Hi Moondog

I was a bit ... err.. tired when I wrote that and it doesn't seem to make much sense now. It was the claim in the article that called it an "immoral program to test pesticides on children". In fact it was a quote from Sen. Barbara Boxer, which the article did not qualify or comment on at all. Worse still, neither did any other reports on this story in the main newspapers I've looked at.

They are not giving children pesticides and waiting to see what happens - they are trying to find out what the pesticides already in their food and environment are doing to them. If they find that kids with high amounts of one pesticide in them get a certain illness, then they can make moves to get rid of that pesticide. How can that be immoral ?

I was trying to say its very different to animal experimentation and the original test for the smallpox vaccine which was done on a healthy child who was then infected with smallpox deliberately. But nowdays we consider the latter to be wrong and respectable organisations wouldn't even think of doing that. The way the media have handled this one by quoting this senator and saying nothing more is just crazy.

As for animals, the vast majority that are used are raised specifically for medical testing. And for many of the experiments can't "render them unconscious" because that would influence the results, or in places like india and china they often just don't bother even when there is no reason not to - because it is seen as a waste of anaesthetics/money. And with many of the experiments it would not help the "cruelty" bit anyway. I realise the benefits it gives us and I don't agree with the people who go and damage the property of people and organisations that do testing. But I think it should be controlled far better than it is at present to minimise it to experiments where it is really necessary and where there is massive potential benefit. To let it happen regularly for say, a new drug that is not expected to have any significant advanatages over one already on the market, just so that pharma can get a slice of the profits for that indication, is not good enough IMO.

Its a difficult subject and I'm not going to go into that anymore here. But the fact remains the study that was cancelled here was not being cruel to anyone. Whats all the fuss about ? How can senators and environmental organisations get away with making accusations like that and all the press just report it as the truth ?

The only actual possible legitimate concern was that "low-income Floridians might continue to use pesticides -- which have been linked to neurological damage in children -- in their homes to qualify for the project. " All the rest is absolute nonsense and I'm disgusted with the way the press has covered this.

Simon