Senate votes to block pesticide studies on humans


Recommended Posts

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.

post-6042-1120079474.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

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

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.