It Just Keeps Getting Worse -- from Jim Hightower

Today's Commentary
http://www.jimhightower.com/

Monday, December 12, 2005
"PESTICIDE TESTING ON KIDS"

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

I'm whopperjawed. I'm stunned. I'm sick. I'm disgusted. I'm fuming.

If you thought that you could no longer be shocked by anything the Bushites do, you've obviously not heard of the latest, inhuman, totally depraved, appalling bit of evil coming out of Bush's EPA. These so-called environmental and health protectors have proposed a new rule regarding the testing of toxic pesticides on humans – a deplorable practice that the chemical makers have long favored. Because EPA had been caught supporting tests in which children were intentionally dosed with pesticides, congress mandated in August that the agency issue a rule permanently banning such pesticide tests, without exception.

In September, EPA issued its proposed rule, hailing it as "a landmark regulation on human studies," and flatly declaring that "certain kinds of human research can never be acceptable." Beyond its flowery declaration of ethical principles, however, EPA's proposal is 30 pages of fine print that viciously guts those very principles by giving the pesticide corporations clear-cut exceptions to the supposed ban on human testing.

Get ready to puke, for these are some of the exceptions:
- Neglected or abused infants can be subjected to pesticide tests, without the consent of parents or guardians.
- Mentally handicapped and orphaned infants may be used for tests for the sake of research.
- EPA will accept industry pesticide tests done on children outside the U.S., including in countries with minimal or no ethical standards.

Not only do these repulsive exceptions violate even the lowest level of human decency and morality, but they also are in direct violation of congress's mandate to allow no exceptions to the ban on such test – zero. The agency has cynically chosen industry profits over children's welfare.

"You've learned well, my little chickens. My work lives on."

NAZIs from Germany. Eugenicists from USA.

Hell should fill with the master race.

cell research is unacceptable, but this is? :argh:

I'm Jim Hightower's biggest fan.

I worked in Child Protective Services for seven years (retired to go back to law school).

When a child is 'orphaned,' 'abused' or 'neglected,' they are taken into protective custody by the State, and subject to the jurisdiction of the Court - Dependency Court. We had to have a court order for anything beyond the most general checkup. NO judge is going to authorize this kind of experimentation ... none that I know of ... and I have worked with them for thirteen years, including the CPS work, volunteer and law clerk work.

Same deal with the mentally-handicapped; a guardian ad litum is appointed, and they are subject to the jurisdiction of the Court. No judge would authorize this kind of experimentation.

So, I am wondering what is meant here.

... accepting testing from other countries. Also note the continuing claims of wards of the state being used in testing AIDS medication in NY.

Cheers.

Wonder what they mean by testing AIDS meds.

I was always on the lookout for shennanigans when I was a social worker; in other words, I would have the foster parent in question investigate the recommended treatment (e.g. whether or not it was a common-place one, the most-favored one, etc.) - and I would too.

Very disturbing; I wonder if the doctor in question says to himself, "Kid is in custody. No questioning parent. We could use a new drug."

Still wondering how all of this works.

... what's been going on:

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/06/17/us_faults_testing_of_aids_drug_on_foster_children/

http://www.newsday.com/news/politics/wire/sns-ap-aids-foster-kids,0,4624798.story

Cheers.

last year had a scandalous case of children under "protective services" who were used for testing pharma drugs. No judge signed an order. Welfare didn't have a clue. Who needs to tell a judge? You just have to arrange it with the doctors... and if they're paid by the companies, well then... even in the cases where a guardian was involved, the doctors were given free reign because the children were not blood relatives. Really sad stuff.

this administration or I guess corporate America.

Remember the experiments carried out on poor blacks with syphillis at the Tuskegee Institute? These people and their actions will go down in infamy and shame along with the barbarians who carried out those experiments.

Apparently that's what the 'common folk' are to these people. Science experiments, cannon fodder, and slave labor.

I am not for the death penalty, but, damn, these bastards make it hard! :puke:

nothing to do (no books, no music, no tv, no nothing) but think about what they've done works for me too.

(actually I think my solution is worse than the death penalty, even cruel an inhuman. they just bring that out in me)

Drop all those f*ckers down a rotting hole festering with vermin (other than themselves) and just leave them.

