US Lawmakers On EPA To Ban Pesticide Linked To Parkinson's Disease (theguardian.com) 19
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Guardian: More than 50 US lawmakers are calling on the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to join dozens of other countries in banning a widely used weedkiller linked to Parkinson's disease and other health dangers. In a October 31 letter (PDF) to the agency, seven US senators said that paraquat, a weedkiller commonly applied on US farms, was a "highly toxic pesticide whose continued use cannot be justified given its harms to farmworkers and rural communities". The call for a ban from the senators came after 47 members of the US House of Representatives sent a similar letter (PDF) to the EPA calling for a ban earlier in October.
The lawmakers cite scientific links between paraquat use and development of Parkinson's and other "life threatening diseases" as well as "grave impacts on the environment". "Health risks include a higher risk of Parkinson's disease, with some studies finding a 64% increase in the likelihood of developing Parkinson's, non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma, thyroid cancer, and other thyroid issues," they wrote. The New Jersey senator Cory Booker, organizer of the Senate letter, said the risks of paraquat exposure were "well documented" and that it was "irresponsible" for the EPA to continue to allow its use. "I hope the EPA will follow the science and ban paraquat," Booker said. The EPA has long maintained that there is no "clear link" between paraquat exposure and Parkinson's disease, though the agency does have a number of restrictions on use of the chemical due to its acute toxicity. The agency issued a draft report earlier this year affirming its position. Still, the agency said at that time that it would be reviewing more scientific studies and would issue a final report by January 17, 2025.
The lawmakers cite scientific links between paraquat use and development of Parkinson's and other "life threatening diseases" as well as "grave impacts on the environment". "Health risks include a higher risk of Parkinson's disease, with some studies finding a 64% increase in the likelihood of developing Parkinson's, non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma, thyroid cancer, and other thyroid issues," they wrote. The New Jersey senator Cory Booker, organizer of the Senate letter, said the risks of paraquat exposure were "well documented" and that it was "irresponsible" for the EPA to continue to allow its use. "I hope the EPA will follow the science and ban paraquat," Booker said. The EPA has long maintained that there is no "clear link" between paraquat exposure and Parkinson's disease, though the agency does have a number of restrictions on use of the chemical due to its acute toxicity. The agency issued a draft report earlier this year affirming its position. Still, the agency said at that time that it would be reviewing more scientific studies and would issue a final report by January 17, 2025.
Once Again (Score:4, Insightful)
Once again, depending who gets elected, this will or will not happen. It is getting to the point where the third year of every presidential the US goes into a holding pattern.
There was a time in Lame Duck session, a lot of needed laws would be passed, now it seems the next admin, if of a different party, would undo the work of the previous admin.
No wonder Europe is starting to distance themselves from the US, people want a stable partner. These days the US is far from stable.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you really believe Bobby Kennedy is going to advocate for pesticides in the food supply?
Really?
This administration has been in power since 2021 but just days before the election they're considering MAHA planks?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Well, if he accepts a post in a future Trump administration, he'd be willingly working for someone who rolled back water pollution regulation, and is a climate change denialist whose energy policy is based on increased fossil fuel extraction.
Not what you'd expect of RFK Jr. based on his life story up until 2005, when he fell down the anti-vaxx rabbit hole. After that, all bets are off. Once someone becomes a conspiracy theorist, they've adopted a pattern of non-critical thinking that can justify anything
Re: (Score:2)
and is a climate change denialist
And anti-vaxxer who has helped kill untold numbers of people because of it. Not to mention he's assaulted women and will fit in well with the convicted felon if he gets back into office.
Re: (Score:2)
The
Don't feed the troll (was Re:Once Again) (Score:2)
Once again, depending who gets elected, this will or will not happen. It is getting to the point where the third year of every presidential the US goes into a holding pattern.
Reducing public health risks to election cycles is insulting; this is about preventing severe diseases, not playing political games.
There was a time in Lame Duck session, a lot of needed laws would be passed, now it seems the next admin, if of a different party, would undo the work of the previous admin.
Nostalgic nonsense. Addressing a toxic pesticide linked to Parkinson's isn't about "admin turnover"; it's about protecting lives.
