The Culture of LIfe.

Some of you might recall Christi Todd Whitman, Governor of New Jersey and shining star of moderate Republicans, who was appointed head of the EPA in Bush's first term. She quit in 2003 out of disgust with the weakening of clean air, water, and pollution standards by executive order and pressure from the Administration. Can anyone else smell that bridge burning?

Things haven't changed much. Take human testing for example.

A little history on human testing of pesticides: Prior to 1998 it was permissible for pesticide manufacturers test their products on human volunteers. Pesticide companies could pay people to determine accumulated levels of toxins and the symptoms resulting from exposure to those toxins. In 1998, by executive order, Bill Clinton (the evil, sinful, slime and scum of the Earth because he got a hummer in the Oval Office Bill Clinton) put a stop to all human testing.

In 2001 the Bush Administration, speaking from both faces at once, praised that order while allowing the pesticide manufacturers to return to the previous standards of testing. Small wonder Christi quit.

In 2004 environmental groups and human rights groups coerced Congress into acting to prevent human testing. They passed a law banning human testing and requiring the EPA to issue new standards and guidelines for all testing and evaluation of pesticides.

The EPA finally released it's new guidelines in October of this year. They proudly proclaimed that they now meet all the requirements and provisions issued by Congress.

Well, almost.

There are only a few loopholes.

Not big ones you understand.

Just this:

- 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 from countries with minimal or no ethical standards.

Joseph Mengala must be smiling up from that special place in Hell reserved for such monsters, smiling in anticipation of having the company of George W. Bush in that deep pit.

provide a link that explains abused and neglected children being subjected to pesticide tests. Please. Is there a rule or a statute?

dealing with human protections under the EPA rules.

It's a .PDF document so I can't cut & paste but the link is http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-GENERAL/2005/September/...

And the two referances are paragraph 26.408 (a) and (c). Located on pages 28 & 29.

The document is dated September 18, 2005. On the one hand the EPA issues a statement saying no human experimentation is acceptable on the other they describe who can participate and when it isn't necessary to have consent.

Because this is a major issue, in my mind. I am incredulous.

are the fundies on this one? Sooo worried about a woman's right to chose what to do with her body and the unborned fetues, they can't get their fucking head out of the sand for something like this....FUCK THEM. They only know how to deal with something that can't talk back and are too selfish to deal with the living...

Sorry, on a rant, seen too many fundie, Christmas, War on, posts.....

Implementation of the FY 2006 EPA Appropriations Act

"None of the funds made available by this Act may be used by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to accept, consider or rely on third-party intentional dosing human toxicity studies for pesticides, or to conduct intentional dosing human toxicity studies for pesticides until the Administrator issues a final rulemaking on this subject. The Administrator shall allow for a period of not less than 90 days for public comment on the Agency’s proposed rule before issuing a final rule. Such rule shall not permit the use of pregnant women, infants or children as subjects; shall be consistent with the principles proposed in the 2004 report of the National Academy of Sciences on intentional human dosing and the principles of the Nuremberg Code with respect to human experimentation; and shall establish an independent Human Subjects Review Board. The final rule shall be issued no later than 180 days after enactment of this Act."


http://www.epa.gov/oppfead1/guidance/human-test.htm

link appears to contradict my sources. I certainly hope you are correct and there is no other fine print elsewhere.

Thanks again.

Isn't it sad that we live in a culture today that your original post was indeed plausible? The EPA has become a puppet to big corporations over the years and the current administration has placed so little value on human rights that I wouldn't be surprised at all....

I find it also sad that I've become such a cynic...

dealing with human protections under the EPA rules.

It's a .PDF document so I can't cut & paste but the link is http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-GENERAL/2005/September/Day-12/g18010.pdf

And the two referances are paragraph 26.408 (a) and (c). Located on pages 28 & 29.

The document is dated September 18, 2005. On the one hand the EPA issues a statement saying no human experimentation is acceptable on the other they describe who can participate and when it isn't necessary to have consent.

Reading further from Waiting's link I find:

============
Starting October 1, 2005, EPA will no longer accept and will discontinue all consideration of and reliance on third-party intentional dosing human toxicity studies for pesticides until a final rulemaking on human studies is issued. We expect this rulemaking to be accomplished by the end of January 2006, as directed by Congress.
=============

So, the fine print says the final ruling on human testing won't come until January of 06. However, it appears that my OP was overly sensational and that the EPA will adhere to the Nuremburg rulings.

Thanks again to Waiting for Hope.