Jump to content
RemedySpot.com

U.S. EPA to Allow Human Pesticide Tests

Rate this topic


Guest guest

Recommended Posts

" Although the administrator said that a formal

EPA policy for accepting such tests has not been finalized, he admitted

that the EPA has recently reviewed data from studies involving human

subjects carried out by pesticide companies. "

CERTAINLY THEY MEAN US DON'T THEY...................

HOW BOUT MAKING manditory fat biopsies for human stored pesticide quantities

anyone know a scientific research team willing to do this......

How bout you Dr. McCalley, Mt. Sinai, <A

HREF= " mailto:.McCally@... " >.McCally@...</A> Community

Medicine

212-241-5436 person who tested Bill Moyers blood on Trade Secrets, who told

me that if I wanted to get mine done it would cost $6000......and they could

only be done in batches...because the testing was so specialized....give me a

break.......

If every person had a toxicological testing of their A/C filters or Hepa

filters to prove environmental persistance.......then we could shove the

factual data right up the ass of Congress, DEC, EPA and whatever other letter

factions are related.

isn't it worth the money........??

DM REILLY

U.S. EPA to Allow Human Pesticide Tests

December 14, 2001

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will accept data from

pesticide tests that use human subjects, an EPA administrator announced

in late November. The announcement--made at a meeting of the nation's

largest pesticide industry lobbying group, the American Crop Protection

Association--reverses a moratorium on human tests established during the

Clinton administration. Although the administrator said that a formal

EPA policy for accepting such tests has not been finalized, he admitted

that the EPA has recently reviewed data from studies involving human

subjects carried out by pesticide companies.

In 1998, a scientific advisory panel of doctors, ethicists and

scientists brought together by the EPA concluded that human testing of

pesticides " to facilitate the interests of industry or of agriculture "

is unjustifiable. Human testing is acceptable only if it " promise

reasonable health benefits to the individual or society at large, " says

the panel's February 2000 report.

Critics also argue that human testing for pesticide safety violates the

Nuremburg Code, an outline of the rights of medical research subjects

established by U.S. judges at the Nazi war crimes tribunals in 1947. The

Code states that human tests are justified only if they are likely " to

yield fruitful results for the good of society, unprovable by other

methods or means of study. " The pesticide industry tests recently

accepted by the EPA, which would lead only to increased application of

the pesticides tested and which could be carried out on animals, do not

appear to meet these criteria. According to Lynn Goldman, former EPA

pesticide program director, the only reason such tests are being

conducted is to make more money for pesticide companies.

Between 1986 and 1996, only a handful of human tests were submitted to

the EPA. With the passage of the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) in

1996, however, the number of human tests increased dramatically. The

FQPA requires that 9,000 pesticides be reassessed for their potential

impact on children. Pesticide manufacturers are required to multiply the

safe exposure level from animal studies by 10 to ensure safety for human

children. These strengthened regulations have led the pesticide industry

to pursue human testing, arguing that such testing allows them to more

accurately assess the safe exposure threshold. " The dreadful irony, "

says Myers, communications director at the Science and

Environmental Health Network, " is that this human data, which the

manufacturers are so eager to provide, is not as helpful as the animal

data that they have been ordered, and failed, to produce. " The human

tests are carried out on adults, leaving the question of establishing

safety thresholds for children unresolved, Myers notes.

The design of the human tests is both scientifically and ethically

flawed, critics say. Dr. Herbert Needleman, a pediatrician and

psychiatrist at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, and one

of the members of the Clinton administration scientific advisory panel,

says that the human tests " have very small numbers of subjects and look

at very crude outcomes and come to the conclusion that no health effects

were seen. " Myers explains that " good science would mean getting more

people to swallow more pesticide pills over a longer period of time. To

conduct really good scientific experiments and get the best data, you'd

have to kill people. That's the fallacy of trying to keep this

controversy in the realm of 'science' rather than ethics. "

Most of the human studies considered by the EPA in recent years were

conducted abroad. In 1999, however, Dow AgroSciences paid 60 volunteers

in Nebraska to swallow tablets, half of which were placebos and half of

which were laced with the pesticide chlorpyrifos (trade names Dursban

and Lorsban). Each volunteer was paid US$460. Dow said that the tests

showed no signs of toxicity. Similar tests will likely be undertaken on

a wider scale now that the EPA has given its approval. The scientific

advisory committee had urged the EPA to establish rigorous standards for

human testing and to require pre-approval of proposed studies by an

independent review board. No such restrictions have been published to

date.

Dr. Needleman believes that the legitimation of human studies " is a

power move on the part of pesticide manufacturers, and the EPA

administrator and others rolled over. " Goldman, who is now a professor

of environmental sciences at s Hopkins University, points out that

" for industry, there is an enormous amount of money in the balance; one

study can make the difference of tens of millions of dollars. "

Sources: Los Angeles Times, November 27, 2001; Associated Press,

November 27, 2001; New York Times, November 28, 2001; Washington Post,

November 29, 2001; Trials of War Criminals Before the Nuremburg Military

Tribunals under Control Council Law, No. 10, Vol. 2. Myers,

personal communication, December 12, 2001.

Contact: PANNA.

PANUPS is a weekly email news service providing resource guides and

reporting on pesticide issues that don't always get coverage by the

mainstream media. It's produced by Pesticide Action Network North

America, a non-profit and non-governmental organization working to

advance sustainable alternatives to pesticides worldwide.

You can join our efforts! We gladly accept donations for our work and

all contributions are tax deductible in the United States. Visit our

extensive web site at http://www.panna.org to learn more about getting

involved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...