# EPA plans to use low-income children as pesticide guinea pigs



## PikkuMyy (Mar 26, 2004)

As if poor kids don't have enough to worry about!!!

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), led by Bush appointees, plans to launch a new study in which participating low income families will have their children exposed to toxic pesticides over the course of two years. For taking part in these studies, each family will receive $970, a free video camera, a T-shirt, and a framed certificate of appreciation. In October, the EPA received $2 million to do the study from the American Chemistry Council, a chemical industry front group that includes members such as Dow, Exxon, and Monsanto. The EPA's Linda Sheldon says the study is vital, because so little is known about how small children's bodies absorb harmful chemicals. As of press time, none of the EPA's employees are offering to have their own children take part in this research project. The Organic Consumers Association is calling on the nation's citizens to demand the EPA forgo this project before its scheduled launch in early 2005.

http://www.organicconsumers.org/epa-alert.htm

From the EPA:

EPA Statement on Children's Health Environmental Exposure Risk Study

Because protecting the health and well-being of children is of paramount importance, EPA has decided to send the Children's Health Environmental Exposure Risk Study (CHEERS) for another external, independent review by an expert panel made up of members of the Science Advisory Board, the Science Advisory Panel, and the Children's Health Protection Advisory Committee.

Washington, D.C. - It is anticipated that this review will be completed and that a report will be forwarded to the Administrator in the spring of 2005. Based on this review, the Agency will reassess the study.

EPA scientists need to fully understand how children are exposed to pesticides and through what media (air, water, soil, etc.) EPA is particularly concerned about childhood exposure, because children may be more vulnerable than adults to the effects of environmental contaminants due to their smaller body sizes and rapid physical development. There is insufficient research to define pathways of exposure - - the routes by which pesticides may enter a child's body. Possible pathways that could be investigated are ingestion (food and drink), inhalation, residue from crops, soil and ingestion of household dust.

As a federal agency, EPA wants all research to be transparent to the public and to be responsive to public feedback. Citizens are key stakeholders in our work.

From me - please let the EPA know how you feel about this horrific idea!


----------



## bionicsquirrel (Jan 2, 2003)

Why do they need to fully understand the effects? Wouldn't it be better to just ban all the pesticides/chemicals, then no one would be effected(is it affected or effected??? in this case).

This is absurd. Yes, of course no employees of the EPA have volunteered their children...none of them are poor.







:


----------



## calpurnia (Sep 26, 2004)

Is this a joke?

It's not, is it?

Good grief.


----------



## daylily (Dec 1, 2001)

I was just planning to post this. I learned about it in an email I got from the Organic Consumers Organization--a group I don't know very much about. Planning to do a little research.

I think it's absolutely appalling. Obviously this is dangerous for the children involved, but what about _their_ children? The harm from this experiment could go on for generations.

"I ruined my health for the EPA and all I got was $970 and this lousy t-shirt."







:


----------



## CryPixie83 (Jan 27, 2004)

So, just because these kids were born into low-income families it's ok to use them like a lab animal??? Somehow their health is worth less than the health of children in wealthy or middle-class families??
And what about the parents who will take this bribe to let the EPA expose their kids to dangerous chemicals???

uke


----------



## GoodWillHunter (Mar 14, 2003)

I was just coming in here to post this. Please go and sign the petition. Please. Please. Please.
http://www.organicconsumers.org/epa-alert.htm
Here is the link again. Go Go GO!!!!


----------



## OwensMa (Apr 15, 2004)

nak-










signed

where exactly does gwb think he's 'leading' the future, the children of your country? the rich get richer, and the poor get sicker.


----------



## mocha09 (Jul 6, 2003)

I also, just came here to post this. Glad to know that so many MDC mama are already on top of this. Please sign the petition! Link to petition at message #6!


----------



## Bippity (Sep 12, 2003)

Signed! What the heck is wrong with these people?

More details here: http://www.ems.org/nws/2004/11/09/epa_stalls_infan

...Thanks W - for nothin'!!


----------



## Skim (Jan 2, 2004)

the proposed study group is from FL, no?

When has the government EVER been reluctant to test on poor families, esp. in the south? I'm thinking Tuskeegee...

Again, they could use their own children. Or those from an affluent, educated background. Whatever. Why low income and low education?


----------



## GoodWillHunter (Mar 14, 2003)

I have absolutely no idea. It sickens me. Absolutely makes me so angry I could spit. On GWB. Idiot. Moron. Self serving bastard.


----------



## CryPixie83 (Jan 27, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Skim*
the proposed study group is from FL, no?

When has the government EVER been reluctant to test on poor families, esp. in the south? I'm thinking Tuskeegee...

Again, they could use their own children. Or those from an affluent, educated background. Whatever. Why low income and low education?

Why? Because it's much easier to bribe those who have nothing. Educated, well-off families would have no reason to even consider something so rediculous, whereas poor, less educated families on welfare who are doing good to keep food on the table have an immediate need for the money being offered. The EPA tells them there's only a "slight" chance of the tsts being detrimental to their child's health and because they're uneducated they take it to heart, trusting that their own government would never harm their babes. It's underhanded and dishonest and just plain sick... must be American government.


----------



## Hera (Feb 4, 2002)

I agree that this is awful, and I did sign the petition, but I notice that it says:

Quote:

Important Note on Participants of Study: The study layout does not require that participants increase their chemical use, but does mandate that chosen applicants will need to demonstrate that they do regularly use toxic chemicals in and around the home. The concern here is that low income applicants may increase their toxic chemical use for the sake of applying and being eligible for the funding.
Pretty gross. People should be encouraged to use not-toxic methods, not paid to use nasty ones. Of course the results will either favor the manufacturers or we will never hear them.


----------



## lunamomma (Mar 10, 2004)

OMG








This is disgusting!







I feel like























I will sign the petition now! Thanks for the website!


----------



## PikkuMyy (Mar 26, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *daylily*
I was just planning to post this. I learned about it in an email I got from the Organic Consumers Organization--a group I don't know very much about. Planning to do a little research.

The Organic Consumers Association is a wonderful organization that tries to support organic farmers and spread information about GMOs, pesticides, BSE (mad cow disease), bovine growth hormones, irradiated meat, etc. They also have a campaign to put safer foods into schools. Their website is fantastic.

www.organicconsumers.org


----------



## mocha09 (Jul 6, 2003)

From Bippity's link:

Quote:

Pesticide companies want data on actual infant exposure levels to persuade EPA to drop its rules requiring that pesticide exposures to small children must be ten times more protective than adults. According to published reports, the Bush Administration will soon announce their repeal of the Clinton-era rules against testing pesticides on humans. EPA wants to use CHEERS as the opening for a new policy on accepting testing on humans to determine pesticide toxicity.

EPA scientists are also expressing concern that corporations are now influencing EPA research through direct financial contributions. The American Chemistry Council (ACC), which contributed $2 million to CHEERS, successfully lobbied to include exposure to flame retardants and other household chemicals in the study. EPA now has 80 similar research agreements with industry, including three with ACC.


----------



## atomicmama (Aug 21, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *GoodWillHunter*
I have absolutely no idea. It sickens me. Absolutely makes me so angry I could spit. On GWB. Idiot. Moron. Self serving bastard.










Same here.
The more I know, the more saddened I become...


----------



## Hera (Feb 4, 2002)

OMG mocha09! That's uke


----------



## hotmamacita (Sep 25, 2002)

SIgned.


----------



## Mamid (Nov 7, 2002)

maybe 2K for poisoning their children in the name of science???

I know that some poor are desperate, but are they that desperate? And wouldn't CPS use it as an excuse to remove the kids?

My gods! does the epa not know what it is doing???


----------



## splendid (Jul 18, 2004)

What do they consider toxic chemicals???

I signed it.

This is sickening. Just because someone is poor, they are fair game to be guinea pigs? What is up with that? Poor people have nothing to live for? I'm saddened for the people who will decide to sign up for that study to make some $$$.


----------



## mermommy (Aug 16, 2004)

I'm highly suspicious and signed the petition.

Passing on a resource:
http://www.epa.gov/cheers/

Official site for the study.


----------



## Towerkel (Apr 20, 2003)

I hear about this on NPR yesterday (Science Friday), and this was not the impression I got from that interview.

I'm going to say right now, I'm not debating what has been said here, I am also gonig to admit that i did not read any of the website articles. I am just here to present the impression I got based soley on the interview (well, most of it, I had to pickup my son).

What was said was that these kids would wear sensors all the time, And they would monitor what kinds of toxins they come in contact with in their daily life. They said nothing about adding any chemicals to the situation.

Of course, the representative did not say anything about doing this on low income kids, but considering they're looking for 'stay at home' kids, it kind of implies it, no?

Ok, carry on.


----------



## Raven67 (Apr 20, 2002)

Towerkel said:


> I hear about this on NPR yesterday (Science Friday), and this was not the impression I got from that interview.
> 
> I'm going to say right now, I'm not debating what has been said here, I am also gonig to admit that i did not read any of the website articles. I am just here to present the impression I got based soley on the interview (well, most of it, I had to pickup my son).
> 
> ...


----------



## Clarity (Nov 19, 2001)

I just sent this to some friends about this issue:

Surprisingly, I am pretty ok with this. The vast majority of chemicals in use in the US have not been extensively tested on people, especially in combination, and not at all in pregnant women and children. In this study, particularly because it's in florida where weekly or monthly pest treatment is incredibly common, they are studying families whose children are *already* exposed to these chemicals at home, at school, and at the park. And we don't know how bad it is or isn't!

There can be thorough screening to be sure those families were already chemical exposed/using before the study began. And the EPA will not be giving them special chemicals, but rather monitoring what they already use (cleaning products, environmental, pest control, etc.) and checking body loads. In fact, in case of true negative reaction, those families are more likely to be terminated early and told to stop using that stuff than if they were a normal american family. (oh, say the docs, your kid is allergic/autistic/add/has immune problems! and nobody ever mentions chemicals!)

Refusing to study children at all is certainly not helping us. My friend had extremely high levels of fire retardant in her breast milk in a recent study - one of the highest in the study. Taking the chemical industry money
concerns me, because the effects of these chemicals are more long term, and complex to diagnose so I am concerned that a 2yr study of a small number of children would be considered definitive. But I prefer more info rather than less. And study participants are quite often paid, even if they're higher income - like parents of multiples are frequently solicited into studies, many of them publically funded.


----------



## willowsmom (Oct 28, 2004)

First and foremost...go to the link that MerMommy posted. Isn't it interesting that things can be blown out of proportion and made to seem worse than they actually are. Secondly...don't blame EVERY employee at the EPA for this. My FIL works for the EPA as an On Site Coordinator. His job...toxic chemical cleanups. When Columbia crashed/exploded...he lead his crew in the cleanup across Texas and Louisiana. He spent years in Arkansas at a site where some business owners had left tanks of hazardous waste behind an abandoned business...near neighborhoods. He's a liberal, he's a democrat...and he doesn't expose his grandchildren to chemicals to check they're reactions...


----------



## cappuccinosmom (Dec 28, 2003)

I'm glad to see the last couple of posts. Horrified by the OP and the article, but ...
What is evil about assessing the amount of toxins kids are *already* regularly exposed to? Could it not lead to more restrictions on those things, if they're proved to be harmful?

If someone wanted to see if the products we use in our household are toxic, and it involved merely having us wear sensors to find out, I wouldn't have a problem with that.

If they told me to go out and buy stuff I knew was potentially harmful, and use chemicals much more than I normally do, then I would have a problem.


----------



## daylily (Dec 1, 2001)

I'm feeling relieved. The last few posts made this whole thing seem much more benign.

Now I'm ticked off at the Organic Consumers Association for sending out such an alarmist email. Resorting to these sorts of tactics makes them lose credibility.


----------



## Sativarain1 (Feb 27, 2003)

It seems very suspicious that they are targeting the poverty stricken familys.
Personally I've lost all faith in George W Bush and this is just another reason why.

Valerie


----------



## StillForest (Nov 27, 2001)

I was shocked when I saw this and wondered whether it was for real. I do public health research and this sounded a bit too much like Tuskegee for my comfort. My browser crashed as I was trying to save the links...but I want to convey that objections and resistance to this study were raised by EPA scientists. It seems as though there's a schism between the EPA leadership and the scientists who do pediatric health research (fancy that...).

The EPA scientists who objected to the study protested on the grounds that children who were found to be suffering adverse health and developmental sequelae from the chemical exposures would NOT be offered any sort of treatment. The study would document adverse effects/disease without intervening. I will go back and find the link for this tomorrow.

In light of this, I don't think that the OCA email was at all alarmist. It is possible to do ethically responsible research on chemical exposures....and this study just doesn't fit the bill. As a public health researcher, I am outraged that this was even proposed.


----------



## attachmentfeminist (Mar 26, 2004)

What I see it as is a way for bush and cronies to find ways to remove more of our environmental protection laws. Hey, poor kids do okay exposed to xy and z, so why not just stop the companies from having to worry about it? Maybe they should be giving away information and $970 to help low income families childproof their homes.


----------



## Clarity (Nov 19, 2001)

Every child in Duval county, FL is low income?


----------



## Unoppressed MAMA Q (Jun 13, 2004)

there will be a swing towards people with low income choosing to participate.
i read a little of the website and have to play devil's advocate:
nowhere here does anything specify low income kids...http://www.epa.gov/cheers/basic.htm#who
i DO believe in classism, but i don't really see anything particularly awful about his.
personally, i would spend 2 mil trying to educate people to not use that crap in their homes at all, but nobody cares what this low income mama thinks about these kinds of scenarios!







:
i am open to reconsideration, keep the converastion coming!


----------



## daylily (Dec 1, 2001)

One thing that does have me worried is that Monsanto and other big companies are funding this study.


----------



## Unoppressed MAMA Q (Jun 13, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *daylily*
One thing that does have me worried is that Monsanto and other big companies are funding this study.

yup.


----------



## steph (Dec 5, 2001)

Well, this seems to be the real jist of it:

"Pesticide companies want data on actual infant exposure levels *to persuade EPA to drop its rules requiring that pesticide exposures to small children must be ten times more protective than adults.* According to published reports, the Bush Administration will soon announce their repeal of the Clinton-era rules against testing pesticides on humans. EPA wants to use CHEERS as the opening for a new policy on accepting testing on humans to determine pesticide toxicity.

EPA scientists are also expressing concern that corporations are now influencing EPA research through direct financial contributions. The American Chemistry Council (ACC), which contributed $2 million to CHEERS, successfully lobbied to include exposure to flame retardants and other household chemicals in the study. EPA now has 80 similar research agreements with industry, including three with ACC.

"EPA Administrator Mike Leavitt is claiming an election mandate for the administration's environmental policies, but I don't remember President Bush campaigning for human experimentation on toddlers," Ruch added."

Emphasis mine... that was a quote from the site http://www.ems.org/nws/2004/11/09/epa_stalls_infan that Bippity mentioned.


----------



## Skim (Jan 2, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Clarity*
Every child in Duval county, FL is low income?

No. From the web site explaining why Duval county, link posted by mermomy:

"Why is this study being done in Duval County, FL?

Duval county, Florida was chosen for several reasons:

*Geographic region with year round indoor pesticide use
*Previous studies have shown higher pesticide concentrations in this geographic area
*Data from a previous study, summer 2001, was available to assist in planning this study
*Duval County Health Department (DCHD)

*A committed partner in continuing children's pesticide exposure research to develop risk management programs
*DCHD's strong connections with the community"

These two made me raise my eyebrows:
-previous studies have shown higher pesticide concentrations in this geographic area
-data from a previous study, summer 2001, was available to assist in planning this study

I suspect these studies may show income status of the families, low or not. I'm not willing to do the research right now.


----------



## liawbh (Sep 29, 2004)

THere are many reasons why this is wrong, for the pps that don't see the big deal.
The area that was chosen was selected because it is a low-income, high minority (50%), low education (62%) area.

There is a concern that families will increase their toxin use to qualify.

It is heavily funded by the companies that stand to gain the most from negative findings.

It appears that this study is being done in order to loosen the restrictions on said companies, so that they no longer have to account for children in their exposure levels.

A scientific study should include multiple areas/groups, and control groups.

I just don't see how this is the way to do toxicity research


----------



## saritasmile (Sep 5, 2004)

sighned it! i personally feel like most manufacturers of 'mainstream' and even some 'natural' product have only ONE priority...$. they don't care what happens to you or your family. we know pesticides are bad, can we just leave it at that and STOP PRODUCING/USING them???


----------



## Els' 3 Ones (Nov 19, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *steph*
Well, this seems to be the real jist of it:

"Pesticide companies want data on actual infant exposure levels *to persuade EPA to drop its rules requiring that pesticide exposures to small children must be ten times more protective than adults.* According to published reports, the Bush Administration will soon announce their repeal of the Clinton-era rules against testing pesticides on humans. EPA wants to use CHEERS as the opening for a new policy on accepting testing on humans to determine pesticide toxicity.

EPA scientists are also expressing concern that corporations are now influencing EPA research through direct financial contributions. The American Chemistry Council (ACC), which contributed $2 million to CHEERS, successfully lobbied to include exposure to flame retardants and other household chemicals in the study. EPA now has 80 similar research agreements with industry, including three with ACC.

