EPA approves use of harmful chemical pesticides

[Techno-Druid]

https://futurism.com/the-epa-approve...in-pesticides/

On Wednesday, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) doubled-back on its course to ban a chemical used in pesticides called chlorpyrifos. The move to reverse its earlier decision — which was made during the Obama administration — is a sign of change in the agency’s approach to toxic chemicals under the new EPA head, Scott Pruitt.

Chlorpyrifos, previously found in bug spray, is known to attack the nervous system of not just insects, but humans too — causing an array of symptoms like dizziness, vomiting, and diarrhea. It’s been banned from household use for more than a decade, but it’s still used by farmers on citrus trees, strawberries, broccoli, and cauliflower. The residue may be found on produce in supermarkets.

“Based on the harm that this pesticide causes, the EPA cannot, consistent with the law, allow it in our food,” said Patti Goldman, a lawyer with the environmental advocacy group Earthjustice, citing a number of studies that have demonstrated the harmful effects of the pesticide in humans.

Wednesday’s decision was the EPA’s response to a federal judge’s order for a final decision on the matter. That order had been prompted by petitions from environmental groups, including Earthjustice, to ban chlorpyrifos. The EPA previously proposed a ban on chlorpyrifos back in 2015.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) doubled-back on its course to ban a chemical used in pesticides called chlorpyrifos. The move to reverse its earlier decision — which was made during the Obama administration — is a sign of change in the agency’s approach to toxic chemicals under the new EPA head, Scott Pruitt.

Chlorpyrifos, previously found in bug spray, is known to attack the nervous system of not just insects, but humans too — causing an array of symptoms like dizziness, vomiting, and diarrhea. It’s been banned from household use for more than a decade, but it’s still used by farmers on citrus trees, strawberries, broccoli, and cauliflower. The residue may be found on produce in supermarkets.

“Based on the harm that this pesticide causes, the EPA cannot, consistent with the law, allow it in our food,” said Patti Goldman, a lawyer with the environmental advocacy group Earthjustice, citing a number of studies that have demonstrated the harmful effects of the pesticide in humans.

Wednesday’s decision was the EPA’s response to a federal judge’s order for a final decision on the matter. That order had been prompted by petitions from environmental groups, including Earthjustice, to ban chlorpyrifos. The EPA previously proposed a ban on chlorpyrifos back in 2015.

A Political and Scientific Issue

The law against pesticides doesn’t mince words: it strictly prohibits chemicals that cannot demonstrate “a reasonable certainty that no harm will result” to consumers or anyone else exposed to these pesticides. Still, as far the fate of chlorpyrifos is still subject to debate — despite evidence pointing to its health dangers.

Some of that evidence against chlorpyrifos came from a study by researchers at Columbia University who measured the levels of this chemical present in the umbilical cords of newborn babies. The study was part of a series done on mothers and their babies who were exposed to several chemicals and showed that chlorpyrifos was more dangerous than previously thought.

Jim Jones, a former assistant administrator of the EPA who was in-charge of pesticide regulation, admitted that the EPA struggled with translating these findings into a prediction of risks for chlorpyrifos residues on food. “But once we cracked that nut, and you had the risk evaluated and in front of you, it became, in my view, a very straight-forward decision, with not a lot of ambiguity in terms of what you would do,” he told NPR. “I just don’t know what basis they would have to deny the petition [to ban chlorpyrifos], given the vast scientific record that the EPA’s got right now.”

One thing is clear: issues like this prove that politics and science are becoming more and more intertwined. It seems that would be the natural progression of things, as there are a number of issues — vaccines, stem cells, artificial intelligence (AI) development, climate change, and even nuclear weapons to name a few — that require policies backed by sound and solid, evidence-based science.

This seems like a no brainer, if it's a dangerous pesticide that poses risks to human health then it shouldn't be in use.

[Deleted]

Who gives a fuck about health and ethics when you can make money, pay attention, this is Trumps world now.

[zenkai]

More information

http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/30/health...ifos-decision/

[Xeones]

Why did the democrats have to push Hillary through... why?

[Underverse]

The EPA works for chemical corporations now. I think we're actually turning into a Corporatocracy. I think it's actually happening, right now, as we live.

PS: Sorry ancaps, you were wrong.

[Draco-Onis]

Who needs clean air, water, privacy, endangered species or safe foods when you can make multi billion dollar corporations richer #MAGA.

[Wildtree]

I have quite a provocative idea about this (and other legislation of course)..

IF.... If clear evidence or even proof exists that something is harmful, or worse, deadly, then the legislators who ignore it should be held accountable directly.
If lawmakers pass a bill that allows for pesticides to be used causes someone to die, they ought to be trialed for accessory minimum.
Stuff like that.
I believe accountability is the one thing missing from getting proper meaningful legislation.

[sarahtasher]

Only liburals beta cucks need non toxic food.

[Underverse]

I have quite a provocative idea about this (and other legislation of course)..

IF.... If clear evidence or even proof exists that something is harmful, or worse, deadly, then the legislators who ignore it should be held accountable directly.
If lawmakers pass a bill that allows for pesticides to be used causes someone to die, they ought to be trialed for accessory minimum.
Stuff like that.
I believe accountability is the one thing missing from getting proper meaningful legislation.

I agree with this idea, in part. There needs to be some protection against random events. Any legislation is bound to lead to a few deaths, one way or another, tied to the legislation or not.

[Poopymonster]

Comrades, are you not seeink how glorious capitalist society will be making this better?

Company makes chemical to make more plant grow.
Downtrodden workers become sick from eating it.
Another company makes glorious breakthrough, that can purge illness from downtrodden workers bodies.
Job creators who accidentally indulge in low class fare are able to get cure for illness.
Workers cannot afford cure and die.

2 companies make profits AND you've made the lower classes smaller.
#MakeAmericanGravesAgain

[Wildtree]

I agree with this idea, in part. There needs to be some protection against random events. Any legislation is bound to lead to a few deaths, one way or another, tied to the legislation or not.

Well, of course I have thought about this.
I think the deciding factor is intent. If lawmakers pass a bill and people get hurt, because unforeseeable, okay, fine.. That's tragic, but it might happen.
Other legislation however, not so much.
To put an extreme example.. Legislators decide newly build dams on the coast gotta be 5 ft lower now.
And then a flood destroys everything, that's malicious intent. They put money over safety.

- - - Updated - - -

Comrades, are you not seeink how glorious capitalist society will be making this better?

Company makes chemical to make more plant grow.
Downtrodden workers become sick from eating it.
Another company makes glorious breakthrough, that can purge illness from downtrodden workers bodies.
Job creators who accidentally indulge in low class fare are able to get cure for illness.
Workers cannot afford cure and die.

2 companies make profits AND you've made the lower classes smaller.
#MakeAmericanGravesAgain

In a dark humorous way...
That's how you create positive job statistics..
Kill the workers that have the job, then the companies hire new people.

That way you can claim that there are more jobs.

[zenkai]

Why did the democrats have to push Hillary through... why?

The DNC gave them no choice.

[Mastamage]

Background: I work with chemicals on a daily basis both in agricultural and arboricultural industries.

Organophosphates have a long history of being banned BUT if they can be applied safely and not have negative human health impacts, like Acephate, then they don't run the risk of a ban. Pruitt is ignoring the facts and science regarding the lack of exposure safety when it comes to chlorpyrifos. Unfortunately, we need more studies conducted. Hell, it could take decades before policy actually lines up with the science.

To be clear, Dow Agrosciences makes safer alternatives to chlorpyrifos which are readily available to applicators. It doesn't solve the toxicity issue but it does help preserve food supplies in the case of a ban.

[Deleted]

I have quite a provocative idea about this (and other legislation of course)..

IF.... If clear evidence or even proof exists that something is harmful, or worse, deadly, then the legislators who ignore it should be held accountable directly.
If lawmakers pass a bill that allows for pesticides to be used causes someone to die, they ought to be trialed for accessory minimum.
Stuff like that.
I believe accountability is the one thing missing from getting proper meaningful legislation.

Or just force them to eat food treated with this peticide for a year. And their families.

[Acidbaron]

Comrades, are you not seeink how glorious capitalist society will be making this better?

Company makes chemical to make more plant grow.
Downtrodden workers become sick from eating it.
Another company makes glorious breakthrough, that can purge illness from downtrodden workers bodies.
Job creators who accidentally indulge in low class fare are able to get cure for illness.
Workers cannot afford cure and die.

2 companies make profits AND you've made the lower classes smaller.
#MakeAmericanGravesAgain

I wish capitalism was in charge, big banks would no longer be alive in that scenario and the money to power ratio in politics would also be vastly different.

[Kujako]

Under the new administration, I think we need to put "EPA" in quotes, since it isn't anymore.

[Juuza]

Trump: The EPA is a terrible organization
- OH NO TRUMP WILL DESTROY THE WORLD
EPA: I am actively trying to destroy the world
- OH NO THIS IS SOMEHOW TRUMPS FAULT

[Poopymonster]

Trump: The EPA is a terrible organization
- OH NO TRUMP WILL DESTROY THE WORLD
EPA: I am actively trying to destroy the world
- OH NO THIS IS SOMEHOW TRUMPS FAULT

It's more like having Casey Anthony hired tomorrow as your babysitter, then claiming it's not your fault your kid died.

[Mastamage]

Trump: The EPA is a terrible organization
- OH NO TRUMP WILL DESTROY THE WORLD
EPA: I am actively trying to destroy the world
- OH NO THIS IS SOMEHOW TRUMPS FAULT

EPA doesn't have the studies to make a change yet. Welcome to the world of science.

Pruitt, Trump's choice, is just flat out denying the facts that exist. EPA has acknowledged the issues but they have a legal process to follow. So yes, by default, it's Trump's fault because he pushed Pruitt through.

[Mayhem]

Under the new administration, I think we need to put "EPA" in quotes, since it isn't anymore.

Environment doesn´t need to mean plants, animals and such, right?

"noun
1.
the aggregate of surrounding things, conditions, or influences; surroundings; milieu.
2.
Ecology. the air, water, minerals, organisms, and all other external factors surrounding and affecting a given organism at any time.
3.
the social and cultural forces that shape the life of a person or a population."

Just ignore 2. and everything is fine.