Chris Miller is having a conversation at Unquiet Desperation that has spilled over into Brewed Fresh Daily. You can read the particulars of the discussion there, but what I want to address is Chris’ question concerning sources and trustworthiness. As I was pondering his question, this email hit my inbox:
Epa Proposes Chemical And Pesticide Testing
On Orphans & Mentally Handicapped Children
Public comments are now being accepted by the EPA on its newly proposed federal regulation regarding the testing of chemicals and pesticides on human subjects. The newly propoed rule allows for government and industry scientists to treat children as human guinea pigs in chemical experiments in the following situations:
–Children who “cannot be reasonably consulted,” such as those that are mentally handicapped or orphaned newborns may be tested on. With permission from the institution or guardian in charge of the individual, the child may be exposed to chemicals for the sake of research.
–Parental consent forms are not necessary for testing on children who have been neglected or abused.
–Chemical studies on any children outside of the U.S. are acceptable.
The email links to this piece on the webpage of the Organic Consumers Association, which tells the reader:
Public comments are now being accepted by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on its newly proposed federal regulation regarding the testing of chemicals and pesticides on human subjects. On August 2, 2005, Congress had mandated the EPA create a rule that permanently bans chemical testing on pregnant women and children.
But the EPA’s newly proposed rule, misleadingly titled “Protections for Subjects in Human Research,” puts industry profits ahead of children’s welfare. The rule allows for government and industry scientists to treat children as human guinea pigs in chemical experiments in the following situations:
1. Children who “cannot be reasonably consulted,” such as those that are mentally handicapped or orphaned newborns may be tested on. With permission from the institution or guardian in charge of the individual, the child may be exposed to chemicals for the sake of research.
2. Parental consent forms are not necessary for testing on children who have been neglected or abused.
3. Chemical studies on any children outside of the U.S. are acceptable.
All sounds pretty horrible doesn’t it. If true it would be positively Mengeleian. Fortunately, it’s not true.
Here’s the link to the document.
And I’ve abstracted the relevant passages from the rather long document.
The first piece to read is this:
Sec. 26.420 Prohibition of research involving intentional dosing of children.
Notwithstanding any other provision of this part, under no circumstances shall EPA or a person when covered by Sec. 26.101(j) conduct or support research involving intentional dosing of any child.
Sec. 26.421 Prohibition of EPA reliance on research involving intentional dosing of children.
In its regulatory decision-making under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.) or section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 346a), EPA shall not rely on any research involving intentional dosing of any child, except when such research is deemed scientifically sound and crucial to the protection of public health, under the procedure defined in Sec. 26.603.
It’s clear that the proposed rules prohibit the intentional dosing of children. Period. So what does that mean? The way I read it, it means that research can be carried out on children who have been unintentionally dosed.
For instance. If you live in a neighborhood where lawn care companies regularly spray, then children in that neighborhood may be solicited for study.
I’ll leave the rest for your own conclusions, but here’s my problem. I don’t like pesticides and herbicides. I think they have caused more problems than they have solved. I would be happier if we kept pesticides and herbicides as far away as possible from children.
Having said that, organizations that scream wolf when they clearly are either not in total control of the facts or outright lying to achieve an associated agenda, damage the good works being done by people in this area.
It reminds me of how President George Bush led us to war under false pretenses. (And spare me the Talking Points, those dogs won’t hunt.) Now, faced with what may in fact be very credible intelligence concerning the presence of nuclear weapons in Iran, we, and the world community, have to ask: are you telling the truth this time?
My Soundtrack: Calcutta by Hopewell on WOXY.