Testng Pesticides on foster kids WHAT THE FUCK!

Politics, religion, racism, sex, the weather... there's always lots to think about so there's always lots to talk about. Progressive ideas are encouraged but all opinions are welcome.

Moderators: bingolong, Jennifer, tamra

Forum rules
Spam is not allowed. All spammers will be blocked and reported to appropriate agencies.
Post Reply
User avatar
smjmcomic
Posts: 23
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2004 4:01 pm
Contact:

Testng Pesticides on foster kids WHAT THE FUCK!

Post by smjmcomic »

Copyed from AHRA http://www.ahrp.org/cms/content/view/50/31/

EPA to accept Pesticide Experiments on Humans
Wednesday, 25 January 2006
"The fact that EPA allows pesticide testing of any kind on the most vulnerable, including abused and neglected children, is simply astonishing." The EPA has issued a rule allowing human pesticide experiments in defiance of Congress and the American people.
Senator Barbara Boxer stated: "The fact that EPA allows pesticide testing of any kind on the most vulnerable, including abused and neglected children, is simply astonishing."

A government that gives its seal of approval to human pesticide experiments loses its moral authority in ALL matters pertaining to human values.

Pesticides are poisons--such compounds have absolutely no potential benefit for those who would be the subjects of experiments.

Pesticidee experiments violate every moral standard of human decency--they have not place in a civilized society.
Those who conduct and those who condone pesticide experiments are the immoral torchbearers of human experiments under the Nazis.

The administration's zeal to do away with regulatory safeguards has run amock.
As the Natural Resources Defense Council press release states: In addition to a profound moral and ethical breach, the final rule also violates a law passed by Congress last August requiring EPA to issue strict rules for such tests, and ban all pesticide tests on pregnant women, infants and children. That law passed overwhelmingly in the House and Senate with strong bipartisan support, which included conservative Republicans, who questioned the ethics of testing toxic chemicals on humans.

Contact: Vera Hassner Sharav
veracare@ahrp.orgThis email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: Elliott Negin, 202/289-2405
New EPA Rule Turns People into Lab Rats, Violating Ethical Standards and the Law
Statement by NRDC Attorney Erik D. Olson on Leaked Copy of Final Rule
WASHINGTON (January 23, 2006) – More humans are about to become lab rats for the pesticide industry, according to a leaked copy of a rule due to be finalized by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency later this week. The document was released by Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Reps. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Hilda Solis (D-Calif.) earlier today.

In addition to a profound moral and ethical breach, the final rule also violates a law passed by Congress last August requiring EPA to issue strict rules for such tests, and ban all pesticide tests on pregnant women, infants and children, according to the Natural Resources Defense Council. That law passed overwhelmingly in the House and Senate with strong bipartisan support, which included conservative Republicans, who questioned the ethics of testing toxic chemicals on humans.

EPA expects there to be more than 30 of these tests per year—far more than ever before.
Below is a statement by Erik D. Olson, an NRDC senior attorney:
“EPA is giving its official blessing for pesticide companies to use pregnant women, infants and children as lab rats in flagrant violation of a new federal law cracking down on this repugnant practice. There is simply no legal or moral justification for the agency to allow human testing of dangerous chemicals. None.”


THERES MORE
8-o
Bayer Crop Science / Crop Life America Plotted Bush Human Pesticide Testing Policy
Wednesday, 31 May 2006
The Bush Administration’s proclaimed concern for the “value and dignity of human life” is contradicted by it endorsement of pesticide experiments on children.
Organophosphates, derived from World War II-era nerve agents, are banned in England, Sweden and Denmark. In the 1990’s the National Academies of Science criticized EPA’s regulation of these pesticides. The Clinton administration began moves to ban the agents but the Bush administration changed course.

The Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) reveals in a press release (below) that well before the Bush Administration unveiled its September 12, 2005 Proposed Rule on human pesticide experiments, pesticide industry trade groups and lobbyists—Crop Life America and Bayer Crop Life Science—met with the ffice of Management and Budget (OMB) and officials of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on August 9, 2005 and plotted loopholes to exempt the ban on pesticide testing in children.

PEER obtained copies of the notes of that closed door meeting.

This fundamental moral issue has roused thousands of U.S. scientists in the EPA to publicly object to EPA’s imminent approval of a score of powerful, controversial pesticides. They have expressed their unprecedented objection because of “compelling evidence” showing that these “pesticides damage the developing nervous systems of fetuses, infants and children.”

According to PEER’s press release, “These meeting notes make it clear that the pesticide industry’s top objective is access to children for experiments.” The primary objective of these corporate giants was to circumvent restrictions on the use of children in poisonous toxic pesticide experiments through deft loopholes incorporated into the text. The final Rule allows testing on workers and allows dosing experiments on infants and pregnant women using non-pesticide toxic chemicals. The Bush administration approach has been faulted by both EPA’s own Scientific Advisory Panel and its Office of Inspector General.

Among the ghoulish text changes to the Rule urged by the pesticide industry lobbyists:

• “Re kids—never say never” (emphasis in original);

• “Pesticides have benefits. Rule should say so. Testing, too, has benefits”;

• “We want a rule quickly—[therefore] narrow [is] better. Don’t like being singled out but, speed is most imp.”

• “Distinguish testing kids from using data on kids who were tested”; and
• “Some workers may legally be children, albeit old enough for DOL” [Department of Labor coverage].

Under the leadership of Bayer—whose infamous corporate forbearer, I.G. Farben, was intimately involved in human pesticide experiments at Auschwitz death camp—the pesticide industry successfully overturned the moral principles that define permissible medical research in a civilized society. The Nuremberg Code (1947) was universally endoresed by the entire world to guard against the likes of Bayer from ever again being in a position to conduct experiments such as these on human beings.

The Bush Administration incorporated into the U.S. government Rule on human pesticide testing, the precise textual changes requested by Bayer and Crop Life America.

PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch, noted: “Unfortunately, using human beings as guinea pigs to test the toxic strength of commercial poisons has become a central regulatory strategy under the Bush administration.”

WHERE IS THE NATIONAL PRESS?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility
News Release, May 30, 2006

PESTICIDE INDUSTRY PLOTTED BUSH HUMAN TESTING POLICY

Meeting with OMB Staff Laid Out Exemptions for Experiments on Children

One month before the Bush administration proposed rules authorizing experiments on humans with pesticides and other chemicals, its key operatives met with pesticide industry lobbyists to map out its provisions, according to meeting notes posted today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). The industry requests for exemptions allowing some chemical testing on children and other provisions were incorporated into the human testing rule ultimately adopted this January 26th.

At the August 9, 2005 meeting held inside the President’s Office of Management and Budget, representatives of the pesticide trade association, Crop Life America, as well as Bayer Crop Life Science met with OMB and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency officials. Also attending was a former top EPA official, James Aidala, who now acts a lobbyist at a law firm representing chemical companies.

The meeting notes detail industry concerns about the text of a proposed rule that the Bush administration first unveiled a month later on September 12th. For example, the Crop Life America attendees urged:

• “Re kids—never say never” (emphasis in original);
• “Pesticides have benefits. Rule should say so. Testing, too, has benefits”; and
• “We want a rule quickly—[therefore] narrow [is] better. Don’t like being singled out but, speed is most imp.”

“These meeting notes make it clear that the pesticide industry’s top objective is access to children for experiments. After reading these ghoulish notes one has the urge to take a shower,” commented PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch, whose organization works with EPA scientists who have been prevented from voicing ethical and scientific concerns about human subject testing. “For an administration which trumpets its concern for the ‘value and dignity of life,’ it is disconcerting that no ethicists, children advocates or scientists were invited to this meeting to counterbalance the pesticide pushers.”

The upcoming August 3rd deadline for EPA final approval for a controversial class of pesticides derived from nerve agents called organophosphates appeared to be a top industry priority. Jim Aidala, the industry lobbyist, stated, “Won’t be able to meet the FQPA [Food Quality Protection Act] deadline. Wouldn’t anyway. Just do the rule first, then proceed ASAP.”

Aidala also suggested how the rules could make subtle exceptions for chemicals testing on children:

• “Distinguish testing kids from using data on kids who were tested”; and
• “Some workers may legally be children, albeit old enough for DOL”
[Department of Labor coverage].

