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.
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.
Wow, okay, that seems like a huge jump in quantity.
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.
Anti Commercial-AI license (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)
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
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.
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.
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).
Anti Commercial-AI license (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)
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.
Anti Commercial-AI license (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)
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.
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.
Anti Commercial-AI license (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)
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.
Anti Commercial-AI license (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)
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 …
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?
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.
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.
Anti Commercial-AI license (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)