EPA Reviewing Tests Of Human Pesticide Effects

[Guest guest]

Wow – this is just plain wrong. And marijuana’s

illegal… Amazing.

S.C.

EPA Reviewing Tests Of

Human Pesticide Effects

http://www.chiefengineer.org/content/content_display.cfm/seqnumber_content/2135.htm

WASHINGTON (AP) - In deciding whether to approve specific

pesticides, the Environmental Protection Agency is using data from two dozen

industry tests that intentionally exposed people to poisons, including one

involving a World War I-era chemical warfare agent.

Companies seeking pesticide permits submitted the data to EPA from

24 human pesticide experiments. The data is being reviewed 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.

It was made available to congressional aides to two California

Democrats, Sen. Barbara Boxer and Rep. Henry Waxman, who compiled and reviewed

the 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 to The Associated Press.

Scientists conducting the experiments " failed to obtain

informed consent (and) dismissed adverse outcomes, " adding that the tests

" lacked scientific validity, " the report said.

In one study, conducted in 2002-2004 by University of

California-San Diego researchers, a soil insecticide called chloropicrin was

administered to 127 young adults. The chemical also was produced during World

War I as a chemical warfare agent. Trade-name products for it and mixtures of

it - such as Timberfume, Tri-Con, Preplant Soil Fumigant and Pic-Chor - must

carry a " danger " warning label.

Most of those involved in the testing were college students and

minorities who were paid $15 an hour to be put in a chamber or have the vapor

shot into their nose and eyes after signing consent forms warning they should

anticipate " some irritation in the nose, throat and eyes that could be

sharp enough to cause blinking and tearing. "

" Because you will be participating in an experiment, we must

apprise you that there may be some risks that are currently

unforeseeable, " the consent form read.

Doses 120 times the hourly limit established by the Occupational

Safety and Health Administration were ingested by the test subjects, according

to the congressional aides' report.

Another study dosed eight people with the pesticide

azinphos-methyl for 28 days, and everyone reported headaches, abdominal pain,

nausea, coughing and rashes, the report said.

Boxer said the report " proves the Bush administration is

encouraging dangerous pesticide testing on humans with no standards, "

despite the EPA's new policy.

EPA spokeswoman Eryn Witcher said that the agency " values the

importance of the scientific and ethical issues surrounding human studies and

is expediting a public rulemaking process to comply with a federal court

decision. "

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District

of Columbia ruled in 2003 in a suit brought by the

pesticide industry that the EPA cannot refuse to consider data from

manufacturer-sponsored human exposure tests until it develops regulations on

it.

Agency officials said last November that a new rule on human

testing data would be issued by 2006, and until then each study would be looked

at and accepted unless it is fundamentally unethical or has significant

deficiencies.

Human tests, in the view of pesticide makers, provide more

accurate results than those using animals. The companies that use them say they

follow safety guidelines set by Congress, EPA, courts and scientific groups.

The EPA for decades used industry studies gathered from human

tests to help set pesticide exposure levels. Officials say they still accept

the data but don't rely on it for their decision-making.