EPA TO ALLOW TESTING ON ORPHANS & HANDICAPPED CHILDREN by Storymark

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

EPA TO ALLOW TESTING ON ORPHANS & HANDICAPPED CHILDREN

POSTED BY: STORYMARK
UPDATED: Monday, December 5, 2005 07:51
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 4096
PAGE 1 of 1

Thursday, December 1, 2005 8:12 AM

Public comments are now being accepted by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on its newly proposed federal regulation regarding the testing of chemicals and pesticides on human subjects. 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:

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.
Parental consent forms are not necessary for testing on children who have been neglected or abused.
Chemical studies on any children outside of the U.S. are acceptable.

Full article at http://www.organicconsumers.org/epa6.cfm

"Well, my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 1, 2005 1:21 PM

JOSSISAGOD

Part of me thinks the article's Bulls**t, and another part of me thinks, IF this article is real, then, the peson who wrote it either doesn't have all the information written on the webpage, OR the EPA has degenerated into a bunch of sickos!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 1, 2005 2:52 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Well... yes, and no, and yes, and no...

The article is real. The proposed EPA regulation is posted in the Federal Register for comment (deadline Dec 15 2005). http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-GENERAL/2005/September/Day-12/g18010.h
tm

Scanning over the proposed regulation there is both more, and less, to the article than the organiconsumers website would have you believe. The EPA regulation proposes to prohibit all first- and second-party intentional pesticide dosing experiments performed on ANY pregnant women, fetuses of unknown viability, and children and to reject all data submitted by third parties based on those experiments.

The exemption from "informed consent" cited by organic consumers applies to:

Quote:
children as subjects of other than intentional dosing research.

This "other research" is typically observational: lifestyle studies, blood and urine samples, exposure estimates, neuropsych testing etc. There is the ethical question of how long you may observe a hazard w/o intervening, but no none is talking about deliberately exposing children - orphaned, mentally challenged, or not- to chemicals.

But there are other exceptions that are problematic in the regulation:

Quote:
Finally, EPA proposes an extraordinary procedure applicable if scientifically sound but ethically deficient human research is found to be crucial to EPA's fulfilling its mission to protect public health. This procedure would also apply if a scientifically sound study covered by proposed Sec. 26.221 or Sec. 26.421--i.e., an intentional dosing study involving pregnant women or children as subjects--were found to be crucial to the protection of public health.

Using data from "ethically challenged" studies is like admitting tainted evidence in court... it just encourages more suspect studies. Normally, the big bucks (the pesticide industry in this case, but it could be pharmas or ANY large industry) are the ones doing the studies. As the pharma industry has demonstrated, industry studies are often suspect because unfavorable results or even whole studies are simply eliminated from the report. If the industry thought it could sway regulations by performing unethical studies... which would then be considered by the EPA... they would do it.

---------------------------------
Please don't think they give a shit.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 1, 2005 6:47 PM

DREAMTROVE

The EPA is a captured agency, ie. it is controlled by those it seeks to regulate. It stands to reason that anything they would create as a regulation would contain the exemptions asked for by the controlling parties.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 2, 2005 6:52 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Please read the PEER (Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility) comments here:

www.peer.org/docs/epa/05_23_11_peer_comments.pdf

The proposed ethical standards came about as a result of a proposed human exposure study (CHEERS) in which poor parents in FLA were paid to spray pesticides in their childrens' rooms. The EPA- which had received $12 million from the chemical industry for the study- at first defended the study, then w/drew it, then calimed that ethical standards for human testing could not be written. It wasn't until Congress passed a law requiring ethical standards that the EPA finally wrote them.

The standards- which have been characterized as "grudging" by PEER- have a number of loopholes:

It only covers pesticide exposure. However, there are non-pesticide toxins to worry about as well.

It accepts third-party unethical data on a case-by-case basis.

It does not prohibit economic inducement (such as in the CHEERS study) used to
"encourage" "informed consent"

Please read the comments in detail.

---------------------------------
Please don't think they give a shit.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 2, 2005 1:13 PM

DREAMTROVE

Not surprising that it would have loopholes, say such as ones you could drive a truck through. That's what captured agencies do, they make laws that look good to the layfolk but don't prevent the unethical behavior of their controllers, the capturers.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 2, 2005 2:19 PM

PSOLARIS

I used to work in Medical Research, and this is absolutely shocking to me. When I first started at the research facility, I was lectured on the Declaration of Helsinki which was created to prohibit medical testing to be done on unsuspecting subjects and subjects that are considered high risk (low income societies, convicts in jails, etc.). The declaration is something that everyone in the entire globe has to abide by...or so I was taught. I even had to take a test on the Declaration for FDA purposes and compliance reasons. I've read through the articles here and this sickens me.

Am I missing something? (and if I did, please tell me...because I hope this isn't true).

Psolaris

Ten percent of nuthin' is...let me do the math here...nuthin' into nuthin'...carry the nuthin'

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 2, 2005 3:02 PM

CAUSAL

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Scanning over the proposed regulation there is both more, and less, to the article than the organiconsumers website would have you believe.

[[]sarcasm][]
What? A environmentalist organization making sensationalist claims? How can it be??
[][/sarcasm[]]

________________________________________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 2, 2005 4:08 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Oh, you know- "sexed up". But there really are some terrible flaws in the proposed regulation that wouldn't be easily understood in a quick read.

---------------------------------
Please don't think they give a shit.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 2, 2005 4:22 PM

DREAMTROVE

Psolaris,

I think the study specified that these were NOT unsuspecting subjects, that they had signed, and clearly in the case of pesticide in kids rooms the parents must have had some legal goop authority.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 3, 2005 11:45 PM

AERONSTORM

I'm rather sickened by the whole notion. It's one thing to have heathly VOLUNTEER subjects for research (psych tests, etc) but using kids that cannot choose for themselves...that makes me ill. I work with 32 severely and profoundly disabled adults, who have little to no say in what happens to them. They have to rely on their guardians and family to take care of them. The guardians I know would be appalled by the very notion of any research testing on their folks.

It kind of reminds me of the Terry Schiavo thing - every time I saw her face on TV, I could see my clients in her place. It makes me said that some people still consider our disabled population as second class, ie no better than research animals.

The EPA bothers me anyway.

Peck: "I want these men arrested! Captain, these men are in direct violation of the Environmental Protection Act...and this explosion is the direct result of it!"
Egon: "Your MOTHER!!!!"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 4, 2005 5:28 PM

GAMBIT3

"Yet again an interesting mix of truth and scare has been loosed upon us all. While the November 2004 e-mail quoted above was relatively factual, its wording left those who received it with an impression far removed from the truth."

"The EPA would not have been administering pesticides to children. Children who were already exposed to pesticides due to where they lived would have been studied by the EPA."

http://www.snopes.com/toxins/cheers.asp

__________________________
http://www.gambit3.com

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 5, 2005 7:38 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Why didn't Congress just apply the Nuremburg Code to the EPA? The NIH uses it. Unless, of course, Congress is also a captured agency.

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 5, 2005 7:51 AM

AERONSTORM

Oops.

Let my mouth run before checking snopes! Still the very idea of the loopholes is ugly.

Your mouth is talking, Jayne. Better look to that.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE