EPA = Experiments With Pointless Answers

Q. What does the EPA do when evidence shows that workers exposed to atrazine on the job get cancer?

A. They ignore the human data and force-feed the pesticide to animals. They then conclude that it is “not likely” to cause cancer in humans because the animal test results are “not relevant.”

Confused? We are, too. PETA, astounded yet again by the EPA’s idiocy and lack of common sense, decided to put its own super-computer to work to try and unravel the scientific methodology underlying the EPA’s risk-assessment procedures. We punched in the appropriate data, and here’s what we found:

$3,700,000	(EPA head Christine Todd Whitman’s gross income in 1992)
+ 361,000	(Number of annual preventable cancer deaths in the U.S.)
+ 0	(Number of toxic industrial chemicals that the EPA has banned in the last decade despite killing hundreds of thousands of animals in chemical toxicity tests)
- 20	(Number of years that the EPA dragged its feet on regulating arsenic despite human epidemiological evidence demonstrating its link to cancer)
- 171	(Number of toxicologists employed by the EPA who specialize in testing chemicals on animals)
+ 13	(Number of epidemiologists employed by the EPA who specialize in studying the effects of chemicals on human populations)
+ 9	(Number of environmental and consumer groups in the U.S. that still believe that the EPA is protecting the environment by poisoning animals in toxicity studies. See Mean Greenies.)
x 12,000	(Minimum number of animals who suffered and died for every pesticide active ingredient on the market)
+ 100,000,000	(Number of animals who could die in the EPA’s notorious testing plan for “endocrine disruptors”)
- $3,500,000	(Number of taxpayer dollars that the EPA is paying to Batelle Laboratories even though whistleblowers have informed us that laboratories like this one have been known to kill animals by throwing them into incinerators while still alive)
+ $7,500,000	(Industry funding being used by the World Wildlife Fund to subsidize “research into endocrine effects”)
+ 0⁴	(Number of dollars that the EPA spends on developing reliable, sensitive, and humane non-animal tests)
+ 0	(Number of responses that PETA has received from the EPA that actually answer the questions asked)
+ 0	(Number of advanced degrees held by the EPA’s Chemical Control Division head, “Dr.” Charlie Auer, who adamantly opposes the use of non-animal tests and has a B.S. (which we already knew …)
+ 1	(Eye of vinyl chloride newt)
+ 1	(Wart of phthalate toad)
x 9,000	(Number of public comments that the EPA received against weakening the Clean Air Act)
÷ 1	(Number of hours it took the EPA to decide to weaken the Clean Air Act)
÷ 36	(Average number of months it takes to get a response from the EPA on a Freedom of Information Act request)
- 0	(Amount of compassion possessed by EPA bureaucrats toward the animals in laboratories whom they inject and force-feed with pesticides and other toxic chemicals)
TOTAL =	The chemical may be toxic to humans, but we’re really not sure. … It seems that our animal tests are so unreliable and irrelevant to people that further animal testing will be necessary in order to confuse ourselves even more. In the meantime, we’ll just hold off on regulating that chemical ...

Click here to read PETA’s letter revealing our “findings” to EPA Administrator Christie Whitman.

Click here to find out more about the EPA’s pointless animal-testing programs and what you can do to help stop them.

Urgent Alerts

EPA = Experiments With Pointless Answers

General Info:

Site Tools:

International Sites:

Navigation: