Testing Pesticides On Humans
Click
Here to Add Comment Subject:
Testing Pesticides On Humans
Date:
Wed, 22 Jan 2003 11:34:57 -0500
From:
Stephen Tvedten <steve@getipm.com>
Organization: Get Set Inc. (www.getipm.com)
To: Paul Helliker <phelliker@cdpr.ca.gov>
Director, State of California, Department of Pesticide
Regulation
cc: Christine Whitman whitman.christine@epa.gov
TESTING PESTICIDES ON HUMANS
Date: 030109 From: http://www.nandotimes.com/
GOVERNMENT PANEL HEARS ARGUMENTS ON TESTING PESTICIDES ON HUMANS
By Joan Lowy, Scripps Howard News Service, January 9, 2003
Washington, DC - Industry-sponsored studies that pay people to ingest pesticides are inherently unethical and their results have been mischaracterized, public health advocates told a scientific panel Wednesday.
Pesticide companies are using studies that test the effects of low doses of dangerous chemicals on small numbers of healthy adult men - sometimes as few as a half dozen - to weaken safety standards set by the Environmental Protection Agency for children, critics said.
EPA asked the National Academy of Sciences to form a panel to examine the ethical ramifications and scientific value of conducting human studies in addition to studies of lab rats and other animals.
EPA has placed a moratorium on consideration of human testing results submitted by industry until the academy's panel submits its report.
Meanwhile, several pesticide companies and CropLife America, a trade association for the pesticide industry, have sued the EPA to force it to consider human test data. The agency is in the process of evaluating the safety levels of dozens of pesticides for children and for the developing fetus.
"These studies are particularly dangerous because they almost uniformly give a false impression of safety due to their inherent inability to detect effects that could occur in a small but significant percentage of a large, exposed population," Richard Wiles of the Environmental Working Group told the panel.
Industry scientists and lobbyists, however, said that studies of lab rats and other animals are no substitute for human data.
"If children are not little adults, rodents aren't little humans, either," said William Kelly of the industry-oriented Center for Regulatory Effectiveness. One panel member expressed support for human studies, asking rhetorically: "How do you know if a rat has a headache or is depressed?"
In some cases, the results of human studies have indicated that people are more sensitive to pesticides than laboratory animals, rather than less, industry officials noted.
Most of the studies have been conducted abroad. An industry-funded review of 15 studies of pesticides and other chemicals on paid human volunteers concluded that the studies complied with U.S. and international ethical guidelines for human studies.
However, the review noted that in at least two of the studies, participants were told the pesticide they were ingesting was a "study drug," a "drug under test" or a "chemical compound" in consent forms they signed. The fact that the substance was a pesticide was contained in a separate information sheet.
In consent forms for a study of chlorpyrifos - a pesticide that poisons the nervous systems of insects and has been removed from the market because of its particular dangers to children - people participating in the tests were told: "Low doses of these agents have been shown to improve performance on numerous tests of mental function."
"This makes it sound like chlorpyrifos is good for you and may make you smarter - a clear deception," said Dr. Alan Lockwood, a neurologist who spoke on behalf of Physicians for Social Responsibility, an environmental and public health advocacy group.
In 13 of the 15 studies reviewed, volunteers were required to sign documents waiving their right to later sue the testing company should they suffer harm. Instead, testing companies agreed to submit any complaints by volunteers to binding arbitration, a practice that has become popular with credit-card companies, mortgage lenders and car dealers. The practice has been strongly criticized by consumer advocates because arbitration results usually favor industry.
* * *
Copyright (c) 2003, Scripps Howard News Service Copyright (c) 2003 Nando Media
If you would like to be included in our mailing list for continuing information on pesticides, please email us at list@safe2use.com.