Shop Products
Houzz Logo Print
jeremiahsmom_gw

barbara boxer

jeremiahsmom
18 years ago

Did anyone hear about Barbara Boxer holding up the nomination for director of EPA? Apparently the EPA conducted a study in which families (mostly low-inc.) where recruited who used pesticides. They were to video tape their children over a certain period of time. The study has been suspended - I think because of controversy concerning whether or not the subjects (young children) were consenting participants. But any how - It sounds like instead of warning parents of the dangers pesticides posed to young children they simply studied the them to measure the effects of exposure. Barbara Boxer said that she would use all of the tools at her disposal (i.e. - not letting the nomination go forward to the full senate) to shut this study down.

Comments (10)

  • althea_gw
    18 years ago

    Yes, I read about this objection to Steve Johnson's nomination yesterday in the New York Times. There is a follow-up article today giving a bit more history of the proposed study - the study was met with objection primarily from The Environmental Working Group, http://www.ewg.org, before it could be started. It also adresses some history of the EPA accepting human studies to set exposure limits. The article is linked below. You need to register in order to read it.

    Here is a link that might be useful: nytimes

  • althea_gw
    18 years ago

    Yesterday's news.

    Many thanks to Senators Boxer & Nelson.

    E.P.A. Halts Florida Test on Pesticides By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK Published: April 9, 2005 WASHINGTON, April 8 \- Stephen L. Johnson, the acting administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, said on Friday that he was canceling a study of the effects of pesticides on infants and babies, a day after two Democratic senators said they would block his confirmation if the research continued.

    Here is a link that might be useful: nytimes full article

  • Monte_ND_Z3
    18 years ago

    This is just more stupidity by the liberal left Senator Boxer, who has made a living making mountains out of molehills for her own purposes. Any one of her constituients who believes she is doing this for them is living in a fantasy land. Sure, pesticides are dangerous chemicals, especially when improperly applied, but if the parents were using pesticides, then they should be held responsible for exposing their children, not the government. All the appropriate warnings are on the packages and in numerous other places. Nowhere did I see where the government forced anyone to use the pesticides, just monitored those who freely purchased and used the pesticides, and their children. Just because some of the people are poor, doesn't excuse them from their parental responsibility of protecting their children from harm. That is nothing more than a red herring. The government can't and shouldn't have to be looking over everyone's shoulders and holding their hands every second of their lives to keep them safe. From what I have seen from Senator Boxer, every angle well be pursued to achieve her goal, which has nothing to do with protecting anyone, just obstructing progress in Congress and attacking the current administration. Perhaps this is all some rich white male conspiracy to eliminate poor non-white minorities.

  • jeremiahsmom
    Original Author
    18 years ago

    Hi Monte - I agree with you - parents should be held responsible for their children's safety. I work with kids and am constantly frustrated by the things some parents do to undermine their children's well-being. Butttt.... the government needs to act in a responsible manner - they tread a very thin line in this study. Research ethics require that the safety of subjects be the predominant concern. The participants must also give consent, and in the case of a child, the parents must give consent. So here's a case where very young children are the subjects - they have no say-so and their parents are given material and financial incentives to participate. They are also being exposed to something that may be harmful. As you can see - I'm a mom, and I work with children. This really touched a nerve. I think it's really sad that it took political maneuvering to shut the study down rather than moral conscience.
    Jaymie

  • socal23
    18 years ago

    The thing that bothers me about this is not the government. I just assume that it has its own best interests at heart, not mine. I was disturbed by the behavior of the parents. The people were poor but not starving; how much money did it take to get them to cease protecting their children and start exploiting them? I sometimes use ant spray, but never in places where my children could potentially be exposed to fumes or residue.

    Ryan

  • Bruce_in_ct
    18 years ago

    As everyone knows, the pesticide industry strongly encourages its customers to read labels and to only use those chemical as specified. Remember, they're parents too. That's why the typical Roundup ad on TV takes ten minutes to show someone carefully reading the label before proceeding to spray the dandelion. The Scotts lawncare ads are even longer, because they make sure viewers see someone posting signs at the sidewalk afterwards to warn of the application.

    The pesticide industry would never encourage a cavalier attitude about its products by, for instance, showing suburban men strutting around with pesticides like they had just won the gunfight at the OK corral. Since the pesticide industry has done everything in its power to ensure people apply pesticides according to the label, I agree with Monte too. Otherwise, I'd have to be blinded by rightwing propaganda to think that way.

  • vgkg Z-7 Va
    18 years ago

    You funny guy Bruce LOL

  • jeremiahsmom
    Original Author
    18 years ago

    Hi - me again. This isn't about the government looking over people's shoulders to make sure they use pesticides properly. The EPA obviously wasn't going to do that. It sounds to me like they wouldn't have even discouraged improper use if the study had been conducted. This is about sticking to research standards and not looking for loopholes, especially where children are concerned. Human subjects are not used to test chemicals. The EPA could never get away with exposing children to pesticides themselves, so what's the next best thing? Find someone to do it for them. Some people at the EPA convinced themselves that it would be ok. Here's a good article about EPA staff reaction to the study (pre-Barbar Boxer) that gets to the heart of the matter - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10728-2004Oct29.html

  • Bruce_in_ct
    18 years ago

    The major problem is the final sentence in this paragraph from the Washington Post article:

    "Linda S. Sheldon, acting administrator for the human exposure and atmospheric sciences division of the EPA's Office of Research and Development, said the agency would educate families participating in the study and inform them if their children's urine showed risky levels of pesticides. She said it was crucial for the agency to study small children because so little is known about how their bodies absorb harmful chemicals."

    The EPA and its corporate benefactors like to say pesticides are safe if used according to the label. As this shows, no one has any idea. At least not for small children. And they're kind of important.

  • habitat_gardener
    18 years ago

    When this study was first reported, the gist was that the EPA would be testing pesticides on small children. But no, it turned out that the study would be recruiting families that used pesticides anyway, so that it could determine if indeed the pesticides proved detrimental to the children who were being regularly exposed to them.

    Judging from people I know, I think this kind of study would be useful. I know people (who should know better) who use pesticides cavalierly around pets and children. I've noticed a widespread attitude that, well, it hasn't killed me, and I've been exposed to it for years, so it must be ok. Or they see their yardworkers spraying pesticides without any protection and think, it must be ok, they're not getting sick. Mostly it's just an unthinking use of a product that "everyone uses."

    But I think if we had the data, that would create a bigger push to put more restrictions on pesticides and household chemicals in general. (Of course, I'm assuming the data would wake everyone up, and that it wouldn't be another coverup and "editing" of the final report, as has happened routinely under this administration.) I'm guessing the admin guesses the data would go the other way, opening the way for laxer guidelines.