ALERT: EPA TO ALLOW PESTICIDE TESTING ON ORPHANS & MENTALLY HANDICAPPED CHILDREN

you're not free until you're being tested on with pesticides!

The Ringworm Children: How the Israeli Government Irradiated 100,000 Israeli Kids

Feds Tested AIDS Drugs on Foster Kids

Feds: Some AIDS Drug Tests Violated Rules

ALERT: EPA TO ALLOW PESTICIDE TESTING ON ORPHANS & MENTALLY HANDICAPPED CHILDREN

Organic Consumers | November 17, 2005

Send a letter to EPA here!

Forward this alert to friends and colleagues

Public Comment Period Closes
December 12, 2005

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. But the EPA's newly proposed rule, misleadingly titled "Protections for Subjects in Human Research," puts industry profits ahead of children's welfare. The rule allows for government and industry scientists to treat children as human guinea pigs in chemical experiments in the following situations:

1. 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.
2. Parental consent forms are not necessary for testing on children who have been neglected or abused.
3. Chemical studies on any children outside of the U.S. are acceptable.

Send a letter to EPA here!

OCA's focal concerns with this proposed rule specifically involve the following portions of text within the EPA document (Read the full EPA proposed rule here: PDF --- HTML):

70 FR 53865 26.408(a) "The IRB (Independent Review Board) shall determine that adequate provisions are made for soliciting the assent of the children, when in the judgment of the IRB the children are capable of providing assent...If the IRB determines that the capability of some or all of the children is so limited that they cannot reasonably be consulted, the assent of the children is not a necessary condition for proceeding with the research. Even where the IRB determines that the subjects are capable of assenting, the IRB may still waive the assent requirement..."

(OCA NOTE: Under this clause, a mentally handicapped child or infant orphan could be tested on without assent. This violates the Nuremberg Code, an international treaty that mandates assent of test subjects is "absolutely essential," and that the test subject must have "legal capacity to give consent" and must be "so situated as to exercise free power of choice." This loophole in the rule must be completely removed.)

70 FR 53865 26.408(c) "If the IRB determines that a research protocol is designed for conditions or for a subject population for which parental or guardian permission is not a reasonable requirement to protect the subjects (for example, neglected or abused children), it may waive the consent requirements..."

(OCA NOTE: Under the general rule, the EPA is saying it's okay to test chemicals on children if their parents or institutional guardians consent to it. This clause says that neglected or abused children have unfit guardians, so no consent would be required to test on those children. This loophole in the rule must be completely removed.)

70 FR 53864 26.401 (a)(2) "To What Do These Regulations Apply? It also includes research conducted or supported by EPA outside the United States, but in appropriate circumstances, the Administrator may, under § 26.101(e), waive the applicability of some or all of the requirements of these regulations for research..."

(OCA NOTE: This clause is stating that the Administrator of the EPA has the power to completely waive regulations on human testing, if the testing is done outside of the U.S. This will allow chemical companies to do human testing in other countries where these types of laws are less strict. This loophole in the rule must be completely removed.)

70 FR 53857 "EPA proposes an extraordinary procedure applicable if scientifically sound but ethically deficient human research is found to be crucial to EPAâ??s fulfilling its mission to protect public health. This procedure would also apply if a scientifically sound study covered by proposed § 26.221 or § 26.421--i.e., an intentional dosing study involving pregnant women or children as subjects..."


(OCA NOTE: This clause allows the EPA to accept or conduct "ethically deficient" studies of chemical tests on humans if the agency deems it necessary to fulfull its mission. Unfortunately, the EPA report sets up no criteria for making such an exception with any particular study. This ambiguity leaves a gaping loophole in the rule. Without specific and detailed criteria, it could be argued that any and every study of chemical testing on humans is "necessary." This loophole in the rule must be removed, based on this inadequacy of criteria and definition.)

Send an email to EPA here!

Forward this alert to friends and colleagues

By mail: Send two copies of your comments to:
Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB)
Office of Pesticide Programs
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Mail Code: 7502C
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, DC, 20460-0001
Attention: Docket ID Number OPP-2003-0132

The OCA also needs your financial support to continue working on these important issues. Please donate today!

thanks for the heads up.....PH

I think the drug companies are testing drugs on the poor too....

I was in one poor town on Okla. more than half the houses I went in had someone dying from Vioxx or one of the other "new" drugs. There were way too many people to be dying in such a small town. They were all on state assistance.....and got their drugs though medicaid...it makes you wonder...and of course the present admin. wants to stop any lawsuits against the drug companies that are making them rich.

ROFLMAO This is hilarious, another false story

well Tholiak if you think it is false why not post something to prove that it is false...Are we expected to just go on your word? Sorry no dice.

thats his job bluecat, I heard the govt pays good money for this kind of work. and if you do well they will let you live, cant have the sheepple know what our loving govt is up 2. How dare we challenge our leaders.

Do a click on the proposed new rule:
http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-GENE...-12/g18010.htm


SUMMARY: EPA proposes and invites public comment on a rulemaking to ban
intentional dosing human testing for pesticides when the subjects are
pregnant women or children, to formalize and further strengthen
existing protections for subjects in human research conducted or
supported by EPA, and to extend new protections to adult subjects in
intentional dosing human studies for pesticides conducted by others who
intend to submit the research to EPA. This proposal, the first of
several possible Agency actions, focuses on third-party intentional
dosing human studies for pesticides, but invites public comment on
alternative approaches with broader scope.

