# EPA to use poor to test pesticide toxicity of pesticides **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [November 14, 2004, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/epa-to-use-poor-to-test-pesticide-toxicity-of-pesticides/274710 "2004-11-14T15:07:28Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 18\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Neurotik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/91b2a8/32.png) [@Neurotik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Neurotik)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2004, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/epa-to-use-poor-to-test-pesticide-toxicity-of-pesticides/274710/21 "2004-11-14T19:40:00Z")
> [@Reeder](#): > > If the children are not exposed, what is there to study? Idiotic OPs like this are why you’ve lost credibility on the board. People on your side are embarassed by your antics, people on the other side use you to dismiss actual criticisms. You should change your handle to Strawman or Unjustified Outrage. The EPA is not exposing anyone to additional risk. The question is what the effect of current exposure is having on children and how that exposure is coming about. In other words, people are using already approved chemicals in the home. They are currently considered relatively safe if used as directed. The EPA is double checking this. They already have the baseline data for a certain area, so they are using this as the location of the experiment. In return for monitoring their children’s habits and behavior, parents are being paid for the trouble. Sort of like how people who volunteer for psychological experiments get paid, or like how people volunteering for the AIDS vaccine are being paid. Pretty SOP. Now, maybe, as **fessie** says, this is a bad study just used as a delaying tactic. That would be a legitimate Pit thread, I suppose. But that’s not what you’re arguing. Your argument is stupid and uninformed. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2004, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/epa-to-use-poor-to-test-pesticide-toxicity-of-pesticides/274710/22 "2004-11-14T22:07:16Z")
Anyone who thinks this is new hasn’t been paying attention. Poor families were used to test Three-Mile Island. ---
**Author:** ![Weirddave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Weirddave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weirddave)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2004, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/epa-to-use-poor-to-test-pesticide-toxicity-of-pesticides/274710/23 "2004-11-14T22:18:47Z")
Wow, Reeder, you really are the biggest fucking idiot on the boards aren’t you? Welcome back! The place hasn’t been nearly as fun with you gone, we’ve had to resort to, you know, facts and stuff. Those are so boring when compared to outraged knee jerking, especially outraged knee jerking without any cause. ---
**Author:** ![fessie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/c37758/32.png) [@fessie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fessie)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2004, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/epa-to-use-poor-to-test-pesticide-toxicity-of-pesticides/274710/24 "2004-11-14T23:22:36Z")
I’ve got no dog in your fight, **Weirddave** , but there is a reason why you’re wrong. Imagine they did exposure studies on wealthy children, say children of Senators and Congressmen. Or celebrities. Journalists? How do you think those results would be treated? I can tell you that if they used OUR family and one of my kids’ badges turned funny colors – well, that would be the end of the study & the beginning of the bad press. Plus there’s a huge distance factor when you pick poor, uneducated, minority families as your sample group - people can say to themselves “Well, that’s not me. Those dumb people don’t know how to read the warning labels, I never spray X near my baby.” What they ought to look into is the chemical loads of children who are presenting problems - ADD, autism, cancer, and low IQ for example - and compare that to children who aren’t. Or they could look at asthma rates on the south side of Chicago - duh! Could it be the dirty air y’spose? ---
**Author:** ![manhattan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/manhattan/32/7_2.png) [@manhattan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/manhattan)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2004, 11:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/epa-to-use-poor-to-test-pesticide-toxicity-of-pesticides/274710/25 "2004-11-14T23:42:14Z")
> [@fessie](#): > > Imagine they did exposure studies on wealthy children, say children of Senators and Congressmen. Or celebrities. Journalists? How do you think those results would be treated? That’s a no-brainer. Morons like **reeder** would line up in this forum to howl with outrage that the government was allocating precious testing funds to benefit the elite when it is the poor who are at higher risk and who should have been the beneficiaries of the study. ---
**Author:** ![Weirddave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Weirddave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weirddave)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2004, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/epa-to-use-poor-to-test-pesticide-toxicity-of-pesticides/274710/26 "2004-11-14T23:49:55Z")
> [@fessie](#): > > I’ve got no dog in your fight, **Weirddave** , but there is a reason why you’re wrong. No, I’m completely right. Reeder started a thread claiming that the EPA was going to poison poor children with chemicals to see how they’d react, which is about as far from the truth as one can get. Why do you suppose he did this? Offhand, I’d say just so he could use this line: > [@](#): > > The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), **led by Bush appointees** > > (bolding mine) Calling Reeder a moron or an idiot is met with howls of protest claiming defamation from the National Association for the Advancement of Dumbasses. ---
**Author:** ![Reeder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Reeder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Reeder)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2004, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/epa-to-use-poor-to-test-pesticide-toxicity-of-pesticides/274710/27 "2004-11-14T23:58:09Z")
> [@](#): > > The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), led by Bush appointees > > (bolding mine) Not only the bolding is yours…the words are too. I said nothing of the sort. Isn’t it verbotten to purposly misquote someone? ---
**Author:** ![Weirddave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Weirddave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weirddave)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2004, 12:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/epa-to-use-poor-to-test-pesticide-toxicity-of-pesticides/274710/28 "2004-11-15T00:13:46Z")
> [@Reeder](#): > > Not only the bolding is yours…the words are too. I said nothing of the sort. > > Isn’t it verbotten to purposly misquote someone? It sure is. Unfortunately for you, I didn’t. I said: > [@](#): > > I’d say just so he could use this line: Which you did, because it’s quoted in your OP. Judging by this thread, however, reading comprehension is not your strong suit. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2004, 11:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/epa-to-use-poor-to-test-pesticide-toxicity-of-pesticides/274710/29 "2004-11-15T11:03:13Z")
Why the hell are people picking on Reeder in this thread? What are you all on, auto pilot or something? The fucking jackbooted thugs at the Environmental Pillaging Agency are abusing people who are politically helpless. And this is okay by you? ---
**Author:** ![KidCharlemagne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed8c4c/32.png) [@KidCharlemagne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KidCharlemagne)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2004, 1:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/epa-to-use-poor-to-test-pesticide-toxicity-of-pesticides/274710/30 "2004-11-15T13:10:30Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > Why the hell are people picking on Reeder in this thread? What are you all on, auto pilot or something? The fucking jackbooted thugs at the Environmental Pillaging Agency are abusing people who are politically helpless. And this is okay by you? Because this thread is more about Bush than the EPA. ---
**Author:** ![Typo\_Negative](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/typo_negative/32/484_2.png) [@Typo\_Negative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Typo_Negative)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2004, 1:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/epa-to-use-poor-to-test-pesticide-toxicity-of-pesticides/274710/31 "2004-11-15T13:19:41Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > Why the hell are people picking on Reeder in this thread? What are you all on, auto pilot or something? The fucking jackbooted thugs at the Environmental Pillaging Agency are abusing people who are politically helpless. And this is okay by you? Could you tell me how the poor’s plight would be any different if the Environmental Pillaging Agency chose NOT to do this study? Or if doing this study never occured to them? ---
**Author:** ![fessie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/c37758/32.png) [@fessie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fessie)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2004, 1:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/epa-to-use-poor-to-test-pesticide-toxicity-of-pesticides/274710/32 "2004-11-15T13:35:28Z")
Gotta side w/Liberal on this. This study has been criticized roundly, to the point where it’s on hold pending review. Here’s a quote from _The Republican_ criticizing the study: > [@](#): > > The two-year investigation, called the Children’s Environmental Exposure Research Study, will seek to determine the effects of chemicals and pesticides on children up to 3 years old. It will focus on 60 youngsters in Duvall County, Fla. > > And it will be nearly meaningless if it is funded by the chemical industry. > > Even if the individuals at the EPA who work on the study and compile and analyze the data and write the report - and everyone they answer to - are wholly steadfast and beyond reproach, the study will nonetheless emerge from beneath a chemical haze. It will be seen as the chemical industry’s study of itself. > > Whether that is fair is not the point. It is how it will be perceived. > > The EPA is supposed to be safeguarding the air we breathe, the water we drink, the very world in which we live and work and find enjoyment from day to day. If the government agency with that charge is taking handouts from a chemical consortium - and seeing no problem in so doing - something is badly amiss at the EPA. This is from _Science_ (bolding mine): > [@](#): > > Last month researchers began recruiting in Florida for a $7 million study of how children age 3 and younger are exposed to indoor pesticides and several other household chemicals. Data from the Children’s Environmental Exposure Research Study (CHEERS) will help the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) determine safe levels for infants and toddlers. But the study is under attack > because it is partially funded by a chemical trade association, **and because parents will not be informed of the potential danger to their children from continued use of pesticides in the home…** > > EPA originally planned to study only pesticides, but last month it received a $2 million contribution from the American Chemistry Council to add several other kinds of common household chemicals, including flame retardants, perfluorinated chemicals, and ingredients in plastic products. The council, which represents 136 chemical companies, says it wants any government regulation to be based on facts about exposure. That arrangement “erodes EPA’s independence of research to regulate chemicals,” says Richard Wiles of the Environmental Working Group (EWG), a nonprofit advocacy organization based in Washington, D.C. EWG also > accused the agency of, in effect, paying parents to expose their children to pesticides. EPA denies those charges. “People would not do this just for the money,” says Linda Sheldon, acting director of EPA’s Human Exposure and Atmospheric Sciences Division. Although household use of pesticides is one criterion for enrollment, parents are not required to continue applying pesticides during the duration of the study, she adds. > > The study has been approved by EPA’s Institutional Review Board (IRB), which > examined subject protection and other issues. Green lights were also given by IRBs for EPA’s partners—the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Duval County Health Department—and one of its contractors. > > Some researchers say the study has ethical shortcomings, especially because EPA > doesn’t plan to warn parents explicitly about the potential risks of pesticides to children. “It’s unconscionable,” says Leo Trasande of Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York, who works on biomonitoring and children’s health. **“EPA’s policy is that if you apply pesticides according to the labels, then they should be safe for indoor use,” Sheldon says. Of course, it’s the CHEERS study that will provide EPA with the data needed to determine ultimately what’s safe for children.