CONTACT: Natural Resources Defense Council
NRDC: Craig Noble, (415) 875-6100, or Elliott Negin, NRDC, 202-289-6868;
Pesticide Action Network: Dr. Margaret Reeves, (415) 981-6205 ext 319;
Earthjustice: Jan Hasselman, (206) 343-7340 ext 25

Groups Sue EPA for Approving Unethical, Illegal Human Pesticide Testing

SAN FRANCISCO - February 23 - A new Environmental Protection Agency rule
will turn more Americans into lab rats for industry pesticide tests,
according to lawsuits filed today by a coalition of health and environmental
advocates, farmworkers and doctors. The groups contend that the agency's
human testing rule violates a law passed by Congress in 2005 mandating
strict ethical and scientific protections for pesticide testing on humans.
"EPA's rule allows pesticide companies to use intentional tests on humans to
justify weaker restrictions on pesticides," said Dr. Margaret Reeves, a
senior staff scientist with Pesticide Action Network.

Although the rule prohibits some kinds of testing and limits others, it is
riddled with loopholes that undermine its effectiveness and ultimately
encourage more human testing, the coalition groups said. The rule also fails
to ensure that pesticide testing on human subjects meets the strictest
scientific and ethical standards recommended by a 2004 National Academy of
Sciences report and outlined in the Nuremberg Code after World War II.
The chemical industry concedes that its goal is to weaken safety standards
by circumventing the margin of safety the EPA uses to estimate a safe human
exposure level based on animal studies. As a result of the agency's illegal
rule, the EPA will rely on unethical and unscientific human pesticide tests
to weaken regulatory standards, the groups charge.

There have been serious ethical and scientific problems with such tests in
the past. For example, a company told participants in one test they were
eating vitamins, not toxic pesticides. In many other tests, companies have
not provided any long-term follow-up to protect participants' health.
The Clinton administration banned the EPA from relying on the results of
such tests because of their questionable scientific and ethical integrity.
The Bush administration at first ratified the Clinton-era moratorium, but
then lifted the ban. Congress reimposed it in 2005, pending finalization of
stricter rules.

"The EPA's rule puts pesticide companies' profits ahead of human health and
scientific integrity," said Dr. Robert Gould, a pathologist and president of
San Francisco Bay Area Physicians for Social Responsibility. "Pesticide
companies should not be allowed to take advantage of vulnerable populations
by enticing people to serve as human laboratory rats."

Erik Olson, a senior attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council,
agreed. "The industry's human pesticide tests are unscientific and
unethical," Olson said. "Their record of abuse is appalling, yet the EPA
disregards Congress' order to crack down on this abhorrent practice."
"Unethical testing of pesticides on humans is wrong and has to be stopped,"
said Jan Hasselman, an attorney with Earthjustice representing the groups in
the lawsuit. "EPA's rule ignores Congress and allows unethical human tests
to be used to weaken pesticide regulations."

The lawsuits were filed simultaneously in the Second Circuit Court of
Appeals in New York City and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San
Francisco. The groups filing lawsuits today include Pesticide Action Network
North America, Pineros y Campesinos Unidos del Noroeste (Northwest
Treeplanters and Farmworkers United), San Francisco Bay Area Physicians for
Social Responsibility, and Natural Resources Defense Council. They are
represented by attorneys with Earthjustice and NRDC.