Pesticide Testing on Humans Is Ethical, Science Panel Says

[Oilwellian]

By Shankar Vedantam
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, February 20, 2004; Page A03


It is ethical to test pesticides and pollutants on human volunteers in order to determine whether environmental safety standards can be lowered, a top panel of scientists said yesterday in an opinion that is expected to strongly influence government policy.

Many scientists and ethicists have argued that such research is never justified, and yesterday's unprecedented verdict by the National Academy of Sciences took environmentalists by surprise.

The pesticide industry has vehemently supported such tests for years, arguing that current regulatory limits on exposure to environmental toxins are overly cautious. Manufacturers of pesticides and companies that produce pollutants say human studies will demonstrate that higher levels of toxins in the air and water are not harmful.

While volunteers would derive no benefit and some might incur transient harm, the panel of experts said this would be outweighed by societal benefits. Besides helping regulators set accurate benchmarks for environmental dangers, such trials might also address, for example, how much insecticide can safely be used to fight a malaria outbreak.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A56062-2004Feb19?language=printer

[Faygo Kid]

1. I suggest Perle, Frum, Wolfowitz and Cheney as the first volunteers

I would of course suggest Bush, but I find testing on chimps to be unethical.

[mac2]

2. Ya if your Hitler.

[WarNoMore]

3. I'm speechless.

n/t

[camero]

4. Next week on RW lies

It is now ethical to use volunteers in the gas chambers. :crazy:

These people are just sick. Of course they've been using the Colombians as guinea pigs for god knows how long now.

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

5. So, I guess that means the VA will stop paying for Vets

exposed to Agent Orange?
Cause, it is okay, right?

[Lorien]

6. Unfreakingbelievable

Pesticides and fertilizers are ALREADY more toxic than they should be. I'm getting ready for spring in my neighborhood, when my neighbors spray that crap on their lawn and I spend my mornings picking up sick and dying birds and baby raccoons out of my backyard and taking them to wildlife rehab. Sadly, every raccoon has been put down; the poison caused so much brain damage that they were beyond hope, and those animals can live on garbage! I hate to think of what the stuff is doing to the rest of us. :scared: :mad:

[Gemini Cat]

7. Incredible.

So who will their volunteers be? Oh right, there's the prisons for that.


:dem:

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

8. And the military... everything has been tested on the military

at one time or another.

[yo-yo-ma]

10. and college students

even more broke with the rising fees,
chemistry departments underwritten by Dow

[htuttle]

9. They'll probably outsource it...

...to MengeleCo, a division of Halliburton.

[arikara]

11. They should use the ones who invent and market the poisons

but my guess is that they'll target prisoners and homeless people.

[maggrwaggr]

12. Where do I sign up?

I could use some extra money. Maybe work weekends getting sprayed in the face with pesticides? Why the hell not?

Most importantly:

Will they give health benefits??

[depakid]

13. They are already tested on humans

because under American law manufacturers can spray their poisons under the presumption that they are safe- the burden of proof lies on people outside of industry to provew that they are unsafe- and even when they demonstrate adverse events with hard evidence, it still may take years to get them off the market in the US. After that, the manufacturers can AND DO continue to produce them and sell them to third world countries, who then import foodstuff back to the US with little or no testing.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

14. I see no problem with this, except...

that the studies have to be carefully monitored to ensure that they are not faked.

For example, the article says the testing is going to be done in an attempt to increase the levels allowed. But what if the testing actually shows that the current levels are TOO HIGH?

This is a double edged sword for the pesticide industry, if things go well, they will prove that certain current levels are too low and can safely be increased. If things go badly for them (which I half suspect may actually happen) then we'll have PROOF that the current levels are too HIGH, and the industry won't be able to deny it.

So like I said, as long as the failures are reported just as thoroughly as the successes (for the industry that is) then I think this is a good idea.