PROTECTING CONSUMERS—Meghan Purvis, WISPIRG’s national toxics advocate, testifies before Congress against allowing pesticides to be tested on humans.

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.

The EPA, despite Congressional advice to the contrary, 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 intent 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 a coalition of consumer, environmental and community groups, submitted thousands of public comments expressing disapproval of human pesticide testing.

New Rules Allow More 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 human beings.

“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 rules for submitting tests are voluntary, allowing companies to make an end-run around ethical requirements.

• Finally, the industry can subvert all the rules by shipping their tests outside the U.S.

Congresswoman Hilda Solis (Calif.), author of last year’s temporary moratorium, said before the decision, “this decision should not be one that comes without serious consideration of first and foremost the morality of testing on humans and how to protect the health of all involved, especially our nation’s most vulnerable populations.”

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