Fw: HUMAN PESTICIDE EXPERIMENTS

[Guest guest]

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

From: " Kathi " <pureheart@...>

Sent: Sunday, October 06, 2002 12:46 PM

Subject: HUMAN PESTICIDE EXPERIMENTS

> HUMAN PESTICIDE EXPERIMENTS: Bayer Involved In Study

>

> September 9,

> 2002

> Human Pesticide Experiment: The Slippery Slope - Sunday Herald

> Note: more info. available on AHRP's human pesticide experiment page.

> FYI Pesticide experiments are unethical because human

> beings are exposed to poisonous

> substances. Because there is absolutely no potential therapeutic

> purpose, such experiments violate the Nuremberg Code. The Sunday Herald

> reports (below) that in 1998 fifty

> Scotsmen were recruited for (what they thought was a drug

> trial). In fact, they were given a azinphos-methyl (AM) a

> pesticide deemed " highly hazardous " by the World

> Health Organization. According to one subject who has come forth to blow

> the whistle, those recruited were not told that the experiment " had been

> commissioned by Bayer as

> part of a forceful effort to get the US Environmental Protection Agency

> to reverse pesticide controls introduced to protect children. "

> Three years ago, the EPA " reported

> that exposure to the pesticide caused enzyme changes in the red blood

> cells of 127 Californian farm workers, creating fears about potential

> nervous system damage. Six weeks

> ago Canadian officials reported that azinphos-methyl was found in high

> concentrations in the Wilmot River, where up to 15,000 fish had died. "

> In 1999, Bayer was charged in a

> class-action lawsuit with conspiring with the infamous Nazi doctor,

> ph Mengele, to conduct human experiments on concentration camp

> children for profit. In 1999,

> Ross of ABC News reported that recently discovered documents link Bayer

> to the Nazi experiments conducted at Auschwitz: " the Nuremberg judges

> did not have a number of

> documents only recently discovered, including a letter in which one of

> the men acquitted - Bayer Sales Director Wilhelm Mann - praised

> Mengele's experiments and promised to

> discuss financing from the company. " I have enclosed the first check, "

> Mann wrote. " Dr. Mengele's experiments should, as we both agreed, be

> pursued. Heil Hitler! " Bayer

> says there's no evidence any money was actually sent. "

> http://more.abcnews.go.com/onair/2020/2020_990611bayer.html#sidebar

> Society must erect iron-clad barriers to

> prevent powerful interest groups from conducting abusive--even

> lethal--human experiments. ---------------------------------------

> http://www.sundayherald.com/print27510

> SUNDAY HERALD He was used to test 'highly hazardous' pesticides ... then

> forgotten about Company is using Scots test results in battle to reverse

> safety controls By Jenifer

> ston When Bruce Turnbull volunteered to take part in a drug trial at

> the Inveresk Research laboratories in East Lothian in 1998 he believed

> he was helping society. Three

> years later the company behind the tests stands accused of breaking the

> Nuremberg Code -- established as a response to Nazi experimentation on

> Jews -- and of using the

> results to boost profits. Turnbull, from Edinburgh, was paid around ?700

> for being one of 50 Scots to take part in study 013219. The test seemed

> simple enough -- the subjects

> were given a single dose of a substance called azinphos-methyl (AM) and

> then observed for seven days. What they did not know was that the

> chemical, which they were given

> in minute doses, was a pesticide deemed 'highly hazardous' by the World

> Health Nor did they know that the test had been commissioned by Bayer as

> part of a forceful effort to

> get the US Environmental Protection Agency to reverse pesticide controls

> introduced to protect children. The 50 subjects have not been offered

> follow-up examinations to test

> for the long-term effects of exposure to AM. Instead, the key finding of

> the study -- that the pesticide test had 'no effect' on humans -- is now

> Bayer's key weapon in its battle to

> raise the safety limit on the use of the pesticide by US farmers.

> Turnbull, now 51 and suffering ill-health he believes is connected to

> the test, says he feels bitter and cheated. 'I

> was under the impression I would be helping farmers, not helping a major

> company sell more pesticide that would end up on food. I don't think I

> was told who was paying for

> the test.' He claims he would never have volunteered for the test had he

> known of Bayer's intentions for it and feels badly let down by his

> treatment during and after the trial. 'The

> nurses called the substance a drug, not a pesticide. An information pack

> was sent to my home before the trial but I didn't understand all of it.

> Layman's terms jump out at you but

> it was heavy technical stuff,' he said. 'If you left the test early

> there was a financial penalty, and you would never have got on another

> trial again. I received no follow-ups at all --

> Inveresk never contacted me to see if I was fine.' Documents given to

> the volunteers even predicted the outcome of the trial, stating: 'The

> results of this study will confirm that use

> of azinphos-methyl does not pose an un reasonable threat to either

> workers or consumers.' Turnbull is the only one of the 50 subjects so

> far to blow the whistle on what he now

> believes is a scandal. It is not known if the others even know they were

> tested with a pesticide. Just as Bayer is using the Inveresk test to

> lobby the EPA, so its opponents are

> very interested in Turnbull's testimony as the only known witness to the

> experiment. Olson, a senior attorney at the American Natural

> Resources Defence Council (NRDC),

> an organisation of scientists, lawyers and environmental specialists

> dedicated to protecting public health, is fighting Bayer's attempts to

> reverse the pesticide controls and believes

> Turnbull's experience was 'shocking and unethical'. 'He wasn't told

> about conflicts of interest, long-term side effects, the purpose of the

> test or the fact that the company's profits

> would be boosted,'said Olson. 'If you don't look for any ill-effects

> then it's not surprising that you won't find any. Along with the fact he

> was under the impression he would suffer

> a financial penalty if he left the test early, there are clear

> violations of international codes.' The Nuremberg Code, along with other

> international human rights agreements put in

> place after the Nazis used Jewish prisoners for medical experiments,

> tightly govern what kind of tests can be performed on humans. Clause two

> of the Nuremberg Code states:

