Newspaper logo  
 
 
Local Gov’t Stories, Events

Ref. : Civic Events

Ref. : Arts & Education Events

Ref. : Public Service Notices

Travel
Books, Films, Arts & Education

05.05 Even Late in Her Career, Jane Jacobs Made Predictions That Are Coming True Today [20:04 video]

Letters

Ref. : Letters to the editor

Health Care & Environment

05.06 Why America Can't Quit the Drug War

05.06 'We need fundamental changes': US doctors call for universal healthcare

05.06 Think the NHS is in poor health? Try being ill under the US system

05.06 Elon Musk: 'We need a revolt against the fossil fuel industry'

05.05 Nimble-Fingered Robot Outperforms the Best Human Surgeons [video]

05.05 When in drought: the California farmers who don’t water their crops

05.05 We've been mayors of New York, Paris and Rio. We know climate action starts with cities

05.04 Scientists are figuring out the keys to convincing people about global warming

05.04 Ocean's Oxygen Starts Running Low

05.04 Prominent Democratic Consultants Sign Up to Defeat Single Payer in Colorado [Clinton's greed for corporate donations trumps the public's interests]

05.04 This disease has killed a million trees in California, and scientists say it’s basically unstoppable [video]

05.04 Air pollution has been lost in the murk of the London mayoral campaign

05.04 Renewable energy: rapid acceleration needed to meet 2020 target

05.04 Global water shortages to deliver 'severe hit' to economies, World Bank warns

05.04 Medical error is third biggest cause of death in the US, experts say

News Media Matters

05.02 Crackdown in Turkey's Kurdish south-east turns journalists into 'terrorists'

Daily: FAIR Blog
The Daily Howler

US Politics, Policy & 'Culture'

05.06 Donald Trump Will Soon Get Classified Briefings. How Worried Should We Be?

05.06 Top Gun Lobbyist Calls Hundreds of Child Gun Deaths "Occasional Mishaps"

05.05 Why must the Trump alternative be self-satisfied, complacent Democrats?

05.05 Donald Trump—and Bernie Sanders—is what happens when you screw the middle class

05.05 Obama in Flint: water crisis is a 'tragedy that never should have happened'

05.04 Just When Was America Great?

05.04 Fort McMurray: Canada wildfires force evacuation of oil sands city [video]

05.04 Bernie Sanders pulls off shock victory over Hillary Clinton in Indiana

Justice Matters

05.02 Solitary confinement is 'no touch' torture, and it must be abolished

05.02 The movement to end mass incarceration is still too weak to win big [private prisons must be kept at near-full occupancy by contract, so...]

High Crimes?

04.30 How the car industry trumped banking for sociopathic corporate behaviour

Economics, Crony Capitalism

05.04 After years of negotiations, is TTIP dying a slow death? [videos]

05.04 Bank of North Dakota Soars Despite Oil Bust: A Blueprint for California?

International

05.06 Saudi Arabia faces collapse: America’s Middle Eastern ally may not survive this latest oil crisis

05.06 Officials plan mass road convoy as Canada's wildfires grow tenfold

05.06 Panama Papers: US launches crackdown on international tax evasion

05.05 Giant red zone: Fire danger extreme across Saskatchewan, Alberta

05.05 Quarter of child refugees arriving in EU travelled without parents

05.05 Vote for me: London’s mayoral candidates have their say

05.04 UK's claims over Saudi bombing in Yemen 'deeply disappointing', say MPs

05.03 Saudi Arabia: Foreign Workers Burn Buses After Massive Layoffs

05.03 DNA secrets of Ice Age Europe unlocked

05.03 Ethiopia's farmers fight devastating drought with land restoration

We are a non-profit Internet-only newspaper publication founded in 1973. Your donation is essential to our survival.

You can also mail a check to:
Baltimore News Network, Inc.
P.O. Box 42581
Baltimore, MD 21284-2581
Google
This site Web
  Groups Challenge EPA's 'Industry friendly' Pesticide Rules
Newspaper logo

ENVIRONMENT:

Groups Challenge EPA’s ‘Industry friendly’ Pesticide Rules

by Michelle Chen
EPA scientists and employees have sent a letter to the EPA administrator, protesting rushed studies and demanding that no chemical be approved unless the "EPA can state with scientific confidence that these pesticides will not harm the neurological development of our nation's born and unborn children."
June 1--Two recent actions by environmental health watchdogs foreshadow a showdown between corporations and public-interest advocates over the safety of toxins marketed as pesticides.

On May 24, a coalition of Environmental Protection Agency employees and scientists issued a public letter to EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson accusing the Agency of coddling pesticide companies. The writers urged greater scrutiny of the potential health impact of two classes of toxic pesticides currently in use.

On Tuesday, the group Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) raised further suspicions about collusion between the agency and corporate interests by publicizing notes from an August 2005 meeting between EPA officials and pesticide-industry representatives. The meeting records suggest that industry leaders want to use human research subjects to prove the safety of toxic pesticides.

The tension between EPA's internal dissenters and the industry is mounting under a looming deadline for the scientific assessment of two similar classes of pesticides: organophosphates and carbamates. The assessments, mandated by the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA), are intended to establish safe levels of human exposures. The EPA has been evaluating pesticides in the two groups for several years, and about 20 chemicals are still awaiting final decisions by an August 3 deadline.

In their letter, the EPA scientists and employees argued that many of the risk assessments of previous years had cut corners.

"In the rush to meet the August 2006 FQPA statutory deadline," the co-signers wrote, "many steps in the risk-assessment and risk-management process are being abbreviated or eliminated in violation of the principles of scientific integrity and objectivity by which we as public servants are bound."

In the 1990s, the authors argued, although some risk assessments had led to limited restrictions on certain uses of organophosphates, the EPA had failed to fully assess residential and occupational exposure hazards. It ignored, for example, the impact on children of farm workers who accompany their parents in the fields.

Citing the need for further research, the authors called on the agency to stop approving the use of the remaining organophosphate and carbamates in the reassessment process "until EPA can state with scientific confidence that these pesticides will not harm the neurological development of our nation's born and unborn children."

Exposing the other side of the pesticide controversy, PEER publicized notes from a closed-door meeting on August 9, 2005, attended by EPA and White House Office of Management and Budget officials as well as pesticide-industry interests, including Bayer CropScience and the trade association CropLife America. The hastily scrawled notes, which were pulled from a public EPA administrative docket, articulate the pesticide industry's demands for certain regulatory policies that would help them obtain data to keep controversial plant and animal poisons on the market.

"Pesticides have benefits. Rule should say so. Testing, too, has benefits," reads one statement.

One type of testing that the industry finds beneficial--despite an outcry from public-interest groups--involves the use of humans.

The notes circulated by PEER tie the prospect of human testing to the FQPA evaluations. A statement attributed to industry lobbyist Jim Aidala urges the EPA to devise a favorable testing protocol so the industry can "proceed ASAP" and cites concerns that the process "won't be able to meet the FQPA deadline."

Several months after that meeting, the EPA exceeded the industry's expectations by finalizing official procedures for human testing of pesticides. Effective as of April 7, 2006, the EPA's testing protocol allows some human testing with oversight from a designated "Human Studies Review Board" and places restrictions on research using pregnant women and children.

But environmental groups have denounced the EPA's protocol as rife with ethical loopholes, suggesting it prioritizes the industry's interests over science in the public interest.

Jeff Ruch, executive director of PEER, said the industry saw human testing as "central to their regulatory strategy" because it might yield data that counters the intense adverse effects observed in animal studies.

"The most valuable subjects, from the industry's point of view, are going to be children," Ruch told The NewStandard, because regulatory oversight is heavily focused on how pesticides influence early development.

The FQPA requires a much higher health standard for pesticides that could affect the health of children and fetuses.

PEER pointed out that in describing possible uses of children as research subjects, the notes display the phrase, "Kids—never say never.... Can't know without testing."

"Closed-door discussions about using children as chemical guinea pigs," commented Ruch. "I'm not sure if it gets too much worse than that."

A backgrounder on the EPA website concedes that organophosphates, about 77 million pounds of which are doused on the country's crops, lawns and other areas each year, are associated with chronic and acute health problems including nerve damage and paralysis.

Groups objecting to human testing say history raises concerns that it could facilitate unethical testing practices, such as the outsourcing of human trials to other countries, or research on prison inmates and neglected children.
Pesticide Action Network of North America, the Natural Resources Defense Council and other advocacy groups have sued the EPA to block the human-subjects rule. The groups say history raises concerns that the EPA's plan could facilitate unethical testing practices, such as the outsourcing of human trials to other countries, or research on prison inmates and neglected children without sufficient informed-consent rules.

In a joint response to PEER, leaders of CropLife America and another trade association, Responsible Industry for a Sound Environment, alleged that PEER's criticisms revealed fears that human studies could invalidate arguments against pesticide use. "PEER may be anticipating EPA scientific findings not to their liking and are setting the stage for future disagreement and potential litigation," they said.

In an interview with TNS, Allan Noe, a spokesperson for CropLife America, dismissed the ethical and public-health concerns of PEER and other groups, stating that the company supported testing only on "healthy, non-pregnant adults." CropLife endorses human-based research "under carefully controlled conditions and only when absolutely called for," he said.

But Susan Kegley, a senior scientist with the Pesticide Action Network, suspects that the push for human testing reflects not a genuine interest in protecting health but rather, the industry's eagerness to manipulate science.

"The only reason human testing is quote 'necessary' is to increase industry profits," she said. "You will only find them using human tests that raise the acceptable amount you can be exposed to, and decrease protections for people."
© 2006 The NewStandard. All rights reserved. The NewStandard is a non-profit publisher. This article is reprinted with permission from The NewStandard, which encourages noncommercial reproduction of its content. Visit newstandardnews.net for more information.


Copyright © 2006 The Baltimore Chronicle. All rights reserved.

Republication or redistribution of Baltimore Chronicle content is expressly prohibited without their prior written consent.

This story was published on June 2, 2006.
 


Public Service Ads: