World’s Largest Producer of Toxic Pesticide Chlorpyrifos Ends Its Production
07 February
Health + Wellness
Children's health is most at risk from exposure to chlorpyrifos. Cavan Images / Cavan / Getty Images
Corteva, formerly part of the chemical manufacturing giant Dow Chemical, announced today that it would stop making chlorpyrifos — a toxic, brain-harming pesticide commonly sprayed on various U.S. food crops, including apples, oranges, and berries — by the end of the year.
<p>The <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-corteva-agriculture-pesticide/corteva-to-stop-making-pesticide-linked-to-kids-health-problems-idUSKBN20023I" target="_blank">decision by the chemical's biggest producer</a>, which cited declining sales, marks a watershed moment in the drawn-out fight by environmental, labor, and <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/public-health" rel="noopener noreferrer">public health</a> groups to ban <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/chlorpyrifos" rel="noopener noreferrer">chlorpyrifos</a> and protect children, whose health is most at risk from exposure. The move by Corteva will likely reduce the more than <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/media/2019/190508-1" target="_blank">five million pounds</a> of chlorpyrifos that are sprayed on U.S. food crops each year. "After years of pressure and increasing public concern, the end of chlorpyrifos is finally in sight," <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/experts/jennifer-sass" target="_blank">Jennifer Sass</a>, senior scientist at NRDC, says.</p>
<p>Adapted from World War II nerve gases, the chemical sticks around on our food and makes its way into our drinking water and air, exposing farmworkers and those living in agricultural areas.</p><p>While Corteva continues to claim the pesticide is safe, the science has long disagreed: In 2016, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/experts/miriam-rotkin-ellman/epa-toxic-pesticide-fruitsveggies-puts-kids-risk" target="_blank">itself concluded</a> that the chemical contaminates the national food supply at unsafe levels. Exposure brings along with it serious risks to the developing brains and nervous systems of children and fetuses, such as learning disabilities, ADHD-like symptoms, and reductions in IQ.</p>
<p>"The science, policy, and public pushback all aligned around this chemical being too dangerous for use on our food and in our fields, making today's announcement an eventual forgone conclusion," Sass says.</p><p>The fight against chlorpyrifos isn't over. A federal ban — proposed by President Obama but reversed by the Trump administration soon after taking office — has <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/experts/nrdc/epa-still-doesnt-want-ban-pesticide-harms-kids" target="_blank">yet to be put in place</a>, a decision that a coalition of labor and health groups, including NRDC, <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/experts/nrdc/nrdc-takes-epa-court-again-protect-childrens-health" target="_blank">continue to fight in court</a>. Chlorpyrifos also remains available and in use in other parts of the world.</p>
<p>"We will be watching the manufacturer's statements to ensure that the sunset of chlorpyrifos is as quick and as complete as possible," Sass says. "Ridding the American marketplace of this pesticide is a huge step, but it cannot be allowed to continue to threaten the health of kids in other global markets."</p>
From Your Site Articles
- California, Nation's Top User of Chlorpyrifos, Announces Ban on ... ›
- 'Finally!': Court Orders EPA to Stop Stalling Potential Ban on ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Trump Administration Asks Court to Re-Hear Case That Banned Chlorpyrifos
25 September 2018
Health + Wellness
Pixabay
The Trump administration is appealing a federal court ruling that ordered the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to ban chlorpyrifos, a widely used pesticide tied to brain damage and other health problems in children.
In August, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the EPA must ban the pesticide within 60 days based on strong scientific evidence that chlorpyrifos—which is applied on dozens of fruit, nut and vegetable crops—is unsafe for public health.
<p>
<span></span>The court's ruling nullified a decision by then-EPA Administrator <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/scott-pruitt" target="_blank">Scott Pruitt</a>, who <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/epa-pesticide-ban-chlorpyrifos-2338511186.html" target="_blank">rejected his own agency's proposal</a> to ban the toxic chemicals. Reports showed that Pruitt made the decision after <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/pruitt-dow-chlorpyrifos-2449662128.html">intense lobbying</a> from the pesticide and agriculture industry and the leading chlorpyrifos manufacturer, <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/dow">DowDuPont</a>.
</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed">
</p><div id="de3cc" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="1STGA21576662690"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="880106920899727361" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">EPA Chief Met With Dow Chemical CEO Before Deciding Not to Ban Toxic Pesticide
https://t.co/00pORekJv0 @ecowatch</div> — Sierra Club (@Sierra Club)<a href="https://twitter.com/SierraClub/statuses/880106920899727361">1498668816.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p></p><p>
On Monday, the Trump administration requested the full court to rehear the case, effectively postponing the effectiveness of last month's court order.
</p><p>
In their Monday filing, Department of Justice attorneys said the court's ruling violated Supreme Court precedent and the law when it made its decision,
<a href="https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/408173-trump-admin-appeals-ruling-ordering-epa-to-ban-pesticide" target="_blank">The Hill</a> reported.
</p><p>
The attorneys said the Ninth Circuit should have overturned the EPA's decision and sent it back for reconsideration rather than ordering a full ban, The Hill wrote. They also argued that the court did not have the authority to rule in the case, and it should have gone to a lower district court first.
</p><p>
"The important thing here is that courts are not supposed to operate this way," EPA spokesman Michael Abboud told The Hill in a statement.
</p><p>
"This opinion nullifies the [Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act] process, violating a congressionally mandated statute. EPA takes science and health issues very seriously, but we must work within the legal process established by Congress."
</p><p>
The ruling "conflicts with Supreme Court precedent holding that where an agency's order is not sustainable on the record, a court should vacate the underlying decision and remand for further consideration by the agency, rather than directing specific action."
</p><p>
U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue praised the administration's decision.
</p><p>
"The costs of an incorrect decision on chlorpyrifos are expected to be high and would cause serious impacts to American farmers working to feed, fuel, and clothe the United States and the world," Perdue said in an
<a href="https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/USDAOC/bulletins/20f976e#.W6lyKXXtnGY.twitter" target="_blank">online statement</a>. "This ruling, which would mean the sudden and total loss of chlorpyrifos, prevents farmers from using an effective and economical crop protection tool. Chlorpyrifos is used on well over 50 crops grown throughout the United States due to its efficacy and broad-spectrum activity across multiple pests. For some crops and target pests, chlorpyrifos is the only line of defense, with no viable alternatives."
</p><p>
<a href="https://earthjustice.org/" target="_blank">Earthjustice</a>, which represented the <a href="http://www.panna.org/" target="_blank">Pesticide Action Network</a> and the <a href="https://www.nrdc.org" target="_blank">Natural Resources Defense Council</a> in the case, criticized the move.
</p><p>
"Trump's EPA is delaying the inevitable and putting people in harm's way," Patti Goldman, Earthjustice managing attorney, said i a
<a href="https://earthjustice.org/news/press/2018/epa-again-drags-its-feet-on-banning-a-pesticide-linked-to-brain-damage-in-children" target="_blank">press release</a>. "By keeping this unsafe pesticide in our food and drinking water, EPA is violating the law. Every day we go without a ban, children and farmworkers are needlessly eating, drinking and breathing this dreadful pesticide."
