- cross-posted to:
- news@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- news@lemmy.world
The Environmental Protection Agency unveiled a proposal this week to ban a controversial pesticide that is widely used on celery, tomatoes and other fruits and vegetables.
The EPA released its plan on Tuesday, nearly a week after a ProPublica investigation revealed the agency had laid out a justification for increasing the amount of acephate allowed on food by removing limits meant to protect children’s developing brains.
But rather than banning the pesticide, as the European Union did more than 20 years ago, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency recently proposed easing restrictions on acephate.
The federal agency’s assessment lays out a plan that would allow 10 times more acephate on food than is acceptable under the current limits. The proposal was based in large part on the results of a new battery of tests that are performed on disembodied cells rather than whole lab animals. After exposing groups of cells to the pesticide, the agency found “little to no evidence” that acephate and a chemical created when it breaks down in the body harm the developing brain, according to an August 2023 EPA document.
From the article …
Anti Commercial-AI license (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)
Which was from what the EPA was originally gonna do, except too many advocates and journalists who asked questions about the stupidity of that, so the EPA changed course.
If this is accurate, why the fuck do we have a federally regulated agency going off of mob rule? Was no science done?
Yes, but apparently you either didn’t read the full article or you didn’t understand what you were told. In a nutshell there’s two different scientific methods that can be used here and the two methods, models really, produce different results. One says this chemical is fine but the other model suggests that there could be a problem. The EPA has traditionally used the latter model but the former, newer, model is also available.
This wasn’t “mob rule” so much as a disagreement about which scientifically created model is more correct.
If I had to guess it’s probably lobbying. It has nothing to do with health and everything to do with corporate profits.
US agencies are known to side with corporations for that sweet donation money even if it’s against the best interest of the people. After all regulators simply get paid off to bend their will in the favor of the corps. Worst case scenario people die and it isn’t their problem.
Can you imagine trading a significant amount of human life for a few grand indirectly through this? I used to be an opioid addict and I would still never fucking ever approach this line of thinking.
This is literally the first sentence:
“The Environmental Protection Agency unveiled a proposal this week to ban a controversial pesticide that is widely used on celery, tomatoes and other fruits and vegetables.”
This is the second sentence:
“The EPA released its plan on Tuesday…”
The third sentence:
“In calling for an end to all uses of the pesticide on food, the agency cited evidence that acephate harms workers who apply the chemical as well as the general public and young children, who may be exposed to the pesticide through contaminated drinking water.”
Yes, AFTER they were caught and called out by ProPublica. What I’m quoting is what they were going to do before the calling out.
They are back pedaling and trying to save face, and there’s no guarantee that when any political agency does such a thing that it will actually goes through with it, but instead revert back to what it was doing before when no one is no longer looking.
Anti Commercial-AI license (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)