|
Gasp of Horror When I first read this, my eyes widened, my mouth fell open and a gasp of horror escaped my lips: young adults, in a closed room, subjected to breathing in poison. Poison shot up their noses and into their eyes. Poison, known to cause nervous system damage, swallowed. NO, this is not some scene out of Dante's Inferno or the death camps of the Nazi Third Reich. These are experiments approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to test pesticides on human subjects. http://www.panna.org/resources/panups/panup_20050627.dv.htmlPesticide Action Network Updates Service (PANUPS)US EPA Accepts Unethical Human Pesticide Tests The report was issued by Senator Barbara Boxer and Representative Henry Waxman and provides details of several human testing studies accepted by the EPA that included testing of pesticides known to be hazardous to human health and that failed to provide adequate information in consent forms, dismissed some unfavorable results and/or failed to provide long term monitoring of health effects. Most of these studies were submitted by pesticide manufacturers and, in contrast with pharmaceutical tests, often posed serious risks without offering a potential health benefit to the human subject. In one 2004 study at the University of California at San Diego, 127 young adults were exposed to the pesticide chloropicrin, a soil fumigant used in chemical warfare during World War I. Some study subjects were placed in a closed room filled with chloropicrin and others had the pesticide shot up their nose and into their eyes, some at levels many times the "permissible exposure" set by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). Several studies were used to determine human "no observed effect levels" or NOELs, a category of experiments that the NAS has called unethical unless "there is a reasonable certainty that participants will experience no adverse effects." In a 1996 study of methyl isothiocyanate (MITC, the primary breakdown product of metam sodium) MITC was piped into special goggles worn by study subjects in order to determine what levels would cause eye irritation. In another test, subjects ingested a pill containing the pesticide aldicarb at a dose that can cause levels of an essential nervous system enzyme called cholinesterase to drop by as much as 70%. A NAS report released in 2004 concluded that human pesticide tests could be defensible if they were being used to test pesticides that may prove to be less harmful to human health and the environment than existing pesticides on the market. None of the 22 studies examined in the Congressional report released last week fit this criterion, and many involved older pesticides known to be highly toxic. In an effort to put an immediate halt to these unethical and unnecessary studies, a coalition of public interest groups headed by the Center for Health Environment and Justice is supporting an amendment to the Interior and Environment Appropriations bill that would place a one-year moratorium on human testing of pesticides. The amendment was introduced in the House by Representatives Hilda Solis (CA) and Timothy Bishop (NY) and will be carried in the Senate by Senators Barbara Boxer (CA) and Bill Nelson (FL). To see the full report, visit: http://www.democrats.reform.house.gov/story.asp?ID=869 Sources: Human Pesticide Experiments, June 2005, Prepared for Senator Barbara Boxer and Representative Henry A. Waxman, U.S. Congress; "EPA Reviewing 24 Tests of Human Pesticide," Washington Post, June 16, 2005; " California lawmakers want stop to human pesticide testing," San Diego Union Tribune , June 17, 2005. Sources: Pesticide Action North America (PANNA), http://www.panna.org or CHEJ http://www.chej.org.
NRDC Press Release: http://www.democrats.reform.house.gov/Documents/20050616121012-13221.pdf Congressional Report Documents Unethical Chemical Industry Pesticide Tests on Human Beings; NRDC Calls for Federal Moratorium WASHINGTON (June 16, 2004) – The eye-popping conclusion of a congressional report on industry experiments that dose human beings with pesticides should prompt Capitol Hill to place a moratorium on the practice, says NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council). The report, released today by Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), found that these chemical industry experiments are unethical, unscientific, and violate international norms. "This report reveals the shocking truth about immoral chemical industry experiments that test the effects of toxic pesticides on human beings," said NRDC Senior Attorney Erik D. Olson. "Just last year a chemical company exposed American college students to a pesticide that had been used as a chemical weapon during World War I without fully informing them about the potential risks. We thought these kinds of tests were banned internationally 60 years ago after the Nuremberg trials." NRDC maintains that no toxicity tests intentionally dosing humans with pesticides are ethical or scientifically legitimate. At a minimum, NRDC believes that Congress and the Environmental Protection Agency should impose a moratorium on the tests and refuse to consider their results when regulating pesticides. That moratorium ideally should remain in effect permanently, says NRDC. In any case, the organization maintains that there is no excuse to allow intentional dosing of humans with pesticides until EPA adopts binding rules that regulate all human tests and include all of the protections recommended or required by the National Academy of Sciences, the EPA Scientific Advisory Panel and Science Advisory Board, the international Helsinki Declaration, the Nuremberg Code, and applicable U.S. laws and regulations. Over the last several years, the EPA has repeatedly failed to issue binding rules banning or strictly regulating human tests. In September 2000, for example, a joint committee of EPA’s Science Advisory Board and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) Scientific Advisory Panel strongly urged the agency to issue "rigorous to severe" rules for human testing. Some of the committee members did not believe that would suffice, arguing that all human testing of pesticides is unethical. A year later, in December 2001, then-EPA Administrator Christine Todd Whitman announced that the agency would not consider the results of human tests of pesticides until the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) reviewed the issue. Pesticide-makers sued, and in June 2003 a court struck the agency’s action down on procedural grounds, holding that for policy to be binding, the agency must go through a rulemaking to adopt it. An NAS panel completed the report in February 2004. Although the panel included scientists with close ties to the chemical industry, it recommended that EPA institute sweeping changes for reviewing and overseeing chemical experiments on humans and establish an independent scientific and ethical review panel. More than a year later, however, EPA has not adopted any of the panel’s recommendations. Nor has the agency ever adopted regulations for industry-sponsored human tests reflecting international norms for human studies such as the Nuremberg Code, which was written by American judges during the Nazi doctor trials at Nuremberg after World War II, or the Helsinki Declaration, which was written by the World Medical Association.Fed up with the EPA’s foot-dragging, the House of Representatives last month adopted an EPA appropriations bill amendment sponsored by Reps. Hilda Solis (D-Calif.) and Tim Bishop (D-N.Y.) establishing a moratorium on EPA considering the results of tests that intentionally dose humans with pesticides. The Senate has yet to act on the measure. "It’s time for Congress to order the EPA to put a halt to these disgraceful human pesticide experiments," Olson said. "It’s outrageous that this kind of human experimentation is being tolerated or even encouraged by the U.S. government." ********************************************** 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. http://www.panna.org/resources/panups.html
Add This Entry To Your CureZone Favorites! Print this pageEmail this page  Alert Webmaster
|
CureZone Newsletter is distributed in partnership with https://www.netatlantic.com
Contact Us - Advertise - Stats
0.063 sec, (2)