</p><p>
Erik Olson, senior director of health and food at the Natural Resources Defense Council, had similar sentiments.
</p><p>
"The Trump administration is shameless in its refusal to ban this dangerous chemical that is poisoning our children's brains," he said in an
<a href="https://www.nrdc.org/media/2018/180924-1" target="_blank">online statement</a>. "Science, the law and EPA's own staff have all made it clear this toxic stuff does not belong on our food or in our fields, yet this administration is still going to bat for the billion-dollar chemical industry. We will not stop fighting to put children's health before powerful polluters."
</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed">
</p><div id="101a5" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="R471G71576662690"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1044582317233070080" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">BREAKING: The EPA has asked the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to reconsider its decision ordering the agency to ban… https://t.co/OPUk3mNPUs</div> — NRDC 🌎 (@NRDC 🌎)<a href="https://twitter.com/NRDC/statuses/1044582317233070080">1537882806.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p></p>
From Your Site Articles
- Salmon and Orca Survival Threatened by Chlorpyrifos Pesticide ... ›
- How Proper Crop Protection Ensures Global Food Safety - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
Wine makers in West Texas are reeling from herbicide drift injuries on their grapevines, an emerging threat to the state's $13 billion a year industry, NPR's Morning Edition reported Tuesday.
The damage likely originates from use of Monsanto's dicamba and Dow's 2,4-D formulations on nearby cotton fields. The companies sell cotton seeds that are genetically modified to withstand applications of the weedkillers. If farmers use the products improperly, the highly volatile chemicals can get picked up by the wind and land on off-target crops. When exposed to the herbicides, the leaves on non-target plants are often left cupped and distorted.
<p>
Drift damage has ranged from "light exposure" that does not harm the grapes to "total devastation" at some wineries, according to NPR.
</p><p>
<span></span><a href="https://aggie-horticulture.tamu.edu/vitwine/our-specialists/" target="_blank">Pierre Helwi</a> is a viticulturist for the Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Service, who monitors dozens of the region's vineyards estimates that 90-95 percent of them have been damaged.
</p><p style="">
Texas, the fifth largest wine producer in the country, is home to more than 400 wineries, according to the <a href="https://www.txwines.org/about-texas-wine#TexasWineFacts" target="_blank">Texas Wine and Grape Growers Association</a>. West Texas, which has a dry climate ideal for growing cotton as well as wine grapes, has become the backbone of the state's wine industry and grows about 80 percent of its wine grapes.
</p><p>
<span></span>Last year, West Texas vintners <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/wine-monsanto-dow-dicamba-2-4-d-2177053648.html" target="_blank">expressed this very concern</a> that federal <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/epa-monsanto-dicamba-gmos-2087899331.html">approval</a> of Monsanto and Dow's formulations could jeopardize the sector.
</p><p>
This is the
<a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/dicamba-crop-damage-2580306844.html" target="_blank">third year in a row</a> where dicamba has affected the nation's crops. A <a href="https://ipm.missouri.edu/IPCM/2018/7/July-15-Dicamba-injury-update-different-year-same-questions/">report</a> from the University of Missouri last month found that dicamba drift caused more than 1 million acres of crop injuries across the U.S.
</p><p style="">
<span></span>The ongoing saga of pesticide drift highlights the growing issue of herbicide-resistant weeds, or <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/genetically-engineered-crops-trigger-cycle-of-superweeds-and-toxic-pes-1881771901.html" target="_blank">superweeds</a>, that have evolved to resist the herbicide <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/monsanto-glyphosate-cheerios-2093130379.html" target="_blank">glyphosate</a>, or Roundup. In response to weeds such as pigweed that have infested farms across the U.S., <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/agribusiness">agribusinesses</a> such as Monsanto and Dow have developed stronger formulations to help farmers.
</p><p style="">
The companies have said their weedkillers can be safely used with proper training and if farmers adhere to label instructions, although some have complained that the instructions are too restrictive or
<a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/monsanto-basf-epa-dicamba-2497674908.html">difficult to follow</a>.
</p><p>
Farmers and conservation groups have
<a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/pesticide-drift-lawsuit-xtendimax-2534117304.html">waged</a> <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/epa-lawsuit-dow-enlist-duo-2323372668.html" target="_blank">lawsuits</a> against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (<a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/pesticide-drift-lawsuit-xtendimax-2534117304.html">EPA</a>) for approving Monsanto and Dow's mixtures.
</p><p style="">
Dicamba's federal approval is subject to expiration this fall, during which the EPA will decide whether to renew the registration or let it expire. 2,4-D is also currently undergoing
<a href="https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-reevaluation" target="_blank">registration review</a>.
</p>
From Your Site Articles
- Dicamba Drift Could Put 60 Million Acres of Monarch Habitat at Risk ›
- New Dicamba Drift Estimate: 1.1 Million Acres Damaged Already in ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Lawsuit Against EPA Seeks Protection From Dangerous Pesticide Malathion
30 May 2018
Health + Wellness
Chris Alberti / CC BY 2.0
Conservation and public health groups sued the Trump administration and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) chief Scott Pruitt on Wednesday for failing to protect endangered wildlife and the environment from the dangerous pesticide malathion.
The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleges that the EPA and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have failed to complete the legally required steps to fully assess and limit the dangers of the neurotoxin.
