Comments:
EPA MIS-informs: children
about chemicals/pesticides
Back to Article
*
ADD Comment
So this is pesticide "education" for kids?
Perhaps it might explain why the number of children and adults suffer from chemical sensitivity at some stage in their lives.
Rex Warren
National President
Australian Chemical Trauma Alliance
rexglor@bigpond.com
To: oppt. homepage@epa.gov
CC: Christine Whitman <whitman.christine@epa.gov>TO: EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics,
Regarding your "home tour for kids".
What are you thinking????????? http://www.epa.gov/oppt/kids/hometour/tour.htm
We have visited the "home tour" site and it appears that the you have chosen to portray a family "happily" surrounded by poisons.
You have chosen to promote the acceptance and use of all types of toxic poisons AND the dangerous misuse of these chemicals:
You have pictured a fogger going off in a bedroom with an open fish bowl
and all the bedding and clothes exposed and a baby playing downstairs.
The family pet with the toxic collar is in the room with the baby. You admit
that the pesticide is distributed over the dog which means it is on the floor,
furniture and baby toys. Why tell children that this is a "protection"? You
must have the reports of these flea and tick collars harming pets and people?
In YOUR "definitions" your push Pyrethrums and that Pyrethroids kill insects
just like mother nature. Mother nature never left the flower and distributed
the toxic poison throughout the environment and food supply. Have you even
read this research: http://www.safe2use.com/ca-ipm/00-09-18.htm
You encourage reading labels but even you know that using any of these
products "according to label directions" is unsafe. Have you read:
http://www.safe2use.com/ca-ipm/00-09-29.htm
Pictures say a thousand words and this pictorial tour is as toxic as it comes. Normalizing the use of these toxins is obscene.
Is it not true that you have a directive to find and promote alternatives? Where are any alternatives mentioned in the "home tour". Not even a suggestion of weed pulling instead of herbicides.
What are you thinking or better yet, who's paying for this concept and design (DOW, MONSANTO, DUPONT)? If you're going to be part of the chemical industry "thought police" you should have at least tried to be more subtle.
As a grandparent, with a grandchild permanently injured by pesticides, I demand that you take action to remove this biased, false, dangerous and misleading site immediately.
Linda L. Jensen-Pascarella
Corona, California
Sent To EPA Personnel:
I expect that your home tour for children is meant to be
shared by kids with their parents. It unfortunately fails to warn either party
as to appropriate cautions for products discussed. This tour is an abrupt departure from advice previously
incorporated in EPA/OPPT documents in
which people are urged to seek natural alternatives to air fresheners (not
discussed in this tour), pesticides, herbicides etc.
Those documents also advised that, as per the 1996 FQPA, such materials
were being re-registered due to the fact that the more vulnerable members of
society were not protected under current definitions of product toxicity.
Indeed, many of the products discussed on this home tour such as
pyrethroids, pyrethrums etc, have not even been subject to re-registration
scrutiny at this point in time. No such explanations are in evidence on this home tour until
one specifically looks at the top 10 questions and find that you do, indeed,
recognize the fact that poisons are NOT needed in the home to control weeds
and pests.
You do make an excellent point when discussing vinegar
and baking soda as cleaners which contain no toxic materials and will not
contaminate food. However, in
discussing the antibacterial cleaners in the kitchen, you make NO warning that
they will contaminate food. The fact that you recommend controlling bacteria
in the kitchen with these chemicals OR with "hot soapy water", gives
pause as to why the EPA is endorsing the use of the antibacterial products at
all. EPA always states that
registration does not constitute endorsement yet this site appears to do just
that. If this were a television
special I would wonder about corporate sponsorship altering program content.
This site is completely inappropriate for children as it
makes it appear that every room in the house must contain poisons which are
perfectly appropriate for adults to use according to the label.
You also make it appear as if children can be made responsible for
avoiding exposures in their toxic homes by not touching their "protected
pets" for 24 hours after "spot" treatment or by washing their
hands if their pets are wearing flea collars.
You make no mention to the audience
that these pesticides transfer themselves to upholstery/clothing
fabrics and carpets where they remain for months or years! The inclusion of
pesticide foggers in this site at all is a remarkable lapse in judgment due to
the degree of contamination propagated by such items.
Your concept of exposure is limited to the concept of the
"dose makes the poison" and make no mention of individual
differences which make some individuals likely to have pollutant related
illnesses or that our society is at risk for delayed illness from early
exposures. As children, the
elderly and the unborn are most likely to be harmed immediately or in delayed
fashion, a significant number of household residents would be terribly damaged
living in this, unfortunately, "typical" home. You include a very
important point in a brief question about a child's sibling who gets a rash
from using polish. All you
advised was to get that child latex gloves instead of advising parents about
the true nature of sensitivities with such signs as asthma, hyperactivity,
sleep disturbances, GI disturbances, skin reactions, learning problems etc.
Any child living in that home would surely be at risk for all of the above.
Your site makes its strongest case when discussing
"huffing". However, you
write as if only the intentional misuse of these products can cause brain
damage. I assure you that
routine, by the label, usage can do so as well - hence the removal of
chlopyrifos from the marketplace and mandatory reductions in VOCs given off by
paints etc. I became
brain damaged from routine pyrethroid exposures in the workplace and this
writing is taking many hours instead of the minutes it might have required
just a couple of years ago.
There is no way to make poisons into a "kid
friendly" concept and your site should be about the nontoxic home - how
kids can recommend replacing common household toxics with natural products.
Have a contest run nationally to take suggestions from school children
to produce such a site and make that topic a source of instruction in the
schools and PTAs.
This site must be removed from the EPA website as it
protects neither the environment nor the consumer. If the EPA is determined to default on it's enforcement
responsibilities with regard to the personal
and industrial use of toxic materials, you can at least not involve the
children in this propaganda.
Sincerely, Barbara Rubin
EPA,
I find your web-site information extremely misleading. Is
this intentional or are you uninformed about the serious health effects of
these chemicals? To minimize these effects is gross negligence. You describe a
pesticide by saying, "most pesticides contain chemicals that can be
harmful to people". That's ALL you say! You don't say in your text that
pesticides are poisons used to KILL pests, and that these poisons can cause
nausea, vomiting, blindness, and even death. To not tell children this is irresponsible.
You do not demonstrate your responsibility as adults to adequately protect the
health and welfare of our children, and you should either be truthful about
these facts or eliminate this "informational" site altogether. I am
angry and frustrated that you can call yourselves the Environmental
"Protection" Agency, and get away with NOT protecting our
environment and those of us who live in, ESPECIALLY our children. You should
be embarrassed and ashamed. Lastly, I am not just some stupid crank who is out
to give you a bad time, as adults, our job is to protect our community from
harm, remember? Especially our children who depend on us adults to protect
them.
I hope you take a conscious and responsible second look
at your site and decide to design it for what I think it is intended for; to
inform and protect our children.
Regards, James Smallwood
, Santa Barbara