Featured Research

from universities, journals, and other organizations

Flawed Pesticide Studies Using Human Subjects Could Result In Higher Allowable Exposures For Both Children And Adults

Date:
November 29, 2004
Source:
University At Buffalo
Summary:
Studies using human subjects to determine a "no observable effect level" of pesticides do not meet widely accepted scientific and ethical standards for research and should not be used to set new standards, according to a scathing analysis published in the November issue of the American Journal of Public Health.

BUFFALO, N.Y. -- Studies using human subjects to determine a "no observable effect level" of pesticides do not meet widely accepted scientific and ethical standards for research and should not be used to set new standards, according to a scathing analysis published in the November issue of the American Journal of Public Health.

A review of six studies obtained from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Freedom of Information Act and conducted by Alan H. Lockwood, M.D., professor of neurology and nuclear medicine at the University at Buffalo, found the studies flawed by conflict of interest, failure to meet ethical standards established by the Declaration of Helsinki, unacceptable informed consent procedures, inadequate statistical power and inappropriate test methods and end points.

All studies were funded by pesticide manufacturers, and all ethics committees responsible for approving the study protocols were part of the contract research organizations paid by the company to conduct the studies, he found.

Lockwood co-chairs the Environment and Health Committee of the national Physicians for Social Responsibility, but undertook this analysis on his own. The motivation behind these industry-sponsored human-dosing studies is clear, he said.

"The industries want to abolish, or at least reduce, the interspecies uncertainty factor and thereby convince the EPA to accept higher tolerances, which would benefit the industries financially," Lockwood added.

The interspecies uncertainty factor extrapolates the risk to humans, based on data from animal studies. It assumes that humans may be 10-fold more sensitive than the animal model, and that children may be 100-fold more sensitive. If results of these human studies are accepted as adequate by the EPA, the concentration of pesticides in food might increase.

"To accept these studies would open the door to other poorly conducted studies and would violate the principal that those who engage in unethical activity should not reap rewards," Lockwood stated in his analysis. He discussed pesticides Nov. 12 on the National Public Radio program "Science Friday."

The analysis by Lockwood found several significant deviations from accepted ethical and scientific standards in the reports submitted to the EPA:

- None of the study results appear in the scientific literature, indicating they were not conducted to advance generalizable scientific knowledge, the accepted criterion for scientific studies.

- The studies' "failure to preserve the accuracy of results" violated the Declaration of Helsinki, which all studies claimed to use as their ethical standard.

- None of the study protocols were reviewed by committees "independent of the investigator, the sponsor or any other kind of undue influence," as required by the Declaration of Helsinki.

- Not all studies told participants why the study was being conducted or how the results would be used. Two identified the pesticide only as "the compound under test." One neglected to mention the most serious consequences, including death, of large amounts of the pesticide and implied that participants who withdrew for nonmedical reasons might not be paid, a condition amounting to coercion.

- The studies lack full risk-benefit information; one study neglected to mention a report that found hospitalizations and stillbirths resulting from overexposure to its product.

- All studies used too few participants, were too short to yield meaningful results and employed young healthy adults, who are least susceptible to pesticide effects.

- None of the studies of these chemicals, which act on the central nervous system, used tests sensitive enough to detect small effects on brain function.

"Society has reaped enormous benefits from the use of pesticides," said Lockwood. "However, they are inherently toxic and great care is required as new standards are adopted, particularly those that govern childhood pesticide exposures. For this reason, these and similar pesticide safety studies should be reviewed by scientific committees whose members are not influenced by politics or financial conflicts of interest."


Story Source:

The above story is based on materials provided by University At Buffalo. Note: Materials may be edited for content and length.


Cite This Page:

University At Buffalo. "Flawed Pesticide Studies Using Human Subjects Could Result In Higher Allowable Exposures For Both Children And Adults." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 29 November 2004. <www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/11/041129113201.htm>.
University At Buffalo. (2004, November 29). Flawed Pesticide Studies Using Human Subjects Could Result In Higher Allowable Exposures For Both Children And Adults. ScienceDaily. Retrieved July 23, 2014 from www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/11/041129113201.htm
University At Buffalo. "Flawed Pesticide Studies Using Human Subjects Could Result In Higher Allowable Exposures For Both Children And Adults." ScienceDaily. www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/11/041129113201.htm (accessed July 23, 2014).

Share This




More Health & Medicine News

Wednesday, July 23, 2014

Featured Research

from universities, journals, and other organizations


Featured Videos

from AP, Reuters, AFP, and other news services

Courts Conflicted Over Healthcare Law

Courts Conflicted Over Healthcare Law

AP (July 22, 2014) Two federal appeals courts issued conflicting rulings Tuesday on the legality of the federally-run healthcare exchange that operates in 36 states. (July 22) Video provided by AP
Powered by NewsLook.com
Why Do People Believe We Only Use 10 Percent Of Our Brains?

Why Do People Believe We Only Use 10 Percent Of Our Brains?

Newsy (July 22, 2014) The new sci-fi thriller "Lucy" is making people question whether we really use all our brainpower. But, as scientists have insisted for years, we do. Video provided by Newsy
Powered by NewsLook.com
Scientists Find New Way To Make Human Platelets

Scientists Find New Way To Make Human Platelets

Newsy (July 22, 2014) Boston scientists have discovered a new way to create fully functioning human platelets using a bioreactor and human stem cells. Video provided by Newsy
Powered by NewsLook.com
Gilead's $1000-a-Pill Drug Could Cure Hep C in HIV-Positive People

Gilead's $1000-a-Pill Drug Could Cure Hep C in HIV-Positive People

TheStreet (July 21, 2014) New research shows Gilead Science's drug Sovaldi helps in curing hepatitis C in those who suffer from HIV. In a medical study, the combination of Gilead's Hep C drug with anti-viral drug Ribavirin cured 76% of HIV-positive patients suffering from the most common hepatitis C strain. Hepatitis C and related complications have been a top cause of death in HIV-positive patients. Typical medication used to treat the disease, including interferon proteins, tended to react badly with HIV drugs. However, Sovaldi's %1,000-a-pill price tag could limit the number of patients able to access the treatment. TheStreet's Keris Lahiff reports from New York. Video provided by TheStreet
Powered by NewsLook.com

Search ScienceDaily

Number of stories in archives: 140,361

Find with keyword(s):
Enter a keyword or phrase to search ScienceDaily for related topics and research stories.

Save/Print:
Share:

Breaking News:
from the past week

In Other News

... from NewsDaily.com

Science News

Health News

Environment News

Technology News



Save/Print:
Share:

Free Subscriptions


Get the latest science news with ScienceDaily's free email newsletters, updated daily and weekly. Or view hourly updated newsfeeds in your RSS reader:

Get Social & Mobile


Keep up to date with the latest news from ScienceDaily via social networks and mobile apps:

Have Feedback?


Tell us what you think of ScienceDaily -- we welcome both positive and negative comments. Have any problems using the site? Questions?
Mobile: iPhone Android Web
Follow: Facebook Twitter Google+
Subscribe: RSS Feeds Email Newsletters
Latest Headlines Health & Medicine Mind & Brain Space & Time Matter & Energy Computers & Math Plants & Animals Earth & Climate Fossils & Ruins