The human testing rule adopted by EPA earlier this year contains the loopholes advocated at the OMB meeting for exposing children to pesticides, such as testing on workers and exposures unconnected with the approval process for new pesticides or new uses for existing agents. In addition, the rule broadly allows dosing experiments on infants and pregnant women using non-pesticide chemicals.

“Unfortunately, using human beings as guinea pigs to test the toxic strength of commercial poisons has become a central regulatory strategy under the Bush administration,” Ruch added.



Meeting Record Regarding: Protections for Test Subjects in Human Research Date: 8/ 9/2005

Jim Aidala, Bergeson & Campbell

Ray McAllister, Pat Donnelly, Crop Life America

Jean Reimers, Bayer Crop Science

Angela Hofmann, Charlotte Bertrand, Bruce Rodar, EPA

Keith Belton, John M. Carley, Art Fraas, OMB/OIRA

See the Crop Life-OMB meeting notes

Read about political pressure on EPA scientists to approve organophosphate pesticides


Sacramento Bee, January 24, 2006
New pesticide research rules face heavy fire
EPA calls them tough and fair; critics want human testing out.

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration would allow some limited pesticide testing on children and pregnant women under controversial rules set to be made final as early as this week.

After fielding some 50,000 public comments on its earlier human-testing proposals, the Environmental Protection Agency is setting out final rules that officials call tough and fair. But California Democrats and environmentalists are raising an outcry, and courts could remain busy sorting it all out.

The fact that EPA allows pesticide testing of any kind on the most vulnerable, including abused and neglected children, is simply astonishing," Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., said Monday.

The new rules would prohibit regulators from using so-called "intentional exposure" research that involved children or pregnant women. But under what regulators described as "narrowly defined circumstances," such research could still be used - if the researcher hadn't originally intended to submit the results to the EPA.

The new rules require researchers to document their compliance with ethical guidelines, but exempt certain overseas tests. Testing on adults could proceed, following review by a new Human Studies Review Board that could "comment on" but not stop a proposed experiment.

"EPA does not want to ignore potentially important information," the agency says in its final rule. "At the same time, the agency's conduct should encourage high ethical standards in research with human subjects."

On Monday, Boxer and several California colleagues were one step ahead of the EPA, which hadn't yet formally released the final rules protecting human subjects. But a leaked draft of the new rules, spanning some 100 pages, spells out both the new regulations and how they will be presented to the public.

"Message: the ethics and scientific value of human studies are topics of high public interest, and the agency has been deliberating its position," the EPA's written "communications plan" states. EPA officials could not be reached for comment Monday.

The issue is particularly important in California, where farmers and others applied 644 million pounds of pesticides in 2003. It's also closely watched by church and environmental groups, which raise red flags over human testing, as well as by manufacturers, which can rely on testing to secure necessary approval permits.

"Humans process some substances differently from animals," the EPA notes in its final rule, scheduled for publication in the Federal Register. "Studies of this kind can provide essential support for safety monitoring programs. Animal data alone can sometimes provide an incomplete or misleading picture of a substance's safety or risk."

The 50,000 comments received by the EPA since September showcase the level of public interest, although regulators noted that 99 percent of the comments were part of an e-mail or organized letter-writing campaign.

The American Mosquito Control Association, among others, previously advised lawmakers that human testing is necessary in order to develop new and safer chemical alternatives. Otherwise, the mosquito control group warned, diseases like the West Nile virus could spread more readily.

"Let's look at things as they really are in the world around us," Sen. Conrad Burns, R-Mont., said during debate last year. " ... We do not do anything in this environment around us where there are no chemicals."

Burns failed and Boxer prevailed, as the Senate in June imposed a moratorium on the EPA's use of human pesticide testing; the House had adopted a similar moratorium authored by California Rep. Hilda Solis, D-El Monte. The moratorium came following reports of some studies involving the intentional swallowing of pesticides.

The moratorium is in place until the final rule takes effect, which is 60 days after publication. But if environmentalists conclude that "loopholes" will result in laws being broken, further lawsuits would likely follow.

