Human Tests for Safe Pesticide Levels

I fear that your Nov. 27 article on setting pesticide safety levels, “U.S. Will Use Once-Banned Human Tests,” might be used to foster a “scientific correctness” where only some science is deemed worthy of consideration. Early this year, several colleagues and I analyzed the EPA’s reference doses and concentrations on 38 chemicals, including pesticides, for which human as well as animal data were available. In 36% of the cases, human data resulted in lower, more precautionary safety values. In other words, if the EPA had ignored human data, it would have made a decision that potentially increased the public’s risk.

All available data should be considered in making decisions that affect public health. Properly conducted, ethical studies where the rights and safety of the volunteer subjects have been fully protected should be evaluated to assess the potential health impact of any chemical, whether a drug, pesticide or an air pollutant. It is without scientific merit for any group to say that properly designed human toxicological or epidemiology data are not relevant to the protection of human health.

Michael Dourson

Director, Toxicology Excellence

for Risk Assessment, Cincinnati