EPA TO ALLOW PESTICIDE TESTING ON ORPHANS & MENTALLY HANDICAPPED CHILDREN

[Galen]

http://www.organicconsumers.org/epa6.cfm

Public Comment Period for this rule Closes

December 12, 2005

Public comments are now being accepted by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on its newly proposed federal regulation regarding the testing of chemicals and pesticides on human subjects. On August 2, 2005, Congress had mandated the EPA create a rule that permanently bans chemical testing on pregnant women and children. But the EPA's newly proposed rule, misleadingly titled "Protections for Subjects in Human Research," puts industry profits ahead of children's welfare. The rule allows for government and industry scientists to treat children as human guinea pigs in chemical experiments in the following situations:

Children who "cannot be reasonably consulted," such as those that are mentally handicapped or orphaned newborns may be tested on. With permission from the institution or guardian in charge of the individual, the child may be exposed to chemicals for the sake of research.

Parental consent forms are not necessary for testing on children who have been neglected or abused.

Chemical studies on any children outside of the U.S. are acceptable.

70 FR 53865 26.408(a) "The IRB (Independent Review Board) shall determine that adequate provisions are made for soliciting the assent of the children, when in the judgment of the IRB the children are capable of providing assent...If the IRB determines that the capability of some or all of the children is so limited that they cannot reasonably be consulted, the assent of the children is not a necessary condition for proceeding with the research. Even where the IRB determines that the subjects are capable of assenting, the IRB may still waive the assent requirement..."

(OCA NOTE: Under this clause, a mentally handicapped child or infant orphan could be tested on without assent. This violates the Nuremberg Code, an international treaty that mandates assent of test subjects is "absolutely essential," and that the test subject must have "legal capacity to give consent" and must be "so situated as to exercise free power of choice." This loophole in the rule must be completely removed.)

[Linda Z]

Galen, go to Snopes.com and do a search for the word "pesticides." You'll find that this same group (Organic Consumers or whatever it's called) has raised a similar alarm before. I went to the Federal Register and read most of the document. The comments you're quoting from that Web site are taken completely out of context.

Edited November 19, 2005 by Linda Z

[krys]

Totally reprehensible.

Edited November 19, 2005 by krysilis

[LG]

Totally reprehensible.

If you mean OCA's gross misrepresentation of the proposed regulation, I agree.