Evil at the EPA

Lynn's picture
Submitted by Lynn on Sat, 01/21/2006 - 10:13pm.

Remember when the so-called Environmental Protection Agency wanted to pay poor families $970 to test pesticides on their own children? Public outrage stopped the CHEERS program (who comes up with these acronyms?). Never fear, though, pesticide fans, the EPA is still trying to figure out how to test pesticides on pregnant women and children.

Now the EPA has proposed rules that would allow them to test pesticides on orphaned newborns, abused children, and the mentally handicapped--anyone unable to provide informed consent or doesn't have an advocate, basically.

On August 2, 2005, Congress had mandated the EPA create a rule that permanently bans chemical testing on pregnant women and children, without exception. But the EPA's newly proposed rule, is ridden with exceptions where chemical studies may be performed on children in certain situations like the following:

1. Children who "cannot be reasonably consulted," such as those that are mentally handicapped or orphaned newborns, may be tested on. With permission from the institution or guardian in charge of the individual, the child may be exposed to chemicals for the sake of research.

2. Parental consent forms are not necessary for testing on children who have been neglected or abused.

3. Chemical studies on any children outside of the U.S. are acceptable.

The proposed rules are here, though the public comment period is over. To quote the Hammer of Truth blog, this may be the most explicitly evil thing I've ever seen the government do. Oh, and it's nothing new; in the comments at Hammer, there's this story, about a neighborhood in Florida where people were sprayed with mosquito pesticides without their knowledge--and the CDC came round asking for urine samples after the fact. They were especially interested in finding pregnant women.

Call your congress members.

Technorati Tags:

( categories: )

angelb's picture

Read the EPA guidelines for yourself

Submitted by angelb on Sun, 01/22/2006 - 2:06am.

I've read the proposed EPA guidelines. If you'd like to check out the document yourself, you can find it at:

http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-GENERAL/2005/September/Day-12/g18010.htm

I don't deny that this is something to be concerned about HOWEVER it isn't quite as "let's poison children" as some advocacy groups claim.

Intentional dosing of children is ILLEGAL and any research that includes results from intentionally dosing children (ANY children) will not be supported, funded, or accepted by the EPA. Period.

HOWEVER... children can be used in observational studies so long as the researchers aren't changing the children's environment. So, for example, it is ok under EPA guidelines to monitor the health of children of farm workers so long as you don't tell them how much time to spend indoors vs out. And, as your alert states, it is ok under certain circumstances to include children as subjects in these observational studies without parental approval. For example, if they are wards of the state, then technically the government is their guardian and can give blanket approval.

I'll leave it to you to make your own decision about the ethics of observational studies on children. There are some pretty significant parental consent loopholes that I think should be resolved. Unfortunately, the period for public comment on the proposed regulations ended 12/12. Doesn't mean the public can't mount some sort of after the fact campaign though.

I think it is really important that people go to the source for issues like this. I find that very often both the pro-side (like the EPA press office) and the con-side (like enviromental advocacy groups) often put a pretty hard spin on the issues and the truth lies somewhere in between.

Lynn's picture

I already linked to the proposed rules in the post

Submitted by Lynn on Sun, 01/22/2006 - 10:25am.

Just so folks don't think I haven't seen them.

Lynn Siprelle, Editor

Jilsyt's picture

So, What to do?

Submitted by Jilsyt on Sun, 01/22/2006 - 2:42pm.

What can we as citizens do if we found out after the fact? Does anyone know? I mean, how would one fight what the CDC did in Florida if it happens in their town? Is there prevention?

Lynn's picture

More on this

Submitted by Lynn on Mon, 01/23/2006 - 9:36pm.

EPA to accept pesticide tests on humans:

[Senator Barbara Boxer] said the EPA rule is inconsistent with what Congress ordered. She said manufacturers could still conduct testing on pregnant women and children as long as they could convince the EPA that the researchers didn't intend to submit the results to the agency at the outset of the study.

Hazen said, however, that the only exception to the ban on accepting data, including that from pregnant women and children, involves cases in which the EPA becomes aware that it might need to take additional measures to protect public health.

However, she noted, "No pesticide company in the U.S. or in most countries would invest money in developing data to try and prove that EPA should regulate them more stringently."

The EPA expects a substantial increase in the number of tests it receives involving intentional exposure of humans to pesticides. The draft final rule said the agency anticipates receiving 33 such reports a year.

Lynn Siprelle, Editor

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • You may quote other posts using [quote] tags.
  • Textual smileys will be replaced with graphical ones.
  • Web and e-mail addresses are automatically converted into links.
More information about formatting options