There is much debate concerning the human pest testing. Where some argue that it is the best way to get the knowledge, others counter that it simply is not worth the risk as most human pest tests are unreliable and could even be harmful. We at Snell Scientifics would like to further discuss the unreliable results of human pest testing as well as other more reliable testing methods.

Can Simulations Replace Human Testing?

For testing many biting species, there are specific protocols in place outlined by the EPA, referenced as OPPTS. To conduct these tests with proper approval however, the EPA currently made testing near impossible. As a result, we at Snell Scientifics had to be more innovative and as the problem continues to be negotiated with EPA and other chemical companies, our developed protocols simulate human testing with accurate results.

Bite Box Testing for Biting Black Fly, Stable Flies, Mosquitoes & Other Diptera Species

With our custom designed blood membrane system, these bite tests are performed. Contained inside ‘bite boxes’, insects bite the membrane reflecting an ideal representation of the bite pressure on people. The membranes treated ‘on-body’ products and tested over several hours, proves the longevity of the products. As attractants, treated fabrics when placed over human subjects, Snell Scientifics developed testing the repellency of compounds. As treated surfaces, and as surface repellents, the adulticides can be tested as direct applications to insects.

Tick & Fleas Non Human Testing

Our custom Snell Scientifics protocol using non-human methods can be used to test for products to control ticks in addition to repellency products that follow EPA human testing protocols. However, depending on the compound being tested and the species of ticks used in the tests, the EPA method can be unreliable. To compare different repellency formulations and actives, Snell Scientifics non-human methods are highly reliable. Additionally, testing flea repellents from a variety of non-human surfaces is effectively done implementing our own unique methods, though the EPA protocols can be used for flea repellent testing that is also not very reliable.

Why is Testing on Humans Unreliable?

Since the 1960s, human volunteers have been exposed to various pesticides to test the harmful exposure levels of various insecticides. Due to questionable ethics involved, EPA (the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) stepped in and conducted a comprehensive review of the human research policies and issued a temporary prohibition on the acceptance of data derived from privately funded human experiments. By the year 2000, human testing had halted until the ethical and regulatory issues were resolved. Other government agencies were solicited by EPA and by 2004, EPA released a draft from the recommendations made by the NRC earlier that year for human testing protocols.

Pest Product Testing Lab

Where it concerns human pest testing, studies were made, for example on women exposed to pesticides working on farms, as well as those working in agricultural environments along with their children. This research had its limitations, though the clinicians, scientists, public health practitioners, and regulators were given some knowledge. However, the data analysis and interpretation had excessive uncontrolled variables. These studies noted subjects were exposed to multiple chemical pesticides in addition to other potential toxic chemicals. Diet, tobacco and alcohol use, water intake, environmental temperature, and other factors differed in each individual as well as to differences in exposure. As a result, these field studies cannot adequately prove causation. With the limitations, the results are simply unreliable and controlled lab testing on humans is a risk that is unethical and simply not worth the risk. Call Snell Scientifics for effective non human product testing.