For the hysteria mongers here who don't realize that this increases already existing protections and who can't grok the value of human testing as a final step in approving safe use criteria I offer this from one of the links at the OCA site:
http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-GENERAL/2005/September/Day-12/g18010.htm
"SUMMARY: EPA proposes and invites public comment on a rulemaking to ban
intentional dosing human testing for pesticides when the subjects are
pregnant women or children, to formalize and further strengthen
existing protections for subjects in human research conducted or
supported by EPA, and to extend new protections to adult subjects in
intentional dosing human studies for pesticides conducted by others who intend to submit the research to EPA. This proposal, the first of
several possible Agency actions, focuses on third-party intentional
dosing human studies for pesticides, but invites public comment on
alternative approaches with broader scope."..............
And:
"SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This proposed rule, the first of several
possible Agency actions, would significantly strengthen the ethical
framework for conducting and reviewing human studies, especially
intentional dosing human studies for pesticides.
With respect to human research conducted by EPA (``first-party
research''), or by others with EPA's support (``second-party
research''), this proposed rule would: (1) Categorically prohibit any
intentional dosing studies involving pregnant women or children as
subjects; and (2) adopt the Department of Health and Human Services
(HHS) regulations that provide additional protections to pregnant women and children as subjects of other than intentional dosing studies.
With respect to human research conducted by third parties--i.e., by others without any support from EPA or other federal government
agencies--the proposed rule would: (1) Categorically prohibit any
third-party intentional dosing studies for pesticides involving
pregnant women or children as subjects; (2) extend the provisions of
the Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research
(the ``Common Rule'') to all other third-party intentional dosing human studies intended for submission to EPA under the pesticide laws; (3) require, before testing is initiated, submission to EPA of protocols and related information for proposed research covered by this extension of the Common Rule; and (4) require information about the ethical conduct of covered human studies when the results of the research are submitted to EPA."
As to why there is a need for testing of this kind at all see this:
"A. How EPA Assesses Risks to People
The Agency's understanding of potential risks to people is usually
based on tests performed with laboratory animals. For example, EPA
typically requires pesticide companies to perform over 20 different
kinds of animal studies to identify or measure toxic effects before a
pesticide can be registered for use. These studies differ in the kinds
of animals used, the duration of exposure, the age of test animals, and the pathway of exposure--through food, air, or the skin. When they are considered together, they provide a good general understanding of a pesticide's potential effects. Comparable animal data are usually
available when EPA makes regulatory decisions about other kinds of
environmental substances as well.
Animal studies, however, are not the only source of relevant
information for characterizing potential risks. Sometimes EPA can
better understand the potential risks of a substance by looking at how
people respond when they have been directly exposed to it. For example, EPA uses information from accident and incident reports, in which people may have been exposed to a substance after a spill or some other unintentional release. EPA also uses data from epidemiological studies comparing health outcomes of two otherwise similar groups of people who differ in their level of exposure to a particular substance (e.g.,those who work with a chemical vs. those who do not).
In addition to incident and epidemiology data, human exposure
studies have also improved EPA's risk assessments. EPA often bases its
estimates of potential human exposure to environmental substances on
monitoring studies measuring concentrations of a substance in air,
water, food, or on surfaces. This kind of information about
environmental concentrations can then be used to predict the amount of
a substance people will breathe, eat, drink, or absorb through their
skin. Sometimes, however, the relationship between environmental
concentrations of a substance and potential human exposure is unclear,
and can be understood only through research involving human subjects.
For example, the actual exposure of a farmer applying a pesticide will
depend on such factors as the type of spray equipment used, the amount
and kind of pesticide used, the type of protective clothing worn (e.g., gloves, respirator, long pants), and how many hours are worked each day. To determine more accurately the exposures farmers and other
applicators actually receive, EPA requires pesticide companies to
measure the amount of pesticide deposited on an applicator's body and
clothing during a spray session. The results of studies like this
provide critical data about exposures that can be used to define
protective standards for pesticide handlers and applicators. Without
these and similar studies characterizing the exposures received by
individuals in the normal course of their work and daily life, the
Agency would not understand adequately either what types of application equipment and protective clothing were necessary for a pesticide to be used safely, or how soon harvesters or others could safely enter pesticide-treated areas.
Another type of human study that can contribute to EPA's risk
assessments involves intentional exposure of subjects to low doses of a substance to measure how the substance is absorbed, distributed,
metabolized, and excreted in humans. Humans respond to some substances
in different ways from animals, and studies of this kind can provide
essential support for safety monitoring programs, such as those which
analyze and measure the known metabolites of a substance in the blood
or urine of workers or others to determine if they've been exposed to
the substance.
Although EPA has not and will not use its authorities to require or encourage it, third parties have occasionally conducted and submitted to EPA reports of research involving intentional dosing of human subjects to identify or measure toxic effects. These studies typically involve intentional exposure to an environmental substance in a controlled laboratory or clinical setting.
Decades of experience in reviewing both animal and human studies of all kinds has demonstrated that animal data alone can sometimes provide an incomplete or even a misleading picture of the safety or risks of a substance. Sometimes human data show that people are more sensitive than animals, and support regulatory measures more protective than would be indicated by animal data. This has been the case, for example, for arsenic, certain air pollutants, and certain pesticide active ingredients such as methyl isothiocyanate (MITC) and hexavalent chromium. More often, though, information from human studies confirms insights based on animal testing. Even in these cases, however, the availability of scientifically sound human data can strengthen the basis for EPA's regulatory actions."
To reiterate, the Bush demonizers seem to be thinking that all was peace and love and no chemical testing in the Pax Clintonia. This is clearly untrue. I'm sure the OCA would like for there to be no pesticides at all. This would, however, lead to much greater hunger and poverty
--------------------
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Cultivation Supplies 
Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order
Redstorm 
Annapurna1 
[Re: 
Edit 
Reply 
phreakyzen
1 2 all )
PotSmokinHippie
PsiloKitten
Learyfan
Edame
kykeon
Ellis Dee
wingnutx