• E-mail
• Print
• Comment
• Font Size
• Digg
• del.icio.us
• Discuss article

Senators Veto Children's Health Research

Posted on: Thursday, 3 November 2005, 00:00 CST

By Douglas Fischer, STAFF WRITER

Acting administrator Stephen Johnson of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency killed a controversial program aimed at studying pesticide and flame-retardant exposure in young children Friday after two senators threatened to hold up his nomination. The EPA had hoped the $9 million study would shed light on how pesticides, which can cause neurological damage in children, and chemicals such as flame retardants might be ingested, inhaled or otherwise absorbed through food, drink, soil, crop residue and household dust.

The EPA had planned to pay 60 families in a Florida county $970 each and give them a camcorder and children's clothes. But critics lambasted the study - Children's Health Environmental Exposure Research Study - saying it would encourage low-income families to use pesticides in their homes.

Johnson suspended the program in November before it began and sought an independent review to assess the ethical issues.

But at his confirmation hearing Wednesday, Democratic Sens. Barbara Boxer of California and Bill Nelson of Florida demanded the EPA kill the study and vowed to use every parliamentary procedure to block a Senate vote on his confirmation as the agency's administrator.

"If they want to come forward with another program to test exposure in children, they can come forward with a random sample (survey)," Boxer spokesman David Sandretti said Friday. "With the $9 million they were going to spend on this program, they could have an enormous data pool from which to choose."

In a statement, Johnson said he killed the program because the "gross misrepresentation and controversy" would irreparably cloud any scientific conclusions. But there's no question politics also played a part.

"I don't think anybody is talking about that directly, but we would be naive to say there wasn't a relationship," said EPA spokesman Rich Hood.

The goal of the study, the agency said, was to "fill data gaps" in the scientific knowledge regulators use to make decisions about which pesticides can stock the nation's hardware shelves. The American Chemistry Council, which usually lobbies against tighter regulations, has contributed $2 million to the project. That money, Hood said, will be refunded.

The genesis of the study, one of dozens in the past decade in which the agency has pooled its money with that of the companies it regulates, reflects two conflicting realities.

Regulators and industry want as much certainty as possible about what common chemicals like those found under many kitchen sinks can do to the most vulnerable human populations. But there is an ethical dilemma about how to acquire that information without hurting the people meant to be protected.

Wire services contributed to this report. Contact Douglas Fischer at dfischer@angnewspapers.com.

Source: Oakland Tribune

More News in this Category