vaccine death, cel tumor, food price & value of life

pharm giant kills 12 argentine babies in vaccine 'trials'
from trading markets: At least 12 babies who were part of a clinical study to test the effectiveness of a vaccine against pneumonia have died over the past year in Argentina, the local press reported Thursday. The study was sponsored by global drug giant GlaxoSmithKline and uses children from poor families, who are “pressured and forced into signing consent forms,” the Argentine Federation of Health Professionals, or Fesprosa, said. “This occurs without any type of state control” and “does not comply with minimum ethical requirements,” Fesprosa said.

frequent mobile phone use boosts tumor risk by 50%
from natural news: Frequent users of cellular phones develop tumors of the parotid gland 50 percent more often than less frequent users, according to a new study published in the American Journal of Epidemiology.

world bank's zoellick: food prices high until 2012
from reuters: World Bank President Robert Zoellick said on Saturday he expected food prices to remain above 2004 levels until at least 2012 and energy prices would also remain high and volatile. He repeated that with food and fuel prices in a "danger zone" there was a need for $10 billion to provide food and cash handouts for the world's poorest.

epa says the value of an american life has decreased
from thinkprogress: In May, the Environmental Protection Agency lowered its “value of a statistical life” measure to $6.9 million in today’s dollars, which is “a drop of nearly $1 million from just five years ago.” In other words, in the eyes of the EPA, the value of a human life has decreased. Here’s what the change means:

Though it may seem like a harmless bureaucratic recalculation, the devaluation has real consequences. When drawing up regulations, government agencies put a value on human life and then weigh the costs versus the lifesaving benefits of a proposed rule. The less a life is worth to the government, the less the need for a regulation, such as tighter restrictions on pollution.

Critics say that the Bush administration is “changing the value to avoid tougher rules.” “It’s hard to imagine that it has other than a political motivation,” said former senior EPA official Dan Esty.