HUMAN PESTICIDE TESTING—Federal Toxics Advocate Meghan Purvis testifies on the danger of human-subject pesticide tests. In addition to being scientifically questionable, the tests can be a tool of manufacturers to use human pesticide tests to weaken health standards on many pesticides.

It’s not uncommon to see ads for medical studies on the subway or fliers around town—some seek people with a specific disorder and many offer an easy way to make some extra cash. But answering questions or submitting to a health history is entirely different than ingesting potentially dangerous chemicals.

Unfortunately, the EPA, despite Congressional advice, has approved regulations that allow pesticide manufacturers to test their dangerous chemicals on humans.

Pesticide companies lobbied to be able to test the toxicity and health impacts of pesticides on humans. Their hope is that these “volunteers” won’t show ill effects, at least in the short run, and government officials will weaken health standards for many pesticides.

Congress And Public Ignored
In June of 2005, after the pesticide industry successfully lobbied the Bush administration’s EPA to overturn one aspect of the original ban on human pesticide testing, Congress ordered a one-year moratorium on human-subject pesticide tests.

At that time, Congress demanded that the EPA categorically ban all testing on pregnant women and children and insisted that new rules ensure that any future tests comply with existing ethical guidelines.

During the public comment period on the proposed EPA rules, state PIRGs members and activists, along with members of consumer, environmental and community groups, submitted thousands of public comments expressing disapproval of human pesticide testing.

Instead, the rules that the EPA issued in January contain loopholes that allow testing on vulnerable populations like pregnant women and children—if pesticide companies read the fine print.

Pesticide manufacturers can decide not to submit their findings to EPA’s scrutiny, or follow any of their rules.

“It’s outrageous enough that pesticide companies get away with testing their toxic products on humans,” said the state PIRGs’ Meghan Purvis. “The idea that EPA would use these scientifically questionable tests to weaken public health standards is simply unacceptable.”

New Rules Allow Testing
The EPA’s rules fail to meet the minimum demands of Congress and do not address the public comments submitted to the EPA on the subject.

The vast majority of public comments submitted by concerned citizens favored a comprehensive ban on pesticide testing on humans.

“These rules simply aren’t protective of human health,” said Purvis. “They leave loopholes big enough to fly a crop-duster through while pretending to fix the problems with these dangerous experiments.” According to Purvis, the new rules fail in the following ways:

• They do not fully protect vulnerable populations such as children, pregnant women and those unable to give informed consent from pesticide testing.
• The rules require that companies “substantially comply” with the regulations—not that they follow the letter of the law.
• The tests are voluntary, allowing companies to make an end-run around requirements.
• Finally, the industry can subvert all the rules by shipping their tests outside the U.S.

The state PIRGs and our allies will continue to put pressure on the EPA to overturn the new rules and enact permanent rules regarding human pesticide testing.