Update: Rohm and Haas: When It Rains It Pours … Dead Animals
Three days after posting our alert about Rohm and Haas, PETA received this response from the company. Within a few hours, PETA responded to Rohm and Haas. When it became clear that Rohm and Haas was merely using the same information to respond to concerned members of the public, PETA wrote to Rohm and Haas again and received this response.
It is unfortunate that Rohm and Haas is choosing not to follow up its apology with concrete action. Please continue to contact company officials, including Dr. Philip Lewis, Vice President for Environment, Health, and Safety, and CEO Rajiv Gupta. Politely ask them to address the basic issue of the duplication of animal testing at Rohm and Haas and to meet with PETA officials to discuss our concerns.
On behalf of all animals, thank you!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why would a company waste money and cause immeasurable suffering repeating the same tests on animals over and over again? That’s what we’d like to know. There is absolutely no scientific justification for what we recently found in a Rohm and Haas test plan submitted under the EPA’s notorious high production volume (HPV) chemical testing program.
Rohm and Haas (owners of Morton© Salt) submitted a test plan stating, “It is the intent of our company to use existing data … in conjunction with … predictive computer models to adequately fulfill … all the requirements of the HPV program without need for the conduct of any new or additional tests” (emphasis added). On the surface, this would appear to be an admirable use of existing data. But on closer examination, we found that Rohm and Haas had obscured the fact that it had conducted numerous animal tests just before submitting the test plan for public comment! This clearly violated the requirement that companies allow for a 120-day public-comment period on their test plans. Previously, we have been able to prevent immense animal suffering by persuading companies to use existing data or non-animal test methods.
Worse, a close examination of the test plan revealed that Rohm and Haas conducted the following repetitive tests on animals within the last two years:
• An oral lethal dose test when a prior oral lethal dose test and six lethal inhalation studies had already been conducted
• An acute skin toxicity test when the company had already conducted an acute dermal toxicity test in 1977
• A rabbit skin irritation test when it had already conducted a rabbit skin irritation test in 1991
• A rabbit eye irritation test when it had already conducted Draize tests in 1966 and 1991
• A skin sensitization test on guinea pigs when it had already conducted a skin sensitization test on guinea pigs in 1991
• A genetic toxicity test in mice when it already had negative results from a non-animal genetic toxicity test, which means that no further testing should have been conducted
• A repeated-dose, reproductive, and developmental toxicity test (using 675 animals)
Here are just two excerpts from Rohm and Haas’ test results:
Rohm and Haas’ 2003 acute lethal dose testing
“Animal 2 exhibited convulsions, lachrymation, and salivation approximately 30 minutes after dosing. Death had occurred within approximately one hour. Animal 3 exhibited lethargy on Day 1. Reduced activity and hunched posture were then noted on days 2 and 3. Recovery occurred by day 4. Animal 4 was unconscious within approximately 30 minutes of dosing. Some recovery was apparent within 24 hours of dosing, when piloerection was noted. Full recovery had occurred within 48 hours. Animal 5 appeared moribund within approximately 30 minutes of dosing, remaining so for the remainder of the day. It was cold to the touch and exhibited a hunched posture on days 2 and 3. Recovery had occurred within 72 hours.
At 550 mg/kg: Convulsions were apparent within approximately 6 minutes of dosing. A degree of recovery soon occurred with the animal remaining lethargic from approximately 11 minutes after dosing and continuing for the remainder of the day.”
Rohm and Haas’ 2003 genetic toxicity testing
“Animals from the high treatment group showed ataxia, hunched posture, ungroomed appearance, reduced activity and three female animals were found moribund approximately 20 minutes after treatment. Animals from the intermediate group showed reduced activity and hunched posture, and one male animal was found moribund approximately 25 minutes after treatment. A full recovery was observed for all animals, the day after treatment. A female animal was found dead at the low dose level 24 hours after treatment. Reduced activity and hunched posture were also observed in a female animal from the vehicle control group, 24 hours and 48 hours after treatment.”
Please let Rohm and Haas CEO Rajiv Gupta and the toxicology department’s James McLaughlin know that this kind of duplicative testing and deliberate disregard for animal suffering is unacceptable. Tell them to ensure that the company follows all animal welfare provisions in any future HPV test plans:
Rajiv L. Gupta
Chair, President, and CEO
Rohm and Haas Company
100 Independence Mall W.
Philadelphia, PA 19106
215-592-3000
215-592-3377 (fax)
raj_l_gupta@rohmhaas.com
sandrafoster@rohmhaas.com
James McLaughlin
Toxicology Department
Rohm and Haas Company
727 Norristown Rd.
P.O. Box 0904
Spring House, PA 19477
215-641-7459
JMcLaughlin@rohmhaas.com
Read PETA’s letter to the EPA and Rohm and Haas.
JS 8001
