|
Report Card Grades »
Environmental Defense (formerly Environmental Defense Fund)
» Grade: F
PETA wrote to Environmental Defense because it was one of
the chief architects, and is largely responsible for initiating,
the EPA’s notorious high production volume (HPV) chemical-testing
program, which was created to pressure chemical manufacturers
to test (or retest) thousands of chemicals using an arbitrary
"checklist" of crude, painful, and uninformative
animal tests. Environmental Defense’s comments on HPV
chemical test plans frequently call for additional animal
tests far beyond the testing proposed by the companies themselves
or demanded by the EPA.
An example of Environmental Defense’s lobbying for animal
tests is the case of the HPV chemical nadic methyl anhydride.
Despite the fact that this chemical is already well documented
to be highly toxic, corrosive, and blinding (and therefore
already tightly controlled), Environmental Defense demanded
that two additional animal tests be performed. One of these
proposed tests (a 90-day oral toxicity study that is not even
required in the HPV chemical program) would involve repeatedly
poisoning animals for three months, while the other (a reproductive
toxicity test) would cause the suffering and deaths of upwards
of 900 animals. You can review Environmental Defense’s
comments by clicking
here, and the comments of the animal protection community
by clicking
here.
In addition, Environmental Defense requested that the American
Chemistry Council (ACC) test the chemical warfare agent phosgene
on another 675 animals. This substance, which killed thousands
of infantrymen during World War I, is so highly reactive that
it converts to hydrochloric acid upon contact with moisture
deep in the lungs and burns the respiratory tract. Despite
the fact that even the EPA agreed with the ACC that no more
animals need die to further test this chemical, Environmental
Defense asked for reproductive/developmental studies on this
lethal substance! Click
here to read Environmental Defense’s comments.
Environmental Defense has even “approved” and
requested additional testing when companies submit clearly
unsatisfactory test plans consisting of a single sheet of
paper with no data or information whatsoever. In fact, Environmental
Defense went so far as to OPPOSE PETA’s petition to
the federal government that would have required companies
to open their existing health and safety data files to the
public.
Despite its obvious indifference to the suffering of animals
subjected to chemical-poisoning tests, PETA invited Environmental
Defense to endorse a statement:
On June 1, 2001, Environmental Defense’s executive
director, Fred Krupp, responded to PETA’s letter. Despite
claiming to "strongly support federal funding of research,
development, and validation of non-animal test methods,"
Environmental Defense also reiterated, at great length, its
ardent support for animal-testing. The following statements
are taken directly from Environmental Defense’s letter
to PETA:
• "Environmental Defense believes that animal-testing
for the present continues to be a necessary part of chemical
evaluation …"
• "… information from animal studies
can be highly relevant in evaluating chemicals’ health
and environmental impacts."
• "… we know that you dispute the relevance
of rodent and other animal data for humans. As noted above,
we cannot agree with you on that point, though of course
animal data, like all complex information, should be interpreted
with care."
• "We also think it is important that ICCVAM
not become a bottleneck for new test methods."
Recently, Environmental Defense has set its sights on the growing field of nanotechnology, which includes industrial chemical testing as well as medical testing issues. Not only has Environmental Defense clamored to become involved in many government committees that are set to decide the methods used for nanomaterials testing, it also somehow procured government funding to co-author a scientifically defunct and highly questionable document that is basically a checklist of every conceivable animal test that Environmental Defense wants to be used to test nanomaterials.
Despite PETA's efforts—and the efforts of the more than 2,000 PETA members who responded to our pleas to "defend animals from Environmental Defense"—Environmental Defense continues to push regulatory agencies to institute their massive animal testing plan for this new field.
Environmental Defense employees are so out-of-date and narrowly focused on animal testing that they have missed the boat entirely on the new era of modern test methods.
The Center for Media and Democracy also finds that Environmental Defense appears to have questionable motives and a pro-industry track record by explaining, "While ED is a U.S.-based organization, it's pushing for interim nantoechology standards, developed with DuPont, to become a global template. . . . [W]e are entitled to view the nanotech partnership as just one more example of ED's misguided and potentially damaging opportunism."
Click here to read PETA's most recent response to Environmental Defense's letter to PETA members regarding the HPV program.
What You Can Do
Please send polite letters urging Environmental Defense to withdraw its support for animal testing. Click here to read points that you can include in your letter. Send letters to:
Fred Krupp, President
Environmental Defense
257 Park Ave. S.
New York, NY 10010
212-505-2375 (fax)
fkrupp@environmentaldefense.org
|
