Newspaper logo  
 
 
Local Stories, Events

Ref. : Civic Events

Ref. : Arts & Education Events

Ref. : Public Service Notices

Books, Films, Arts & Education
Letters

Ref. : Letters to the editor

Health Care & Environment

03.21 Boston City Council Passes Groundbreaking Food Justice Ordinance

03.21 Storms, cyclones and floods will only worsen as the planet warms

03.20 Shocking autopsy photos show toll of plastic waste on dead whale [0:54 video]

03.20 Donald Trump is using Stalinist tactics to discredit climate science ["What a country!" –Yakov Smirnoff]

03.20 Pesticide residues found in 70% of produce sold in US even after washing

03.19 A Future Without Fossil Fuels?

03.19 England could run short of water within 25 years

03.18 Energy analysts forecast 'the end of coal' in Asia as Japanese investors back renewables

03.17 Deadly air in our cities: the invisible killer

03.17 Our oceans broke heat records in 2018 and the consequences are catastrophic [Meanwhile, "conservatives" like Trump just make shit up...]

03.15 Rural America is ready for some sort of a New Deal, preferably green [Due to our ignorantly anti-science, capitalism-obsessed government, we have an out-of-control catastrophe]

03.15 Capitalism is destroying the Earth. We need a new human right for future generations [11:04 video]

03.15 US official reveals Atlantic drilling plan while hailing Trump’s ability to distract public [“Stupid is as stupid does.” –Forrest Gump]

03.14 New Mexico Jumps At Chance For 100% Clean Electricity

03.14 Whales are dying along East Coast—and scientists are racing to understand why

03.14 Climate study warns of vanishing safety window—here’s why

News Media Matters

03.18 Under Pressure, Donald Trump Begs, Cajoles and Threatens Fox News

03.17 Trump's media attacks are an abuse of power. We're holding him to account

Daily: FAIR Blog
The Daily Howler

US Politics, Policy & 'Culture'

03.23 Leaked Audio Exposes Oil & Gas Execs Laughing With Joy Over Cozy Access to Trump Officials

03.23 'Like Nominating Dr. Phil to Run CDC': Alarm Bells as Trump Nominates Right-Wing Sycophant Stephen Moore to Federal Reserve

03.23 Following Monsanto, Exxon Could Be Next US Corporation to Face EU Lobby Ban [Banning political influence of immoral companies is a great idea. Why doesn't America do this?]

03.23 Progressives Refuse to Back Down as DCCC Moves to Kneecap Primary Challengers

03.18 ‘One chance at survival’: Jay Inslee is running for president to fight climate change

03.17 Trump is cornered, with violence on his mind. We must be on red alert

03.16 Beto O'Rourke, friend of the fossil fuel industry, is no climate hero

Justice Matters

03.22 Betsy DeVos strikes out — in court

03.21 US judge halts hundreds of drilling projects in groundbreaking climate change ruling

03.20 'A Poll Tax By Any Other Name': Florida GOP Undermines Newly-Restored Voting Rights For 1.4 Million People

High Crimes

03.20 US Killing Civilians With 'Impunity' in Hidden War on Somalia: Report

Economics & Corrupt Capitalism

03.22 Monetary Policy Takes Center Stage: MMT, QE or Public Banks?

03.21 Green Groups Call Out Big Banks for Pouring Billions Into Fossil Fuel Industry

03.19 France’s Message for Capitalism Is Quite Simple: Adapt or Die

03.18 Why are millennials burned out? Capitalism.

International & Futurism

03.22 Yes, a Planned Economy Can Actually Work

03.22 Thanks to humans the ‘wilderness’ no longer exists – but we can make things on Earth better

03.22 Top oil firms spending millions lobbying to block climate change policies, says report

03.22 ExxonMobil faces EU parliament ban after no show at climate hearing [Banning political influence of immoral companies is a great idea. Why doesn't America do this?]

03.22 Labour members launch Green New Deal inspired by US activists

03.21 68% Want to Hike Taxes on the Rich to Help the Poor, Survey of 21 OECD Nations Shows

03.21 Palestinian Lives Don’t Matter*

03.21 England's running out of water – and privatisation is to blame

03.21 Christchurch attacks: New Zealand brings in sweeping gun-law changes [1:11 video]

03.20 We Must Apply Our Universal Values to All Nations. Only Then Will We Achieve Peace.

03.20 Why People In Finland Are So Much Happier Than Americans

03.20 Why climate action is the antithesis of white supremacy

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: