Posted on 07/01/2005 1:05:11 AM PDT by Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit
WASHINGTON — The Senate voted to block the Environmental Protection Agency from using studies that expose people to pesticides when considering permits for new pest killers.
By a 60-37 vote, the Senate approved a provision from Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., that would block the EPA from relying on such testing -- including 24 human pesticide experiments currently under review -- as it approves or denies pesticide applications.
The Bush administration lifted a moratorium imposed in 1998 by the Clinton administration on using human testing for pesticide approvals. Under the change, political appointees are refereeing on a case-by-case basis any ethical disputes over human testing.
The tests include a 2002-04 study by University of California-San Diego in which chloropicrin, an insecticide that during World War I was a chemical warfare agent, was administered to 127 young adults in doses that exceeded federal safety limits by 12 times.
New EPA rules under development envision permitting the agency to accept data from human tests on children, pregnant women, newborns, infants and fetuses. Even newborns of "uncertain viability" could be tested under the draft EPA rule.
Boxer's proposal would block the EPA from using data taken from human testing for the budget year starting Oct. 1. It would also bar the agency from conducting such testing.
"Let's use this time to throw out this rule that they're drafting which is immoral on its face because it would allow EPA itself to test pregnant women and fetuses," Boxer told reporters. "And let's go back to the basic rules of science and morality."
The vote came as the Senate debated a bill funding the EPA and Interior Department budgets. The House approved identical language when considering its version of the bill last month.
Ordinarily, approval by both House and Senate would ensure the language is retained in the final version of the bill. But GOP floor manager Conrad Burns, R-Mont., opposed Boxer's amendment, and as lead Senate negotiator on the bill, is well-positioned to kill it in future talks with the House.
Burns countered with an amendment, adopted 57-40, in favor of careful human testing. It instructs the EPA to try to make sure any human testing is conducted ethically and that the benefits outweigh the risks to volunteers.
The EPA is developing rules, slated to be issued by 2006, on the use of human subjects for testing pesticides in the wake of a 2003 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia that sided with pesticide manufacturers. The court ruled that the EPA cannot refuse to consider data from manufacturer-sponsored human exposure tests until it develops regulations on it.
Boxer and Bill Nelson, D-Fla., had held up the confirmation of EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson until he promised to cancel a pesticide study in Florida. Over the study's two years, EPA had planned to give $970 plus a camcorder and children's clothes to each of the families of 60 children in Duval County, Fla., in what critics of the study noted was a low-income, minority neighborhood.
I recall this being a confirmation hearing issue that he Dims used to as another stalling tactic, but overall the testing seems like a really bad idea. Why did 37 Senators, presumably Pubbies vote to keep testing pesticides on humans?
Perhaps they realize that all insecticides approved for use are ultimately tested on humans: us.
Unlike volunteers in EPA tests, however, we don't volunteer, and our health is not carefully monitored for signs of toxicity from one of the hundreds of different kinds of agricultural chemicals we are routinely exposed to every day.
Which choice is more ethical: testing insecticides on volunteers, or testing them on our children by way of the food supply instead?
There is more to this debate than meets the eye.
Democrats blocked use of pest killers? Wonder why?
Bullets are ultimately tested on humans as well. Maybe we should commission studies to test them preemptively?
that was funny.
I am in favor of testing pesticides on some senators.
I hear they have some "volunteers" in Cuba.
Bullets are supposed to kill people. Pesticides are not supposed to kill people.
The difference is not a minor one.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.