Photo by Jason Leung on Unsplash
Written by Bearnairdine Beaumont
08 February 2024
‘One of the main arguments of those who still don't see it as a problem that nothing has been done about toxic fumes in airplane cabins, who doubt that even low-level exposure to engine oil fumes and insecticide spraying in the cabin can cause severe nervous system injuries, and who still believe that the latest medical interventions do not harm, is that the world's governments would never intentionally harm their citizens.
Do they not? Let’s see...
During the Cold War, the U.S. military not only exposed its civilian population to radioactive fallout from its nuclear bomb tests. Citizens of Minneapolis, St. Louis, and Corpus Christi, Texas, were also sprayed with toxic chemicals without their knowledge in the 1950s and 1960s. An article in the German ‚Spiegel TV Magazine’ reported in 1994:
"Hundreds of thousands of US citizens became involuntary test subjects. Aircraft were used to spray supposedly harmless chemicals over American cities with climatic conditions similar to those in Soviet cities. Minneapolis, for example, is almost as cold as Moscow in winter. That's why the army spray-bombed the city of millions with zinc-cadmium sulfide over three months."
According to Leonard A. Cole (†2022), who was an American dentist, political scientist, and expert on bioterrorism & terror medicine, and the author of 11 books, one of which is ‘Clouds of Secrecy: The Army's Germ Warfare Tests over Populated Areas’: "They wanted to find out how bacteria spread, how they survive, and how far they are carried by the wind. Zinc cadmium sulfide was used because it behaves similarly to the biological and chemical warfare agents that would be used in war.”
In Minneapolis in 1953, the “toxin soldiers“ sprayed zinc cadmium sulfide from trucks and rooftops. Cadmium, which damages the lungs and kidneys, can cause cancer. The tests with the fluorescent material were designed to better understand the dispersal of biological and chemical weapons. ( quote from a report from the headquarters of the U.S. Army's Special Biological Warfare Unit at Fort Detrick.)
Women who attended an elementary school in the sprayed areas as children claimed to have suffered injury from the toxic tests, including infertility, cancer, and miscarriages. A spokesman for the U.S. Army, however, claimed that cadmium exposure was below any dangerous level.
A sentence that has been over-used time and again, and is used to this day to make untested and/or sloppy research and court cases go away.
In 2004 US doctors supported human testing of poisons. Under certain conditions, an American expert commission allowed the effects of poisons to be tested directly on humans. Chemical companies such as Bayer wanted to use the tests to prove that pesticides are less dangerous than previously thought.
There was no doubt about the explosive nature of the issue: "Human testing of pesticides, air pollutants, and other toxins is highly controversial," said James F. Childress, professor of ethics at the University of Virginia, at the presentation of the report. Nevertheless, the National Academy of Sciences committee that he heads came out in favor of toxic experiments on humans, provided certain conditions were met.
Childress said that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) must review such experiments from an ethical and scientific perspective. The EPA should form a committee to evaluate all studies in which toxic substances are deliberately administered to humans.
The EPA asked the National Academy to prepare a report on human toxicity experiments. This was prompted by a dispute over acceptable levels of pesticides in food. In 1996, the U.S. Congress passed the Food Quality and Protection Act, which tightened pesticide safety regulations.
In response, pesticide manufacturers such as Bayer and BASF complained that the new limits were not based on science.
To substantiate their concerns, some companies began clinical trials of pesticides and submitted the results to the EPA. A total of 19 unsolicited studies landed on the EPA's desk. The best-known study, on the pesticide azinphos-methyl, was conducted in Scotland in 1998 on behalf of Bayer AG. Eight men swallowed pesticide tablets - each participant received £1500 in compensation.
Such studies have been widely condemned as unethical and unscientific. Testing pesticides on human subjects violates international agreements, including the Nuremberg Code adopted after World War II, and federal rules.
Ironically, EPA changed its policy partly in response to a German pesticide manufacturer's pressure. Bayer submitted a human study of azinphos-methyl, a broad-spectrum organophosphate insecticide derived from World War II nerve gases. Bayer scientists were among those who conducted human experiments in the Nazi concentration camps when the company was a subsidiary of I.G. Farben, the infamous manufacturer of Nazi death camp gas. Bayer submitted the azinphos methyl test in an effort to reduce otherwise applicable safety requirements for the chemical.