About the writer: The Bee's Michael Doyle can be reached at (202) 383-0006 or mdoyle@mcclatchydc.com.This email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it

distributed by the Coalition against BAYER-dangers
www.CBGnetwork.org
CBGnetwork@aol.comThis email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it
Tel: (+49) 211-333 911 Fax: (+49) 211-333 940
please send an e-mail for receiving the English newsletter Keycode BAYER free of charge


ALERT: EPA TO ALLOW PESTICIDE TESTING ON ORPHANS & MENTALLY HANDICAPPED CHILDREN WWW.INFOWARS.COM

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:

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.
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 EPA’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.)

WHAT THE FUCK!! HUMANITY IS DEAD THATS IT IT OFFICAL 8-O


Bush's EPA nominee uses poor Florida kids as pesticide guinea pigs: CHEERS and radioactive oatmeal

This will take you back to the days of radioactive oatmeal (explanation
near the end of this post):

start of quotation


Nominee Is Grilled Over Program on Pesticides


By MICHAEL JANOFSKY


Published: April 7, 2005


WASHINGTON, April 6 - Stephen L. Johnson, President Bush's nominee to
lead the Environmental Protection Agency, encountered unexpected
turbulence at his Senate confirmation hearing on Wednesday as Senator
Barbara Boxer of California threatened to hold up his nomination over a
small but controversial pesticide program in Florida.


Appearing before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Mr.
Johnson, a 24-year veteran of the agency who has been acting
administrator since his predecessor, Michael O. Leavitt, became
secretary of health and human services, was greeted warmly by
Republicans and faced predictably pointed questions from Democrats over
recent agency initiatives, including emission control rules put into
place last month.


Ms. Boxer's objections were based on a little-known research program
near Jacksonville, Fla., sponsored by the agency and the American
Chemistry Council, that offered money to low-income families willing to
allow the agency to measure the effects of pesticides on their children
under one year of age. The project, called Children's Environmental
Exposure Research Study, or Cheers, was suspended last year after
negative public reaction that prompted the agency to call in outside
experts to assess its feasibility.


The program was limited to families in Duval County that routinely used
pesticides inside their homes. It offered parents $970 over two years if
they made sure their young children went about their usual activities as
the use of pesticides continued. Researchers would then visit the home
every three to six months to collect data.


In a letter that reached Ms. Boxer several hours after she raised her
concerns, Mr. Johnson said, "No additional work will be conducted on
this study subject to the outcome of external scientific and ethical
review."


But that was well short of her demands. Calling the program "appalling,
unethical and immoral," Ms. Boxer implored Mr. Johnson "to pull the plug
on this program tomorrow." In an interview later, she said she would do
whatever she could to hold up Mr. Johnson's confirmation so long as the
program had any chance of being revived.


"Until it's canceled, I will do anything I can to stop this nomination,"
she said. "This program is the worst kind of thing; it's environmental
injustice where children are the victims."


Mr. Johnson, 54, is the first career employee at the agency with a
formal scientific background to be nominated to lead it. Trained as a
biologist and pathologist, he led the agency's pesticide and toxic
substances office before rising to several senior positions under Mr.
Leavitt and his predecessor, Christie Whitman.


In his opening remarks, Mr. Johnson assured committee members that under
his leadership, decisions would be made on "the best available
scientific information" and that they would be made through a process
"as open and transparent" as possible.


But fielding questions from other Democrats and Senator James M.
Jeffords, Independent of Vermont, who warned Mr. Johnson against
becoming "a rubber stamp for White House policies," Mr. Johnson made it
clear that he would strongly support preferences of the administration.


That became especially evident in an exchange with Senator Thomas R.
Carper, Democrat of Delaware, who pressed Mr. Johnson to explain why the
agency provided the committee with detailed analyses of the
administration's pollution-reduction bill, known as Clear Skies, but not
two competing bills. The measure has stalled in the last two sessions of
Congress.


Mr. Johnson said the agency had more pressing matters to address, but he
vowed to do whatever he could to help the committee pass effective
antipollution legislation so long as it was built on Clear Skies.


"I appreciate the work the committee has already done on this issue," he
said, "and I look forward to working with you to advance this important
legislative initiative."


Responding to friendly questions from Senator George V. Voinovich,
Republican of Ohio, Mr. Johnson returned to the theme of sound science
as the overarching imperative for all agency decisions. But Mr. Jeffords
threw the concept back to him, asking Mr. Johnson why the agency chose a
cap-and-trade program for its recently announced mercury rules for power
plant emissions, rather than a program that demanded the use of best
available technologies.


