Newspaper logo  
 
 
Local News & Opinion

Ref. : Civic Events

Ref. : Arts & Education Events

Ref. : Public Service Notices

Travel
Books, Films, Arts & Education
Letters
Open Letters:

Ref. : Letters to the editor

Health Care & Environment

07.06 Koch Industries spent €0.5m lobbying EU on [to suppress] environmental protection

07.06 Making green chemistry mainstream – event

07.06 The Myth of Big, Bad Gluten

07.05 Inside London's New Subterranean Urban Farm

07.05 Secrecy over fracking chemicals clouds environmental risks, advocates say

07.05 Carbon tax repeal sparks jump in Australia's electricity emissions

07.04 Sunny weather sees Britain break solar power record, estimate says

07.04 People power has shut the doors on fracking in the UK

07.04 New coal plants 'most urgent' threat to the planet, warns OECD head

07.04 Solar Impulse lands in Hawaii after longest non-stop solo flight in history [1:53 video]

07.03 George Lakoff: Why Pope Francis Killed It on Addressing Climate Change

07.03 This dome in the Pacific houses tons of radioactive waste – and it's leaking

07.03 Jairam Ramesh: India can't remain on the path of further destruction

07.03 Greenpeace and utilities launch suit against Hinkley nuclear plant

07.03 New study warns of dangerous climate change risks to the Earth’s oceans [ginormous graphic]

07.03 BP set to pay largest environmental fine in US history for Gulf oil spill

News Media

07.06 The Times’ Condescending Attitude Toward Bernie Sanders

Daily FAIR Blog
The Daily Howler

US Politics, Policy & 'Culture'

07.06 White Supremacists Extend Their Reach Through Websites

07.06 It’s Bernie Sanders’ America: 5 “radical” ideas Americans strongly support

07.06 Let’s abandon the Democrats: On TPP, workers’ rights and income inequality, they are as bad as GOP

07.05 Tell Your Stories [1:55 video]

07.05 The GOP’s pathetic crybaby agenda: Trump, Scalia and the whiny, paranoid new face of the right

07.05 White Southern hate, stripped bare for all to see

07.04 Major Gaps Between the Public, Scientists on Key Issues [interactive graph, click triangles...]

Justice Matters
High Crimes?
Economics, Crony Capitalism

07.06 Thomas Piketty: “Germany has never repaid.”

07.06 Welcome to Hooverville, California

07.06 Will the ECB Continue Its “Sherman’s March to the Sea” with the Greek Economy?

07.06 Greece debt crisis: China is the real elephant in the room

07.04 A Revolutionary Pope Calls for Rethinking the Outdated Criteria That Rule the World

07.04 Murder, drug cartels and misery counter Argentina's claims of falling poverty [what crushing debt servitude does...]

07.03 Europe’s Many Economic Disasters

International

07.06 Beijing issues travel warning after Turkey protests target Chinese [3:08 video; why, then, does Turkey ignore (abet?) Muslim atrocities in Syria and Iraq?]

07.06 Greek debt crisis: markets fall and bond yields rise after no vote – live

07.05 Calais drivers need more protection from migrants, says lorry group

07.05 Egypt says 25 militants killed in air strikes as Sisi inspects troops

07.05 Greeks begin voting in referendum as the euro faces its biggest challenge

07.05 Tales of Horror Should Galvanize Obama

07.04 Why Greece and Germany just don’t get along, in 15 charts

07.04 This euro is destroying the European dream [Ref. Paul Krugman's OpEd]

07.04 What is TTIP? The controversial trade deal proposal explained

07.04 Iranian foreign minister raises prospect of joint action against Islamic State

07.04 Migrants try to storm Channel tunnel at Calais, sparking further delays

07.04 Sorry, London: you’re too uncool. And way behind New York

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: