I was dismayed to read that Christine Todd Whitman, Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, has been chosen as commencement speaker. To be asked to speak at commencement is an honor Whitman does not deserve. Under the current administration the EPA has become a greenwash, hiding its wasteful and barbaric testing methods behind claims of environmental concern and safety. Much of the EPA’s $600 million research and development budget is spent on redundant testing of pesticides and others toxins such as atrazine, lindane, and vinclozolin (pesticides that have been banned in many western European countries).

Despite the ample evidence determining that such pesticides and pollutants are harmful to humans, the EPA insists that more testing is necessary before they will be pulled off the market or regulated in another manner. In fact, the EPA has not taken an industrial chemical off the market in the past twelve years. Perhaps this is due to the outdated testing methods the EPA has come to rely on. Current EPA requirements mandate animal testing on all toxins. Approximately 9,000 rats, mice, dogs, rabbits, and birds are killed annually for every toxin tested. This testing proves that toxins have negative effects on such animals; however, the EPA claims that more testing is needed to make a final determination on the negative effects in humans. Hence an endless cycle of animal testing, unreliable results, and wasted money continues. Whitman has not taken the opportunity to be proactive in her role as administrator. Congress actually ordered the EPA to spend $4 million to develop non-animal tests, but no strides have been made. Technology is available that has proven to be both more reliable and cruelty-free, but Whitman is comfortable maintaining the status quo in an agency that has lost sight of its true mission.

The EPA is proposing a High Production Volume Challenge Program and an Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program, both of which require multi-generational retesting of chemicals already deemed hazardous. The cost of the programs will be both millions of dollars and the lives of millions of animals. The Bush administration as a whole has made a mockery of “environmental protection,” and Whitman is one of the key players who have the power to make positive changes yet refuses to do so. The above example of inefficient animal testing is only one of many reasons Whitman’s nomination as commencement speaker is upsetting, but being an animal lover I am highly concerned about the bloodbath that the EPA has become. I would strongly encourage people to do some research and see where their tax dollars are being spent. Environmental protection is an issue that affects everyone and the idea of having the Administrator of the EPA speak at commencement may seem worthwhile. Unfortunately in this case Whitman is a poor choice, and it is important that people know the truth behind her title.

– Christina Yasi is a graduate of the class of 2002.