EPA Reviewing 24 Tests of Human Pesticide

[Roland99]

http://www.newsday.com/news/politics/wire/sns-ap-epa-human-testing,0,277649,print.story?coll=sns-ap-politics-headlines

Data from two dozen industry tests that intentionally exposed people to poisons, including one involving a World War I-era chemical warfare agent, are being used by the Environmental Protection Agency in approving and denying specific pesticides.

The controversial data come from 24 human pesticide experiments submitted to the EPA by companies seeking pesticide permits. The data, provided by the EPA to congressional officials, is being studied under a policy the Bush administration adopted last November to have political appointees referee on a case-by-case basis any ethical disputes over human testing.

Aides to two California Democrats, Sen. Barbara Boxer and Rep. Henry Waxman, compiled and reviewed EPA data on 22 of the cases.

"Nearly one-third of the studies reviewed were specifically designed to cause harm to the human test subjects or to put them at risk of harm," the aides concluded in a 38-page report and accompanying documents provided Wednesday to The Associated Press.

The report said scientists conducting the experiments "failed to obtain informed consent (and) dismissed adverse outcomes," adding that the tests "lacked scientific validity."

[pop goes the weasel]

1. Total pesticides testing

Read about it in In the Name of Science. I think everyone should read that book.

[stickdog]

2. They are actively poisoning people to this day!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/16/AR2005061600112.html

[Moderator]

3. kick

[Horse with no Name]

4. US agency 'giving green light' to human toxin tests

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1508654,00.html

>>>>>snip
Congressional Democrats accused the US government environment body yesterday of opening the door to tests of pesticides on humans that "appear to routinely violate ethical standards".

The Democrats issued a report saying that, since lifting a moratorium on human testing imposed by the Clinton administration, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had accepted for review more than 20 studies on the effects on human subjects of "highly hazardous" poisons and suspected carcinogens.

We anticipate that these tests are going on now all over the world, but there's no way of knowing ," said Erik Olson, a lawyer for the National Resources Defence Council. "We're calling it the wild west. The companies are doing what they will without clear legal restrictions. That's a recipe for disaster when the federal government is encouraging them to go ahead by accepting these tests."

The congressional report was sponsored by Barbara Boxer, a California senator, and Henry Waxman, a congressman from the same state. They said it had uncovered "significant and widespread deficiencies" in 22 human pesticide experiments it reviewed.

[cornermouse]

5. Lesson: If you see any new ads for human volunteers for medical

tests in your newspaper, do NOT apply. Just in case.

[illflem]

6. How does this differ from pro-choice

since the subjects are being warned of potential adverse effects?
Seems to me that to restrict it would amount to limiting a person's choice of what they want to do with their own body.

[China_cat]

7. In one case the subjects are not only not warned

they are not capable of understanding warnings. The EPA lifted its postponement of the chemical company tests of the effects of insecticides on children between the ages of birth and 3 years old in a poor section of Jacksonville, FL. The EPA was paid by the American Chemistry Council to conduct these tests.

http://www.communicationagents.com/emma_holister/2004/11/16/bush_approves_study_exposing_pesticides.htm

[leftchick]

8. this is so sick....

every day another horror....

~snip~

"In violation of ethical standards, the experiments appear to have inflicted harm on human subjects, failed to obtain informed consent, dismissed adverse outcomes and lacked scientific validity," the report found. "In many of the experiments, the subjects were instructed to swallow capsules of toxic pesticides with orange juice or water at breakfast."

The "informed consent" forms were often loaded with jargon, hard to understand or deliberately misleading about potential health risks. Some studies dismissed unfavourable results. In one test, all eight subjects became sick after exposure to a pesticide, but in the report their symptoms were discounted and attributed to "viral illness".