They're just poor kids

[TexasTiger 13,000]

 

 

E.P.A. Nominee Gets an Earful From Committee Democrats

By MICHAEL JANOFSKY

Published: April 6, 2005

WASHINGTON, April 6 - Stephen L. Johnson, President Bush's nominee to lead the Environmental Protection Agency, encountered unexpected turbulence at his Senate confirmation hearing today as Senator Barbara Boxer, Democrat of California, threatened to hold up his nomination over a small but controversial pesticide program in Florida.

Advertisement

Appearing before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Mr. Johnson, a 24-year employee of the E.P.A. who has been acting administrator since his predecessor, Michael O. Leavitt, became secretary of health and human services, was greeted warmly by Republicans and faced predictably pointed questions from Democrats over recent agency initiatives, including controversial emission control rules put into place last month.

Ms. Boxer's objections were based on a little-known research program near Jacksonville, Fla., sponsored by the agency and the American Chemistry Council, that offered money to low-income families willing to allow the agency to measure the effects of pesticides on their children under 1 year of age. The project, called Children's Environmental Exposure Research Study, was suspended last year after negative public reaction that prompted the agency to call in outside experts to access its feasibility.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/06/politics/06cnd-enviro.html?

[AURaptor 1,126]

Boxer is just pandering again. Nothing new there.

The project, called Children's Environmental Exposure Research Study, was suspended last year after negative public reaction that prompted the agency to call in outside experts to access its feasibility.

Seems that the program wasn't doing much good and needed to be looked into. If Boxer can berate Condi Rice, she'll find anything to bitch about when it comes to the GOP.

[TxWarEagle 3]

How dare they attempt to study the effects of pesticides on children.

[TexasTiger 13,000]

How dare they attempt to study the effects of pesticides on children.

154536[/snapback]

How about doing it with your children?

[TxWarEagle 3]

I'd need to know more before I'd agree, but I wouldn't immediately say 'no'.

I guess the real question should be, Why would anyone oppose a EPA Sponsored trial that hopes to determine the effects under real world situations?

Considering the outcries of the ignorant concerning pollution I would think that concerned individuals would be all for this.

[WarTim 3,457]

If b. boxer is against it, it MUST be a VERY GOOD thing!

She is indeed one of "Nature's idiots".

[Piglet 0]

What do they expect? Now that we can't just use prisoners, colored folks or enlisted men as human guinea pigs without telling them, what's left but the children of the economically desperate? Damn liberals are never satisfied...

[TitanTiger 20,510]

Guys, try not to just have knee-jerk reactions based on who the players are. There is no way in hell I'd let any company use my kid as some kind of guinea pig for the effects of pesticides on children. Are you f'ing nuts?!? They exploited poor families who are desperate for extra money to allow them to test pesticides on babies! Who in hell thinks this is acceptable behavior regardless of proposed reasoning?

[TxWarEagle 3]

Actually the study was to track data based upon existing pesticide usage. The study did not involve the use of one microgram more chemical that is currently used.

The EPA would not support the spike testing of the population.

CHEERS

Maintain your normal pesticide or non-pesticide use patterns for your household. We will not ask any parent to apply pesticides in their home to be a part of this study.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

Actually  the study was to track data based upon existing pesticide usage.  The study did not involve the use of one microgram more chemical that is currently used.

The EPA would not support the spike testing of the population. 

CHEERS

Maintain your normal pesticide or non-pesticide use patterns for your household. We will not ask any parent to apply pesticides in their home to be a part of this study.

154586[/snapback]

Hmm. That does shed some more light on the subject. It seems like Sen. Boxer is bellowing long and hard over basically nothing. What say you, TexasTiger? Was there anymore to it that this?

[Tiger Al 0]

Maybe this is what she's objecting to:

That's a lot of free, taxpayer subsidized loot!!!

[TitanTiger 20,510]

Maybe this is what she's objecting to:

That's a lot of free, taxpayer subsidized loot!!!

154643[/snapback]

I don't really think that's what she was objecting to. You don't either do you? I think it was a soundbite made to look like the nominee was in support of some ghoulish program designed to test out pesticides on poor children. At least that's what the NY Times story made me think.

[Auburn85 432]

Barbara Boxer is against this because its a connection to Bush

[Tiger Al 0]

Maybe this is what she's objecting to:

That's a lot of free, taxpayer subsidized loot!!!

154643[/snapback]

I don't really think that's what she was objecting to. You don't either do you? I think it was a soundbite made to look like the nominee was in support of some ghoulish program designed to test out pesticides on poor children. At least that's what the NY Times story made me think.

154646[/snapback]

No, I was joking, but the tongue-in-cheek effect doesn't translate very well through the keyboard to the screen! Reading over the "CHEERS" link, I don't see what she would be opposed to.

[TexasTiger 13,000]

Actually  the study was to track data based upon existing pesticide usage.  The study did not involve the use of one microgram more chemical that is currently used.

The EPA would not support the spike testing of the population. 

CHEERS

Maintain your normal pesticide or non-pesticide use patterns for your household. We will not ask any parent to apply pesticides in their home to be a part of this study.

154586[/snapback]

Hmm. That does shed some more light on the subject. It seems like Sen. Boxer is bellowing long and hard over basically nothing. What say you, TexasTiger? Was there anymore to it that this?

