The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced Friday a proposal that would ban a pesticide commonly sprayed on citrus fruits, almonds, and other crops.
Chlorpyrifos has been in use since 1965 as an insecticide for oranges, apples, cherries, grapes, broccoli, and asparagus. Dozens of farmworkers have been sickened by chlorpyrifos is recent years. In September 2014, a coalition of environmental health groups sued the EPA, asking the agency to ban the toxic chemical.
The agency cited scientific evidence in defense of its ban on chlorpyrifos for household use in 2000. Prior to the ban, chlorpyrifos was the most widely used household pesticide in the U.S. Sold as Dursban, the Dow-made chemical was found in flea collars and was routinely used to kill household pests, such as roaches, termites and ants.
At the time, the agency warned that farmworkers who mixed chlorpyrifos, sold for farms as Lorsban, or applied it using backpack sprayers or open-cab tractors faced a potentially unacceptable level of risk. The agency also said it needed to research how chlorpyrifos drifting from nearby fields or tracked home on clothing put children’s health at risk.
The National Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA) say that chlorpyrifos interferes with the brain development of fetuses, infants and children. [1] It has also been found to cause genetic damage in children, though it is reversible, and one study linked the insecticide to an increased risk of autism in unborn children.
In the summer of 2007, the EPA reauthorized the use of chlorpyrifos on farms without resolving the farmworkers’ risks or drawing any conclusions concerning potential harm to youngsters. This reauthorization prompted the NRDC and PANNA to petition the agency to enact a larger ban on all uses of chlorpyrifos, but the agency never made a determination about the safety of the pesticide.
But evidence of chlorpyrifos’ toxicity was mounting. The Farm Worker Pesticide Project detected chlorpyrifos in the air outside farmworkers’ homes in 2006. A study published in the journal Pediatrics found that children exposed to high levels of chlorpyrifos had mental and physical delays. And a 3-year study of blood samples from farmworkers in Washington State revealed that some of the farmers working around chlorpyrifos had such depressed levels of vital liver enzymes that researchers concluded that chlorpyrifos use for agricultural purposes warranted further review. [2]
Finally, in the summer of 2014, the NRDC and PANNA filed a lawsuit against the EPA for failing to respond to their 2007 petition. The agency told the court that it would take public comments on the matter for at least 2 months, with a final rule expected in December 2016. That answer didn’t satisfy the court, which responded by accusing the EPA of deliberately avoiding the issue by providing only “a litany of partial status reports, missed deadlines, and vague promises of future action.” [3] [4]
“Although filibustering may be a venerable tradition in the United States Senate, it is frowned upon in administrative agencies tasked with protecting human health,” reads the order [PDF] from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
The court gave the EPA until today, October 31, to fully respond to the 2007 petition. That is unlikely. The EPA released the following statement addressing the court order:
“EPA is not denying the petition because we are unable to make a safety finding based on the science as it stands currently,” reads the announcement, which disregards the fact that the agency has had nearly a decade to respond. “EPA is not issuing a final revocation rule because we have not proposed it and have not completed our refined drinking water assessment, leaving certain science issues unresolved.”
The EPA says that, instead, it is considering a revocation of all chlorpyrifos tolerances based on the science the agency already has, and that’s music to the NRDC’s and PANNA’s ears.
“If this dangerous, World War II-era chemical does make its final exit from our fields, farmworkers would be safer on the job and children would have the chance to grow up healthier, free from its toxic effects,” writes NRDC Staff Scientist Veema Singla. “We look forward to working with EPA to swiftly implement the ban.”
Sources:
[3] ABC News
[4] Consumerist
Thanks Julie for another good article. I think it should be banned or at least severely limited even farther, because of the extreme danger it does carry. Thanks to GMOs its use in corn has been greatly reduced, hopefully that can spread to more crops so we can get rid of more of these dangerous insecticides.
nworeport dot me/2015/04/09/gmo-lies-study-shows-how-pesticide-use-soars-with-more-gmo-crops/
LOL, more proof you don’t know what you are talking about.
First, you reference an article by Chrissy, who is anything, but non biased, and that is even overlooking her out right lies in most of her articles such as the one you referenced. Yes, the class of insecticides she talks about has greatly increased since before gmos. That is a given since if they were used before it was rare since they weren’t on the market at that time. Secondly, before gmos anyone ever hardly treated soybean seed because people didn’t see the benefits. Now gmo have nothing to do with it and people would treat the non gmo seed as well. Next, commercial corn seed has been treated for a long time, long before gmos, the only difference is that they have switch what it is treated with. Again this will stay the same with or without gmos. Lastly, for what you blatantly ignored. Gmos have reduced soil applied insecticides greatly. These are the ones that were used to control pests like cutworm and root worm. Why lie? Why fall into Chrissy traps? Even you can’t be that stupid.
Sorry, I almost forgot who I was talking to for a second.
Since the herbicide and insecticide reporting ends in 2010, I would think that their is a corporate sponsored black out on the information.
Or maybe they just forgot to continue to report after 2010?
Your comment is all opinion based and agenda driven. You call everybody names that isn’t bowing to your master.
Strange a quick simple search gave me information up to 2012, just something else you couldn’t figure out.
Something you couldn’t figure out, there are still years missing.
Look at the graphs, not the article date.
Besides you provided no link.
Your insults win no one to your flawed side.
You are useless, even to your troll-paymasters.
No one likes you.
You have no friends.
You have a sad life.
No one respects you.
You are unworthy.
We know what you are.
You are ludicrous and flawed.
Wow you must really be worried about me. Shame instead of using facts the best you can do is try cheap insults.
Typical Monsanto-shill tactics of bait and switch, lies, and insults. I’m also concerned about your obsessive-compulsive stalking of Ms. Sarich.
Inadequate argument as usual. Use of any substance that is now heavily used has ‘increased’ from the time when it was rarely used or never used, but that doesn’t make it safe.
Switching from one nasty pesticide to a different nasty pesticide doesn’t make the second one safe.
GMOs have increased the use of poisonous seed-applied biocides, plant-applied biocides, and plants specifically modified (mutilated) to systemically absorb biocides. Thus, dangers to health are increased by immoral Monsanto.
You’ve failed again. You’re a constant failure.
No one respects your lies. No one respects you.
You are unworthy.
You have no value.*
*Chuckle. None beyond the entertainment derived from ridiculing your ludicrous obsessive-compulsive behavior. – Now go ahead. You know you can’t resist. Whine, child. Whine!
Chrissy has been proven a liar many times for her articles.
Due to immoral Monsanto’s GMOs, the use of extremely dangerous Roundup (glyphosate) has greatly increased, endangering everyone exposed to it, either directly or by eating food sprayed with it.
Regarding cancer ALONE:
Exposure of either parent to Roundup during two years before a child’s birth doubles the child’s chance of brain cancer. – Glyphosate induces human breast cancer cell growth via estrogen receptors. – Glyphosate causes mammary tumors and shorter life-spans in rats. – Analysis of ca. 30 years of epidemiologic research on non-Hodgkin lymphoma and exposure to pesticides found that glyphosate is positively associated with B cell lymphoma.
Why are you so jealous of Monsanto? This article is about an insecticide not a herbicide. So your lies are way off target. Now do you have a comment on this article?
like Phillip answered I cannot believe that you can make $9890 in 4 weeks on the computer.try this website on `my` `prof1le`
+yyyyyyyyy