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.
PSA: You can soak your fruit and veggies in a baking soda solution to break down residual pesticides.
I still want better regulation on pesticides, but that’s my stopgap.
It’s so nice of the US to offload corporate responsibility to individual citizens. None of the money of course. But you all need to do your part to keep the quarterly earnings up!
I’ll sacrifice mine and my family’s life to the line! All praise the line, line go up!
I just want a you tube channel of some guy with a spectrogram machine testing user voted products available via retail. Lets let videos go viral when they discover lead in mayo.
deleted by creator
Never heard of this. Not with an intention to call you out but rather curiosity, is this substantiated?
It depends on who you ask tbh. I looked this up a while back* (but less than a year ago) and science basically said that water + scrubbing certain produce is fine and recommended, and adding anything else doesn’t really do much. I’ll try to find the article I read.
*Just wanted to add that the reason I looked it up was because of a post my friend made on Facebook asking people how they prep their produce (and chicken) - way too many people said they do soap and water…
Edit: here is a guide from science from 2010 (PDF WARNING)
https://www.nifa.usda.gov/sites/default/files/resource/Guide to Washing Fresh Produce508.pdf
Edit 2: here is a guide in more detail
Totally random and off-topic, but I like your username. Was literally looking up how potentially toxic acetanilide is the other day when we received a small shipment of it at work. Do you have a fun origin story for your username or any fun facts about the substance?
Haha thank you! I created it in college during one of my chemistry courses. We were using it for some experiment (I assume, I don’t remember at this point lol). Anyway at that point in time I made a few usernames and passwords that were fun chemistry stuff.
The reason I was interested in it was because of the connection with acetaminophen (you may have learned that acetaminophen is a metabolite of acetanilide).
Very cool stuff. Thanks for asking! Made my day :)
That’s very cool! Chemistry was always my most difficult subject (biology major). We use acetanilide at work as standard reference material for stable isotope analysis of particulate organic matter (e.g., phytoplankton/marine snow), basically as a quality check since it has similar carbon and nitrogen signatures. Always excited to learn interesting science facts! :)
That sounds like a lot of fun!
Thanks. I recall the healthline article. While it doesn’t address removal of pesticides, I guess you could conjecture that water is sufficient (or no less effective) than a baking soda bath?
Big baking soda won’t fool me again.
Baking soda is for baking, I’m not leaving an open box in my refrigerator or washing my fruit with it. if you want more profits just raise the price and shrink the weight like everyone else.You either need to add /s at the end or make your comment so literally dripping with sarcasm that it slaps the reader in the face…
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.
That seems very very wrong, in a bad political machination sort of way. I hope they have scientific reasons and proof to backup that change.
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.
Wow, okay, that seems like a huge jump in quantity.
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.
While I hate how animals are used for testing in general, when it comes to the safety of children, I still would want them to test/verify on animals, instead of just individual cells in the petri dish.
TL;DR: Wash those mofo veggies like crazy before eating, and pray, especially if you’re pregnant or have young children about.
Erm, did you miss the part where they are banning acephate? Your comment and all the replies seem to assume the opposite of what’s actually happening.
Erm, did you miss the part where they are banning acephate? Your comment and all the replies seem to assume the opposite of what’s actually happening.
From the article …
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 federal agency’s assessment lays out a plan that would allow 10 times more acephate on food than is acceptable under the current limits.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Yeah but the article is intentionally worded to provoke outrage. What if it was more like ……
—-
US EPA tested a common common pesticide and found little to no evidence of an impact on developing brains, so is relaxing restrictions on levels allowed on common fruit
US EPA tested a common common pesticide and found little to no evidence of an impact on developing brains, so is relaxing restrictions on levels allowed on common fruit
Probably because that wasn’t what the EPA found because they did their tests on disembodied cells. There was zero testing on animals, which could/would have shown far different results.
Yeah but the article is intentionally worded to provoke outrage.
A lot of posting in communities online are like that, unfortunately.
But still, I highlighted the particular parts that do not seem to be argued, and seem to be accurate, actual facts. So I was able to respond to just those three facts.
US EPA tested a common common factor pesticide and found little to no evidence of an impact on developing brains, so is relaxing standards on levels allowed on common fruit
The fictional rewrite you did though does not talk to the points that I’ve highlighted (how it was tested, the changing quantity times amount, etc.).
So one could say it’s obfuscating, and not ethical as well (AKA sales/propaganda).
The thing is, typically you are way way more likely to see results at high concentrations in isolated cells vs in an animal or human at more reasonable exposure rates, so you typically only elevate to animal testing once you’ve shown some pathway of effect in isolated cells.
The thing is, typically you are way way more likely to see results at high concentrations in isolated cells vs in an animal or human at more reasonable exposure rates, so you typically only elevate to animal testing once you’ve shown some pathway of effect in isolated cells.
