US Environmental Agency Proposes New Pesticide Linked to Forever Chemicals
The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has proposed approving a new pesticide containing forever chemicals, which are highly toxic substances that have been linked to numerous health problems. The proposed pesticide, epyrifenacil, will be used on crops such as canola, corn, soybeans, and wheat.
Critics of the proposal say it is a significant step backward for the agency's efforts to reduce its use of hazardous chemicals. Nathan Donley, environmental health science director at the Center for Biological Diversity, stated that "Trump promised to make America healthy again and rein in use of the worst pesticides, but his EPA just proposed approving its fifth new 'forever' pesticide that will put people at risk for generations to come."
The EPA has a responsibility to ensure that any pesticide it approves does not pose an unreasonable risk to humans or the environment. However, some experts argue that the agency is moving too quickly and failing to consider the full range of potential consequences.
Epyrifenacil contains trifluoroacetic acid (TFA), which is widely found in drinking water sources and has been linked to liver cancer in animal studies. Some researchers believe it could have similar health effects on humans, although more research is needed to confirm this.
The EPA has proposed several measures to mitigate the potential risks of epyrifenacil, including requiring spray drift buffers and runoff mitigation points to reduce aquatic exposure risks. However, some experts warn that these measures may not be enough to prevent harm to the environment and human health.
"This new compound has been demonstrated to contribute to liver cancer in mouse studies, but it is less clear whether this is relevant to humans," said Rainer Lohmann, a professor of oceanography at the University of Rhode Island. "There is always the hope that newer pesticides are less harmful than prior ones, but we need to be cautious and consider all the potential risks."
The public has until December 3 to comment on the proposal. The EPA will then consider these comments and finalize its biological evaluation before making a decision.
The approval of epyrifenacil marks the latest development in the Trump administration's efforts to roll back environmental protections. Critics say that this is part of a broader pattern of trying to undermine the agency's work and advance the interests of agribusiness companies.
As the debate over epyrifenacil continues, one thing is clear: the use of forever chemicals like TFA in pesticides poses significant risks to human health and the environment. It will be up to policymakers and regulatory agencies to ensure that these risks are properly assessed and addressed.
The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has proposed approving a new pesticide containing forever chemicals, which are highly toxic substances that have been linked to numerous health problems. The proposed pesticide, epyrifenacil, will be used on crops such as canola, corn, soybeans, and wheat.
Critics of the proposal say it is a significant step backward for the agency's efforts to reduce its use of hazardous chemicals. Nathan Donley, environmental health science director at the Center for Biological Diversity, stated that "Trump promised to make America healthy again and rein in use of the worst pesticides, but his EPA just proposed approving its fifth new 'forever' pesticide that will put people at risk for generations to come."
The EPA has a responsibility to ensure that any pesticide it approves does not pose an unreasonable risk to humans or the environment. However, some experts argue that the agency is moving too quickly and failing to consider the full range of potential consequences.
Epyrifenacil contains trifluoroacetic acid (TFA), which is widely found in drinking water sources and has been linked to liver cancer in animal studies. Some researchers believe it could have similar health effects on humans, although more research is needed to confirm this.
The EPA has proposed several measures to mitigate the potential risks of epyrifenacil, including requiring spray drift buffers and runoff mitigation points to reduce aquatic exposure risks. However, some experts warn that these measures may not be enough to prevent harm to the environment and human health.
"This new compound has been demonstrated to contribute to liver cancer in mouse studies, but it is less clear whether this is relevant to humans," said Rainer Lohmann, a professor of oceanography at the University of Rhode Island. "There is always the hope that newer pesticides are less harmful than prior ones, but we need to be cautious and consider all the potential risks."
The public has until December 3 to comment on the proposal. The EPA will then consider these comments and finalize its biological evaluation before making a decision.
The approval of epyrifenacil marks the latest development in the Trump administration's efforts to roll back environmental protections. Critics say that this is part of a broader pattern of trying to undermine the agency's work and advance the interests of agribusiness companies.
As the debate over epyrifenacil continues, one thing is clear: the use of forever chemicals like TFA in pesticides poses significant risks to human health and the environment. It will be up to policymakers and regulatory agencies to ensure that these risks are properly assessed and addressed.
... My aunt has been struggling with her liver issues for years, I keep thinking if only she had access to cleaner water and air, maybe things would be different for her now. Anyway, back to the news - it feels like we're just getting more and more toxic stuff into our lives without anyone really stopping it 
. I mean, I get that science is all about finding solutions, but can't they find safer alternatives? It's like they're playing with fire here, not knowing how many generations down the line it'll affect us 
.
. She's always raving about the benefits of going local and choosing sustainable options - makes me wonder if we should be supporting companies that prioritize the environment over profits 
. We need more people like her speaking out, making a change from within 
.
... Should we be commenting on it or just stay silent?
. We need some serious regulation here, not just a few token measures to mitigate the risks. What's going on with the Trump admin's whole environmental protection thing, anyway? It feels like they're just trying to line up agribusiness profits over people and planet 
. We need to slow down and think about all the potential consequences before we make a decision 
. The fact that agribusiness companies are pushing for this approval is just frustrating - can't they see how their interests might be putting actual people at risk? 
. We need to make sure our policymakers are listening to science, not just big business 
.
. What about the poor farmers who are already struggling? Are they supposed to take on more risk just to feed their communities?
. These experts are saying that even with the proposed buffers and runoff mitigation points, it's still not enough to prevent harm... what kind of timeline do we have for research on this stuff? Can't we afford to be more cautious when it comes to our health and the environment?
We need more research and caution here, not just some token measures to make it seem like we're doing something 
I'm scared for the next generation if we keep going down this path... can't we find more sustainable solutions? 
They can cause all sorts of problems like cancer & harm the environment. I'm not saying we should completely stop using pesticides, but we need to find safer alternatives.
And I'm also worried about the impact on our drinking water sources - it's just not worth the risk.
We need to hold our leaders accountable for making decisions that protect us & the planet. It's time for a change in how we approach environmental protection. 
Guess they're gonna have to weigh all the pros and cons, but honestly, I'm team human health over crop yields any day 
... it's not looking great for human health or the environment 
... but at the same time, we can't just keep debating without considering all the perspectives 
... what do you guys think? should we be giving agribusiness companies more leeway or is the EPA doing its job? 
. We're already dealing with so many health problems from exposure to these toxins, can't they just slow down for once? 
It's like they're more concerned with lining the pockets of agribusiness than actually protecting our planet 
. But seriously, it's crazy that the EPA is even considering approving this stuff. Like, what's going on with our government these days? 
.
. Maybe it's time to rethink our priorities and put people and the planet above profits 
. THESE "FOREVER CHEMICALS" ARE PRETTY MUCH THE WORST THING YOU COULD PUT IN A PESTICIDE - WE'RE TALKING LIVER CANCER, NEURODEGENERATIVE DISEASES... THE LIST GOES ON 
. We need more research on this stuff before we start spraying it around. I mean, the experts are saying there might be some benefits, but that TFA stuff has been shown to cause liver cancer in mice, and who knows if that's gonna happen to us humans?
!
We need to weigh up the pros and cons here... agriculture needs pesticides, but do we really want to give up all hope on finding safer alternatives? It's a trade-off, I suppose.
I don't know, I'm not an expert but it just feels really sketchy to me...