Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by on Thursday May 25 2017, @04:48PM   Printer-friendly
from the not-organic dept.

[...] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Scott Pruitt signed an order denying a petition that sought to ban chlorpyrifos, a pesticide crucial to U.S. agriculture.

[...] In October 2015, under the previous Administration, EPA proposed to revoke all food residue tolerances for chlorpyrifos, an active ingredient in insecticides. This proposal was issued in response to a petition from the Natural Resources Defense Council and Pesticide Action Network North America. The October 2015 proposal largely relied on certain epidemiological study outcomes, whose application is novel and uncertain, to reach its conclusions.

The public record lays out serious scientific concerns and substantive process gaps in the proposal.

EPA press release

Last month, Trump's Environmental Protection Agency administrator, Scott Pruitt, freed up the country to continue using a pesticide called chlorpyrifos on everything from strawberries and almonds to Brussels sprouts and broccoli.

This despite a warning from the National Institutes of Health that chlorpyrifos can cause "adverse developmental, reproductive, neurological and immune effects" in human beings. This despite scientific studies indicating that chlorpyrifos can interfere with fetal brain development, leading to higher rates of autism and lower intelligence.

St. Louis Post-Dispatch via Arizona Daily Sun (editorial)

More than 50 farm workers were exposed to a pesticide drift [...] southwest of Bakersfield.

[...] Twelve people reported symptoms of vomiting, nausea and one person fainted.

[...] The active ingredient in the insecticide the workers were exposed is Chlorpyrifos.

[...] It has been banned for residential use for more than 15 years, but can still be used in agriculture.

Chlorpyrifos is manufactured by the AgroSciences division of Dow Chemical Company.

KGET-TV

A total of 47 farm workers were harvesting cabbage at the time and subsequently complained of a bad odor, nausea and vomiting. One was taken to hospital with four other workers visiting doctors in the following days.

The Guardian

On Monday [15 May], the agency shelved a proposal, originally scheduled to go into effect on March 6, intended to ensure that such poisons are safely applied.

Currently, anyone who applies pesticides on the restricted-use list has to have safety training. The proposed rule would have required workers who use the pesticides to be re-trained every five years, and to "verify the identity of persons seeking certification." It also established a minimum age for applying these chemicals: 18 years old.

Citing the regulatory freeze the Trump administration issued soon after the inauguration, the EPA announced Monday [15 May] it was putting the new requirements on ice until May 22, 2018. In addition, as Environmental Working Group noted, the agency is accepting comments on the decision only until May 19, "giving the public only a few days to comment on the rule, instead of the customary 30 days."

Mother Jones (links in original)

Additional coverage:

Related stories:
EPA Dismisses Half of its Scientific Advisers on Key Board, Citing 'Clean Break' With Obama Govt
U.S. EPA Updates Web Sites
The Science March on Washington DC


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by julian on Thursday May 25 2017, @06:21PM (1 child)

    by julian (6003) Subscriber Badge on Thursday May 25 2017, @06:21PM (#515596)

    But, when Agri-business says something is "crucial", it usually only means that the stuff is profitable, or more profitable than alternatives.

    That's it. This isn't hard to understand.

    I wish conservatives would make their case more honestly. They could come out and say, "There's a risk with using this and some people will get sick, some people will die (and have), some might get cancer or other diseases years from now from slowly ingesting it. But everything is about risk/reward and this makes agribusiness more profitable, which makes food cheaper and we are willing to accept some casualties to get those results."

    That is the conservative argument, but few dare to make it so bluntly, probably because they know they'd be run out of town--and office.

    The GOP's deregulation agenda requires lying to sell it.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +4  
       Insightful=2, Informative=2, Total=4
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 0, Flamebait) by khallow on Friday May 26 2017, @03:05PM

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday May 26 2017, @03:05PM (#515983) Journal
    Funny how nobody intentionally uses unpersuasive arguments when they are trying to persuade. The problem here is that there is a large group of hysterical voters who will react strongly negative to anyone who doesn't lie in the appropriate way. The blunt argument should be more than adequate. It is after all true. But we have way too many snowflakes who want to be lied to on this issue and so we get the lying.

    Reward an activity and you will get more of it. Require an activity, and you'll get little of anything else.