posted on August 15, 2003 06:07:58 AM new
I am sorry I didn't get over here sooner to post this. But I know there are a couple people here who may still want to send Bush
and the EPA a message even though the docket is closed.
==================================
> P A N U P S
> Pesticide Action Network Updates Service
> ===========================================
>
> Action Alert: Tell U.S. EPA Testing Pesticides on People is Off Limits
>
> July 25, 2003
>
> U.S. EPA is now in the initial stages of considering new regulations for
testing pesticides on human subjects. Pesticide manufacturers have moved
through the courts to make their case for a process that is unsafe and
unjustified. It is important to make a strong case now and put a stop to
pesticide testing on humans. Write U.S. EPA before the comment period closes
on August 5, 2003 and tell them dosing people with toxic pesticides is
unethical and must not be condoned.
>
> In 1998 the Environmental Working Group reported on alarming tests
performed in England and Scotland and paid for by U.S. pesticide companies
in which people were paid to eat and drink pesticides, then monitored for
health effects. The intentional feeding of toxic substances to people
contradicts the ethical foundation of medical testing, because the subject
will never benefit from the test and risks harm, and the payment offered,
especially in cases of extreme poverty, can be considered undue duress.
>
> In response to growing controversy over human testing, U.S. EPA issued a
directive against such tests in 2001. But CropLife America, a trade group
for chemical companies, filed suit and a federal appeals court in June 2003
ordered U.S. EPA to accept data from human tests.
>
> Pesticide companies have increasingly strong incentives to use human tests
to determine the acute toxicity of their products. In 1996 the Food Quality
Protection Act (FQPA) strengthened U.S. EPA risk assessment by adding a
third, ten-fold uncertainty factor for acceptable exposure levels for
children and pregnant woman. So-called "safe" exposure levels for adults are
based on laboratory studies, usually conducted on rats, mice or other
animals to which a ten-fold uncertainty margin has been added to account for
the differences between species, and a second ten-fold margin to account for
differences within a species (e.g., some people are much more sensitive to
chemicals than others).
>
> The FQPA also required U.S. EPA to consider the cumulative risks of
pesticides that have a common mechanism of toxicity when setting standards
for an individual pesticide. This leads to much lower acceptable exposure
levels for some individual pesticides, such as organophosphates, since they
are in widespread use and share the same toxicity mechanism. U.S. EPA has
said that risk assessments may show that some organophosphates exceed the
cumulative risk level, or in U.S. EPA-speak that, “the risk-cup is full.”
>
> For pesticide manufacturers, data from tests on human subjects offer the
possibility of circumventing the more stringent standards of the FQPA. At
stake are continued uses of organophosphate insecticides, and possibly the
carbamate class of pesticides. In recent years chemical companies have asked
U.S. EPA to allow data from a number of human studies. Eric Olson with the
Natural Resources Defense Council warned after the court’s decision, “There
will be enormous political pressure on the EPA” [to allow human testing].
>
> In contrast to the U.S. EPA proposal for regulation regarding testing
toxic pesticides on people, the European Union (EU) is taking a far
different, safer and more ethical road. The EU is moving forward with a
chemicals policy that incorporates the Precautionary Principle, which
emphasizes reduction of harm, places the burden of proof upon the polluter
(and not the regulator) and requires an assessment of available
alternatives. All of this is a far cry from intentionally feeding toxic
pesticides to people to see how much they can take.
>
> Testing of pesticides - on animals or humans - is a byproduct of an
agricultural and pest-control system overly reliant on chemical inputs.
Alternative agricultural systems have proven effective and can be less
expensive than conventional production - particularly if the costs of
chemical testing and enforcement of regulation is factored in.
>
> Write or Email the U.S. EPA before August 5, 2003 with your own version of
the sample comment below.
>
> Reference U.S. EPA Docket Number OPP-2003-0132 - Human Testing; Advance
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
posted on August 15, 2003 06:48:47 AM newIn 1998 the Environmental Working Group reported on alarming tests performed in England and Scotland and paid for by U.S. pesticide companies in which people were paid to eat and drink pesticides, then monitored for health effects. The intentional feeding of toxic substances to people contradicts the ethical foundation of medical testing, because the subject will never benefit from the test and risks harm, and the payment offered, especially in cases of extreme poverty, can be considered undue duress.
So because people are getting PAID for this it is wrong?
Not hardly... I call it pruning the gene pool, people who accept this pay deserve whatever happens...
AIN'T LIFE GRAND...
[ edited by Twelvepole on Aug 15, 2003 06:50 AM ]
[ edited by Twelvepole on Aug 15, 2003 06:50 AM ]