"EPA Administrator Mike Leavitt is claiming an election mandate for the administration's environmental policies, but I don't remember President Bush campaigning for human experimentation on toddlers," Ruch added."

Emphasis mine... that was a quote from the site http://www.ems.org/nws/2004/11/09/epa_stalls_infan that Bippity mentioned.


If you don't yet understand the problem

READ THIS AGAIN!

Keep reading it until you understand that the EPA can no longer be considered an independent org and...........

if the studies show that there are little detrimental effects (wanna bet they will?)
------- IT WILL BE A GREEN LIGHT TO MONSANTO ET AL

Wake up, America!!!!


----------



## Brisen (Apr 5, 2004)

I saw this on another forum, and was coming here to see if there was any verifying info here. I was going to post most of what Lia said, especially:

Quote:


Originally Posted by *liawbh*
The area that was chosen was selected because it is a low-income, high minority (50%), low education (62%) area.

There is a concern that families will increase their toxin use to qualify.

I also remember last spring, I think it was, the Globe & Mail had an article about a big pesticide/toxin research study that had been done... I only remember vaguely, but the gist of it was that the Canadian Ped. Association was taking it as valid, and it said that organic produce was best, even the chemicals in a flea collar were too dangerous to have where a kid could be exposed to them. I'll try to find it. I really don't understand what they are trying to prove here. And I'm worried that with a financial incentive attached, poor families will do what they can to qualify. The Q&A section at the OCA website mentioned studies about smoking, where people claimed to be regular smokers but actually just started to qualify for the study.


----------



## cumulus (Jul 17, 2002)

What if the EPA paid poor smokers to keep smoking for 2 years and monitored them? Would that be a good thing? Wealthier smokers could find out how bad smoking was for them. At least the smokers, being adults in my example, would be deciding for themselves. The children, in this case, just like experimental animals have no say or understanding of their plight. With innocent children at risk, it is the chemicals that are presumed innocent and it is up to the children to prove harm done to them. There seems to me to be a poison at work here that is not chemical or even physical.

"If having endured much, we at last asserted our 'right to know' and if, knowing, we have concluded that we are being asked to take senseless and frightening risks, then we should no longer accept the counsel of those who tell us that we must fill our world with poisonous chemicals, we should look around and see what other course is open to us." ~ Rachel Carson


----------



## Unoppressed MAMA Q (Jun 13, 2004)

for keeping this going. you've helped me get back into critical thinking mode which i feel has been dimmed in me by lack of adult stimulation (since becoming a SAHM!).
thank you, i am seeing the light as to why this really is such a nasty thing. before i was only viewing it as pointless and benign.
THANK YOU!


----------



## applejuice (Oct 8, 2002)

So what else is new?

After reading about how our government treats its soldiers with Agent Orange, Agent Purple, walking around a fresh atomic bomb site in the South of Utah and in Nevada test sites, smallpox and anthrax vaccines, forced circumcisions in WWII, the Tuskagee Syphillis "treatment" for African Americans, how Kaiser-Permanente Hospital system came about, how can anyone in his/her right mind even consider that this government can provide a National Healthcare system?

We would all be guinea pigs.


----------



## willowsmom (Oct 28, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Els' 3 Ones*

Keep reading it until you understand that the EPA can no longer be considered an independent org and...........

Wake up, America!!!!


The EPA is independent only that it is not considered a department like the Department of Defense or Department of Agriculture...it's not part of a cabinet level department. It's administrator reports directly to the President...it is absolutely influenced by the administration. Unfortunately...this administration doesn't give a sh*t about the environment...(For everyone who thinks otherwise...think again).

It's independent like...the Postal Service...still part of the government...but..."independent."

Anyway...I truly don't believe that it's independent...meaning non-partisan. And never will be....

I have no idea what I'm trying to say...just...clarifying for myself, I guess.









I've got to discuss this with my FIL...he is an On-Scene Coordinator with the EPA (I believe in my last post I said, On-Site...my bad)...He's a good guy..and he's a liberal...so...not all the EPA employees are bad...what's bad is the fact that the people "In Charge" are screwing with our environment and don't seem to care. In my most humble of opinions of course...<evil grin>

Disclaimer: I don't mean to imply that people who aren't liberal are bad...I'm just saying that those who work for an agency that is supposed to Protect the Environment (and those who live in the Environment) and don't [protect the environment], are bad.


----------