154637[/snapback]

More to it than "nothing?" I think so. Did the folks at EPA wordsmith the official documents as neutrally as possible? Sure. Does that mean it tells the whole story? Doubtful. The design of the study tells you more than how the agency presents it. If you don't use one of the identified free clinics, you're not likely to even know about the program. If you don't claim to use pesticides, you are not chosen for the study. Need some cash? Want a camera? Got some time on your hands b/c you're out of work? Then participate in the study. Identify yourself as a pesticide user and then become one, if you are not already.

I scanned the 75 page study design from the EPA site and, even though the source is an advocacy group, I think this a pretty fair assessment:

EPA & CHEMICAL INDUSTRY TO STUDY EFFECTS OF KNOWN TOXIC CHEMICALS ON CHILDREN

11/22/2004: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), led by Bush appointees, is seeking input on a new proposed study in which infants in participating low income families will be monitored for health impacts as they undergo exposure to known toxic chemicals over the course of two years. The study entitled Children’s Environmental Exposure Research Study (CHEERS) will look at how chemicals can be ingested, inhaled or absorbed by children ranging from babies to 3 years old.

For taking part in these studies, each family will receive $970, a free video camera, a T-shirt, and a framed certificate of appreciation.

In October, the EPA received $2.1 million to do the study from the American Chemistry Council, a chemical industry front group that includes members such as Dow, Exxon, and Monsanto (see full list of members on sidebar of this page). Critics of the research, including some EPA scientists, claim the study's funders guarantee the results will be biased in favor of the chemical industry, at the expense of the health of the impoverished children serving as test subjects.

For 30 years the ACC has known the high level of toxicity of the specific chemicals being "studied" in this project. These are some of the most dangerous known chemicals in household products. The ACC knows full well the intensely negative impacts that these chemicals have on humans, as does the EPA and has lobbied heavily to keep them legal. This is fully documented in study after study and memo after memo and meeting after meeting over three decades (see side bar and footnotes for reference and further research).

The trick here is that these products are known to have negative long term health effects. This is a short two year study. In other words, the results of he study are already known...there will be little to no obvious short term negative effects on these children at the end of the two year period. The seemingly positive results of the study will allow the ACC to announce positive "EPA study results" to the public, which will allow the ACC to more effectively lobby congress to weaken regulations on these products even more (thereby increasing profits dramatically). This technique has been exercised by the ACC for decades.

The real negative effects of these types of chemicals come further down the road, when these children could exhibit learning disorders, a propensity for various types of cancer, early puberty/ hormonal disruption, and birth defects in their children.

Low income families have clearly been targeted in this study. Participants for the study will be chosen from 6 health clinics and three hospitals in Duval County, FL. According to the EPA study proposal, "Although all Duval County citizens are eligible to use the [health care] centers, they primarily serve individuals with lower incomes. In the year 2000, seventy five percent of the users of the clinics for pregnancy issues were at or below the poverty level." (p.23)

These medical facilities report that 51% of their births are to non-white mothers and 62% of mothers have only received an elementary or secondary education. Again, according to the EPA study proposal, "The percentage of births to individuals classified as black in the U.S. Census is higher at these three hospitals than for the County as a whole." (pg.23). U.S. Census data also shows that 40% of citizens in Duval County speak English as a second language on a level regarded as "poor to no proficiency".

Important Note on Participants of Study: The study layout does not require that participants increase their chemical use, but does mandate that chosen applicants will need to demonstrate that they do regularly use toxic chemicals in and around the home. The concern here is that low income applicants may increase their toxic chemical use for the sake of applying and being eligible for the funding.

http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=11696

Payment is graduated with each visit. Want more money? Use more chemicals more often. If middle and upper class folks were targeted in this study, first of all, good luck getting participants, but for those who were truly willing to do it mostly for "science's" sake, presuming a T-shirt and a video camera would be little enticement, there would be little incentive for them to increase use over the norm. There might also be a greater likelihood that more educated parents would choose to educate themselves over the use of such pesticides around their children, gain great awareness of the possible risks and even diminish use.

The EPA does not warn participants about already known risks. This is rationalized by saying whatever parents are doing wrong, they would do anyway. This is not likely true, since the addition of financial incentives for people truly needy is almost certain to change behavior.

What does the EPA tell folks?

Is there any risk to me and my family?

No. You and your child will not experience any risks from participating in this study.

Of course, this is the same EPA that at White House urging changed a warning about the air quality in the NYC metro area after 9/11 to say everything was just fine, when it was not.

If the EPA can already assure that there are no risks, why conduct the study? Their explanation? Word games some "conservatives" might call "Clintonian", if they weren't defending the practice, i.e. there are no added risks if you are already doing exactly what you will do over the next two years if we weren't paying you to use pesticides. But the average uneducated person hears: "pesticides pose no risks to my child."

Defend what you want, guys. Blame it on Boxer and tell yourself this all fine and dandy. But I challenge any reasonably intelligent person with a moral compass to read this design study with a critical eye and reach that conclusion.

[Piglet 0]

"The government urges people to remain calm. A spokesman for the Administration said that no damage was done, and the public was never in any danger."

The above is a macro at the AP, to be brought out in the event of any chemical spill.

I'm just about with the libertarians on disbanding the environmental agencies, but for different reasons. I believe there should be some government pollution standards; however, it's obvious that the existing agencies have no interest in making sensible rules or enforcing the ones now in effect. They're nothing but a drain on the treasury.