Good Lord…
03/08/2006
This falls under the “WHAT THE HELL WERE THEY THINKING OF, AND WHERE ARE THEIR VALUES” category.
Please read the article (reprinted below).
The EPA under the current Presidential administration and the state Florida agreed to test the effects of neurological toxins on children, using poor Black children in Florida as test subjects. The tests were stopped under pressure by ARC and other advocates for disabled children.
- Debra Hogenson
----------------------------------------
Victory! EPA Cancels Unethical CHEERS Study of Children’s Toxic Exposures
Source: http://www.pested.org/programs/cheers.html
Under fire from all sides, the EPA announced last week that it is pulling the plug on the controversial Children’s Environmental Exposure Research Study (CHEERS).
With funding from the chemical industry, EPA had planned to study low-income children from mostly-black neighborhoods in Duval County, Florida. Parents who regularly used pesticides and other toxic chemicals in their homes would have been paid $970 and received other incentives to participate in the study, which was designed to then monitor the children’s blood and urine for the contaminants.
Children’s health advocates, including ARC/PESTed, have been demanding the study’s cancellation since its introduction last fall because of its many ethical problems and design flaws, including intentionally allowing children’s exposure to contaminants known to be harmful to them, its chemical industry funding and its focus on low-income families of color.
The EPA finally ditched the effort last week after Senator Barbara Boxer threatened to uphold the confirmation of Stephen Johnson as EPA’s new administrator unless the study was cancelled (Johnson formerly directed the Office of Pesticide Programs, one of the EPA divisions sponsoring the study). In an EPA press release, Johnson laid responsibility for the study’s demise with activists and the media, rather than poor study design: “…many misrepresentations about the study have been made. …I have concluded that the study cannot go forward, regardless of the outcome of the independent review. EPA must conduct quality, credible research in an atmosphere absent of gross misrepresentation and controversy.” Johnson did not address whether the EPA’s research should also be absent of the chemical industry’s policy agenda.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHEERS was Unethical
The CHEERS study planned to monitor exposure to pesticides and several other hazardous chemicals in babies, from birth to age 3, in their homes in Duval County (Jacksonville), FL. The chemical industry had put up $2.1 million in funding for the study via the American Chemistry Council, which represents 135 companies, including many pesticide manufacturers.
Many concerns about the ethical implications of this study were raised by the scientific, medical, and public interest communities, including:
1. Unacceptable Health Risks to Children
EPA set out to recruit families for the CHEERS study who “spray or have pesticides sprayed inside your home routinely,” to ensure a “high frequency of detection” of pesticides in samples taken throughout the study (1, 2). The initial recruiting brochure required participants to use pesticides in their home to qualify for the study, though that requirement was removed following public outrcry (3).
Pesticide exposure is a documented risk factor for some types of childhood cancer and early onset asthma, and may also be associated with ADD, learning disabilties, reproductive disorders, and cancer later in life (4, 5, 6, 7). EPA has made it a priority to educate the public about reducing children’s pesticide exposures in its programs and projects. (More on that from EPA’s website.)
However, unlike other EPA programs in the area of children’s health, CHEERS did not take any steps to educate participating families about the risks of exposure to pesticides or about safer alternatives. It is unethical to engage families in such a study without first informing them of all the known risks. Furthermore, the study made no provision for intervention if the participating infants and toddlers show signs of developmental problems or are found to have alarmingly high exposure levels during regular monitoring. Instead, families were to continue in the study so long as researchers were notified when each pesticide application occurs (2, 3).
2. Disporportionate Risk to Low-Income Families
CHEERS planned to provide financial and material incentives to participating families, including $970, a camcorder, and promotional baby bibs and other items (See CHEERS website). EPA recruited participants for the CHEERS study from six clinics in Duval County, FL that serve predominantly low-income communities, and at least three hospitals in the same county that serve large numbers of African Americans (2). Because of the population it recruited and the large financial incentives involved, CHEERS was designed in such a way that risk will disproportionately accrue to low-income families and families of color.
3. Non-compliant with National Research Council’s Standards for Human Testing
The National Research Council (NRC) in 2004 decided to support EPA’s use of data from human studies with toxic chemicals, under very stringent conditions. Those conditions include the following stipulation:
“Studies whose results would be used for the sole purpose of improving the scientific accuracy of EPA’s established reference doses for humans, and that would not provide health benefits otherwise, would be justified only if there were no identifiable risks to participants, or if investigators could show with reasonable certainty that participants would not be harmed.” (9)
The EPA’s stated goal for CHEERS was to “reduce the uncertainty in exposure and risk assessments for children” (8). Clearly, exposure to pesticides and other household contaminants provides no health benefits to the participants and is not designed to provide direct health benefits to society, and thus the risk to those participants was not justified under NRC’s standards.
4. Conflict of Interest
The American Chemistry Council, which represents many pesticide manufacturers, put up substantial funding for CHEERS. It is in the chemical industry’s interest to fund studies that precisely quantify pollutants’ effects on children before taking any meaningful steps to reduce exposures, because they’re in the business of making chemicals, not protecting children. Physicians and children’s advocates urge a precautionary approach to protect pregnant women, infants, and children from environmental pollutants like pesticides. The CHEERS study instead reflected the priorities of the chemical industry that was funding it, and not the best interest of the children involved.
Citations
1. “You’re a Parent. Learn more about your child’s potential home exposure to common pesticides.” US EPA. No longer available from EPA at http://www.epa.gov/cheers, now available for download from Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility at http://www.peer.org/press/530.html
2. Longitudinal Field Measurement Study of Infant and Toddler’s Aggregate Exposure to Pesticides and Persistent Pollutants: Peer Reviewed Study Design. 2002. National Exposure Research Laboratory (NERL), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Available for download from: http://www.epa.gov/cheers/basic.htm
3. Nov 1, 2004: EPA PAYS FAMILIES TO EXPOSE THEIR INFANTS TO PESTICIDES; Joint Study With Chemical Industry to Measure Exposure in the Home; Agency Removes Study Protocol From Its Web Site. Press release from Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility. On line at: http://www.peer.org/press/530.html
4. Ma, X et al. 2002. Critical windows of exposure to household pesticides and risk of childhood leukemia. Environmental Health Perspectives. 110: 955-60.
5. Salam MT et al. 2003. Early Life Environmental Risk Factors for Asthma: Findings from the Children’s Health Study. Environmental Health Perspectives. 112(6): 760-5.
6. Schettler, T. 2001. Toxic threats to neurologic development of children. Environmental Health Perspectives. 109(suppl 6): 813-6.
7. Birnbaum LS, Fenton SE. 2003. Cancer and developmental exposure to endocrine disruptors. Environmental Health Perspectives. 111(4): 389-94.
8. Children’s Environmental Exposure Research Study (CHEERS). Executive Summary. Available for download from the EPA at http://www.epa.gov/cheers
9. Feb. 19, 2004: EPA Should Impose Stringent Scientific and Ethical Standards on Studies
That Deliberately Expose People to Toxins, and Evaluate Such Experiments To Ensure That Standards Have Been Met. National Research Council, Division on Policy and Global Affairs; Science, Technology, and Law Program. Available on line at: http://www4.nationalacademies.org/news.nsf/isbn/0309091721?
OpenDocument