No wonder Europe is starting to distance themselves from the US, people want a stable partner. These days the US is far from stable.
Europe has banned paraquat because it respects public health over corporate profit. Dragging “US stability” into a pesticide discussion is a cheap attempt to stoke anti-US sentiment—pure opportunism. If you want to air your grievance
Re: (Score:2)
No wonder Europe is starting to distance themselves from the US, people want a stable partner. These days the US is far from stable.
The one big thing the US has going for it is extreme inefficiency in the legislative process. It is really hard to pass federal laws in the US due to procedural rules in both houses, the committee system, the power of the Speaker and the Senate majority leader to block most bills, the Senate filibuster, the need for reconciling exact text from both houses, and the presidential veto. Americans complain about this lethargic system, but it is a foundational contributor to the relative stability of US laws.
The famous killer weed made true. (Score:2)
From Wikipedia,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
"During the late 1970s, a controversial program sponsored by the US government sprayed paraquat on cannabis fields in Mexico.[46] Following Mexican efforts to eradicate marijuana and poppy fields in 1975, the United States government helped by sending helicopters and other technological assistance. Helicopters were used to spray the herbicides paraquat and 2,4-D on the fields; marijuana contaminated with these substances began to show up in US markets, leading
Paraquat (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Reread the summary, but slower. Bonus points if you search for "cause" and tell your browser to highlight all occurrences.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Paraquat for slower readers (Score:1)
bolding added for slow readers.
Not sure what reading slower does, that is, if you are arguing somehow that phantomfive's reading the summary slowly would cause he/she/they to come to a different conclusion than stated?
Re: (Score:2)
Reread the summary, but slower. Bonus points if you search for "cause" and tell your browser to highlight all occurrences.
Does the summary not say lawmakers allege that paraquat causes Parkinson's? What else could they mean by "associated with"--that Parkinson's causes paraquat usage?
Re: (Score:2)
"It doesn't clearly" is a reasonable summation of the state of evidence, but we should be careful not to misread that as "it clearly doesn't."
If you do a google scholar search for reviews on this topic, it's obvious that scientific opinion is all over the place. So it's clear why a "review of reviews" is something you'd want to do, but it is, after all not a review of *evidence*; it is a review of *reviews*. I'd say that's enough to raise doubts in a positive conclusion but not enough to make strong *nega
good (Score:1)
Lack of herbicides is a problem for farmers... (Score:4, Interesting)
Most of my career was spent in pesticide regulatory arena and I can vouch that paraquat is incredibly toxic to humans. For herbicides, it's an outlier for mammalian toxicity and is infamous in developing countries as a way to commit suicide. On the surface, it's remarkable that paraquat has been left on the market for so long in the US. It's been banned since 2007 in the European Union. And if you think "why can't growers just not use herbicides and/or go organic?" -- when we surveyed organic growers in California about their pest control problems, they overwhelmingly said that weed control was by far their biggest expense and problem. Mechanical weed control (plowing) is energy intensive and expensive.
There has been pressure on the US EPA to keep paraquat on the market as the number of herbicide active ingredients (AIs) has been declining owing to AIs losing registration and the lack of new AIs being developed. Until recently, there had not been a single new herbicide AI commercialized for 30 years. This article explains why:
What’s preventing a new era of herbicides?
https://www.farmprogress.com/c... [farmprogress.com]
And as an example of how hard it is to bring a new chemical AI onto the market, BASF released a new herbicide AI (trifludimoxazin) in 2020:
EPA Proposes Registration of Trifludimoxazin, a New Herbicide Active Ingredient
https://www.epa.gov/pesticides... [epa.gov]
but soon withdrew it from the market when fish toxicity issues were found:
BASF to Stop Selling Pesticide Trifludimoxazin Rather Than Continue Litigation
https://www.centerforfoodsafet... [centerforfoodsafety.org]
Breaking news (Score:1)
Pass a law (Score:2)
Hey, Lawmakers... MAKE A LAW. Something that will not subject the EPA to years of expensive court battles over whether or not they have the authority to make a rule.
Do your job.