Arguments have been made for and against the regulatory use of data from human subjects on both scientific and ethical grounds. One argument against the use of data from human clinical studies involving pesticides asserts that such data are obtained from studies that do not follow the Common Rule (40 CFR 26), which provides procedures for protecting human subjects in studies funded by federal agencies, including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). Although privately conducted studies using human subjects are not legally subject to or required to comply with the Common Rule, the protections of the Declaration of Helsinki and the International Conference on Harmonisation (ICH) Good Clinical Practice are commonly followed. We sought to answer the question of whether recent human clinical studies with insecticides performed according to Good Clinical Practice provided volunteers with the same protections as the Common Rule. All three sets of guidance have in common the intent to protect volunteer human subjects by providing standards for the conduct of studies in which they participate. This analysis compares the elements of the Common Rule with comparable elements from the Declaration of Helsinki and Good Clinical Practice to evaluate similarities and differences in procedural requirements. It then evaluates the documentation from 15 recent human studies of twelve insecticides conducted at four clinical laboratories in order to determine whether the conduct of those studies is consistent with the protections of the Common Rule. There were some cases for which we could not verify compliance with certain Common Rule elements; however, based on our evaluation it is apparent that the studies we reviewed were conducted in a manner substantially consistent with the fundamental protections of the Common Rule—voluntary participation, informed consent, and review by an ethical committee or institutional review board.