â?¢ Unit VI. discusses rulemaking to ban research with
pesticides involving intentional dosing of children, and to adopt
additional protections, beyond those in the Common Rule, for children
as subjects of other types of research. This ban would apply both to
EPA and to regulated third parties.
â?¢ Unit VII. addresses rulemaking to ban research with
pesticides involving intentional dosing of pregnant women, fetuses, or
newborns, and to adopt additional protections, beyond those in the
Common Rule, for pregnant women, fetuses, and newborns as subjects of
other types of research. This ban, too, would apply both to EPA and to
regulated third parties.


It looks like their modifying the rules to the better. Aren't they looking to BAN these practices?

The question is not are they going to ban these practices...WHY were they EVER allowed in the first place?

A US EPA "Children's Environmental Exposure Research Study" (CHEERS) was approved to assess children's exposure to pesticides in Jacksonville, Duval County, Florida.

The two-year study will monitor developmental changes in babies, from birth to age 3, who are exposed to pesticides in their homes. Included in the pesticides and chemicals to be monitored are:

Fluorinated pesticides:
Bifenthrin, Fipronil, Lambda-cyhalothrin, and Cyfluthrin I, II, III, IV, total;
Fluorinated chemicals:
4-fluoro-3-phenoxybenzoic acid and the perfluorinated PFOS and PFOA.

Should pesticides be tested on people?
EPA says yes, and Congress says no.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The US Chemical Industry wants the EPA's go-ahead to use humans as lab rats for pesticide safety testing. Offering people money to be intentionally dosed with poisons could prey on the vulnerability of low-income people.

The US Congress recently blocked an EPA initiative to accept pesticide dosing studies conducted on humans. Early in 2005, the EPA had announced its intention to accept such studies from industry on a â??case by case basisâ?� after failing to issue regulations for such studies in keeping with a 2004 court decision.

Chemical companies, including Bayer CropScience, have asked that EPA accept their laboratory studies performed on human test subjects. Bayer and other companies, many of which have research facilities here in North Carolina, seek to decrease safety precautions associated with pesticide regulation by demonstrating "no adverse effects" when humans are intentionally dosed with pesticides. Some ethicists consider all testing of toxics on humans to be unethical; federal and international law state that such testing is unacceptable when its aim is to weaken public health protections, or when test subjects are not fully informed about risks, or about the aim of the study.....

well Tholiak I'm still looking for what you find funny.....

I agree! There should be no questions regarding this type of testing. But this statement was VERY misleading as to the direction that the EAP was going.

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. But the EPA's newly proposed rule, misleadingly titled "Protections for Subjects in Human Research," puts industry profits ahead of children's welfare. The rule allows for government and industry scientists to treat children as human guinea pigs in chemical experiments in the following situations:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BlueCat00

well Tholiak if you think it is false why not post something to prove that it is false...Are we expected to just go on your word? Sorry no dice.

---

Interesting...


That was a really smooth way of denouncing tholiak's posts. He's really just a troll. He's very annoying.


Very interesting...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psycho4Bud

I agree! There should be no questions regarding this type of testing. But this statement was VERY misleading as to the direction that the EAP was going.

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. But the EPA's newly proposed rule, misleadingly titled "Protections for Subjects in Human Research," puts industry profits ahead of children's welfare. The rule allows for government and industry scientists to treat children as human guinea pigs in chemical experiments in the following situations:

---

Interesting...

Every single topic that is posted...psycho opposes or agrees with it in twisted logic that scott mclellan would be proud of...every single post....

And he always seems to get on the defensive when asked if he's really a police officer/agent in disguise...

But i dont suppose we'll ever know for sure.


Very interesting...

i highly doubt he's any type of law enforcement...he's just a boot licking neo-con...he's a big government welfare socialist 'conservative'...the constitution and the freedom it displays scares him...

you don't think he actually listens to any of the audio links or reads anything i post...it's all just superficial garbage, always has been, it appears it still is...

hence, the ignore feature is in use...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pisshead

i highly doubt he's any type of law enforcement...he's just a boot licking neo-con...he's a big government welfare socialist 'conservative'...the constitution and the freedom it displays scares him...

you don't think he actually listens to any of the audio links or reads anything i post...it's all just superficial garbage, always has been, it appears it still is...

hence, the ignore feature is in use...

---

Pissy, if you can read this, SUCK MY NORWEGIAN ASS!!
Have a nice day! :thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nicholasstanko

Interesting...

Every single topic that is posted...psycho opposes or agrees with it in twisted logic that scott mclellan would be proud of...every single post....

And he always seems to get on the defensive when asked if he's really a police officer/agent in disguise...

But i dont suppose we'll ever know for sure.


Very interesting...

---

You should try to really read the thread Nicky. The article was misleading in the aspect the the EPA was trying to get these items approved for testing when in all actuallity they were adding guidlines as to STOP these practices. But if it comes from Alex Jones lil' site you don't read the fine lines, just follow like a mindless lil' bitch! :thumbsup: And YOU call the republicans sheep??? :what:

And here we go with the cop shit again....lil' man...call me whatever the fuck you want! I'll fire up a fatty and laugh at your ass every time!!! REMEMBER...I don't search the streets...I grow my own! That's why you run out, and I don't!:thumbsup:

I didnt know u are norwegian psy, lol j/k

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eg420ne

I didnt know u are norwegian psy, lol j/k

---

50% Norwegian 25% German.....to stupid to know when to quit fighting!! :smokin: lol

Good thing your not half french huh, u be fighting with ur self all day long

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eg420ne

Good thing your not half french huh, u be fighting with ur self all day long

---

NO SHIT!!! And the thing is, I'd never win either!!! :rasta:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psycho4Bud

NO SHIT!!! And the thing is, I'd never win either!!! :rasta:

---

lol :D