Mr. Johnson's answer reflected his willingness to balance economic
considerations with new environmental regulations. He said that new
guidelines for sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides emissions were also
helping to reduce mercury emissions and that forcing plant operators to
do more would prove too expensive.


"It's a much more cost-effective approach," he said of the cap-and-trade
program.


As he left the hearing room, Mr. Johnson smiled when asked about Ms.
Boxer's concerns and said, "Today was a pleasure being before the
senators, and I'm looking forward to swift confirmation so I can run the
E.P.A. on a full-time basis."


end of quotation


http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/07/polit ... oref=login


And, you even get a t-shirt:


"Photo showing the items
that participant's will receive."


start of quotation


What will my family receive for its participation in the study?


* You will receive both monetary and non-monetary compensation
* A Study t-shirt
* An official, framed Certificate of Appreciation
* A Study bib for your baby
* A calendar
* A Study Newsletter
* A video camcorder, if you complete all of the study activities
over the two-year study period


end of quotation


http://www.epa.gov/cheers/basic.htm


EPA poster "Children's Pesticide Exposure"


http://www.epa.gov/nerl/news/forum2003/ ... poster.pdf


And, proof that the EPA ought to be discouraging pesticide exposure
rather than encouraging continued pesticide exposure in poor and
minority Florida children:


10 Tips to Protect Children from Pesticide and Lead Poisonings:


http://www.epa.gov/oppfead1/cb/10_tips/


Radioactive oatmeal:


"1946-1974:


The Atomic Energy Commission authorizes a series of experiments in which
radioactive materials are given to individuals in many cases without
being informed they were the subject of an experiment, and in some cases
without any expectation of a positive benefit to the subjects, who were
selected from vulnerable populations such as the poor, elderly, and
mentally retarded children (who were fed radioactive oatmeal without the
consent of their parents). "


start of quotation


I won't tell you now about the severe physical and mental abuse," said
Fred Boyce, leaning into the microphone, his back to a wall of press and
spectators, "but I can assure you, it was no Boys' Town." It was 1994,
and Boyce, a handsome man in his 50s, sat at a lone witness table facing
an arc of stone-faced members of the Advisory Committee on Human
Radiation Experiments.


By his eighth birthday, Boyce had seen the death of his father, the
removal of himself and 12 siblings from his mother's care, five foster
homes, and eventually, the Walter E. Fernald State School in Waltham,
Massachusetts. They labeled him feeble-minded and institutionalized him
for the remainder of his youth. It was at Fernald, where brutality was a
fact of life, that Boyce joined the "Science Club"--a group of boys who
ate oatmeal laced with radioactive isotopes each morning in exchange for
special treats. A quart of milk when they donated blood. A baseball
game. A trip to the beach on their birthdays.


"They bribed us by offering us special privileges," Boyce told the
committee, "knowing that we had so little that we would do practically
anything for attention; and to say, 'This is their debt to society,' as
if we were worth no more than laboratory mice, is unforgivable."


In the late 1940s and early 1950s, the federal government, in
collaboration with the Quaker Oats Company, funded studies in which the
Science Club boys were fed radioactively labeled nutrients--like iron
and calcium--to see how these nutrients were metabolized. The boys
didn't know they were guinea pigs. But the Fernald boys weren't alone in
their unwitting radiation exposure. Terminal cancer patients were
subjected to "total-body irradiation" at toxic levels to help scientists
learn, among other things, the biological effects of exposure to atomic
weapons. Elsewhere, more than 200,000 military personnel were used in
disturbing ways--like flying through atomic clouds--to study the atomic
bomb. Just prior to the hearing at which Boyce told his story, hints of
these and many other secret radiation experiments began to surface--many
thought to be related to the Cold War.


end of quotation


http://www.jhu.edu/~jhumag/0600web/faden.html


"The State Boy's Rebellion"


http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/de ... 2-1427536-...


"War Against the Weak"


http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/de ... f=pd_bxgy_...


****

GODDAMN IT!
"I'm on the Zoloft to keep from killing y'all"

Mike Tyson
Post Reply