EPA proposes new rules for human pesticide studies

WASHINGTON, DC, September 9, 2005 (ENS): Under fire from citizens' groups and some legislators for allowing human dose pesticide studies that could harm children, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) this week proposed a rule that will establish stringent enforceable ethical safeguards governing the conduct of third-party intentional dosing research with human subjects.

Among other new ethical protections, EPA proposes to prohibit all new third-party intentional dosing research on pesticides with children and pregnant women.

The agency announced a "categorical ban" on such studies saying that EPA "will neither conduct nor support any intentional dosing studies that involve pregnant women or children."

"We are pursuing a rigorous set of protections for human research participants," said Susan Hazen, principal deputy assistant administrator in EPA's Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances.

"EPA believes that regulatory decisions should be supported by the best scientific information," said Hazen. "We should consider human data only if that information has been developed with the foremost goal of providing protections for research participants. We want to send a clear signal to the public that unethical research should never be conducted and will not be accepted by EPA."

This rule is intended to ensure that people who volunteer for third-party pesticide studies involving exposure to humans are treated ethically, with full disclosure as to potential risks.

For any new, intentional dosing studies with pesticides, this proposal would require researchers to comply with the requirements of the Common Rule - current ethical standards for research conducted or supported by the federal government.

Hazen says that EPA sponsored or supported research now meets current federal ethical standards set forth in the Common Rule, and the agency's new proposal would extend those and other safeguards to third party research involving pesticides.

Researchers would have to submit detailed study protocols to EPA prior to initiation so that EPA can review them to ensure the study meets the new ethical protections and is scientifically sound. Then, once the study is conducted, researchers would have to provide detailed information to EPA describing how the study met the necessary ethical protections.

This rule would also put in place standards that EPA would follow in determining whether to rely on human studies. The agency is proposing to establish a Human Studies Review Board to review study protocols and selected available studies. The new protections would apply to pesticide intentional dosing studies conducted by EPA, those supported or sponsored by EPA, and those conducted by a pesticide manufacturer or other researchers.

This rule focuses largely on pesticide studies because such studies have elicited a strong expression of public concern, and because the risks they potentially present to people who volunteer to participate. Today's proposal is the first in a series of potential actions that will address the full spectrum of human studies issues at EPA.

The agency says it has been conducting "a comprehensive review" of older pesticides to ensure that they meet current health and safety standards so that the public, especially infants, children and other sensitive people, are protected from pesticide risks.

EPA welcomes public input, and the proposal includes a 90-day public comment period. For more information on the rulemaking, visit: http://www.epa.gov/oppfead1/guidance/human-test.htm

Copyright Environment News Service (ENS) 2005. All Rights Reserved.

Recent news and research

[an error occurred while processing this directive]

Stay Up-to-Date –
Sign up for our Newsletter

NewFarm.org changes daily! Don't miss out on the latest interactive features, columns and news. Sign up now for our monthly e-newsletter and stay connected.


•Free the meat markets! End packer ownership and stop closed-door deals

• Support Saskatchewan farmers in efforts to block GM wheat

• Stop budget cuts to conservation programs--the one's that help you pay for environmentally sound farming practices!

Share Your Stories

Are you a farmer? A consumer? Whatever story you have to tell, let it be an inspiration to others.
Share it with us now...

T H E    N E W    F A R M – R E G E N E R A T I V E    A G R I C U L T U R E    W O R L D W I D E