The EPA made a tentative decision not to use the Bayer study because it was scientifically unnecessary to consider it, not because of legal and ethical questions it raised. However, more than 10 other human pesticide studies were awaiting EPA consideration. If EPA ultimately accepted the Bayer study or any of the other human studies before it, the floodgates could open for other human pesticide studies.
“Since the EPA's early years, the idea of testing pesticides on human subjects has been controversial. In 1975, when some EPA staff members suggested the agency should encourage human tests for certain pesticides, the studies were not completed due to ethical concerns. Nixon-Ford EPA Administrator Russell Train later said he was "shocked and appalled" by the proposal, and that "the thing should have been shut off at the very start without even dignifying it by a referral to an advisory board" (Washington Post, June 23, 1977). More than a decade later, 20 EPA scientists objected to a proposal to use human tests done by the Nazis in the 1940s to assess the health risks of certain chemicals. The first Bush administration's EPA head, Lee Thomas, prohibited the agency from considering the Nazi study data (Washington Post, March 24, 1988)”. (sic source)
“More recently, the Clinton-era EPA banned the use of human tests of pesticides in making regulatory decisions. In 1998, the EPA adopted an interim policy that human studies would not be used to establish regulatory levels (using "no observable adverse effect levels," or NOAELs) for pesticides. EPA stated in July 1998 that it was "concerned about the possibility of increased human testing as a way to potentially avoid some of the protections that the Food Quality Protection Act establishes" (New York Times, July 28, 1998; Pesticide & Toxic Chemical News, July 30, 1998; Chemical Week, August 2, 2000). EPA reiterated that policy in 2000 (Washington Post, June 28, 2000).” (sic source)
Bayer, the company pressuring EPA to reverse its policy on human testing, is the successor to I.G. Farben, the manufacturer of Zylkon B, the death camp gas. Bayer chemists also used death camp inmates to conduct human experiments on chemicals. Azinphos methyl is a Bayer-invented chemical cousin to organophosphate nerve gases developed during World War II.
The American Chemical Society summarized this troubling period of Bayer's history:
“As an I.G. Farben subsidiary during World War II, Bayer entered the darkest period in its history. Recently publicized evidence suggests that I.G. Farben furnished experimental Bayer drugs for tests on concentration camp prisoners. The company stationed scientists at the camps to oversee human research, and provided at least a portion of the funds that supported the horrific experiments of Joseph Mengele, the notorious Nazi "Angel of Death." I.G. Farben produced the Zyklon B gas used in countless executions, and the company reaped handsome profits from factories set up near the Auschwitz and Maidanek prison camps to benefit from ready access to slave labor”. (sic source)
During the Nuremberg trials of 1947, 13 I.G. Farben executives were convicted of war crimes and crimes against humanity and received prison sentences of up to eight years. The American Tribunal, however, concluded that I.G. Farben's management had not wittingly participated in German hostilities. Nevertheless, in 1950, the Allied High Commission ordered the dissolution of I.G. Farben into 12 successor companies as part of a program to dismantle German industry. Bayer was reincorporated as Farbenfabriken Bayer Aktiengesellschaft in 1951. (source)
Controversy Over Human Testing
Many physicians, ethicists, and environmentalists believe intentional non-therapeutic dosing of humans with toxic pesticides is unethical, and the EPA should maintain its policy of refusing to consider such testing for regulatory purposes. They believe that:
intentional dosing of humans with pesticides is unacceptable, particularly when it is done to advance industry interests, not to benefit the test subjects or public health;
such human pesticide testing has been conducted in an effort to weaken standards that would otherwise be applicable if animal tests were relied upon;
such testing cannot be done on children because of their higher vulnerability to pesticides, so human testing completed to date is scientifically irrelevant for infants and children, the populations of primary statutory concern under the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA).
Band rules and their azinphos methyl study was scientifically invalid because: (sic source)
It tested only eight adult males, whereas a test of more than 2,500 people is needed to yield statistically valid results for certain effects [SAP-SAB Majority App. B; Minority Rep];
It did not yield results relevant to children or women or non-healthy adult males;
There were at least 67 "adverse events," including symptoms often associated with organophosphate poisoning; all eight dosed subjects suffered from such "events" (including chronic headaches, nausea, abdominal pain, etc.). All "events" were attributed, without detailed medical explanation, to a "virus" or the "ward environment," even though most of these events occurred in the dosed group, and two of for placebo subjects suffered no such events.
Bayer apparently tested poor subjects who likely suffered from economic hardship and likely did not understand the risks, and therefore did not give truly informed consent.
“The company Bayer conducted the azinphos methyl test on eight "volunteers.," but did not clearly document they gave their fully informed consent or that they freely volunteered. The company hospitalized them for a month, dosed them with a known poison, took repeated blood and urine tests, and paid them £1500, which suggests the participants were economically disadvantaged.”
“The company did not provide evidence that the subjects understood the consent form or "volunteer information" sheet. According to the Nuremberg Code, a subject "should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision." [Nuremberg Code).
“Consent must be "fully informed" and subjects must "freely volunteer." [FIFRA §12(a)(2)(P)][Common Rule §46.116] [Helsinki B 20-22] "Some research populations are vulnerable and need special protection. The needs of the economically… disadvantaged must be recognized." [Helsinki ¶A-8] The lack of clear documentation of fully informed and voluntary consent thus violates several principles of applicable codes and rules.” (©source https://www.nrdc.org/press-releases/epa-reverses-ban-testing-pesticides-human-subjects )
None of the long-term effects associated with organophosphates is mentioned in any form Bayer gave to the subjects.
Testing pesticides on human subjects violates international agreements, including the Nuremberg Code adopted after World War II, and federal rules.
What pesticides are there?
Chemical spraying begins as a preventative measure and continues until after the crop is harvested. There are different pesticides depending on the target:
Insecticides against insects
Herbicides to control wild plants (commonly known as "weeds")
Fungicides against fungi
Avicides against birds
What are avicides?
Avicides are pesticides used to poison birds when they threaten crops, such as rice or vineyards. In the past, highly concentrated formulations of parathion in diesel oil were sprayed by airplanes over bird nesting colonies.
In Africa, the poisons are sometimes sprayed from airplanes over breeding colonies. In most countries, however, the use of avicides is severely restricted or banned.
In the United States, Canada, Australia, Africa, and New Zealand, however, the use of avicides is still common - although avicides cause considerable "collateral damage" by poisoning water and soil and killing animals that feed on the poisoned birds.
Pesticides harm in many ways and aimlessly
Pesticides do not know that they should only kill this or that plant or animal. Therefore, they also kill or damage other wild plants, animals, and organisms in the soil, air, or surrounding water. The pesticides do not stop at the farmers, the workers, and the people who live there.
Pesticides have significant effects and consequences on almost every aspect of life and the environment:
The effects of chronic ingestion of chemicals with food are the subject of many studies. Possible effects include reproductive disorders, cancer, heart and respiratory diseases, obesity, diabetes, and especially neurological disorders. According to a 2023 international study, pesticides are linked to the occurrence of tremors (muscle tremors), such as Parkinson's disease.
According to an analysis by the European Environment Agency (EEA), pesticides pose a clear risk to human health. Nevertheless, the agricultural sector in Europe still relies on the use of large quantities of these substances to maintain crop yields.
Pesticide manufacturers such as the German chemical and pharmaceutical company Bayer already generate more than a third of their sales with active ingredients that have been classified as highly hazardous by the World Health Organization (WHO), among others. These are pesticides that are carcinogenic, toxic to reproduction, or mutagenic.
Whether and which health risks may be associated with multiple substances risks associated with multiple residues has not yet been fully clarified. However, harmful interactions cannot be ruled out if the organism is exposed to several chemical pesticide-active ingredients at the same time.
Effects of multiple substances on bees
There are already some indications that multiple residues of „plant protection products“ have a lethal effect on bees. In a Polish study carried out in 2017, the residues of 200 pesticides were found in honey bees.
Of the tested bees, only 1 percent were free of pesticides.
