Report Card > Environmental Defense (formerly Environmental Defense Fund)

Grade:

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. To date, the animal protection community is the only stakeholder to review and comment on every proposed HPV chemical test plan. By contrast, Environmental Defense has commented on only a handful of HPV test plans––yet in virtually all cases, it has called for more animal tests.

A recent 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 may review Environmental Defense's comments by clicking here, and the comments of the animal protection community by clicking here. You can also download PETA’s HPV factsheet.

Despite its obvious indifference to the suffering of animals subjected to chemical-poisoning tests, PETA invited Environmental Defense to endorse a statement:

• calling on EPA to increase its funding and use of non-animal test methods; and

• endorsing the use of only those new test methods that have been rigorously assessed by the Interagency Coordinating Committee for the Validation of Alternative Methods and found to be scientifically valid.

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."

What you can do

Please send polite letters urging Environmental Defense to withdraw its support for animal-testing. Click here for points you can include in your letter. Send letters to:

Fred Krupp, President
Environmental Defense
257 Park Ave. S.
New York, NY 10010
Fax: 212-505-2375
E-Mail: fkrupp@environmentaldefense.org