Fw: Poisoning for Dollars

[Guest guest]

----- Original Message -----

From: " ilena rose " <ilena@...>

<Recipient List Suppressed:;>

Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2002 5:11 PM

Subject: Poisoning for Dollars

> ~~~ thanks Ruby ~~~

>

> TIME MAGAZINE

> April 22, 2002

> Page 54

>

> Found within the article How Medical Testing has Turned

> Millions of us into ...Human Guinea Pigs

>

> Poisoning for Dollars

> by Rawe

>

> Ever been so strapped for cash that you'd swallow pesticide for

> $460.00? That's what dozens of college-age Nebraskans did in 1998

> after reading a school newspaper ad urging students to " earn extra

> money. " They called (402) 474-PAYS, signed a seven-page consent

> form and popped a pill loaded with the active ingredient in Raid

> roach spray. Dow AgroSciences commissioned the trial to vouch for

> the safety of one of its top selling bug killers, chlorpyrifos.

>

> Clearly, clinical trials are not just for doctors anymore. Chemical

> companies like Dow got into the business passed the 1996 Food

> Quality Protection Act, which tightened safety standards in

> thousands of pesticides. The manufacturers responded by unleashing

> a flurry of small short-term clinical trials aimed at persuading

> the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to relax the rules that

> govern exposure to toxic chemicals.

>

> At issue is the roundabout way that the EPA assesses human risk.

> Basically, it sets acceptable exposure levels for humans by

> determining the lowest level that is harmful to lab animals and

> then reducing that amount by a series of extrapolating factors.

> Chemical manufacturers have complained loudly that these standards

> are largely arbitrary. It was in order to establish more realistic

> levels that they began launching a slew of clinical trials.

>

> Since 1997 pesticide manufacturers have submitted more than a

> dozen human studies to the EPA. What has never been established,

> however, is whether it is acceptable - legally or ethically - to

> conduct clinical trials that offer no potential benefit to

> participants (other than monetary gain) and could end up harming

> individuals in the name of public health. In December the EPA

> declared a moratorium on the use of such data and asked the

> National Academy of Sciences to tell the agency whether it should

> accept research that deliberately exposes people to toxic substances.

> " Are there clear boundaries between acceptable and unacceptable

> human research? asked the EPA assistant administrator

> . The academy is mulling over the question.

>

> Meanwhile, chemical companies could still be quietly conducting

> human trials. " There's no telling because there's no system for

> tracking studies that aren't federally funded, " says Ken Cook,

> president of the Environmental Working Group, which opposes the

> pesticide tests. " There's no protocol on how they should be

> conducted. We're talking about the wild, wild, West here. "

>

> The studies usually surface only when they are submitted to the

> EPA - or when they are leaked to the press. A year and a half ago,

> newspapers in California reported that researchers there were paying

> $1,000 to complete a six-month regimen of perchlorate, a rocket fuel

> component that disrupts thyroid function and may cause retardation

> in babies. Lockheed funded the study after some 800 lawsuits

> charged that the company leaked perchlorate into the water supply

> and made people sick.

>

> And what ever became of Dow's experiments on chlorpyrifos, the

> killer ingredient used in Raid and hundreds of other bug sprays

> and lawn care products? The EPA ended up banning household use

> of the insecticide, a nerve-gas derivative found to cause brain

> damage in fetal rats and weakness and vomiting in children.

>

>

>