NEWS UPDATE (7/29) Sen. Boxer vs. Gov. Junior on environmental health

UPDATE (7/29) A conference committee watered down the Boxer moratorium on pesticide testing on humans (below), even though it was passed by the Senate. "The conference committee charged with reconciling the differences in the Interior Appropriations bill has weakened amendments that would have established a one-year moratorium on human pesticide testing. Instead, the new language prohibits EPA from accepting, considering, or relying upon human pesticide studies until EPA finalizes binding rules on human testing." Read more here.

A hermercurial tale: Two California heavyweights face off on corporate influence and environmental health. Round one:

A Jewish environmental coalition applauds the June 29th Senate vote (60-37) for Barbara Boxer's bill to ban the US Environmental Protection Agency from research that relies on exposure of people to pesticides. Boxer argues that the bill would protect children and pregnant women from pesticide exposure without adequate safeguards.  (Cf. NRDC 6/5 lawsuit vs. EPA over farmworker children and pesticides.)

The Boxer bill was prompted by a dubious study to be funded partly by the chemical industry's American Chemical Council. WaPo reported: "In exchange for participating for two years in the ... study, which involves infants and children up to age 3, the EPA will give each family using pesticides in their home $970, some children's clothing and a camcorder that parents can keep." Internally, some EPA staff felt the study would exploit poor families. A life scientist in EPA's pesticides group told WaPo: "This does sound like it goes against everything we recommend at EPA concerning use of [pesticides] related to children. Paying families in Florida to have their homes routinely treated with pesticides is very sad when we at EPA know that [pesticide management] should always be used to protect children."  Hat tip to the MN Progressive Newswire.

FYI  The new EPA administrator, Stephen Johnson, had ordered the study but, as Grist reports, cancelled it when Senators Boxer & Bill Nelson put a hold on his nomination.

Round 2: California Governor Schwarzenegger appoints an oil industry lobbyist, Cindy Tuck, to run the California Air Resources Board. The Huffington Post adds: "Here's how you explain yesterday's outrageous appointment: Arnold has taken more than $1 million from energy companies (including $222k from Chevron) and about $1.3 million from the auto industry (see more at ArnoldWatch.org) "

Wondering how daf yomi led me to Arnold Schwarzenegger? Recently read the Jewish story of the man who miraculously nursed his baby (bShab 53b). This reminded me of Schwarzenegger in his role as Junior, the pregnant man (1994), so google and presto: Junior panders to the oil industry while Boxer stands up to the agrichemical industry.

Comments

[Shmuli]

Why do you think the study "dubious"?

[kaspit]

Shmuli, thanks for commenting.

Dubious in the sense of "questionable or suspected character". Two reasons: (1) funding by an interested party (pesticides industry) taints the character of research. That's why the tobacco industry was eventually shut out of respectable medical journals. (2) The ethics of the project are suspect, e.g., as explained by EPA staff in the WaPo article.

It may be that the study would be dubious as in "of uncertain issue or result", would that be worth looking into?

Let me know if you think I should expand on these points. Thanks again, good shabbos.

[Shmuli]

(1) is clearly ad hominem and (2)is completely irrelevant to whether the planned study would give reliable results.

[kaspit]

Shmuli. Thanks for your prompt reply.
You may be right that the ethical character of a study is irrelevant to its capacity to give reliable results. Still, science depends on the testing and replication of results, so scientists try to avoid research that ought not (morally) be repeated.

Well, it's not quite "ad hominem" since the American Chemical Council is not a person, but I grok your objection. Here I think many people in the scientific community would agree that studies may be designed and implemented in a biased manner due to economic interests in the findings. Here is a recent post that deals with corporate influence on environmental research. Anyway, self-interested funding of research project does raise doubts about the ability of a study to give reliable results. The EPA chief stated that such doubts were a reason to stop the study.

[Law]

Interesting blog!

What's that story you mentioned all about "the Jewish story of the man who miraculously nursed
his baby (bShab53b)"?

Cheers!

Law

[kaspit]

Thanks for citing me in your fine blog . Here's the text of the story/anecdote:

Our Rabbis taught: It once happened that a man's wife died and left a child to be suckled, and he could not afford to pay a wet-nurse, whereupon a miracle was performed for him and his teats opened like the two teats of a woman and he suckled his son. R. Joseph observed, Come and see how great was this man, that such a miracle was performed on his account! Said Abaye to him, On the contrary: how lowly was this man, that the order of the Creation was changed on his account!25 Rab Judah observed, Come and see how difficult are men's wants [of being satisfied], that the order of the Creation had to be altered for him! R. Nahman said: The proof is that miracles do [frequently] occur, whereas food is [rarely] created miraculously. (Source: Soncino translation, see Daf Yomi sidebar for link)