EPA To Allow Pesticide Testing On Orphans & Mentally Handicapped Children

Did this ever pass?
I haven't hear anything more about this, does anyone have anymore info on this?

The rule allows for government and industry scientists to treat children as human guinea pigs in chemical experiments in the following situations:

1. 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.
2. Parental consent forms are not necessary for testing on children who have been neglected or abused.
3. Chemical studies on any children outside of the U.S. are acceptable.

Source of quote

Read the full EPA proposed rule here
PDF version here

Mod edit: removed all caps title

[edit on 6/20/2007 by Gools]

Mod edit: Included link to original source of quote. NOTE: the above quote does not come from the EPA's website.

[edit on 7/3/07/03 by junglejake]

They should use pedophiles, criminals, and death row inmates, why in the world would anyone even consider using helpless innocent children?
I guess it just shows the US mentality?

Boy, just when I thought my level of disgust with the corporate run government had reached it's bottom, I read this! I continue to lose faith in our "Leaders" more and more every day.

This constitutes felonious assault and battery and violates so many laws it is crazy! Those who enage in such "testing" should be arrested, tried and sentenced!

It seems as if people just have no more morals left at all when they are living at the higher spectrum of the corporate latter.

Taken from your above source.

• EPA believes its goal is to ensure, to the extent
possible, that all people who participate as subjects of human research
are treated ethically, are fully informed of the potential risks, and
experience no harm from their participation. We hope--through our
rules, policies, procedures, and regulatory actions--to discourage or
prevent the conduct of human studies that do not meet rigorous ethical
and scientific standards. (A scientifically inadequate human study is
inherently unethical, because it fails to provide new information
reliable enough to justify subjecting volunteers to any risks by
participating in the study.)
• EPA believes the federal government should use all of its
authorities to make clear that certain kinds of human research can
never be acceptable. In particular, we regard as unethical and would
never conduct, support, require, or approve any study involving
intentional exposure of pregnant women, infants, or children to a
pesticide.

I must have missed the part about which you are concerned . Could you please direct me?

Thanks


[edit on 6/25/2007 by Mahree]

Originally posted by Mahree
Taken from your above source.

• EPA believes its goal is to ensure, to the extent
possible, that all people who participate as subjects of human research
are treated ethically, are fully informed of the potential risks, and
experience no harm from their participation. We hope--through our
rules, policies, procedures, and regulatory actions--to discourage or
prevent the conduct of human studies that do not meet rigorous ethical
and scientific standards. (A scientifically inadequate human study is
inherently unethical, because it fails to provide new information
reliable enough to justify subjecting volunteers to any risks by
participating in the study.)
• EPA believes the federal government should use all of its
authorities to make clear that certain kinds of human research can
never be acceptable. In particular, we regard as unethical and would
never conduct, support, require, or approve any study involving
intentional exposure of pregnant women, infants, or children to a
pesticide.

I must have missed the part about which you are concerned . Could you please direct me?

Thanks


[edit on 6/25/2007 by Mahree]

All the EPA is, is a Environmental Protection agency it doesn't mean it is going to watch a govern every test subject my concern is what I had stated above.

1. 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.
2. Parental consent forms are not necessary for testing on children who have been neglected or abused.
3. Chemical studies on any children outside of the U.S. are acceptable.


Moreover, they assert that while
the Agency cannot undo what has already happened, EPA can clearly
express its disapproval of past unethical conduct. They note that to
replicate scientifically sound but ethically flawed human studies may
not be ethical, no matter how carefully such replicate research might
be conducted, since any increment of risk to potential subjects would
not be justified by anticipated new generalizable knowledge. Holders of
this view also stress the importance of strengthening protections for
volunteers who participate in future studies, while taking advantage of
all that can be learned from past research to benefit society.
EPA finds compelling many of the points made by both sides, and
agrees with those who say that the possibility of conducting and using
human studies in regulatory decision-making must be approached with the
utmost caution. Each side bases its arguments on important societal
values. Our mission is to make the best possible regulatory decisions
to protect public health and the environment in this country, and to
support similar efforts around the world. We do not want to ignore
potentially important information that might benefit our decision-
making. At the same time, we agree that our conduct should encourage
high ethical standards in research with human subjects and strongly
discourage unethical research.

Also

Submission of these studies following FQPA elicited a strong
expression of public concern. In response, EPA convened an advisory
committee under the joint auspices of the EPA Science Advisory Board
(SAB) and the FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP) to address issues
of the scientific and ethical acceptability of such research. This
advisory committee, known as the Data from Testing of Human Subjects
Subcommittee (DTHSS), met in December 1998 and November 1999, and
completed its report in September 2000. Their report is available in
the docket for this proposed rulemaking, and on the web at:
www.epa.gov...
The DTHSS advisory committee heard many comments at their two
public meetings, and further comments have been submitted in response
to their published report. The committee agreed unanimously on several
broad principles, including the following:
• Any policy adopted should reflect the highest standards,
and special concern for the interests of vulnerable populations.
• The threshold of justification for intentional exposure of
human subjects to toxic substances should be very high.
• The justification cannot be to facilitate commercial
interests, but only to safeguard public health.
• Not only the nature and magnitude of risks and benefits
but their distribution must be considered in assessing research protocols.
• Bad science is always unethical.
Yet no clear consensus emerged from the advisory committee on many
other points, among them both the scientific merit and the ethical
acceptability of studies to identify or measure toxic effects of
pesticides in human subjects. A vigorous public debate continued about
the extent to which EPA should

which means to me they don't care what is done to the human test subject regarding ethical studies as long as third party groups are doing the dirty work.

Ever heard of a documentary called, "Guinea Pig Kids", it was a BBC documentary about foster care kids in New York, that's right this happened in America, but I bet you won't see that documentary here.

www.democracynow.org.../12/22/151230&mode=thread&tid=25

A new BBC documentary exposes how the city of New York has been forcing HIV positive children under its supervision to be used as human guinea pigs in tests for experimental AIDS drug trials.
All of the children in the program were under the legal guidance of the city's child welfare department, the Administration for Children's Services. Most live in foster care or independent homes run on behalf of the local authorities and almost all the children are believed to be African-American or Latino.

The BBC identified pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline as one of the companies that provided the experimental drugs for the tests. In an email to Democracy Now! GlaxoSmithKline stated "pharmaceutical companies are not directly involved in the recruitment, enrolment or participation of patients in such trials." GSK went on to say "the FDA encourages studies in pediatric patients. Clinical trials involving children and orphans are therefore legal and not unusual."

Then here is the update to the story, it seems some of these children were not even known to be HIV+

www.democracynow.org.../05/02/1348210&mode=thread&tid=25

VERA SHARAV: These children were in foster care under the ACS, as well as Catholic charities. Many of the homes were run by them.

AMY GOODMAN: HIV+?

VERA SHARAV: HIV+. Now there’s even an issue about some of the trials, some of the protocols say that the children are, and I quote, “presumed to be HIV+.” Now, what kind of – what kind of society are we that children who are only presumed, and by whom are they presumed – what criteria makes them presumed to be HIV, that those children then get exposed to as many as seven highly toxic experimental drugs? These children were not in treatment, and ACS can’t fudge that. Research and treatment are two very different things. Our first question when we filed our federal complaint to the FDA and the Office of Human Protection a year ago – and those investigations, by the way, are still ongoing – we asked, why were those children denied the best treatment that was available, that was known already to be as effective as whatever it was?

I know terrible things are done everyday on this planet as a whole not just America, I hope one day justice will be served.

Well of course, but for some reason most Americans seem oblivious to what's even going on in America, much less anywheres else. It's not that IMO, that Ameicans don't care, or that they want to be oblivious, it is that they are so ill imformed, by the so called free press.

Americans are fed propaganda, while these huge corporations control their government, and do horrible things all over the world to people, then when other countries, and it's people begin to hate America, the American people have no understanding of why.

Then our leaders tell us the rest of the world hates our democracy, and our freedoms, and we have to save the rest of the world. Meanwhile here in America, companies use children as guinea pigs, and the so called corporate owned, but let's not forget free press doesn't even bother reporting it.

[edit on 1-7-2007 by goose]

This just goes to show why A NEW REVOLUTION IS NEEDED IN AMERICA.

It is well past the time to take America back from the corporations who run it and return it to the people.

Everyone is too busy getting drunk, screwing their neighbors wives, and worrying about Paris Hilton to care though.

Not only is drug testing carried out on innocent children, but on American servicemen who have volunteered to defend the country, but end up being guinea pigs for the PHARMOFACISTS

Sorry I had forgotten to add the link from the source of the quote below.

Originally posted by seridium
Did this ever pass?
I haven't hear anything more about this, does anyone have anymore info on this?

The rule allows for government and industry scientists to treat children as human guinea pigs in chemical experiments in the following situations:

1. 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.
2. Parental consent forms are not necessary for testing on children who have been neglected or abused.
3. Chemical studies on any children outside of the U.S. are acceptable.
Source

Read the full EPA proposed rule here
PDF version here

Mod edit: removed all caps title

[edit on 6/20/2007 by Gools]

[edit on 083131p://upMonday by seridium]