A federal court has struck down the EPA's moratorium on using humans to test pesticide safety. The moratorium was first put into effect in the 90's by the Clinton administration, then it was quiety removed by the Bush White House. Former EPA director Christine Todd Whitman then put it back into effect, but--according to pesticide companies--she failed to use the proper procedures to do so. The court agreed, and now the ban has been lifted.

Critics of using human subjects say that there are never enough samples from which to extrapolate meaningful conclusions, and that the most vulnerable persons--children and the elderly--are never included in the studies. Using the usual method of animal testing, a conclusion is drawn and then multipled by 10, in an attempt to ensure safety.

While discussing the court's decision, an interviewer on a radio program asked her guest "Why would anyone want to subject a human to toxins?" This is a good question, but a better one is: Why would anyone want to subject any sentient creature to toxins?