February 24, 2010

Questions and Answers About Animal Testing of Pesticides

• What types of products are considered pesticides?
• How are animals used to test pesticides?
• Are animals used in testing given pain relief or other protections?
• Besides animal welfare, are there other arguments against testing on animals?
• What are some practical alternatives to using animals to test pesticides?
• What are The HSUS and The HSLF doing to spare animals from pesticide testing?
• How can I help?

Q: What types of products are considered pesticides?
A: The Environmental Protection Agency defines a pesticide as any substance or mixture of substances used to repel, control, prevent or destroy living organisms regarded as "pests." Examples include weed-killers (herbicides), bug sprays and flea collars (insecticides), rat poison (rodenticides), bird poison (avicides), fumigants (nematocides), "germ-killing" soaps and cleaning products (antimicrobials), and even natural biochemicals (pheromones) and genetically engineered toxins (BT corn).

Q: How are animals used to test pesticides?
A: Environmental Protection Agency regulations require that all pesticide products and their raw ingredients be individually tested for safety and list more than two-dozen animal tests that companies may be required conduct. Examples include skin and eye irritation tests, behavioral studies in chemically-poisoned animals and their offspring, and even the widely condemned "lethal dose" tests, in which animals are forced to swallow or inhale massive amounts of a test substance to determine the dose that causes death. Tests are conducted using mice, rats, rabbits, birds, fish—even dogs—and certain types of tests use hundreds or thousands of animals at a time. In total, as many as 12,000 animals may be killed during safety testing for just one pesticide chemical.

Q: Are animals used in testing given pain relief or other protections?
A: No, pain relief is not normally provided. And to make matters worse, laboratory-bred rodents and fish—the species most commonly used in pesticide tests—are not protected under U.S. law governing animal experimentation.

Q: Besides animal welfare, are there other arguments against testing on animals?
A: Yes, there are a number of points to consider. First, most animal tests have never been properly "validated" to demonstrate their relevance to humans, and as a result may under- or over-estimate real-world hazards to people. For example, both rat and rabbit tests failed to predict the birth defect -causing properties of PCBs, industrial solvents and many drugs, while cancer tests in rats and mice failed to detect the hazards of asbestos, benzene, cigarette smoke, and many other substances—delaying consumer and worker protection measures by decades in some cases.

Animal tests are also quite time- and resource-intensive and inefficient. For example, to evaluate the cancer-causing potential of a single pesticide chemical in a standard rat and mouse study test takes up to five years, 800 animals, and $4 million. For the same price and without any use of animals, as many as 350 chemicals could be tested in less than a week in 200 different cell tests using modern robotics.

Q: What are some practical alternatives to using animals to test pesticides?
A: More than two dozen animal replacement, reduction and refinement methods and testing strategies have been endorsed as scientifically validated by the European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods and its counterparts worldwide.

Additionally, animal use in pesticide testing could be reduced dramatically simply through the elimination of redundant Environmental Protection Agency testing requirements—for example, by no longer requiring birth defect studies using both rats and rabbits or requiring the repetition of certain tests by as many as three different exposure routes (force-feeding, forced inhalation, and application to the animals' skin). Movement away from rigid "check-the-box" lists of animal tests in favor of flexible testing strategies would also have a positive impact. 

Q: What are The Humane Society of the United States and The Humane Society Legislative Fund doing to spare animals from pesticide testing?
A: Our scientists and policy experts are working with the Environmental Protection Agency and its counterparts worldwide to shorten the time between the development of alternative testing methods and their real-world application to replace or reduce animal use in pesticide testing. However, this approach is just the first step toward our ultimate goal of ending animal testing forever. To this end, we have built unprecedented partnerships with scientists from universities, private companies and government agencies worldwide to support and push for a totally new—"21st century"—approach to testing that combines ultra-fast cell tests and sophisticated computer models to deliver results in hours instead of months or even years for some animal tests.

Q: How can I help?
A: Consumers should be conscious of the food choices they make. Pesticide exposure can be reduced by purchasing organic produce and avoiding meat, dairy and other animal products, which are often contaminated with pesticide and other unappetizing residues. There are also a many alternatives to pesticides for safe and effective lawn and garden care. Also, remember that any product that claims to "kill germs" is regarded as a pesticide, and is subject to substantially more animal testing than equivalent soaps and cleaning products that simply don't advertise their antibacterial properties. For assistance in identifying cruelty-free soaps and cleaning products, visit How to Be a More Compassionate Consumer.

You can also take action through our online alert to contact EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson and ask her to bring her agency’s pesticide regulations into the 21st century.