[Comment: I have read stories written by pesticide experiment subjects who placed their head in a small chamber and had pesticide sprayed right at their face and subsequently suffered permanent health effects. These subjects all expressed that they thought the trials were safe and they would not be put in any danger. I don't think this could ever be considered an ethical practice, nor could anyone give truly give informed consent knowing how toxic pesticides are. Pesticides are designed to kill. They are not safe for humans, especially children and small pets. There are safer alternatives to pesticides. Need more be said? Please see http://www.panna.org/documents/boxer.20050627.pdf for a history of human pesticide experimentation.]
Environ Health. 2010 Aug 18;9(1):50. [Epub ahead of print]
The ethics of human volunteer studies involving experimental exposure to pesticides: unanswered dilemmas.
London L, Coggon D, Moretto A, Westerholm P, Wilks MF, Colosio C.
Abstract
ABSTRACT: The controversy about the use of data from human volunteer studies involving experimental exposure to pesticides as part of regulatory risk assessment has been widely discussed, but the complex and interrelated scientific and ethical issues remain largely unresolved. This discussion paper, generated by authors who comprised a workgroup of the ICOH Scientific Committee on Rural Health, reviews the use of human experimental studies in regulatory risk assessment for pesticides with a view to advancing the debate as to when, if ever, such studies might be ethically justifiable. The discussion is based on three elements: (a) a review of discussion papers on the topic of human testing of pesticides and the positions adopted by regulatory agencies in developed countries; (b) an analysis of published and unpublished studies involving human testing with pesticides, both in the peer-reviewed literature and in the JMPR database; and (c) application of an ethical analysis to the problem. The paper identifies areas of agreement which include general principles that may provide a starting point on which to base criteria for judgements as to the ethical acceptability of such studies. However, the paper also highlights ongoing unresolved differences of opinion inherent in ethical analysis of contentious issues, which we propose should form a starting point for further debate and the development of guidelines to achieve better resolution of this matter.
PMID: 20718963 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]
