Fotix Posted June 29, 2005 Share Posted June 29, 2005 Unfortunately the Topic Title space on this forum is limited so I can't write the headline I wanted to, which is "Senate votes to block EPA consideration of pesticide studies on humans." The Senate voted to block the Environmental Protection Agency from using studies that expose people to pesticides when considering permits for new pest killers.By a 60-37 vote, the Senate approved a provision from Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., that would block the EPA from relying on such testing _ including 24 human pesticide experiments currently under review _ as it approves or denies pesticide applications. The Bush administration lifted a moratorium imposed in 1998 by the Clinton administration on using human testing for pesticide approvals. Under the change, political appointees are refereeing on a case-by-case basis any ethical disputes over human testing. The Associated Press Question: On the Amendment (Boxer Amdt. No. 1023 ) Vote Number: 162 Vote Date: June 29, 2005, 12:49 PM Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Amendment Agreed to Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 1023 to H.R. 2361 (Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2006 ) Statement of Purpose: To prohibit the use of funds by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to accept, consider, or rely on third-party intentional dosing human studies for pesticides or to conduct intentional dosing human studies for pesticides. Vote Roll Call Passed 60-37 Vote Roll Call for Burns Amendment 57-40 Graphic is for Boxer amendment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azadre Posted June 29, 2005 Share Posted June 29, 2005 That is good. It goes against the code of ethics one must follow to ensure the safety of the individual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
digipoi Posted June 30, 2005 Share Posted June 30, 2005 Isnt it tough when you have to make a choice between testing on animals or yourself? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boffa Jones Veteran Posted June 30, 2005 Veteran Share Posted June 30, 2005 Isnt it tough when you have to make a choice between testing on animals or yourself? 586140637[/snapback] It is.... but again it isn't. If there could be no animal testing I would be all for it. Hell if we could test on the death row boys i would even agree, but as it is I can't stop it so might as well reap the benefits. I mean we have to test it somehow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunnerhkjp Posted June 30, 2005 Share Posted June 30, 2005 Isnt it tough when you have to make a choice between testing on animals or yourself? 586140637[/snapback] No. Why test it on humans when you can test it on animals. The choice is not tough at all. I'm glad my shampoo doesn't make me bold or go blind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
digipoi Posted June 30, 2005 Share Posted June 30, 2005 No.Why test it on humans when you can test it on animals. The choice is not tough at all. I'm glad my shampoo doesn't make me bold or go blind. 586141891[/snapback] Exactly. Yet we have so many fuzzy bunny love running around yelling "dont oil me squirrels!" and when it comes time to test, cant do it. Pull out a puppy. Im all for humane animal testing especially for items that may cure cancer or other horrible diseases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrandMaster Posted July 4, 2005 Share Posted July 4, 2005 probably because further studies would reveal more of the harms of pesticides costing the US agriculture department money, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts