http://www.organicconsumers.org/epa-alert.htm
What a great thing to do. Pay the parents, notice they are using low income families, to poison their children.
Again, our government caving to the wants of big business.
Screw this.
Sign the petition. Get our government out the poisoning children business.
Dude, they aren’t poisoning their children.
http://www.epa.gov/cheers/basic.htm#do
They’re checking for any already-present levels of chemicals and seeing if the children are being harmed.
If the children are not exposed, what is there to study?
They talked about this on Science Friday on NPR this week, and that’s not how it was presented. The children aren’t going to be exposed to pesticides – at least not artificially exposed.
No new pesticides will be introduced into their environment – the study is going to follow them through their normal lives and measure the household and environmental chemicals that they are exposed to.
The show might be archived on the site if you want to hear the whole thing.
Oops. Simul-post. 
If all this about the study being “non threatening” is true. Why pick only low income people as the study base?
You just got to love the name ‘CHEERS’ though.
High pesticide use in the community combined with previous data to work from and a good county health department. From there, they can gain information to help extrapolate to other counties/areas of the US. I don’t see anything about poverty level in particular, though it may well be a poor area.
Some people seem to love making acronyms. I’m on the Institutional Review Board at the hospital I work with, and you see all sorts of weird/funny acronyms in study proposals.
“Participants for the study were chosen from 6 health clinics and three hospitals in Jacksonville, FL. These medical facilities report that 51% of their births are to non-white mothers and 62% of mothers have only received an elementary or secondary education.”
Mostly non whites and lower education levels.
No tough questions will be asked.
Why use poor people? As an incentive for participation.
The EPA site didn’t say anything about low-income as a requirement though.
The main objection I got from the Science Friday discussion was a fear that the study would attempt to set “safe” levels of pesticide use around children, and the speaker who was objecting said the study wasn’t going to be sufficient for something like that
They also said that families could participate even if they didn’t use pesticides at home, because the sensors would also measure their exposure from the outdoors, school, church, etc.
I got the impression that they’re concerned about all chemicals, not just pesticides.
I’m curious. If the EPA finds out that a family is being exposed to a possibly dangerous level of pesticides and/or other chemicals, will they stop the study and tell the family that they are in danger, or will they let the family continue on, oblivious to the danger, so that the data may be collected?
At the end of the risk section, it says that the study’s been approved by four different Institutional Review Boards. My assumption (being on the one where I work) is that the family would be informed; at least, that would be what I’d expect to see on such a study’s proposal. The data that’s already been collected will still be useful information, and in fact they might be interested in seeing what difference there might be in the children after the house is “cleaned.”
At least, that’s how I’d expect a proper study to be conducted.
A question for Reeder: Assuming it had been shown (and it hasn’t) that the EPA study specifically targets low-income families - would it also be exploitative and/or racist to conduct a study of lead exposure in older, low-income neighborhoods?
This study is a total joke and it makes me furious.
My Hubby happens to be an environmental scientist (who’s just not into messageboards) and he’s been saying for years that this issue could be delved into quite simply. Test every 3rd grader to see what they’ve absorbed, correlate the results with their performance in school, and survey the parents’ lifestyles & pesticide use (taking into account socioeconomic factors, etc.). Bingo-bango, you’ve got your info. It would be a big epidemiological study, but it could be done.
Notice that the results of this CHEERS study won’t be available until the next Administration takes over, at the earliest. They’re just postponing dealing with the issue in the guise of action. They could do an effects study, rather than this lengthy exposure study, but those results would require ACTION!!! This is just more blah-blah-blah.
If you want to read more, check out the website for Environmental Working Group and follow the links.
The sad thing is, too, we’ve been doing toxin studies on the poor for years. Nobody puts those nasty manufacturing plants on the rich side of town.
Reeder: “Participants for the study were chosen from 6 health clinics and three hospitals in Jacksonville, FL. These medical facilities report that 51% of their births are to non-white mothers and 62% of mothers have only received an elementary or secondary education.”
Mostly non whites and lower education levels.
As fessie pointed out, lower-income areas are where you tend to get the worst environmental toxicity levels; upper-income neighborhoods have the clout to pursue “Not In My Back Yard” policies and keep exposure down.
I agree that this is unfair—in fact, the term “environmental racism” was coined to describe precisely this sort of phenomenon of low-income minority neighborhoods having to deal with higher levels of pollution and contamination—but I don’t see how it’s the EPA’s fault in this instance.
After all, isn’t it more informative to have the EPA testing where the contamination levels are likely to be highest? As a taxpayer, I think it makes more sense than having the government shell out money to do a similar study in environmentally-conscious, factory-free Whitebread Suburbs, VT.
Whilst there is definitely something to this (with the additional proviso that when upper-income neighborhooods lose their NIMBY challenges they quickly become lower-income neighborhoods), it doesn’t seem to be a factor in this study. The EPA notes use of indoor pesticides. In other words, Jacksonville is full of bugs and the people there spray the crap out of their houses so as not to live with the bugs. This doesn’t apear to be a study of how much pestcide gets dragged in from the orange fields (or whatever the heck they grow there).
Personally, I’d like to see a parallel study of indoor pesticide application in a rich area which also has bugs – it would be interesting to see if the so-called environmentally safe pesticides which rich people pay a premium for (or which are mandated in some parts of the country) are actually any better. But unfortunately I don’t think anyone in Palm Beach is going to get bought off for a minicam and a tee shirt.
I think that parents are sufficiently paranoid about their children that the vast majority of them would be glad to consent to a blood/hair test to identify exposure. Doing it on a national scale would be fascinating. But of course you’re right, there are a lot of lifestyle factors to take into consideration. And it’s unlikely the folks at Monsanto or Dow are eager to see this take place.
The EPA ought to be asking much tougher questions, and more of them.
Heh. Through their membership in the American Chemistry Council, Monsanto and Dow are helping to pick up the tab.
People generally are already exposed to pesticides to some degree or other – otherwise, there’d be no point in studying the issue.