EPA considers using tests on human subjects

WASHINGTON – In setting limits on chemicals in food and water, the Environmental Protection Agency may rely on industry tests that expose people to poisons and raise ethical questions.

The new policy, which the EPA is still developing, would allow Bush administration political appointees to referee any ethical disputes. Agency officials are putting the finishing touches on a plan to take a case-by-case approach.

“It says we’re going to look at each study on its individual terms and accept studies unless they are fundamentally unethical or have significant deficiencies,” said Bill Jordan, a senior policy adviser in EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs. “We’re setting the stage for making decisions about these studies. No guarantees that we will accept the data, and no guarantees that we will reject the data, either.”

Pesticide makers say human tests give more accurate results about the risks of the products to people and the environment, and that they follow safety guidelines set by Congress, EPA, courts and scientific groups.

A Nov. 3 draft of the plan, obtained by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, or PEER, says that anyone affected “should not assume that EPA will follow a prescribed method of reviewing a particular human study in each and every instance.”

“This is a case-by-case process. As such, it binds no one to a particular result,” says the draft obtained by the whistleblowers’ advocacy group.

Critics say that with the draft plan, the EPA is shirking its duties to set rules now.

“By this sleazy move, EPA defers developing enforceable ethical standards,” said Jeff Ruch, PEER’s executive director.