"Get ready to puke, for these are some of the exceptions:
- Neglected or abused infants can be subjected to pesticide tests, without the consent of parents or guardians.
- Mentally handicapped and orphaned infants may be used for tests for the sake of research.
- EPA will accept industry pesticide tests done on children outside the U.S., including in countries with minimal or no ethical standards."

In earlier threads on this, I worked my fingers to nubs (yes, I now use the two-nub system to type) debunking this shit sausage. For now I'll say,IT JUST AIN'T SO!

Edit: Here are two threads. The others seem to have dropped into the archives.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=103&topic_id=173637

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=5558859


Here's another: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=5366080

Can't find anymore.

... any use of children as intentional subjects of chemical dosing? That's my understanding.

However, you said in one of those other threads: "EPA may accept results from such studies on pregnant women or children under certain conditions, but may not make such studies or support them. Under law, EPA does not have authority to comprehensively prohibit such studies. That doesn't mean that they couldn't be prohibited by some other governmental body." {emphasis mine}

I think the intent of Congress was to prohibit that very possibility. The issue here is whether or not the rules promulgated by the EPA serve as a prohibition. If Congress passed law to prevent such, then the EPA does have authority--at least to the extent of not acknowledging any outside study using children as test subjects for experimental dosing in the EPA's reviews and recommendations and rulemaking.

The point is not that the EPA is restricted from doing so on its own; rather, it's that the intent of Congress was to prevent the practice, and it doesn't seem that the rules promulgated by the EPA do prevent the practice--even according to what you say above. "... make such studies..." means the EPA cannot do it themselves. "... support such..." means they cannot use tax dollars for some other entity to perform such studies on the EPA's behalf. But, it's very clear that the rules as written leave the door open for private industry to fund such studies itself--and for those results to be acknowledged by the EPA.

Let's refresh on the basics. The issue is that chemical companies very much want to conduct short-term studies to help "prove" the safety of products which are at present banned, or are allowed with restrictions on sale and use. They'd happily fund those studies themselves because the cost of such is exceedingly small compared to the profits to be made. The rules as written pretty much force the EPA to acknowledge that research (under "certain conditions"). If, on the other hand, the EPA were required by Congress to ignore any such research in its determinations, that would constitute a disincentive to industry to conduct that research itself.

That disincentive doesn't seem to be a part of the rules as issued, and perhaps that is why some of the EPA's own scientists are concerned about the proposed rules as published.

Cheers.

Agreed, the proposed rules should extend the prohibition of human dosing experiments to a prohibition of use of data from such experiments. That would be a fair basis for challenging the proposal. HOWEVER, that is only one of the issues that is being raised against the EPA. Others, such as saying that the rules allow testing on orphans and the mentally handicapped, are flat-out not true. Considering the supposed expertise of the parties making such claims, I think that it would be fair to call them malicious liars.

Jumping back to the issue of third-party studies, if industry, or any other non-gov't entity, wants to do such a studyin the U.S., the EPA cannot stop them. HHS cannot either. Congress has not given them the power to do so. If Congress wants an absolute prohibition of such testing, they can pass a law giving those agencies (more appropriately, HHS) the authority to police industry in that regard. However, despite public posturing, Congress has made no move to pass such a law. The same goes for prohibiting the use of data from any third-party source: Congress has the power to enact a direct, absolute prohibition.


I would also note that the scope of the proposed rules would extend beyond the studies in which subjects are intentionally dosed with chemicals. It would cover any EPA studies involving human subjects, including those undertaken for collection of baseline data (such as the much-maligned CHEERS study), or those that examine the effects of remedial measures. Informed consent would still be required, but the studies could still be performed on children and pregnant women, without presenting the severe ethical concern that would be presented by a proposal to intentionally dose human subjects.

of any tests in which infants are subjected to pesticides.

So do I, and so, it appears to me, does Congress as a whole. How about you?

http://www.organicconsumers.org/Toxic/epa6.cfm

Christenson and other critics say that the portions of the proposed rules that concern them include:

* The inability of EPA scientists to ensure that industry followed ethical guidelines, such as informing test subjects of the potential hazard from the poisons to which they're being exposed.
* The lack of a firm ban on the use of prisoners as test subjects.
* Provisions that would let rules forbidding testing of infants, children and pregnant women to be set aside on the decision of the EPA administrator.

"Also of concern is that the rule would allow testing on children who 'cannot be reasonably consulted,' such as those that are mentally handicapped, does not require parental consent for testing on children who have been neglected or abused, and accepts studies done on children outside of the United States, which may not comply with EPA standards," said Charles Orzehoskie, president of the union's national council of EPA locals.

I just don't understand that in any context or interpretation. Maybe they mean does not ACCEPT consent from children that have been abused?

edit: does it specifiy that consent must come from the legal guardian of that child, so the parental consent is not needed?

I have a kid. He's exposed to pesticides. I want researchers to quantify the amount of pesticide he and many, many others are exposed to and then do studies showing what the consequences and effects are. Child physiology is not the same as adult physiology, and it changes from when a human's a neonate to being barely pre-pubescent and even beyond.

I do not want kids intentionally subjected to levels of pesticide that they would not otherwise be exposed to. But the new rules forbid such testing, and only authorize the use of such results when the results are important for deciding policy and the use of the results are not likely to further and encourage such testing. I have mixed feelings about the use of such results if they *are* likely to encourage such testing, because ultimately it says that a fact may be 'morally tainted' and therefore to be disregarded; I do not have a problem with the banning of the EPA's participation in or support of such studies.

Many people are lumping the three categories of studies into one. I can't even dignify such a muddle with the word 'thinking'.

Imagine that Monsanto secretly exposed small children to a level of pesticide that they might well come in contact with, but only infrequently--when the chemical is misused, say, by somebody who didn't understand the label. It killed some and left others developmentally challenged. But the published studies didn't look at routine background exposure at those levels, or didn't find significant results. The secret studies come to light. Monsanto is raked over the coals, and is unlikely to approve such a study again. You're saying that the EPA *must* be forced to *ignore* those findings. The EPA has no basis for discontinuing the product's current labeling and sale. I know that would make *me* feel safer, and I suspect that most people would spazz out over it.

prove a certain pesticide is harmful and NOT for studies that lead to increased sales. That is NOT the way the rules are written now.

Care to guess why?

Incredibly depraved party. Once the child is born, they become quinea pigs for the corporations. What the fuck is happening in this county? Why isn't every major newspaper in the USA covering this story???????

and who deserves what is the ultimate question, one which the fundamentalists are only too happy to provide ample answers for. Children of unwed mothers, children of the poor, children in need (abused or abandoned) and in orphanages or other state custody, children who are mentally or physicall deficient, children of color -- all these children deserve less protection than children of the righteous.

And so you can see the result of those beliefs here, in this legislation.

Damned Fascists.

We may never recover, never get our nation fully back. With this kind of sickness at our core, we may very well deserve total destruction. But as so many have predicted, we are failing from within.

:cry:

In the 80's and 90's the city of Albuquerque was spraying Malathion & other pesticides in my neighborhood from a truck. Through sloppy mismanagement they sprayed my neighborhood 4 days in a row with Malathion and my whole neighborhood became sick. They had been spraying us for yrs with all different pesticides unknown to me and half of the kids on my dead end block had asthma. The ambulance was always on my block taking someone who couln't breathe to the hospital. The adults had allergies, back pain, asthma and I and another friend become ill with environmental illness. When I joined at EI support group, most of the people said they became ill after being exposed to pesticides. I filed a lawsuit but they had a toxic tort clause & they they could not be sued but they stopped spraying my neighborhood (I got my neighborhood on the "no spray list" and guess what - all the kids stopped having asthma.

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

I dunno - I always toss when exposed to Matalin.
Saw her and Carville in a hotel lobby here a few weeks
ago; she's as evil-looking in person as on TV. Can
anyone imagine being in the same room with Mary
Matalin and Karen Hughes? Talk about terra! :puke:

You have the right to be born, so that we can use you in any way we so desire, as grunt soldier or lab rat. You are the meat for our grinder. Life is sacred, until it is born.

Can this insane story be true? I need sources. If true, we have been confronted with irrefutable evidence of evil in our midsts. Total, absolute, muscular evil dedicated in its purpose and willing to exploit any human in any fashion to achieve their ends.

If this is true, we need mobs. With torches and pitchforks.