EPA wants pesticide experiments on children (Mengele Mentality)

[Liberty Belle]

Mengele Mentality: EPA to allow pesticide experiments on children!

Edited on Fri Feb-11-05 09:46 PM by Liberty Belle

It sounds like a page out of a notebook from Josef Mengele, the Auschwitz "Angel of Death" doctor who performed sadistic medical experiments on children. But no, it's a federal rule change from Bush's Environmental Protetion Agency! (The EPA is more interested in protecting profits of chemical companies, apparently, than the safety of our children.) Please publicize this outrage far and wide. Even right-wing evangelical mothers and fathers should be outraged over this:

For Immediate Release: Monday, February 7, 2005
Contact: Chas Offutt [phone]

EPA EMBRACES HUMAN PESTICIDE DOSING WITHOUT SAFEGUARDS
Ethical Rules “Non-Binding”— No Standards to Protect Infants and Fetuses

Washington, DC —In a notice slated for publication in the Federal Register, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will formally adopt an open door policy of accepting experiments conducted by pesticide companies and chemical manufacturers using human subjects, according to a draft posted by EPA late last Friday. At the same time, the agency is indefinitely delaying development of ethical rules to protect test subjects, instead relying on its political appointees to flag immoral or unsafe practices on a “case-by-case” basis.
“At the request of chemical companies seeking to justify higher exposure limits, EPA will sanction dosing of infants, pregnant women and other vulnerable persons with commercial poisons,” stated Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) Executive Director Jeff Ruch, whose organization has highlighted the agency’s lack of ethical or safety guidelines. “EPA’s stance is appallingly amoral.”
According to the new notice, EPA will –
· Defer adopting protections for infants, neonates, pregnant women, and prisoners that apply to all medical and drug testing overseen by the Department of Health and Human Services. Instead, EPA announces its “intent to publish a proposed rule” at some unspecified time in the future;
· Refuse to require that companies demonstrate that they have abided by informed consent, appropriate inducement and other basic ethical standards. Instead, EPA promises “to publish non-binding guidance reflecting its plans” to possibly apply these elemental safeguards sometime in the future; and
· Avoid any requirement of an independent safety or ethical review, as is required for all other government human subject studies. Instead, EPA has assigned one of its own staff members to act as a “Human Subjects Research Review Official” with powers yet to be determined. In practice, however, it will be up to the top political appointees to flag unethical corporate experiments on a case-by-case” basis.
In its notice that is purported to clarify its policy, EPA provides scant description as to what constitutes an “ethically problematic” study that it will not accept:
EPA “will continue to generally accept scientifically valid studies unless there is clear evidence that the conduct of these studies was fundamentally unethical (e.g., the studies were intended to seriously harm participants or failed to obtain informed consent), or was significantly deficient relative to the ethical standards prevailing at the time the study was conducted.”
“Since there are no public notice requirements, the outside world will never learn of ethically dubious corporate experiments,” Ruch added, noting that many of the corporate studies will be done in developing countries. “EPA’s policy invites chemical companies to push the outside of the moral envelope.”
This latest draft notice represents EPA’s second recent attempt at codifying its pro-human testing policy; an earlier draft that was withdrawn after PEER publicly released it in late November. This latest draft is identical in effect to the earlier draft but specifies possible standards that EPA may consider in the future.
EPA itself has also proposed to directly conduct a controversial study that would pay parents to spray pesticides and other chemicals in the rooms occupied by infants under age 3. When that study (with the acronym CHEERS) drew unfavorable publicity late last year, EPA announced further review even though it had already recruited families with half of the 60 children called for in the study design.

http://www.ems.org/nws/2005/02/07/epa_embraces_hum

As if that's not nightmarish enough, here's another damning story on an EPA move to harm children by allowing exposure to a toxic chemical:

ACADEMY SUCCUMBS TO PENTAGON-WHITE HOUSE-INDUSTRY PRESSURE, RECOMMENDS PERCHLORATE SAFETY LEVEL THAT FAILS TO PROTECT CHILDREN

NRDC Says Recommendation to Add Iodide to Prenatal Vitamins Is "Too Little, Too Late"

WASHINGTON (January 10, 2005) -- The National Academy of Sciences' (NAS) report released today, which concluded that a higher exposure level to the toxic rocket fuel ingredient perchlorate than recommended by the Environmental Protection Agency is not harmful, could threaten the health of millions of American children, said NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council). The NAS report recommended a level that is about 23 times higher than the one proposed by EPA and several states.
According to documents released earlier today by the group, the NAS panel's recommendation was likely shaped by a covert campaign by the White House, Pentagon and defense contractors to twist the science and strong-arm the academy. (For more information on the campaign, click here.)
"This recommendation confirms our fear - that the White House, Pentagon and its contractors were able to unduly influence the academy," said Erik D. Olson, an NRDC senior attorney. "We've never seen such a brazen campaign to pressure the National Academy of Sciences to downplay the hazards of a chemical, but it fits the pattern of this administration manipulating science at the expense of public health."
The panel's recommendation for a level that would protect pregnant women and babies is based on one weak industry study that fed perchlorate at that level to only seven healthy adults for two weeks. "The industry study tells us nothing about effects on babies or long-term perchlorate exposure," said Dr. Jennifer Sass, a senior scientist at NRDC. "It dismissed the rest of the studies, which is beyond comprehension." ..
The panel also stated (on page 11 of the report) that "while studies are being conducted, the committee emphasizes the importance of ensuring that all pregnant women have adequate iodide intake and, as a first step, recommends that consideration be given to adding iodine to all prenatal vitamins."
"It's like exposing pregnant women to cigarette smoke and telling them to wear gas masks," said Dr. Gina Solomon, a physician and NRDC senior scientist. "To suggest that part of the solution for pregnant women is to take vitamins to protect their babies from perchlorate exposure is bizarre. It's too little, too late. The burden should be on polluters, not pregnant moms, to protect babies from this toxic chemical."
Even with the NAS panel's recommendation, it is still possible that EPA and states could set a drinking water standard for perchlorate at 1 parts per billion to 4 parts per billion, said Dr. Solomon. After considering total perchlorate exposure from all sources - including water, food and milk - and after adjusting for body weight of fetuses and newborns, drinking water standards for perchlorate could still wind up low.

http://www.nrdc.org/media/pressreleases/050110b.asp


Miriam R.