In 2010, the BfR (scientific agency of the Federal Republic of Germany) published a study entitled "Pesticides - Dangerous like the plague?" It states, among other things, that the effect of substances with a similar effect (e.g. fungicides) can multiply when they occur in combination.
However, it is very difficult to define what effect a mixture of different active substances can have on humans, as multiple chemicals have very different compositions due to the large number of substances used.
On a side note:
The top 3 producers and exporters of pesticides are:
BASF (Germany), is the world's largest chemical company, with sales of ca €87 billion in 2022.
Bayer, the German chemical and pharmaceutical company had a profit of ca €50 billion in 2022.
The Syngenta Group, with its administrative and headquarters in Basel, Switzerland, had sales of $28.2 billion in 2021.
All of these companies generate more than a third of their pesticide sales with active ingredients that are classified as highly hazardous, by the Pesticide Action Network (PAN), the World Health Organization (WHO), and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). Most of these pesticides have been banned in the EU for this reason.” (*source)
And so I come back to the beginning: The aviation industry also likes to claim that exposure (to organophosphates and 316 other substances in cabin air pollution) is far below any dangerous level, that fume events hardly ever occur, and that insecticide spraying is not harmful to human health at all.
Only a few measurements have been undertaken during documented fume events, ground-based exposure limits were not developed for application at altitude or for complex heated mixtures, and the focus has been on individual substances rather than the complex thermally degraded mixtures. (source).
Years ago they tested around 300 aircrew urine samples for one substance only, whereas tests of more than 2,500 crew members would be needed to yield statistically valid results for certain effects, and more than that when a complex mix of substances is involved. Not to mention inflight testing on several thousand flights on different aircraft models.
A "Report of the Informal Consultation on Aircraft Disinsection" sponsored by the World Health Organization (November 6-10, 1995) concluded that "aircraft disinsection, “when properly conducted, poses no risk to human health"; however, it also noted that "some individuals may experience transient discomfort following aircraft disinsection by aerosol application". So, how does one know they could belong to “some individuals who may experience discomfort”? Asking for a friend…
Have you ever noticed the connection between words like homicide, herbicide, pesticide, and fungicide? They all end in -cide, of course, but their meanings are linked. They all have to do with death, destruction, extermination, and intentional killing - caedere is Latin for to kill, strike, fell.
History has shown that governments, their organizations, private interest groups, and lobbies seem to at least often knowingly harm their people regardless of the consequences - probably always appeased by: exposure is below any dangerous level.
History will continue to repeat itself until every one of these heinous crimes is finally exposed and justice is served.’
All sources and references are shown in the article:
Just so you are aware that it was not only the US Government who exposed their citizens to ‘supposedly harmless chemicals’ - the same occurred in the U.K; for all we know, they might still be continuing with it:
https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2002/apr/21/uk.medicalscience
‘Sue Ellison, spokeswoman for Porton Down, said: 'Independent reports by eminent scientists have shown there was no danger to public health from these releases which were carried out to protect the public.’
Of course, the eminent scientists (who everyone is expected to trust) say there was no danger to the public and they wanted to protect them.
Just as those with medical and scientific qualifications who sit on so called ‘independent’ U.K. Government Executive Committees say damage to human health from breathing contaminated air onboard aircraft is unlikely.
That would be the very same UK Government Executive Committees who said damage to the health of farmers and rural residents from exposure to pesticides would be unlikely.
In the late 1990’s/early 2000’s, there were approximately one thousand claims of injury against the U.K. Government from farmers injured by exposure to organophosphate based pesticides and sheep-dips. Their cases as group action never made it to court.
Only one case, that of farmer John Hill was heard which was won.
Organophosphates and many of the chemicals found to be present in aircraft cabin air (as well as in pesticides, insecticides and herbicides) are Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals (EDC’s). EDC’s are known to cause hormonal disruption at low levels of exposure which can lead to various injuries and diseases.
There is also the possibility of cholinesterase inhibition, mitochondrial dysfunction, cytogenetic (DNA alteration and replication errors which are passed on future generations) and cytotoxic disruption.
Please sign and share our petition.
For further information on Aerotoxic Syndrome please visit: