America continues to use 100 herbicides and
pesticides that are BANNED in other countries
You’ve heard about the dangers of certain pesticides,
but perhaps you figure that if farmers are still
allowed to use them, they can’t be that bad, right?
If you live in the U.S. and you put your trust in
regulators, you could be in for a rude awakening as a
sobering new study shows that America continues to
use 100 pesticides and herbicides that other
countries have banned.
That’s right: Many of the same chemicals the
government wants you think are safe have already been
determined to be hazardous in other places of the
world.
The study, which was published in the journal
Environmental Health, looked at the U.S., the
European Union, Brazil, and China – four of the
biggest agricultural producers and, by extension,
four of the greatest consumers of agricultural
pesticides on the planet. The study’s comparison of
the ability and inclination of the various regulatory
agencies involved when it comes to banning or
eliminating harmful agricultural chemicals was eye-
opening.
Researcher Nathan Donley looked at the approval
status of more than 500 different pesticides in the
four countries and then compared the different
nations’ approaches. He also looked at the pesticides
that are allowed in the U.S. but banned elsewhere.
According to the study, America uses an incredible 72
pesticides that have been banned or are being phased
out in the European Union. The U.S. also uses 17 and
11 pesticides, respectively, that Brazil and China
have outlawed.
It’s not just the number of specific pesticides still
being used here that is concerning; the volume should
also be considered. The study found that 322 million
pounds of the pesticides sprayed on American crops in
2016 were varieties the EU has banned, while 26
million pounds and 40 million pounds of pesticides
used stateside were banned in Brazil and China,
respectively.
Perhaps even more worryingly, they found that more
than a quarter of the agricultural pesticide use in
the U.S. involved pesticides that Europe has banned.
The amounts used have not gone down in response to
bans in other places.
The EPA is failing to protect us
You can thank the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) for this sad state of affairs as they are
responsible for the regulation and enforcement of
pesticide actions in the U.S. The pesticide industry
is only required to demonstrate that their products
“will not generally cause unreasonable adverse
effects on the environment.”
The EU, in contrast, has the most protective and
thorough regulations governing pesticide use among
the world’s other major agricultural producers. The
European Commission has regulations that “ensure that
industry demonstrates that substances or products
produced or placed on the market do not have any
harmful effect on human or animal health or any
unacceptable effects on the environment.” In other
words, the pesticide industry there must prove its
products won’t harm humans or the environment.
Moreover, the approval and use of pesticides with
known carcinogens, endocrine disruptors, reproductive
toxicants and mutagens is expressly banned.
The study emphasized that total pesticide bans are
the best way to prevent people from being exposed to
hazardous substances, and Donley expressed concern
that the U.S. is lagging so far behind when it comes
to banning pesticides that other major agricultural
powers have deemed too dangerous to be used.
So the next time you’re tempted to dismiss people’s
concerns about pesticides, take a look at what other
regulatory agencies think of the chemicals in
question. Does the EPA really expect us to believe
that Americans are somehow immune to the damage a
pesticide or herbicide can cause to European,
Brazilian, or Chinese people? The government simply
isn’t looking out for you in this regard and many
others, which is why you should stick to organic
produce or grow your own if possible.
|
|
Thanks Logan. The Natural News article linked to
https://healthimpactnews.com/2019/study-united-states-uses-100-
pesticides-and-herbicides-banned-in-other-countries/
which linked to this:
"Nathan Donley of Environmental Health Program, Center for Biological
Diversity in Portland, Oregon, has just published an article in the journal
Environmental Health titled “The USA lags behind other agricultural nations
in banning harmful pesticides.”"
excerpt:
The USA lags behind other agricultural nations in banning harmful
pesticides
Abstract
Background
The United States of America (USA), European Union (EU), Brazil and China
are four of the largest agricultural producers and users of agricultural
pesticides in the world. Comparing the inclination and ability of different
regulatory agencies to ban or eliminate pesticides that have the most
potential for harm to humans and the environment can provide a glimpse
into the effectiveness of each nation’s pesticide regulatory laws and
oversight.
Methods
The approval status of more than 500 agricultural pesticides was identified
in the USA, EU, Brazil and China and compared between nations. The
amount of pesticides that were used in the USA and banned in these other
nations was compiled and linear regression was used to identify trends in
use.
Results
There are 72, 17, and 11 pesticides approved for outdoor agricultural
applications in the USA that are banned or in the process of complete phase
out in the EU, Brazil, and China, respectively. Of the pesticides used in USA
agriculture in 2016, 322 million pounds were of pesticides banned in the EU,
26 million pounds were of pesticides banned in Brazil and 40 million pounds
were of pesticides banned in China. Pesticides banned in the EU account for
more than a quarter of all agricultural pesticide use in the USA. The majority
of pesticides banned in at least two of these three nations have not
appreciably decreased in the USA over the last 25 years and almost all have
stayed constant or increased over the last 10 years.
Conclusions
Many pesticides still widely used in the USA, at the level of tens to hundreds
of millions of pounds annually, have been banned or are being phased out in
the EU, China and Brazil. Of the pesticides banned in at least two of these
nations, many have been implicated in acute pesticide poisonings in the
USA and some are further restricted by individual states. The United States
Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) has all but abandoned its use of
non-voluntary cancellations in recent years, making pesticide cancellation in
the USA largely an exercise that requires consent by the regulated industry.
Peer Review reports
Background
Four of the largest agricultural producers in the world are the USA, EU,
China, and Brazil – together accounting for more than half of all global
agricultural production value [1]. In addition, these four nations have the
highest export values of any other agricultural producers in the world and,
therefore, have an enormous economic interest in maintaining high
production [1].
Many agricultural practices can be harmful to humans and surrounding
ecosystems and their potential benefits must be balanced against these
harms [2]. One widely adopted agricultural practice that is known to have
harmful impacts to humans and the environment is the use of pesticides.
While many pesticides are efficacious against agricultural pests and widely
used to prevent crop damage, the harms to non-target species and humans
can be widespread and severe [3, 4]. In addition to being the world’s largest
agricultural producers and exporters, the EU, Brazil, USA, and China are
some of the world’s largest pesticide users – each using 827 million, 831
million, 1.2 billion, and 3.9 billion pounds of pesticides in 2016, respectively
[5,6,7].
The USA, EU, China, and Brazil each have separate and distinct pesticide
regulatory systems designed to protect, to varying degrees, humans and the
environment. The EU, consisting of 28 member states, currently has the
most comprehensive and protective pesticide regulations of any major
agricultural producer. The European Commission oversees pesticide
approval, restriction and cancellation in the EU in accordance with
Regulations 1107/2009 and 396/2005, which are designed to “…ensure that
industry demonstrates that substances or products produced or placed on
the market do not have any harmful effect on human or animal health or any
unacceptable effects on the environment” and place the burden of proof on
the pesticide industry to demonstrate that its product can be used in a way
that does not result in harm to humans or the surrounding environment [8,
9]. The EU prohibits the approval and continued use of pesticides that the
governing body has recognized as mutagens, carcinogens, reproductive
toxicants or endocrine disruptors unless exposure to humans is considered
negligible [8].
In the USA, pesticide regulation is largely overseen by the US EPA, which
regulates and enforces pesticide actions under the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) [10, 11]. Unlike the safety threshold afforded by the
EU, the pesticide industry only has to demonstrate that its products “will not
generally cause unreasonable adverse effects on the environment,” which is
partially defined as “any unreasonable risk to man or the environment,
taking into account the economic, social, and environmental costs and
benefits of the use of any pesticide…” [11]. The FFDCA was amended in
1996 to strengthen the safety threshold in setting food residue tolerances to
a “reasonable certainty of no harm” for pesticide exposure to humans
through food, water and home uses [12]. However, harm to plants, animals,
the broader environment, and harm to humans from occupational exposures
remains solely a cost-benefit analysis.
Historically, pesticide regulation in China has suffered from scattered data,
complex laws and lack of transparency regarding rule implementation and
compliance [13]. Recently, China has passed modest regulations updating
certain aspects of pesticide use in the country, including establishing
licensing requirements for sellers of pesticides, record keeping requirements
for users, and committees in charge of evaluating pesticide safety [14]. One
notable area where China has progressed in recent years is with banning or
phasing out highly hazardous pesticides. As of 2014 the Chinese Ministry of
Agriculture (MOA), the lead pesticide regulatory agency which upholds the
newly revised Pesticide Management Law, had banned or was in the process
of phasing out 50 pesticides and in the process of restricting another 30
[15]. More recent regulations have resulted in the announced phase out of
an additional 12 pesticides by 2022 [16].
Brazil’s pesticide regulations are overseen by three governmental agencies,
the Brazilian MOA, Brazilian Health Regulatory Agency (ANVISA) and
Ministry of the Environment (MOE) [17]. Under Brazil’s 1989 pesticide law
No. 7802, the country incorporated a more protective “hazard assessment”
by which it can ban carcinogenic, teratogenic, mutagenic and hormone
disrupting pesticides [18]. However multiple factors have severely limited
the effectiveness of human and environmental health safeguards in Brazil,
including: 1) barriers to how often pesticides can be reevaluated, 2) the
Brazilian MOA’s aggressive protection of the agrochemical industry, and 3)
massive budget and personnel shortfalls [18, 19]. Despite this, ANVISA and
the Brazilian MOE have been effective in getting some hazardous pesticides
banned in the country [20].
While regulatory agencies have many options to increase the safeguards for
any given pesticide, including limiting what crops the pesticide can be used
on, requiring safety equipment to be worn by applicators, requiring setbacks
from sensitive habitats, and requiring management practices to minimize
off-target movement, the most effective and reliable option is to ban a
pesticide entirely if the potential for dangerous exposure cannot be feasibly
mitigated. As such, one measure of the effectiveness of a regulatory agency
is how it compares to its peer agencies in banning or eliminating pesticides
that are most dangerous and have the most potential for harm to humans
and the environment.
A recent decision by former US EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt that reversed
a planned ban on the pesticide chlorpyrifos, as well as the increasing
influence of the agrochemical industry in the operations of US EPA, has
called into question the effectiveness and robustness of pesticide regulation
in the USA [21, 22]. Here, I identified pesticides that are approved in outdoor
agricultural applications in the USA and compared to those in the EU, China
and Brazil. Many pesticides are still widely used in the USA that have been
banned in these other nations and the majority of pesticides banned in at
least two of them have not appreciably decreased in use in the USA over the
last 25 years. The number of US EPA-initiated, non-voluntary cancellations
in the USA has decreased substantially in recent years making pesticide
prohibitions largely a result of voluntary cancellations by industry. Finally, I
discuss potential influencing factors, as well as the negative implications for
human health and the environment in the USA.
Methods
Pesticide approval status
A list of more than 500 pesticide active ingredients that have been used in
agriculture in the USA, EU, Brazil and China was compiled for use in
comparing the approval status between nations (Additional file 1 and
Additional file 2)..."
Continues
|
|