US EPA to test pesticides on abused/neglected children... what the fuck


dipthong mong
Reaction score
Exceptions in New EPA Rules Would Allow Testing Pesticides on Children
By Andrew Schneider
The Baltimore Sun

Wednesday 14 September 2005

Washington - The Environmental Protection Agency's new rules on human testing, which the agency said last week would "categorically" protect children and pregnant women from pesticide testing, include numerous exemptions - including one that specifically allows testing of children who have been "abused and neglected."

The rules were revised under intense criticism from environmental groups, scientists and members of Congress, after the disclosure that subjects in some earlier pesticide studies were unaware of what they were being exposed to and, in many cases, did not know why the testing was being done.

One study would have used $2 million from the chemical industry to measure the pesticide consumption of infants in low-income households in Florida.

In unveiling the new rules last week, the EPA promised full protection for those most at risk of unethical testing.

"We regard as unethical and would never conduct, support, require or approve any study involving intentional exposure of pregnant women, infants or children to a pesticide," the rule states.

But within the 30 pages of rules are clear-cut exceptions that permit:
  • Testing of "abused or neglected" children without permission from parents or guardians.
  • "Ethically deficient" human research if it is considered crucial to "protect public health."
  • More than minimal health risk to a subject if there is a "direct benefit" to the child being tested, and the parents or guardians agree.
  • EPA acceptance of overseas industry studies, which are often performed in countries that have minimal or no ethical standards for testing, as long as the tests are not done directly for the EPA.

The EPA provided little clarification yesterday in response to questions about the exemptions.

In a written response, officials said that abused and neglected children were specifically singled out to create "additional protection" for them, although they did not elaborate.

And they denied there were any exceptions to the prohibitions on testing women and children. They added that the new rules meet all the requirements set by Congress last spring and summer in a series of often heated hearings.

But some of those who led the hearings disagreed.

"For the first time in our nation's history, the EPA has proposed a program to allow for the systematic and everyday experimentation of pesticides on humans," Rep. Henry A. Waxman, a California Democrat and leading critic of the testing policies, said in a statement yesterday. "Moreover, the proposed program is riddled with ethical loopholes."

Sen. Barbara Boxer, another California Democrat, who also demanded improvements in protecting human test subjects, voiced similar criticism.

"The EPA proposed rule on human testing has several large loopholes that undermine the very purpose of the rule. No wonder the pesticide companies are saying such nice things about it," Boxer said.

"This is unethical and contrary to recent direction from Congress."

Many critics believe that the agency is buckling to the pesticide industry, which has faced much more stringent testing standards under regulations approved in 1996.

The exemptions are "obviously driven by the pesticide industry's goal of relaxing pesticide safety standards," said Aaron Colangelo, a senior staff lawyer with the Natural Resources Defense Fund, which has been involved in 18 lawsuits against the pesticide industry and government agencies.

Public health experts, including Colangelo, said they had no idea what the EPA meant by some of the language in the exemptions - how the agency might define a "direct benefit" to a child, for example.

"The rule says it's acceptable to test children if there is a direct benefit," Colangelo said. "How can any child possibly benefit from exposure to pesticides? What was EPA thinking about?"

"This is ethically abhorrent, and the way EPA described this rule is clearly misleading," he said. "In fact, the rule expressly approves intentional chemical tests against these [at-risk groups] in several circumstances."

Richard Wiles, senior vice president of Environmental Working Group, said "EPA's proposal is the [pesticide] industry's dream, and the public's nightmare."

Physicians and lawyers offered possible explanations for some of the exemptions.

A study that could mean higher crop yields could be justification enough for the EPA to cite a "public health benefit" under the exemptions, said Dr. Alan Lockwood, an expert in human-testing ethics and past president of Physicians for Social Responsibility. "This would be a public health benefit, even though the exposed children may experience an adverse effect."

sometimes you just can't believe it...


God mintsmak
Forum Supporter
Reaction score
Up above the streets and houses
Sorry, but I'm not surprised at all, in the same way that the American FDA (Food and Drug Administration) is supposedly an impartial group working for the benefit of the consumer, yet all the regulations are slanted to benefit the producers at the consumers expense, the EPA is equally beholden to the powers of the producers/lobbyists of the industries it supposedly protects people fron malpractice within.

Watch what happens there, the EPA will be given a few more dramatic sounding powers, but at the same time will be reined in so hard that they'll never be able to enforce them even when they know who is breaking the rules. At the end of the day I don't think that it is ever a good idea for government bodies to have there agendas and rules set by the industries that they're supposed to protect us from.


Reaction score
"Testing of "abused or neglected" children without permission from parents or guardians."

Thats fucking disgusting ...... :Sad:


Total Member
Reaction score
It wasn me
whitedog said:
i'm with Grokit, not at all surprised. (already knew about this, actually).



dipthong mong
Reaction score
the EPA is equally beholden to the powers of the producers/lobbyists of the industries it supposedly protects people fron malpractice within.


what i find so riveting about this particular situation is how it can be reconciled with the Bush administration's much-proclaimed "compassionate conservatism" (by which they mean "compassionate christian conservatism").

this is a party - nay, a movement - so fucking determined to bang on about the rights of tiny clusters of pre-autonomous cells that it will cut funding to the UNPFA because it allegedly supports abortions in china; yet at the same fucking time will happily promote the testing of pesticides on abused children, without consent of their guardians.

what in fuck's name happened to the 'right to life', fuckos? :Sad:

[edit: i'm not particularly surprised given this administration's track record on any number of issues; i wasn't aware of this before, however, and i am stunned that the media hasn't made more of a noise... unless i'm just missing it?!?]


Jibbering Wreck
Reaction score
Sometimes think it would be better if global warming just completly fucks our "civiliz"ations, and we can start again...

Barclay (Dark Angel)

Ninja Hippy
Reaction score
jibberer said:
Sometimes think it would be better if global warming just completly fucks our "civiliz"ations, and we can start again...

What makes you think it'll be any better next time round :Sad:.




The rules were revised under intense criticism from environmental groups, scientists and members of Congress

How about Human Rights associations and ONU? Where are them? I mean WTFingF!!

I feel we are slowly making real a lot of those fictional movies set in the future with those unreal socially accepted anomalities like birth controlled systems where you go to jail if not complying, or where the "Company" or the "Agency" has power of life and death on its employees (Alien) if you know what I mean.

I can't stand this any longer. We are slipping deeper and deeper in madness, evil and corruption. Sucks sucks sucks