<p>Malathion is linked to developmental disorders in children and has been found by the World Health Organization to be "<a href="http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/iarcnews/pdf/MonographVolume112.pdf" target="_blank">probably carcinogenic to humans</a>." Last year EPA scientists determined that the pesticide, manufactured by Dow Chemical, poses widespread risks to protected plants and <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/animals/">animals</a>.</p><p>"It's deplorable that the Trump administration is putting human health and endangered wildlife at risk to please Dow," said Jonathan Evans, environmental health legal director at the <a href="http://www.biologicaldiversity.org" target="_blank">Center for Biological Diversity</a>. "Trump and Pruitt aren't above the law and they have to take reasonable steps to limit the harms of this dangerous pesticide."</p><p>In January 2017 the EPA determined in a biological evaluation that 97 percent of federally protected species are likely harmed by <a href="https://www.epa.gov/endangered-species/biological-evaluation-chapters-malathion-esa-assessment" target="_blank">malathion</a>. And the National Marine Fisheries Service issued a biological opinion concluding malathion harmed or killed 38 protected species under the agency's jurisdiction.</p><p>As part of a legal <a href="http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/press_releases/2014/pesticides-07-28-2014.html" target="_blank">settlement</a>, government scientists were required to issue a final opinion by the end of last year identifying ways to safeguard <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/endangered-species">endangered species</a> from malathion.</p><p>But after the Trump administration took office, Dow officials <a href="http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/campaigns/pesticides_reduction/pdfs/Letters_to_Pruitt_Zinke_Ross_from_Dow_Chemical.pdf" target="_blank">asked</a> the EPA and other federal agencies to abandon years of work assessing the harms of several <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/pesticides">pesticides</a>, including malathion. Seven months later the EPA and Fish and Wildlife Service indefinitely suspended the malathion assessment.</p><p>"Pruitt's EPA continues to roll back health and environmental protections in favor of corporate profit," said Caroline Cox, research director at the Center for Environmental Health. "EPA's decisions must be based on sound science, not corporate politics."</p><p>Around 1 million pounds of malathion are used nationwide annually. The neurotoxin is part of the dangerous class of organophosphate pesticides used as a nerve agent in chemical warfare. They have been linked to Gulf War syndrome, which has symptoms that include fatigue, headaches, skin problems and breathing disorders.</p><p>"It is unacceptable to ignore the range of well-documented dangers with this outdated class of organophosphate pesticides," said Sarah Aird, co-director of Californians for Pesticide Reform. "Malathion is one of the most dangerous pesticides still available on the market."</p><p>The lawsuit was filed by the Center for Biological Diversity, Center for Environmental Health and Californians for Pesticide Reform.</p><p><strong>Background</strong><br>For decades the EPA refused to comply with its legal mandate to protect endangered species from the impacts of pesticides. But following a two-year review by the National Academy of Sciences, the federal government initiated a highly public and transparent process to analyze the impacts of <a href="http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/press_releases/2017/pesticides-01-18-2017.php" target="_blank">three insecticides</a>, including malathion.</p><p>During this process Dow provided extensive comments urging the agencies to <a href="http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/press_releases/2017/pesticides-04-20-2017.php" target="_blank">abandon</a> the legally required effort. The Center for Biological Diversity recently <a href="http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/press_releases/2018/pesticides-public-records-02-14-2018.php" target="_blank">sued</a> the Trump administration to force officials to release details on Dow's influence over the delay of government studies detailing the dangers of malathion.</p><p>In January 2017 Dow was one of three companies that <a href="http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/business-a-lobbying/317591-corporate-donors-to-trump-inaugural-revealed" target="_blank">donated</a> $1 million to Trump's inauguration. Shortly thereafter the EPA shocked public health advocates by abruptly scrapping a proposed federal ban on the organophosphate <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/chlorpyrifos">chlorpyrifos</a>, which is known to cause brain damage in children.</p>
<p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed">
</p><div id="e21b0" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="E05F5Q1576663073"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="885996111223279617" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">States Sue EPA for Failing to Ban Toxic Pesticide https://t.co/cyfA6tG0m0 @bpncamp @pesticideaction</div> — EcoWatch (@EcoWatch)<a href="https://twitter.com/EcoWatch/statuses/885996111223279617">1500072908.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p></p>
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
By Carey Gillam
Sometimes the truth about our food is not very appetizing.
As many gather this holiday season for shared family meals, it is likely that they'll be serving up small doses of pesticides with each plate passed, including a prevalent type shown to be harmful to children and reproductive health.
<p style="">New data released recently by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) shows a rise in the occurrence of pesticide residues detected in thousands of samples of commonly consumed foods. Documents obtained from the agency through Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests also show the government is bracing for more, with the use of at least one controversial weed killing chemical–the herbicide known as 2,4-D–expected to triple in the next year.</p><p>And buried deep within the <a href="https://www.fda.gov/downloads/Food/FoodborneIllnessContaminants/Pesticides/UCM582721.pdf" target="_blank">FDA's latest annual pesticide residue report</a> is data showing that a controversial insecticide called chlorpyrifos, which is marketed by <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/trump-pesticides-assessments-2509672274.html">Dow Chemical</a> and is <a href="https://www.epa.gov/ingredients-used-pesticide-products/chlorpyrifos#actions" target="_blank">banned from household use</a> due to known dangers, was the fourth-most prevalent pesticide found in foods out of 207 pesticides detected.</p><p style="">Overall, about 50 percent of domestic food and 43 percent of imported foods sampled showed pesticide residues in the FDA's testing for fiscal year 2015, which is the period covered in the new report. That is up from about 37 percent of domestic and 28 percent of imported foods found with residues in 2010, and up from 38.5 percent and 39 percent, respectively, found by FDA a decade earlier in 2005.</p><p>FDA sampling has been shrinking over the years, dropping about 25 percent from a decade ago from more than 7,900 samples to 5,989 samples tested in its latest report. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) also does annual pesticide residue testing, but looks at more than 10,000 samples. The <a href="https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/2015PDPAnnualSummary.pdf" target="_blank">latest USDA residue report</a>, which also was for the 2015 time period, found <a href="https://usrtk.org/pesticides/mdl-monsanto-glyphosate-cancer-case-key-documents-analysis/" target="_blank">about 85 percent</a> of samples contained pesticide residues.</p><p>Notably, samples of fruits and vegetables–considered healthy food choices–showed the highest frequency of pesticide residues in the new FDA report. Roughly 82 percent of domestic American fruits and 62 percent of domestic vegetables carried residues of weed killers, insecticides and other pesticides commonly used by farmers.</p><p>Among the domestic food samples, FDA said 97 percent of apples, 83 percent of grapes, 60 percent of tomatoes, 57 percent of mushrooms and 53 percent of plums carried residues. Exactly half of the fruit jams and jellies and similar spreads examined were tainted with pesticides, according to the FDA data.</p><p>Looking at imported fruits and vegetables, the FDA found that roughly 51 percent of imported fruits and 47 percent of imported vegetables carried residues. Overall, the imported foods had more illegally high levels of pesticide residues than did domestic foods sampled. More than 9 percent of both imported fruits and vegetables were considered in violation of legal pesticide residue limits compared to only 2.2 percent of American-grown fruits and 3.8 percent of domestic vegetables.