> 'The experiment should be such as to yield fruitful results for the good

> of society'. The EPA is unequivocal in its stance on pesticides. A

> spokesman told the Sunday Herald:

> 'There is nothing for individuals to gain -- no disease will be cured

> because of this.' And this position extends to its attitude to human

> pesticide testing. 'We do not accept human

> data concerning pesticides. There is, however, a lot of pressure from

> pesticide companies who would argue that we get a fuller picture of

> pesticide use if we look at these tests

> [the Inveresk trials], but there are significant moral and ethical

> issues.' This hasn't stopped Bayer presenting the test evidence as part

> of its campaign to persuade the agency that

> azinphos-methyl is safe. The company also denies

> the test breached the Nuremberg Code, insisting that the use of the

> pesticide benefits society. Bayer spokesman

> Kraus said he was satisfied that the test had been carried out to

> the highest standards. 'There is a need for studies like these. They are

> designed in-house, and then

> approved by an ethics committee. Inveresk also has an ethics committee.

> All the test subjects received full information about the test they were

> doing. 'We only test products

> with a good safety record, products we know a lot about, and which have

> measurable indicators that show harmful effects before they occur.' He

> added: 'We are doing tests

> like this for the good of society -- we are part of the food chain and

> at the end of the food chain is a healthy apple, not an apple with

> worms.' It is a widely disputed claim. Dr

> Albert Caplan, director of the Center for Bioethics at University of

> Pennsylvania, and a former adviser to the EPA on pesticides, told the

> Sunday Herald that the lack of

> follow-up highlights the questionable nature of testing pesticides on

> humans. 'Testing these substances on humans is useless because you

> cannot do it aggressively -- you can only

> use minute doses in the tests, which don't necessarily relate to what

> exposure people working with the substance would endure,' he said. 'The

> subjects are taking a risk for

> agriculture and business, not to find a cure for a disease or develop

> life-saving practices. The lack of follow-up tests on the ish

> subjects is not something that should go on in

> a test of this nature.' The NRDC is fearful that the Environmental

> Protection Agency will buckle under pressure from Bayer. 'The EPA is not

> strong enough to withstand the

> economic and lobbying onslaught of Bayer and other companies,' said

> Olson. 'Big companies will always come up with an excuse but this test

> did not help Turnbull or anyone

> else -- it only helped the bottom line.' The EPA has now commissioned

> the National Academy of Sciences to advise it on whether or not human

> data in pesticide testing is

> acceptable. Bayer and other pesticide companies have lost patience and

> are suing the agency in an effort to get a decision on the increased use

> of azinphos-methyl. Bayer

> spokesman Kraus said the EPA had to decide what kind of data it wanted.

> 'In recent years the EPA has said children are more susceptible to

> pesticides than adults -- they say

> that if we don't have the data to prove otherwise then they will put in

> further safety factors to the product. What we tried to do in this

> special case [the Inveresk trial] is show that

> if a human can tolerate the safe level for lab rats then it takes away a

> level of uncertainty for the EPA.' At the Inveresk trial in 1998 the

> amount given to the volunteers was 100

> times smaller than the 'safe dose' for lab rats. But the pesticide was

> brought into the country only after the Health and Safety Executive

> (HSE) gave the study the green light. The

> dose of azinphos-methyl was set high enough to demonstrate to the EPA in

> the US that estimates of how much humans can withstand are too

> conservative. A spokeswoman for

> the HSE in London said yesterday that 'the test was given a lot of

> thought and consideration and met all the very rigorous regulations

> before it could go ahead'. Bayer is one of

> the world's largest producers of GM food. Azinphos- methyl is one of its

> most widely used pesticides, sprayed on apples in the Pacific northwest,

> blueberries in Maine and

> sugar cane in the deep South. But it is highly controversial, even in

> America. In Louisiana in 1991, a flash thunder storm caused

> azinphos-methyl to run off sugar cane and into

> rivers, killing up to a million fish, along with turtles, alligators,

> snakes and birds. Three years ago the EPA reported that exposure to the

> pesticide caused enzyme changes in the

> red blood cells of 127 Californian farm workers, creating fears about

> potential nervous system damage. Six weeks ago Canadian officials

> reported that azinphos-methyl was

> found in high concentrations in the Wilmot River, where up to 15,000

> fish had died. ©2002 smg sunday newspapers ltd. no.176088. all rights

> reserved. contact website FAIR

> USE NOTICE: This may contain copyrighted (C ) material the use of which

> has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such

> material is made available

> to advance understanding of ecological, political, human rights,

> economic, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice

> issues, etc. It is believed that this constitutes a

> 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section

> 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section

> 107, this material is distributed

> without profit to those who have expressed a prior general interest in

> receiving similar information for research and educational purposes.

>

> gigi* I intend to expose every one of them, an all the horrendous

> crimes they've committed against innocent individuals before I'm through

> them. cut, copy pass it

> on expose the cruel pharma co's habits all these years, sickening can't

> describe it, they've taken our sisters and family members.

> Your a human guinea pig too, just different toxic chemicals it's a

> crime,

> doesn't silicone violate the code?

>

> http://www.researchprotection.org/infomail/0902/09.html

>

>