Oftentimes human
experimentation refers to an experimental treatment being tried out on people.
What happens, however, when the test isn’t for a medicine but a poison? This is
what happens with human pesticide testing. For everyone who doesn’t know,
pesticides are chemicals designed to kill whatever it is that humans want dead.
According to the EPA, the official definition is:
“Any
substance or mixture of substances intended for preventing, destroying,
repelling, or mitigating any pest. Pests can be insects, mice and other
animals, unwanted plants (weeds), fungi, or microorganisms like bacteria and
viruses…also any substance or mixture of substances intended for use as a plant
regulator, defoliant, or desiccant.”
Obviously, there are many
chemicals that qualify for these roles, all of which have some pretty nasty effects
on their intended target. The thing is, one of the most common uses of
pesticides is in commercial agriculture, and there is always a possibility that
some residue is left behind on the final product. That’s right! There could be
pesticide in your food (unless you only eat organic). Don’t worry though;
you’re not in danger of dying from pesticide poisoning. The EPA sets some
pretty strict limits, just a fraction of the highest harmless daily dose, on the
amount of these chemicals that can end up on food. The main issue here is a
loophole: a company can get the EPA to increase the maximum amount by
demonstrating that their proposed amounts have no adverse effects on humans.
How do they do that? Human testing.
Pesticide companies are arguably encouraged to entice
people into taking these poisons daily in order to assess what the highest
healthiest levels of exposure are. In order to determine the highest safe
amount, you will inevitably have to cross the line and find the lowest unsafe
amount. In 2005, a report to the EPA from two California Senators described
ghastly industry-sponsored trials which included people being placed in
chambers with vapors of an active ingredient of tear gas at higher than federally
mandated levels, and other subjects being required to take pesticide capsules
with breakfast every day during the study. Even worse is that the report also
suggested that the informed consent required for the trial may have been
clouded by technical jargon or incomplete in nature.
This report was received by the EPA and some changes were
made. Last year the document was amended to “expand the protections for subject
in human studies research.” As a result, the EPA no longer supports studies
involving pregnant or nursing women, and children. Unfortunately, this just
doesn’t cut it. The exact language specifies that this rule applies to research
that is “intended for submission to EPA.” However, many activist groups are
worried that pesticide companies will simply conduct their studies and submit
them to other nations, or to the state governments. Since the EPA is
significantly influenced by other nations, this strategy could still bring
about the companies desired result, minus the restrictions. Additionally the
informed consent rules still seem vulnerable to exploitation by depriving
potential subjects of the clear truth.
Ideally, we could talk about banning the use of
pesticides as a potential solution for this problem. Unfortunately, however, they
play a large role in cheaply mass producing food. Regardless, the legislation
needs to be revisited again. The existing loopholes need to be closed up to
prevent as many people as possible from poisoning themselves for whatever
compensation the company is offering. It would be even better if we could
integrate commercial farming with some of the techniques used by organic farms
in place of herbicides and insecticides. This could make it so the EPA’s limits
on residue on food need not be exceeded, bringing about an end to these
ridiculous human trials.
http://www.epa.gov/oppfead1/guidance/human-test.htm
1 comment:
Good post. Since this is a practical issue, can you offer some practical solutions?
Post a Comment