EPA, pesticides and children

[MLS]

I am pretty sure that this email, which I got from a person who doesn’t generally check the factuality of emails she receives, is bogus. In fact, having already gone to Snopes, I am sure that the first item is false.

… did you know that Bush’s EPA recently issued a ruling that specifically includes these provisions?

Neglected or abused infants can be subjected to pesticide tests without the consent of parents or guardians.
Mentally handicapped and orphaned infants may be used for tests for the sake of research.
The EPA will accept industry pesticide tests done on children outside the U.S., including in countries with minimal or no ethical standards.

Does anyone here know any *facts * related to the other allegations? My correspondent says they are from Jim Hightower, Hightower Lowdown.

[Squink]

EPA to accept pesticide tests on humans

Last year, President Bush signed a ban on the use of human pesticide test data until the EPA created regulations for accepting them. The agency also was required to ban the use of pregnant women and children as subjects, and to incorporate ethical guidelines from the National Academy of Sciences and the post-World War II Nuremberg Code.

The stink started over this:

Congress stepped in last year to impose a moratorium after Boxer and Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., demanded that the EPA cancel an industry-backed pesticide study in which the families of 60 children in Duval County, Fla., would receive children’s clothes, a camcorder and $970 for participating.

[MLS]

Thanks. That’s exactly the kind of thing I’m looking for. Snopes had explained about the Duval county situation, which was actually about testing children who had already been unintentionally exposed to pesticides in the environment.

The facts in the article you linked do show that the recent legislation is actually intended to reduce, if not eliminate, the kinds of testing that my correspondent claims it was promoting.

[CurtC]

…but they’re neglected, abused, handicapped, and orphaned children, right?

[MLS]

Yes, according to my correspondent. She seems to believe that there is nothing too eeeevil for the current administration to do. I would not be surprised if her next email describes the Marines using cute puppies for target practice.

I’ve pointed her to Snopes a number of times and occasionally she will respond with a “hmmm, how about that,” comment. She believes that the country is being controlled by secret cabals and the tri-lateral commission. And think tanks. But that’s another story.

[danceswithcats]

Without dragging this into the realm of GD or the Pit, the opponents of the study made it sound as though the EPA was paying parents to dunk their children into barrels of organophosphates, and then recording how the youngsters reacted to said baptism on a free camcorder. That was never the intent of the EPA or the corporate sponsors of the study.

All they wanted to do was have people continue to live their lives as they had previously, only make note of what, when, and where, along with food and urine sampling, such that meaningful data could be assembled.

Maintain your normal pesticide or non-pesticide use patterns for your household. We will not ask any parent to apply pesticides in their home to be a part of this study.

Of course, that didn’t discourage the nay-sayers and those hungry for headlines. Facts seldom do.

Wikinews article with many links can be found here.

[MLS]

Oh, I agree. That’s why I came here, looking for facts and links to the same.
Much appreciated.

[Squink]

@MLS

And think tanks.

You know, a few of the larger, more respected think tanks actually got to be large and respected by secretly hooking up arrays of human brains in their basement labs. The Heritage Foundation for instance, is purported to have 64 cerebellums connected in a hypercubic meson jar configuration. Even if each individual brain is average, that still gives them a brainpower of 3,200 milliEinsteins.
You’ve got to test pesticides somehow, and no matter how you do it, some people are going to be upset. I must say I was a little surprised all this wasn’t worked out 30 years ago, but at least they’re doing it now.

[MLS]

@Squink

You’ve got to test pesticides somehow, and no matter how you do it, some people are going to be upset. I must say I was a little surprised all this wasn’t worked out 30 years ago, but at least they’re doing it now.

But you certainly can’t test it on poor cute little bunnies, now, can you?

<The Meaning of Life>
Noop. That’s it. Medical experiments for the lot of ye!
</TMoL>

[MLS]

Just thought I’d update this with my correspondent’s response to my sending her the snopes link, plus some of the facts obtained in this thread:

Jim Hightower is a very well-known and respected journalist, with his own radio program, and he publishes a printed monthly newsletter mailed to tens of thousands of households. I know other serious-minded Mensans who read him faithfully and believe him. He fully researches and can back up anything he writes or speaks about. This is not a hoax, so matter what snopes says. Here’s some more from his newsletter:

“You know about the …EPA? After these so-called environmental and health protectors were caught supporting industry tests in which children were intentionally dosed with pesticides, Congress mandated (in August) that the agency issue a rule permanently banning such tests, without exception. In September, EPA issued its proposed rule, hailing it as “a landmark regulation on human studies.” Beyond this flowery declaration, however, EPA’s proposal has 30 pages of fine print that viciously guts those very principles by giving the pesticide corporations exceptions to the supposed prohibition.” Then he lists the items I mentioned previously.

[MLS]

Can a moderator please edit my previous post? I accidentally left in an actual real-life person’s name in my quote. :smack:

Thank you.

[CurtC]

@MLS

Just thought I’d update this with my correspondent’s response to my sending her the snopes link, plus some of the facts obtained in this thread:

Jim Hightower is a very well-known and respected journalist

Jim Hightower a journalist? He’s a longtime political person, notably the Texas Commissioner for the Texas Department of Agriculture several years ago. If you call him a journalist, you’d have to call G. Gordon Liddy a journalist too. I was easily able to find this article on the Internet, but wasn’t able to verify what the law he’s talking about actually says.