a position to conduct experiments such as these on

human beings.

 

The Bush Administration incorporated into the U.S. government Rule on

human pesticide testing, the precise textual changes requested by

Bayer and Crop Life America.

 

PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch, noted: " Unfortunately, using human

beings as guinea pigs to test the toxic strength of commercial

poisons has become a central regulatory strategy under the Bush

administration. "

 

WHERE IS THE NATIONAL PRESS?

 

Contact: Vera Hassner Sharav

212-595-8974

veracare <veracare

 

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility

News Release, May 30, 2006

 

PESTICIDE INDUSTRY PLOTTED BUSH HUMAN TESTING POLICY

 

Meeting with OMB Staff Laid Out Exemptions for Experiments on Children

 

One month before the Bush administration proposed rules authorizing

experiments on humans with pesticides and other chemicals, its key

operatives met with pesticide industry lobbyists to map out its

provisions, according to meeting notes posted today by Public

Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). The industry

requests for exemptions allowing some chemical testing on children and

other provisions were incorporated into the human testing rule

ultimately adopted this January 26th.

 

At the August 9, 2005 meeting held inside the President's Office of

Management and Budget, representatives of the pesticide trade

association, Crop Life America, as well as Bayer Crop Life Science met

with OMB and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency officials. Also

attending was a former top EPA official, James Aidala, who now acts a

lobbyist at a law firm representing chemical companies.

 

The meeting notes detail industry concerns about the text of a

proposed rule that the Bush administration first unveiled a month

later on September 12th.

 

For example, the Crop Life America attendees urged:

 

.. " Re kids-never say never " (emphasis in original);

.. " Pesticides have benefits. Rule should say so. Testing, too, has

benefits " ; and

.. " We want a rule quickly-[therefore] narrow [is] better. Don't like

being singled out but, speed is most imp. "

 

" These meeting notes make it clear that the pesticide industry's top

objective is access to children for experiments. After reading these

ghoulish notes one has the urge to take a shower, " commented PEER

Executive Director Jeff Ruch, whose organization works with EPA

scientists who have been prevented from voicing ethical and scientific

concerns about human subject testing. " For an administration which

trumpets its concern for the 'value and dignity of life,' it is

disconcerting that no ethicists, children

advocates or scientists were invited to this meeting to

counterbalance the pesticide pushers. "

 

The upcoming August 3rd deadline for EPA final approval for a

controversial class of pesticides derived from nerve agents called

organophosphates appeared to be a top industry priority. Jim Aidala,

the industry lobbyist, stated, " Won't be able to meet the FQPA [Food

Quality Protection Act] deadline. Wouldn't anyway. Just do the rule

first, then proceed ASAP. "

 

Aidala also suggested how the rules could make subtle exceptions for

chemicals testing on children:

 

.. " Distinguish testing kids from using data on kids who were tested " ;

and

.. " Some workers may legally be children, albeit old enough for DOL "

[Department of Labor coverage].

 

The human testing rule adopted by EPA earlier this year contains the

loopholes advocated at the OMB meeting for exposing children to

pesticides, such as testing on workers and exposures unconnected with

the approval process for new pesticides or new uses for existing

agents. In addition, the rule broadly allows dosing experiments on

infants and pregnant women using non-pesticide chemicals.

 

" Unfortunately, using human beings as guinea pigs to test the toxic

strength of commercial poisons has become a central regulatory

strategy under the Bush administration, " Ruch added.

 

Meeting Record Regarding: Protections for Test Subjects in Human

Research

8/ 9/2005

 

Jim Aidala, Bergeson & Campbell

 

Ray McAllister, Pat Donnelly, Crop Life America

 

Jean Reimers, Bayer Crop Science

 

Angela Hofmann, Charlotte Bertrand, Bruce Rodar, EPA

 

Keith Belton, John M. Carley, Art Fraas, OMB/OIRA

 

See the Crop Life-OMB meeting notes

<http://www.peer.org/docs/epa/06_26_5_EPA_HumanTesting_meetingnotes.pd

f>

 

Read about political pressure on EPA scientists to approve

organophosphate

pesticides <http://www.peer.org/news/news_id.php?row_id=i1>

 

 

Sacramento Bee, January 24, 2006

 

New pesticide research rules face heavy fire

EPA calls them tough and fair; critics want human testing out.

 

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration would allow some limited

pesticide testing on children and pregnant women under controversial

rules set to be made final as early as this week.

 

After fielding some 50,000 public comments on its earlier human-

testing proposals, the Environmental Protection Agency is setting out

final rules that officials call tough and fair. But California

Democrats and environmentalists are raising an outcry, and courts

could remain busy sorting it all out.

 

The fact that EPA allows pesticide testing of any kind on the most

vulnerable, including abused and neglected children, is simply

astonishing, " Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., said Monday.

 

The new rules would prohibit regulators from using so-

called " intentional exposure " research that involved children or

pregnant women. But under what regulators described as " narrowly

defined circumstances, " such research could still be used - if the

researcher hadn't originally intended to submit the results to the EPA.

 

The new rules require researchers to document their compliance with

ethical guidelines, but exempt certain overseas tests. Testing on

adults could proceed, following review by a new Human Studies Review

Board that could " comment on " but not stop a proposed experiment.

 

" EPA does not want to ignore potentially important information, " the

agency says in its final rule. " At the same time, the agency's conduct

should encourage high ethical standards in research with human subjects. "

 

On Monday, Boxer and several California colleagues were one step

ahead of the EPA, which hadn't yet formally released the final rules

protecting human subjects. But a leaked draft of the new rules,

spanning some 100 pages, spells out both the new regulations and how

they will be presented to the public.

 

" Message: the ethics and scientific value of human studies are topics

of high public interest, and the agency has been deliberating its

position, " the EPA's written " communications plan " states. EPA

officials could not be reached for comment Monday.

 

The issue is particularly important in California, where farmers and

others applied 644 million pounds of pesticides in 2003. It's also

closely watched by church and environmental groups, which raise red

flags over human testing, as well as by manufacturers, which can rely

on testing to secure necessary approval permits.

 

" Humans process some substances differently from animals, " the EPA

notes in its final rule, scheduled for publication in the Federal

Register. " Studies of this kind can provide essential support for

safety monitoring programs. Animal data alone can sometimes provide an

incomplete or misleading picture of a substance's safety or risk. "

 

The 50,000 comments received by the EPA since September showcase the

level of public interest, although regulators noted that 99 percent of

the comments were part of an e-mail or organized letter-writing campaign.

 

The American Mosquito Control Association, among others, previously

advised lawmakers that human testing is necessary in order to develop

new and safer chemical alternatives. Otherwise, the mosquito control

group warned, diseases like the West Nile virus could spread more readily.

 

" Let's look at things as they really are in the world around us, " Sen.

Conrad Burns, R-Mont., said during debate last year. " ... We do not

do anything in this environment around us where there are no chemicals. "

 

Burns failed and Boxer prevailed, as the Senate in June imposed a

moratorium on the EPA's use of human pesticide testing; the House had

adopted a similar moratorium authored by California Rep. Hilda Solis,

D-El Monte. The moratorium came following reports of some studies

involving the intentional swallowing of pesticides.

 

The moratorium is in place until the final rule takes effect, which

is 60 days after publication. But if environmentalists conclude

that " loopholes " will result in laws being broken, further lawsuits

would likely follow.

 

About the writer: The Bee's Michael Doyle can be reached at (202) 383-

0006 or mdoyle.

 

distributed by the Coalition against BAYER-dangers

www.CBGnetwork.org <http://www.cbgnetwork.org/index2.html>

CBGnetwork

Tel: (+49) 211-333 911 Fax: (+49) 211-333 940

please send an e-mail for receiving the English newsletter Keycode

BAYER free of charge

 

Advisory Board

Prof. Juergen Junginger, designer, Krefeld,

Prof. Dr. Juergen Rochlitz, chemist, former member of the Bundestag,

Burgwald

Wolfram Esche, attorney-at-law, Cologne

Dr. Sigrid Müller, pharmacologist, Bremen

Eva Bulling-Schroeter, member of the Bundestag, Ingolstadt

Prof. Dr. Anton Schneider, construction biologist, Neubeuern

Dorothee Sölle, theologian, Hamburg (died 2003)

Dr. Janis Schmelzer, historian, Berlin

Dr. Erika Abczynski, pediatrician, Dormagen

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Drug-Free School Zone? Just Say NO to Prozac for Children.