</p><p>The FDA said some specific commodities brought into the country may warrant special attention due to illegally high levels of pesticides, including cabbage, mushrooms, oranges and orange juice and rice.</p><p><strong>Outdated "Safe" Levels</strong></p><p style="">The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sets legal limits, referred to as "maximum residue limits" (MRLs) for pesticide residues on foods. The FDA and USDA routinely assure consumers that if residues are below the established MRLs, they are both legal and safe. But many scientists and medical professionals disagree, saying regulatory methods are outdated and too dependent on input from the chemical industry players selling the pesticides.</p><p style="">"Risk assessment practices at federal agencies have not been updated for modern scientific principles, including accounting for the fact that people are exposed to multiple chemicals and that certain groups, such as genetically susceptible, the very young and old can be at greater risk of exposure," said Tracey Woodruff, a former EPA senior scientist who directs the Program on Reproductive Health and the Environment at the University of California San Francisco School of Medicine.</p><p style="">The controversy around <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/chlorpyrifos">chlorpyrifos</a> underscores those concerns. Farmers have been using chlorpyrifos since 1965 and the government has long maintained that as long as residues are below established MRLs, they are safe.</p><p>But in recent years, that regulatory view has shifted as studies show that this pesticide, which is used on corn and fruits and vegetables such as cranberries, Brussels sprouts and broccoli, can have harmful neurodevelopmental effects on fetuses whose mothers are exposed and on young children. Research ties the chemical to attention deficit problems, tremors and autism.</p><p style="">On Dec. 15, California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment <a href="https://oehha.ca.gov/proposition-65/crnr/chemicals-listed-effective-december-15-2017-known-state-california-cause" target="_blank">listed chlorpyrifos</a> as known to "cause reproductive toxicity." And the EPA has said that it can no longer <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0653-0402" target="_blank">vouch for the safety</a> of the residues found in food. The EPA had planned to outlaw chlorpyrifos use in agriculture. But the Trump administration <a href="https://usrtk.org/in-the-news/roundup-cover-up-book-paints-troubling-portrait-of-the-worlds-most-popular-weed-killer/" target="_blank">reversed that plan</a> earlier this year after <a href="https://usrtk.org/in-the-news/roundup-cover-up-book-paints-troubling-portrait-of-the-worlds-most-popular-weed-killer/" target="_blank">heavy lobbying</a> from Dow and other agrochemical industry representatives.</p><p>The FDA declined to comment about its report and declined to address questions about the safety of chlorpyrifos residues found in food.</p><p><strong>Surge in 2,4-D Expected</strong></p><p style="">Separate from the FDA's published residue report, internal FDA documents show the agency working to get a handle on the residues of two widely used herbicides–glyphosate and 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D). <a href="https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/FDA-May-18-2017-memo-on-gly-and-24-D.pdf" target="_blank">An internal memo</a> dated in May of this year obtained through FOIA states that 2,4-D use is "expected to triple in the coming year" because of new genetically engineered crops designed to tolerate direct application of the herbicide.</p><p style="">Neither FDA nor USDA has routinely tested for glyphosate despite the fact it is the world's most widely used herbicide, and testing by academics, consumer groups and other countries has shown residues of the weed killer in food. The FDA said in early 2016 that it planned to start testing for the weed killer, and documents show that one FDA chemist reported finding <a href="https://www.huffingtonpost.com/carey-gillam/fda-finds-monsantos-weed_b_12008680.html" target="_blank">residues in honey</a> and <a href="https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/fda-tests-confirm-oatmeal_b_12252824.html" target="_blank">in oatmeal products</a>, but overall results of the program testing have not been released publicly.</p><p>Details of the testing program are being kept secret, and in the documents released by FDA through the FOIA, large blocks of information are blacked out. FDA declined to comment about the status of the <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/glyphosate">glyphosate</a> and 2,4-D testing, including when it might publish some results.</p><p style="">Pesticides that the FDA did test for, and find, in the latest food sampling report, included <a href="https://archive.epa.gov/pesticides/reregistration/web/html/endosulfan-agreement.html" target="_blank">endosulfan</a>, an insecticide that has been banned in more than 80 countries and is being phased out due to established dangers to human health; the insecticide <a href="https://archive.epa.gov/epa/aboutepa/ddt-ban-takes-effect.html" target="_blank">DDT,</a> which was banned in the 1970s in the U.S. and <a href="https://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/iarcnews/pdf/MonographVolume112.pdf" target="_blank">malathion</a>, an insecticide classified by the <a href="https://www.iarc.fr/" target="_blank">International Agency for Research on Cancer</a> as probably carcinogenic.</p><p style=""><em>This article first appeared in <a href="http://www.ehn.org/what-foods-have-the-most-pesticides-on-them-2518891617.html" target="_blank">Environmental Health News</a>.</em></p>
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
A bee pollinating a flower in the French countryside. Axel Rouvin / Flickr
Bees are behind a French court ruling that suspended the license for two pesticides made by Dow Chemical.
Friday's preliminary ruling by an administrative court in Nice cited environmental risks of the pesticide sulfoxaflor. The decision overturned a ruling by ANSES, the French agency for health and environment.
<p style="">The court ruling banned the two pesticides, Closer and Transform, until a French court hears detailed arguments from both parties, giving the environmental group Générations Futures a temporary victory. The group argued that the two pesticides contain the insecticide sulfoxaflor and are therefore a threat to bees. Environmental groups have complained that sulfoxaflor is part of the <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/neonicotinoids">neonicotinoid</a> family of substances, which are being phased out in France due to concern over their link to declining bee populations.</p>
<p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed">
</p><div id="d864d" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="1N1L801576662622"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="918968369453453313" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">It’s Time to Ban Bee-Killing Pesticides https://t.co/V6GmBUC8p3 @BurtsBees @helpthebees</div> — EcoWatch (@EcoWatch)<a href="https://twitter.com/EcoWatch/statuses/918968369453453313">1507934107.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p></p>
<p style="">ANSES argued that sulfoxaflor, the substance in question, remains in <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/soil">soils</a> and plants for a much shorter period of time. </p><p>"We find this ruling extremely surprising," Benoit Dattin, communications manager at Dow AgroSciences, <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-pesticides/french-court-suspends-two-dow-pesticides-over-potential-harm-to-bees-idUSKBN1DO1M9?feedType=RSS&feedName=environmentNews&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+reuters%2Fenvironment+%28News+%2F+US+%2F+Environment%29" target="_blank">told Reuters</a>. "Our products have a very favorable toxicological profile. The problem is that certain associations have put our products in the same basket as neonicotinoids."</p><p style="">Générations Futures, which brought the case to court, praised the ruling and called for an end to neonicotinoid products. </p><p style="">According to French regulations, sulfoxaflor use is permitted for straw cereals such as wheat and fruit and vegetables crops, but prohibited for crops that attract pollinating insects. The EU's health regulator approved the use of sulfoxaflor in 2015.</p>
Read More
Show Less
Trump Administration Seeks Two-Year Delay on Pesticide Assessments Following Industry Request
15 November 2017
Popular
Dow CEO Andrew Liveris and President Donald Trump in February.
The Trump administration filed a motion before a federal judge requesting two more years to complete an assessment on the risks of three common pesticides on endangered species.
The pesticides in question—chlorpyrifos, malathion and diazinon—are three organophosphate insecticides known to harm the vast majority of the nearly 1,800 animals and plants protected under the Endangered Species Act, according to an extensive federal study.
<p><span></span>Notably, the <a href="https://apnews.com/9e20add1e2d944caa7c8cdc756bae24b/Trump-administration-seeks-to-delay-findings-on-pesticides" target="_blank">Associated Press</a> reported, the administration's motion comes after chlorpyrifos-maker <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/dow">Dow</a> Chemical Co. and two other organophosphate manufacturers asked the government <a href="http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-dow-chemical-pesticide-study-20170420-story.html" target="_blank">to ignore the findings of the aforementioned study</a>. </p><p>"It's appallingly clear that the pesticide industry is now essentially running Trump's EPA," said Lori Ann Burd, environmental health director at the <a href="http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/" target="_blank">Center for Biological Diversity</a>. "This disturbing request shows that [EPA administrator Scott] Pruitt and Trump are more interested in protecting the profits of their corporate buddies than the hundreds of endangered species threatened by these deadly pesticides."</p><p>If the request is granted, it would modify a 2014 legal agreement secured by the Center for Biological Diversity that required the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (<a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/epa">EPA</a>) to assess the pesticides' harms by the end of 2017.</p><p><a href="https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/press_releases/2017/pesticides-11-14-2017.php" target="_blank">According</a> to a press release from the Center for Biological Diversity: <br></p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">
"Under the Endangered Species Act, the EPA must consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service to ensure its actions do not jeopardize endangered species or harm their habitats.<br></p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">
Despite this clear mandate, the EPA has essentially ignored the plight of endangered species injured and killed by pesticides. Only after the Center's 2014 legal victory did the agency agree to comply with this long-standing requirement.</p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">Unless the court approves the new delay request, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife and National Marine Fisheries services will use those assessments to develop common-sense measures to reduce the pesticides' harm to endangered species—for example by limiting spraying in their habitat—by the end of the year."</p><p>The Associated Press pointed out that this move "is the latest example of the Trump administration seeking to block or delay environmental rules at the behest of the industry."</p><p>Dow contributed $1 million to Trump's inaugural committee. President Trump also named Dow CEO Andrew Liveris head of his American Manufacturing Council and <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/trump-executive-order-regulations-2282814216.html" target="_blank">received the president's ceremonial</a><a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/trump-executive-order-regulations-2282814216.html" target="_blank"> pen</a> used to sign the executive order aimed at eliminating regulations that he claims are damaging to the U.S. economy.</p>
<div class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="df4321f520c51f559e5c307126d8b555"><div class="fb-video" data-href="https://www.facebook.com/EcoWatch/videos/10158710783090301/" data-allowfullscreen="true"></div></div>
<p><a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/pruitt-dow-chlorpyrifos-2449662128.html" target="_blank">In March</a>, according to records obtained by the <a href="https://apnews.com/2350d7be5e24469ab445089bf663cdcb/EPA-chief-met-with-Dow-CEO-before-deciding-on-pesticide-ban" target="_blank">Associated Press</a>, Pruitt met with Liveris for about 30 minutes at a Houston hotel. Later that month, Pruitt announced that he would no longer pursue a ban on chlorpyrifos from being used on food, ignoring his agency's own review that even small amounts of the pesticide could impact fetus and infant brain development.</p>
Read More
Show Less
Trump's Pick for Top EPA Post Under Scrutiny for Deep Ties to Chemical Industry
20 September 2017
Popular
From Scott Pruitt to Betsy DeVos, President Donald Trump has notoriously appointed a slew of individuals with serious conflicts of interests with the departments they oversee.
The latest is Michael L. Dourson, Trump's pick to head the EPA's Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, the government's chemical safety program. Media reports reveal that the toxicologist is under intense scrutiny for his extensive ties to the chemical industry and a resumé dotted with some of the biggest names in the field: Koch Industries Inc., Chevron Corp., Dow AgroSciences, DuPont and Monsanto.
<p>
After working as a staff toxicologist for the EPA from 1980 to 1994, Dourson founded and ran the
<a href="http://www.tera.org/" target="_blank">Toxicology Excellence for Risk Assessment</a> (TERA), a nonprofit research group that has been paid by chemical corporations to research and write reports that downplay the health risks posed by their products, the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/19/science/epa-chemical-industry-dourson.html?mcubz=0&_r=0" target="_blank">New York Times</a> reports. TERA has since been renamed as the Risk Science Center at the University of Cincinnati, where Dourson is a professor.
</p><p style="">
According to the <a href="https://apnews.com/877205e5d2c04b3eb40984ff02201c79/EPA-nominee-once-helped-chemical-industry,-lobbyists" target="_blank">Associated Press</a>, Dourson's research has been "underwritten by industry trade and lobbying groups representing the makers of plastics, pesticides, processed foods and cigarettes."
</p><p>
Dourson's Senate confirmation hearing was originally set for Wednesday but has been postponed to a date that has not yet been announced. If confirmed, Dourson would be in charge of regulating chemicals produced by "his old industry friends,"
<a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/epa-chemical-safety-2484776932.html" target="_blank">critics have warned</a>. <span></span>
</p><p>
Notably, Dourson and TERA was contracted by Dow AgroSciences, the maker of chlorpyrifos, a neurotoxic pesticide that has been shown to <a href="https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/common-pesticide-disturbs-the-brains-of-children/" target="_blank">harm children's brains</a> at even very low exposure levels. Dourson and his researchers argued in three papers that there were flaws in peer-reviewed studies that linked delays in fetal development from chlorpyrifos exposure, the AP reports.</p><p>In March, the EPA controversially <a href="https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-03/documents/chlorpyrifos3b_order_denying_panna_and_nrdc27s_petitition_to_revoke_tolerances.pdf" target="_blank">refused to ban chlorpyrifos</a> claiming the science is "<a href="https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-03/documents/chlorpyrifos3b_order_denying_panna_and_nrdc27s_petitition_to_revoke_tolerances.pdf" target="_blank">unresolved</a>" and decided it would postpone the determination of the pesticide until 2022.
</p><p>Dourson was also the lead author of a
<a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10962247.2016.1180328" target="_blank">report</a> funded by Koch Industries that concluded that human exposures to petroleum coke and coal "if any, are well below levels that could be anticipated to produce adverse health effects in the general population."<br></p><p>Senator Tom Carper (D-DE), the ranking minority member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works panel that will evaluate Dourson's qualifications was alarmed by Trump's choice. </p><p>"Dr. Dourson's consistent endorsement of chemical safety standards that not only match industry's views, but are also significantly less protective than E.P.A. and other regulators have recommended, raises serious doubts about his ability to lead those efforts," Carper told the Times. "This is the first time anyone with such clear and extensive ties to the chemical industry has been picked to regulate that industry."</p><p><span></span>A number of experts and environmental and consumer health groups have also spoken against Dourson. The <a href="https://www.edf.org/" target="_blank">Environmental Defense Fund</a> has <a href="http://blogs.edf.org/health/2017/07/18/edf-has-deep-concerns-over-nomination-of-industry-consultant-to-lead-toxics-program-at-epa/" target="_blank">listed</a> a number of further objections, including:
</p><ul class="ee-ul">
<li>After the 2014 chemical spill in Charleston, West Virginia, the state hired Dourson's company, Toxicology Excellence for Risk Assessment (TERA), to <a href="https://insideclimatenews.org/news/20141219/one-stop-science-shop-has-become-favorite-industry%E2%80%94and-texas" target="_blank">convene and manage a health effects expert panel</a>. TERA then appointed Dourson to chair the panel and act as its only spokesperson. The panel's report failed to disclose that Dourson and TERA had done paid work for both of the companies that produced the chemicals involved in the spill. These conflicts only came to light upon questioning of Dourson by a reporter at the panel's news conference.</li>
<li>Dourson and TERA have done extensive work on behalf of the so-called <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Perchlorate_Study_Group" target="_blank">Perchlorate Study Group</a> (PSG), which is actually comprised of producers and users of perchlorate. The work was aimed at reducing the stringency of federal standards. Dourson, who is on EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB), was asked to recuse himself from the Board's 2013 meeting to review EPA's work to develop a drinking water standard for perchlorate. Immediately upon doing so, <a href="https://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/SABPRODUCT.NSF/PeopleSearch/3BB19C9B7E8C322385257AED006A01CC/%24File/Minutes-03+29+13-final-formatted.pdf" target="_blank">Dourson provided "public" comments </a>to the Board based on the work he had done for PSG.</li>
<li>In 2012, Dourson and TERA, with funding from the American Chemistry Council (ACC), set up and ran a website called "<a href="http://med.uc.edu/eh/centers/rsc/risk-resources/kidschemicalsafety" target="_blank">Kids + Chemical Safety</a>." (This website is now inactive and TERA itself has been migrated to be a center at the University of Cincinnati.) The site was designed to look like a neutral source of advice for parents concerned about chemical safety, but instead <a href="http://blogs.edf.org/health/category/industry-influence/tag/american-chemistry-council-acc+children-safety+front-group+chemical-industry-tactics/" target="_blank">mirrored industry talking points </a>about its chemicals and sought to shift responsibility for ensuring safety to the consumer or parent and away from the industry.</li>
</ul><p style="">
"It is not even subtle," Sheldon Krimsky, a Tufts University professor who studies ethics in science and medicine and has reviewed Dourson's work, told the AP. "He has chosen to be the voice of the chemical industry. His role as a scientist is simply the role of an industry-hired lawyer—only to give the best case for their client."
</p><p>
Unsurprisingly, the chemical industry and trade associations have cheered the choice.
</p><p>
"His knowledge, experience and leadership will strengthen EPA's processes for evaluating and incorporating high quality science into regulatory decision making," said Jon Corley, the American Chemistry Council's spokesman.
</p><p>
CropLife America—the main trade and lobbying group for the pesticide industry—called Dourson "a perfect fit."
</p><p>
"We welcome Dr. Dourson's nomination," CropLife America
<a href="http://www.croplifeamerica.org/cla-commends-white-house-nomination-dourson-epa/" target="_blank">said on its website</a>. "His extensive experience in risk assessment and science, both in government and private sector make him a valuable addition to the office."
</p>
Read More
Show Less
Trending
TP Martins / CC BY-NC-SA 2.0
By Farron Cousins
In late March, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Scott Pruitt decided that his agency would not place an outright ban on a pesticide manufactured by Dow Chemical called chlorpyrifos.
The decision came after a federal court ordered the EPA to make a final decision on whether or not to ban the pesticide, which the Obama administration had proposed banning in 2015. The chemical has been on the market in the U.S. since 1965 under the brand name Lorsban and indoor use of the chemical has been banned for more than a decade.
<p>In its decision to allow the pesticide to continue being used in the U.S., the EPA went against its own agency's findings that the pesticide presented unnecessary risks to American citizens. And while Pruitt's EPA officials <a href="http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-cranor-chlorpyrifos-should-be-banned-20170606-story.html" target="_blank">did not deny those findings</a>, they did claim additional studies on the chemical were still needed before they could ban it, thus allowing the product's continued use.</p><p>In the three and a half months since the EPA's chlorpyrifos decision, the story has become far more complex than the usual "regulators siding with industry" trope that has played out far too often.</p><p>One of the most interesting developments was from a report in early July indicating Pruitt met with the CEO of Dow Chemical, Andrew Liveris, a few weeks prior to his decision not to ban chlorpyrifos. While the <a href="https://apnews.com/2350d7be5e24469ab445089bf663cdcb/EPA-chief-met-with-Dow-CEO-before-deciding-on-pesticide-ban?utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=AP" target="_blank">EPA claims that the meeting was simply a brief introduction</a> when the two men met in a hallway during a conference in Houston on March, the timing of the "chance" meeting <a href="http://thehill.com/news-by-subject/energy-environment/339783-trumps-epa-chief-met-with-chemical-ceo-before-dropping" target="_blank">has sparked talk</a> that it could have potentially influenced Pruitt's decision on the chemical, which came just a few weeks later.</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed"></p><div id="de3cc" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="6A7UR01524750070"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="880106920899727361" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">EPA Chief Met With Dow Chemical CEO Before Deciding Not to Ban Toxic Pesticide
https://t.co/00pORekJv0 @ecowatch</div> — Sierra Club (@Sierra Club)<a href="https://twitter.com/SierraClub/statuses/880106920899727361">1498668816.0</a></blockquote></div><p></p><p>Originally, Pruitt and Liveris had scheduled an official meeting together while at the conference, but an EPA spokesperson <a href="https://apnews.com/2350d7be5e24469ab445089bf663cdcb/EPA-chief-met-with-Dow-CEO-before-deciding-on-pesticide-ban?utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=AP" target="_blank">told the Associated Press</a> that the meeting had been canceled due to scheduling conflicts and that the two men did not discuss chlorpyrifos in their brief hallway interaction.</p><p>Immediately following Pruitt's chlorpyrifos decision, several groups, led by the <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/">Natural Resources Defense Council</a> (NRDC), filed a suit against the EPA to reverse the decision. The suit claims that the agency did not reach a proper scientific conclusion on the pesticide because the EPA gave it the greenlight before all relevant studies could be concluded and reported.</p><p>Last week, five states and the District of Columbia joined the NRDC's suit against the EPA, claiming that the agency did not fulfill due diligence prior to making the decision on chlorpyrifos.</p><p>As reported by <a href="http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/340899-states-join-suit-over-epa-pesticide-decision" target="_blank">The Hill</a>:</p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">"Several groups sued over the decision in June, asking a federal court to force the EPA to take action on the pesticide. The states, led by New York, joined that suit Thursday and also filed a legal complaint of their own directly with the EPA.</p><p style="margin-left: 20px;"> 'Job Number One for the EPA should be protecting Americans' well-being, especially that of our children,' said New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman (D), who is leading the states' action.</p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">'Yet the administration is jeopardizing our kids' health, allowing the use of a toxic pesticide for which it can't even identify a safe level.'</p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">The other states joining the motion are Maryland, Massachusetts, Vermont, Washington and the District of Columbia. Together, they allege the EPA did not make a safety finding before continuing to allow the use of chlorpyrifos."</p><p>Chlorpyrifos is a neurotoxin used to kill insects, but exposure in human beings has been linked to devastating side effects, as <a href="http://earthjustice.org/features/what-you-need-to-know-about-chlorpyrifos" target="_blank">Earthjustice pointed out</a>:</p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">"Chlorpyrifos is acutely toxic and associated with neurodevelopmental harms in children. Prenatal exposures to chlorpyrifos are associated with lower birth weight, reduced IQ, loss of working memory, attention disorders, and delayed motor development.</p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">Acute poisoning suppresses the enzyme that regulates nerve impulses in the body and can cause convulsions, respiratory paralysis, and, in extreme cases, death. Chlorpyrifos is one of the pesticides most often linked to pesticide poisonings."</p><p>Earthjustice also noted that the <a href="http://earthjustice.org/features/what-you-need-to-know-about-chlorpyrifos" target="_blank">EPA itself has admitted</a> that there are <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0653-0001" target="_blank">no safe levels of exposure</a> to chlorpyrifos for human beings.</p><p>The lawsuits from the states and independent organizations likely represent the best chance for reversing the EPA's decision via the court system. The only disappointing fact is that they are necessary. The EPA's suspicious reversal on a chemical like chlorpyrifos is creating a leadership void in protecting public health and the environment. Instead, its actions show a government too willing to put the interests of corporations over the health of the public.</p><p><em>Reposed with permission from our media associate <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2017/07/12/states-sue-epa-pesticide-ruling-chlorpyrifos-pruitt-dow" target="_blank">DeSmogBlog</a>.</em></p>
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Dow CEO Andrew Liveris and President Donald Trump in February.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) administrator Scott Pruitt met with Dow Chemical CEO Andrew Liveris before deciding to reverse an earlier EPA decision to ban the company's toxic and widely used pesticide, chlorpyrifos.
According to records obtained by the Associated Press, the EPA boss met with Liveris for about 30 minutes at a Houston hotel on March 9. Later that month, Pruitt announced that he would no longer pursue a ban on chlorpyrifos from being used on food, ignoring his agency's own review that even small amounts of the pesticide could impact fetus and infant brain development.
<p>
But EPA spokeswoman Liz Bowman insisted to the AP that Pruitt and Liveris were only "briefly introduced" at the energy industry conference where both men were featured speakers.
</p><p>
"They did not discuss chlorpyrifos," the spokeswoman said. "During the same trip he also met with the Canadian minister of natural resources, and CEOs and executives from other companies attending the trade show."
</p><p>
According to the AP, Pruitt also attended a larger group meeting with two other Dow executives, but Bowman said they did not discuss the pesticide.
</p><p>
The
<a href="https://www.nrdc.org/" target="_blank">Natural Resource Defense Council</a> (NRDC), <a href="http://www.panna.org/" target="_blank">Pesticide Action Network</a> and <a href="http://earthjustice.org/" target="_blank">Earthjustice</a> sued the EPA just days after Pruitt's decision to reverse the EPA's proposed ban on chlorpyrifos.
</p><p>
"The move adds to the
<a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/trump-watch/" target="_blank">Trump administration's</a> growing roster of decisions informed by 'alternative facts,'" the NRDC's Nicole Greenfield wrote in a <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/chlorpyrifos-insecticide-epa-pruitt-2393963040.html" target="_blank">blog post</a> about the lawsuit. "Nearly <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/experts/veena-singla/epa-proposes-ban-dangerous-pesticide-our-food" target="_blank">two decades' worth</a> of scientific studies—including analyses by Pruitt's own agency—have documented the numerous risks this bug-killer poses to children and pregnant women."
</p><p>
The <a href="https://www.aap.org/en-us/Pages/Default.aspx" target="_blank">American Academy of Pediatrics</a> also sent a letter to Pruitt on Tuesday, urging the EPA to ban the pesticide and called the agency's decision to allow its use a threat to children's health.
</p><p>
A lot has been reported about Dow's seemingly close ties with Trump. The company
<a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/funded-trumps-inauguration-2370182741.html" target="_blank">donated $1 million</a> to the presidential inauguration. Additionally, Liveris leads President Trump's advisory council on manufacturing. In February, Liveris <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/trump-executive-order-regulations-2282814216.html" target="_blank">received Trump's pen</a> after he signed the "Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda" executive order aimed at eliminating regulations that the administration claims are damaging to the U.S. economy, but some worry that the measure will roll back critical environmental protections.</p><div class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="8802e92ca4b83bc0b2e8d8bd2ff8dab0"><div class="fb-video" data-href="https://facebook.com/EcoWatch/videos/10158710783090301/" data-allowfullscreen="true"></div></div><p>
The
<a href="https://apnews.com/a29073ecef9b4841b2e6cca07202bb67" target="_blank">Associated Press</a> reported in April that Dow is pressuring the Trump administration to throw out a 10,000-page government risk study on three pesticides under review, including chlorpyrifos. The government scientists found that chlorpyrifos is "likely to adversely affect" 1,778 of the 1,835 animals and plants in its study.</p><p>According to the <a href="http://www.sierraclub.org/" target="_blank">Sierra Club</a>, this is just the latest in a long list of examples of the Trump administration working with corporate polluters before reversing public safeguards to protect families from corporate negligence:</p><ul class="ee-ul"><li>In February, <a href="http://sierraclub.pr-optout.com/Tracking.aspx?Data=HHL%3d9%2b3%2f96-%3eLCE5%3a2%3c5%3d%26SDG%3c90%3a.&RE=MC&RI=3646477&Preview=False&DistributionActionID=31930&Action=Follow+Link" target="_blank">automakers sent a letter</a> to Pruitt and Trump asking for lighter fuel economy standards. In March,Donald Trump <a href="http://sierraclub.pr-optout.com/Tracking.aspx?Data=HHL%3d9%2b3%2f96-%3eLCE5%3a2%3c5%3d%26SDG%3c90%3a.&RE=MC&RI=3646477&Preview=False&DistributionActionID=31929&Action=Follow+Link" target="_blank">announced a review</a> of U.S. vehicle fuel-efficiency standards from 2022-2025 put in place by the Obama administration, effectively reopening a process the Obama administration had ended ahead of an April 2018 deadline. This review goes against the <a href="http://sierraclub.pr-optout.com/Tracking.aspx?Data=HHL%3d9%2b3%2f96-%3eLCE5%3a2%3c5%3d%26SDG%3c90%3a.&RE=MC&RI=3646477&Preview=False&DistributionActionID=31928&Action=Follow+Link" target="_blank">massive public support for cleaner, more fuel efficient cars</a>.</li></ul><ul class="ee-ul"><li>In his first few weeks in office, Pruitt <a href="http://sierraclub.pr-optout.com/Tracking.aspx?Data=HHL%3d9%2b3%2f96-%3eLCE5%3a2%3c5%3d%26SDG%3c90%3a.&RE=MC&RI=3646477&Preview=False&DistributionActionID=31927&Action=Follow+Link" target="_blank">met with executives of fossil fuel and energy companies numerous</a> times. Since these meetings the Trump administration has:<ul class="ee-ul"><li><a href="http://sierraclub.pr-optout.com/Tracking.aspx?Data=HHL%3d9%2b3%2f96-%3eLCE5%3a2%3c5%3d%26SDG%3c90%3a.&RE=MC&RI=3646477&Preview=False&DistributionActionID=31926&Action=Follow+Link" target="_blank">Rolled back methane safeguards</a>, a move <a href="http://sierraclub.pr-optout.com/Tracking.aspx?Data=HHL%3d9%2b3%2f96-%3eLCE5%3a2%3c5%3d%26SDG%3c90%3a.&RE=MC&RI=3646477&Preview=False&DistributionActionID=31925&Action=Follow+Link" target="_blank">highly praised</a> by oil and gas executives who now have a free pass to pollute. </li><li><a href="http://sierraclub.pr-optout.com/Tracking.aspx?Data=HHL%3d9%2b3%2f96-%3eLCE5%3a2%3c5%3d%26SDG%3c90%3a.