Fair enough, wasn’t aware of the pathway/elevation technique, as you described it.
My version clearly is minimizing the issue. The wording is misleading. However I believe it is just as accurate as the article and equally misleading.
The points you highlight come from the author, not the source and include nothing to support whether or not it’s bad.
- removing the limits sounds bad, but finding no danger in a study so relaxing the limits seems reasonable. Yet they say the same thing
- it does seem like a huge jump but is it? If testing didn’t find a problem with that, then why not?
- so it all comes down to the testing. Aside from testing inflammatory wording, we’re basing outrage on testing against cell lines instead of animals. Yet we’ve also been clamoring for exactly that: less animal testing. More importantly, not even an opinion much less evidence about whether this is normal or unusual, not even an opinion much less evidence on whether this accurately assesses the danger or not.
Certainly the article makes this seem outrageous, but I’m very dissatisfied with how it gets there
Well, I’m not an expect (curious if you are?), just a layman, so I’ll defer to your opinion on the matter. But I would hope that the changes would be described better by the authorities so that a non-expert/normal/everyday (not anti-vaxer type) person doesn’t get worried about them.
No, just someone who really dislikes poor reporting on scientific topics.
No, just someone who really dislikes poor reporting on scientific topics.
Quoting portions of an article is not reporting on the subject, it’s just quoting.
Long live the US of A, the country whose government works so hard to kill its people with many different ways to make more money.
God bless ProPublica!
How small is that plane?? Or how big is that tomato??
Creative Commons License (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0)
EPA Proposes Ban on Pesticide Widely Used on Fruits and Vegetables
by Sharon Lerner
ProPublica is a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative newsroom. Sign up for The Big Story newsletter to receive stories like this one in your inbox.
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.
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.
Acephate, which was banned by the European Union more than 20 years ago, belongs to a class of chemicals called organophosphates. U.S. farmers have used these pesticides for decades because they efficiently kill aphids, fire ants and other pests. But what makes organophosphate pesticides good bug killers — their ability to interfere with signals sent between nerve cells — also makes them dangerous to people. Studies have linked acephate to reductions in IQ and verbal comprehension and autism with intellectual disability.
Environmental advocates, who have been pushing the agency to restrict and ban acephate for years, said they were not expecting the agency to make such a bold move.
“I’m surprised and very pleased,” said Patti Goldman, a senior attorney at Earthjustice, who has been part of a farmworker led group that expressed concerns to EPA officials over the past years about the ongoing use of acephate and other organophosphates.
As much as 12 million pounds of acephate were used on soybeans, Brussels sprouts and other crops in 2019, according to the most recent estimates from the U.S. Geological Survey. The federal agency estimates that up to 30% of celery, 35% of lettuce and 20% of cauliflower and peppers were grown with acephate.
A draft risk assessment issued in August by the EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs found “little to no evidence” that acephate and a chemical created when it breaks down in the body harm the developing brain. The document said there was no justification to keep restrictions on the bug killer that are designed to protect children from developmental harm. Removing that layer of protection would allow 10 times more acephate on food than is acceptable under the current limits.
The draft risk assessment’s conclusion relied in large part on the results of a new battery of tests that are performed on disembodied cells rather than whole lab animals.
The tests have been in development for years, but the EPA’s review of acephate’s effects on the developing brain marked one of the first times the agency had recommended changing a legal safety threshold largely based on their results.
Multiple science groups, including panels the EPA created to help guide its work, had discouraged using the nonanimal tests to conclude a chemical is safe. A member of the Children’s Health Protection Advisory Committee, one of the panels providing guidance to EPA, described the earlier acephate proposal as “exactly what we recommended against.”
But even as it proposed a new outcome this week, the EPA did not change its stance on the use of the cell-based tests.
“Even in this good news proposal, the EPA continues to misuse the cell-based assays,” said Jennifer Sass, a senior scientist at the environmental advocacy organization Natural Resources Defense Council.
Sass said she believes that both pressure from advocates and questions from journalists helped the EPA decide to change course on acephate. ProPublica began submitting a series of detailed inquiries to the agency about the pesticide starting in January.
An EPA spokesperson said late Tuesday that the agency had been working for months on its proposal to ban acephate from food and that neither advocates nor journalists played a role in the decision.
The EPA proposal would ban acephate on all plants with the exception of trees that do not produce fruit or nuts.
While lauding the proposed ban, Nathan Donley, a scientist at the Center for Biological Diversity, expressed concern about the possibility that, after pesticide companies and agricultural groups respond to the proposal, the agency might not finalize its proposed ban. (The agency is accepting public comments through its portal until July 1.)
“The pushback on this is going to be really intense,” Donley said. “I hope they stick to their guns.”