** And here’s a quote from EWG’s web page: > [@](#): > > An Environmental Working Group (EWG) investigation into a controversial pesticide study found that the chemical industry’s lobbying arm, the \*\*American Chemistry Council (ACC), boasted to its members that a $2 million contribution it made to the study had gained the industry “considerable leverage” over the project. \*\*([http://www.uslri.org/news.cfm?id=newsletters](http://www.uslri.org/news.cfm?id=newsletters) Fall 2004 pg. 9). The claim severely undermines the EPA’s assertion that the money comes with “no strings attached.” The Bush Administration’s environmental record is abysmal. This is more of the same. ---
**Author:** ![Menocchio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de053/32.png) [@Menocchio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Menocchio)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2004, 1:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/epa-to-use-poor-to-test-pesticide-toxicity-of-pesticides/274710/33 "2004-11-15T13:46:42Z")
Yes, but Fessie that the study is worthless is a much different claim than the EPA is deliberately exposing kids to chemicals to test the effects, like those infamous Syphillis experiments, which is what Reeder and Liberal are implying. The chemicals are there. The exposure is there. What the EPA wants to do is observe (or ignore) their effects, if any. You’ve got a much different and better beef against the study. I suggest you start a new thread if you want to pursue this argument, perhaps in GD. This thread, ironically, is contaminated. ---
**Author:** ![Neurotik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/91b2a8/32.png) [@Neurotik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Neurotik)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2004, 1:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/epa-to-use-poor-to-test-pesticide-toxicity-of-pesticides/274710/34 "2004-11-15T13:55:17Z")
> [@fessie](#): > > The Bush Administration’s environmental record is abysmal. This is more of the same. Hey, I agree with you that the Bush Administration’s environmental record is abysmal. One of the reasons I voted against the guy. And you’ve provided enough evidence that this study is a sham that I believe you. And I certainly believe that they should tell the parents if their child is exposed to high levels of toxicity. Here’s the question though, are these children going to be at higher risk during the study than if the study had never been done at all? Are the researchers going to be exposing the children to chemicals that were never in the environment in the first place? Are the parents actually being paid to poison their children? **Fessie** , if you had opened a Pit thread with the above post as the OP, you would likely find most people agreeing with you and condemning the EPA study. That’s not what **Reeder** is doing though. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2004, 2:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/epa-to-use-poor-to-test-pesticide-toxicity-of-pesticides/274710/35 "2004-11-15T14:16:24Z")
One could speculate that Dow and Monsanto are helping to fund this study so that they can benefit from videotaped evidence that people are using pesticides improperly - not covering food preparation/cooking surfaces, not using long-sleeved clothing or other protective measures, not washing after using pesticides etc. Then they’ll have ammo to advance the argument that further controls on pesticide sales and use are unwarranted because it’s the consumer at fault, regardless of whether it’s reasonable to place so much of the onus on consumers rather than on the innate hazards posed by the chemicals. Too bad this debate started out with such an inane premise. ---
**Author:** ![fessie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/c37758/32.png) [@fessie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fessie)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2004, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/epa-to-use-poor-to-test-pesticide-toxicity-of-pesticides/274710/36 "2004-11-15T14:36:41Z")
I read some speculation, really WAGs, that poor parents might be compelled to initiate pesticide use in order to participate – which would be what Reeder has suggested. Nobody’s proven it, but the incentive exists. Do poor people have the money to spend on pesticides in sufficient quantity to make it worth studying? The other thing that I find ridiculous is that anyone with children under 3 or 4 would be using pesticides. Period. The risks from children finding and ingesting such materials accidentally are, to me, a much bigger problem than a few bugs. The cure is much worse than the disease! And if you can’t live w/Florida’s bugs, don’t live in Florida. If I had more time I’d consider opening a new thread, but _Sesame Street_ is just about over & my Mommy day about to begin. ---
**Author:** ![BrotherCadfael](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@BrotherCadfael](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrotherCadfael)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2004, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/epa-to-use-poor-to-test-pesticide-toxicity-of-pesticides/274710/37 "2004-11-15T15:12:44Z")
Well, at least PETA should be happy – no bunnies are being harmed in this test. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2004, 3:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/epa-to-use-poor-to-test-pesticide-toxicity-of-pesticides/274710/38 "2004-11-16T03:26:20Z")
My God… it’s the Tuskiddy Experiment! I see your month in the wilderness didn’t temper your dumbassery, Reeder. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/epa-to-use-poor-to-test-pesticide-toxicity-of-pesticides/274710.md?page=1)