&RE=MC&RI=3646477&Preview=False&DistributionActionID=31924&Action=Follow+Link" target="_blank">Gutted the clean water rule</a>, long pushed for and <a href="http://sierraclub.pr-optout.com/Tracking.aspx?Data=HHL%3d9%2b3%2f96-%3eLCE5%3a2%3c5%3d%26SDG%3c90%3a.&RE=MC&RI=3646477&Preview=False&DistributionActionID=31923&Action=Follow+Link" target="_blank">praised by business and industry execs</a> who are able to gain financially from the dangerous deregulation. </li><li><a href="http://sierraclub.pr-optout.com/Tracking.aspx?Data=HHL%3d9%2b3%2f96-%3eLCE5%3a2%3c5%3d%26SDG%3c90%3a.&RE=MC&RI=3646477&Preview=False&DistributionActionID=31922&Action=Follow+Link" target="_blank">Touted an anti environmental and pro-polluter agenda</a> from a coal mine. </li><li><a href="http://sierraclub.pr-optout.com/Tracking.aspx?Data=HHL%3d9%2b3%2f96-%3eLCE5%3a2%3c5%3d%26SDG%3c90%3a.&RE=MC&RI=3646477&Preview=False&DistributionActionID=31921&Action=Follow+Link" target="_blank">Left the Paris Climate Agreement</a>, a <a href="http://sierraclub.pr-optout.com/Tracking.aspx?Data=HHL%3d9%2b3%2f96-%3eLCE5%3a2%3c5%3d%26SDG%3c90%3a.&RE=MC&RI=3646477&Preview=False&DistributionActionID=31920&Action=Follow+Link" target="_blank">move opposed by much of the American public</a>, but supported by <a href="http://sierraclub.pr-optout.com/Tracking.aspx?Data=HHL%3d9%2b3%2f96-%3eLCE5%3a2%3c5%3d%26SDG%3c90%3a.&RE=MC&RI=3646477&Preview=False&DistributionActionID=31919&Action=Follow+Link" target="_blank">coal executives</a>. </li></ul></li></ul>
Read More
Show Less
In March, EPA chief Scott Pruitt scrapped his own agency's proposal to ban chlorpyrifos.
More than 50 agricultural workers southwest of Bakersfield, California in Kern County were inadvertently exposed to pesticide drift from a nearby field earlier this month. According to local reports, 12 farmworkers reported symptoms of vomiting, nausea and one person fainted due to exposure to Vulcan, an organophosphate-based chemical.
<p>Notably, the active ingredient in the insecticide is <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/chlorpyrifos" target="_blank">chlorpyrifos</a>, which the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (<a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/epa" target="_blank">EPA</a>) under the <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/trump-watch/" target="_blank">Trump</a> administration <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/epa-pesticide-ban-chlorpyrifos-2338511186.html">decided not to ban</a> in March. </p><p>"Anybody that was exposed, that was here today, we encourage them to seek medical attention immediately. Don't wait. Particularly if you're suffering from any symptoms. Whether it's nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, seek medical attention immediately," Michelle Corson, public relations officer for Kern County Public Health, said. </p><p><span></span>As the <a href="http://www.ewg.org/" target="_blank">Environmental Working Group</a> detailed, <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/epa-pesticide-ban-chlorpyrifos-2338511186.html">research shows</a> that even small amounts of chlorpyrifos can damage parts of the brain that control language, memory, behavior and emotion. Multiple independent studies have documented that exposure to chlorpyrifos impairs children's IQs and EPA scientists' assessments of those studies concluded that <a href="https://www.epa.gov/ingredients-used-pesticide-products/revised-human-health-risk-assessment-chlorpyrifos" target="_blank">levels of the pesticide found on food and in drinking water are unsafe</a>.</p><p>But on March 29, EPA Administrator <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/scott-pruitt" target="_blank">Scott Pruitt</a> sided with the pesticide lobby over scientists in his <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/chlorpyrifos-insecticide-epa-pruitt-2393963040.html" target="_blank">decision</a> to nix an Obama-era proposal to ban chlorpyrifos from use on food crops.</p>
<p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed"></p><div id="cd753" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="QG4OTN1548946863"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="862004262712344576" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Continued chlorpyrifos use on crops puts our children's health at risk. https://t.co/5tPw9uEDrJ via @EcoWatch</div> — NRDC Food (@NRDC Food)<a href="https://twitter.com/NRDCFood/statuses/862004262712344576">1494352806.0</a></blockquote></div><p></p>
<p>"We need to provide regulatory certainty to the thousands of American farms that rely on chlorpyrifos, while still protecting human health and the environment," Pruitt said after signing the order. "By reversing the previous Administration's steps to ban one of the most widely used pesticides in the world, we are returning to using sound science in decision-making—rather than predetermined results."<br></p><p>Chlorpyrifos originates from a nerve gas developed by Nazi Germany. Chemical maker <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/dow">Dow Chemical</a> sells about 5 million pounds of it in the U.S. each year.</p><p>Notably, Dow <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/funded-trumps-inauguration-2370182741.html" target="_blank">donated $1 million</a> to the presidential inauguration and the company's CEO, Andrew Liveris, leads Trump's advisory council on manufacturing. In February, Liveris <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/trump-executive-order-regulations-2282814216.html" target="_blank">received the signing pen</a> after the president signed the "Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda," an executive order aimed at eliminating regulations that Trump claims are damaging to the U.S. economy, but some worry that the measure will roll back critical environmental protections.</p><p>The <a href="https://apnews.com/a29073ecef9b4841b2e6cca07202bb67" target="_blank">Associated Press</a> reported in April that Dow is pressuring the Trump administration to throw out a 10,000-page government risk study on three pesticides under review, including chlorpyrifos. The government scientists found that chlorpyrifos is "likely to adversely affect" 1,778 of the 1,835 animals and plants in its study.<br></p>
Read More
Show Less