In a letter to Stephen Johnson, EPA Adminsitrator,  nine unions representing 9,000 EPA scientists, risk managers and others warn that the agency ""has lost sight of its regulatory responsibilities in trying to reach consensus with those that it regulates, and the result is that the integrity of the science upon which Agency decisions are based has been compromised."

The Oregonian reports the empoloyees asked that decisions be made free of "outside political influences." They asked Johnson to weigh cumulative risks to all children through the food they eat and to cancel or restrict pesticide uses that might be harmful to the children of farmworkers. "

Raise your voice to your congressional reps against the use of children as laboratory rats in experiments that violate the principles of the Nuremberg Code which define permissible human experiments.

Contact: Vera Hassner Sharav
This email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it
 

http://www.peer.org/news/news_id.php?row_id=691
For Immediate Release: May 25, 2006
Contact: Chas Offutt (202) 265-7337

EPA SCIENTISTS PROTEST PENDING PESTICIDE APPROVALS — Unacceptable Risk to Children and Political Pressure on Scientists Decried

Washington, DC — In an unprecedented action, representatives for thousands of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency scientists are publicly objecting to imminent agency approval for a score of powerful, controversial pesticides, according to a letter released today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). The scientists cite “compelling evidence” which EPA leadership is choosing to ignore that these “pesticides damage the developing nervous systems of fetuses, infants and children.”

On August 3, 2006, EPA faces a deadline for issuing final tolerance approval for 20 organophosphate and carbamate pesticides. In a letter dated May 24, 2006, leaders of three unions (American Federation of Government Employees, National Treasury Employees Union and Engineers and Scientists of California) representing 9,000 scientists, risk managers and other specialists asked EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson to either adopt maximum exposure protections for these agents or take them off the market.

Organophosphates, derived from World War II-era nerve agents, are banned in England, Sweden and Denmark. In the 1990’s the National Academies of Science criticized EPA’s regulation of these pesticides. The Clinton administration began moves to ban the agents but the Bush administration changed course. In the past few months, the Bush administration approach has been faulted by both EPA’s own Scientific Advisory Panel and its Office of Inspector General.

In their letter, the EPA scientists charge that agency “risk assessments cannot state with confidence the degree to which any exposure of a fetus, infant or child to a pesticide will or will not adversely affect their neurological development.” In addition, the scientists contend that –

    * “Our colleagues in the Pesticide Program feel besieged by political pressure exerted by Agency officials perceived to be too closely aligned with the pesticide industry and former EPA officials now representing the pesticide and agricultural community”;
    * “In the rush to meet the August 2006 …deadline, many steps in the risk assessment and risk management process are being abbreviated or eliminated in violation of the principles of scientific integrity and objectivity…”; and
    * The prevailing “belief among managers in the Pesticide and Toxics Programs [is] that regulatory decisions should only be made after reaching full consensus with the regulated pesticide and chemicals industry.”

Notwithstanding the scientific uncertainty and controversy, EPA has announced that is approving one of the most toxic agents, dichlorvos or DDVP, for household use in pet flea collars and no-pest strips.

“Our top public scientists are morally and professionally compromised by the Bush administration partnership with the chemical industry,” stated PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch, pointing, for example, to EPA’s rush to embrace testing of pesticides and other chemicals on human subjects for commercial purposes. “The fact that this letter had to be sent at all is an utter disgrace but, even more disgraceful, is the likelihood that this warning will be disregarded by an agency that is supposed to be protecting public health and the environment.”

http://www.oregonlive.com/printer/printer.ssf?/base/business/114861212852260.xml&coll=7
The Oregonian
EPA workers blast agency's rulings
Pesticides - Employees are worried that decisions due this summer on 20 products may face outside pressures
Friday, May 26, 2006
ALEX PULASKI

By pandering to farmers and chemical manufacturers, the Environmental Protection Agency risks gutting a 10-year-old law designed to safeguard children from dangerous pesticides, workers within the agency charge.

In a letter sent this week to agency Administrator Stephen L. Johnson, nine representatives of unions representing about 9,000 EPA scientists, risk managers and other workers said the agency "has lost sight of its regulatory responsibilities in trying to reach consensus with those that it regulates, and the result is that the integrity of the science upon which Agency decisions are based has been compromised."

Since 1996, the Food Quality Protection Act has been under attack from both sides -- pesticide makers and farmers asserting that the law is being applied too stringently, and environmentalists and consumer advocates charging that it is being undermined. The law was intended to protect children from hazardous effects of pesticides in foods and in the environment.

The letter sent Wednesday represents the second time in recent months that workers within the agency have openly questioned whether their chief is putting children at risk by bowing to industry pressures.

"Our colleagues in the Pesticide Program feel besieged by political pressure exerted by Agency officials perceived to be too closely aligned with the pesticide industry and former EPA officials now representing the pesticide and agricultural community . . ." the letter states.

"Equally alarming is the belief among managers in the Pesticide and Toxics Programs that regulatory decisions should only be made after reaching full consensus with the regulated pesticide and chemicals industry."

In response, the agency issued a one-paragraph written statement from spokeswoman Jennifer Wood.

"EPA has been reviewing all pesticides in question and applying new, stricter standards as required under the Food Quality Protection Act, with a specific focus on their effects on children's health," she said. "EPA remains committed to its mission of protecting human health and the environment."

In a letter sent to Johnson in December, the American Federation of Government Employees, a union with members who work for the EPA, said the agency's proposed rules on accepting data from trials exposing humans to pesticides -- instead of typical animal studies -- had so many loopholes that they invite unethical behavior such as intentionally dosing children and pregnant women.

Representatives of the government employees union, National Treasury Employees Union, and Engineers and Scientists of California joined in asking Johnson in the letter this week to ensure that decisions due this summer on more than 20 pesticides are made free of "outside political influences." They asked Johnson to weigh cumulative risks to all children through the food they eat and to cancel or restrict pesticide uses that might be harmful to the children of farmworkers.

Under the act, advocates on both sides have repeatedly argued that science is in their favor. But a huge hurdle in trying to determine which pesticides can be safely used and the potential neurological risks to children in the foods they consume is that much of the science is based on how animals, not humans, react to chemical exposures.

Because of uncertainties between how humans and lab rats react, EPA scientists have tended to add safety factors -- reducing by as much as 1,000 times the allowable pesticide residues children can be exposed to in the food they eat. While the method sounds abstract, the result of such limitations is that particular pesticides -- and even whole classes of them -- face strict limits or extinction.

For example, the EPA in recent years has banned methyl parathion and severely restricted chlorpyrifos, which had been the most commonly used insecticide in the United States. The agency also limited uses of azinphos-methyl, a bug-killer widely sprayed on tree fruits in Oregon and Washington.

With the EPA facing an August deadline to reassess human tolerances for pesticides in food and the environment, the union representatives wrote that it would be "a perversion of the constitutional process and betrayal of the public trust for the agency to fail to adhere to the mandates of the (Food Quality Protection Act)."

Dave Christenson, a Denver-based union official who signed the letter, said employees take seriously their oath to uphold the Constitution, and that publicly pressuring the agency head to do as much is "not something we do every day, but we're finding ourselves doing it more and more."

Alex Pulaski, 503-221-8516; This email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it


©2006 The Oregonian

 
FAIR USE NOTICE: This may contain copyrighted (© ) material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, 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 Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. This material is distributed without profit.