An April 9, 2005 article on the news-for-fathers site DadTalk by Brett Levy notes a defense by ACSH's Dr. Gilbert Ross of the controversial CHEERS study on the reaction of children to pesticides, for which EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson has been criticized (naturally, we think getting human data without any additional risk to humans is a good idea, but Levy's comments are influenced by the familiar fear that children are especially vulnerable to chemicals as well as financial exploitation):
Pesticides, unlike drugs, are tested only in animals, which is why the industry doesn't really know what these chemicals do to children. The Chemistry Council figures paying for the research may give them some control over the release of the results. That, or [they'll] be forewarned they're about to be sued out of existence.
Unless you believe Gilbert Ross, an M.D. who sees nothing but grandstanding on the part of environmentalists and Democratic senators. Ross, who is also executive director of the American Council on Science and Health, writes in a column that oozes sarcasm:
The environmentalists' real gripe is somewhat less likely to be articulated in the media: these groups have fought against using human toxicity data tooth and nail because they know quite well that such data will show no evidence of harm to humans from the so-called "toxins" in our environment. Their dependence on the "Precautionary Principle," wherein a lack of data mandates excessive regulation out of "safety" concerns, would finally be shown to be misplaced.
That's pretty twisted logic. If environmentalists wanted to beat the tar out of the chemical industry, they'd let CHEERS take place, since it would more likely than not reveal causal relationships between health problems and the unpredicted combinations of toxins. Maybe, Dr. Ross, objections to this study are on purely ethical and moral grounds?
But since I'm not plugged in to Ross's world -- or the environmentalists' -- I find the political posturing irrelevant. This writer only cares that 1. children (and adults) are treated with humanity and respect and 2. that we study these chemicals in an ethical way to determine whether or not they are causing harm to humans.
UPDATE: Further debate between Ross and Levy about the controversial CHEERS study of chemicals' effects on kids can be found at this post on the DadTalk blog.
