 |
 |
| Back Issues |
|
|
|
|
ACS Members can sign up to receive C&EN e-mail newsletter.  |
|
|
 Join ACS |
|
|||||||||
|
TOXICOLOGY
The court "confirmed [EPA's] authority to reject industry human tests that do not satisfy strict regulations and the highest ethical standards," says Erik D. Olson, a senior attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council. Under these criteria, EPA would have to reject all human tests conducted so far, he says. However, American Chemistry Council (ACC) counsel Jamie Conrad contends that all the existing studies of pesticides using humans followed the Common Rule. In the late 1990s, EPA reevaluated its practice of relying on data from human studies and began considering such data only on a case-by-case basis. In December 2001, the agency announced that it would not consider data from any human studies until the National Academy of Sciences reviewed the ethical issues involved. Next, industry groups CropLife America and ACC asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to intervene. In their complaint, they said the rejection of human data by EPA was unlawful because it constituted a regulation issued without a notice of proposed rule-making. They also said EPA's decision violated two federal laws requiring the agency to consider "all relevant data." In response, EPA contended the ban was not a rule but a "policy statement." |
|||||||||
|
Chemical & Engineering News |
|||||||||
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
