nav-left cat-right
cat-right

U.S. Annually Uses 388 Million Pounds of Potentially Fatal Pesticides Banned in the EU, China and Brazil

U.S. Annually Uses 388 Million Pounds of Potentially Fatal Pesticides Banned in the EU, China and Brazil

“It’s appalling the U.S. lags so far behind these major agricultural powers in banning harmful pesticides,” said study author Nathan Donley, who is affiliated with the Center for Biological Diversity. “The fact that we’re still using hundreds of millions of pounds of poisons other nations have wisely rejected as too risky spotlights our dangerously lax approach to phasing out hazardous pesticides.”

The study focused on 13 pesticides that are currently approved in the U.S. but banned in at least two of the three other leading agricultural economics, though the researchers compared the approval status of a total of more than 500 pesticides used in outdoor applications. Of the 1.2 billion pounds of pesticides used across the nation in 2016, 322 million pounds had been banned or were being phased out in the E.U., compared with 40 million pounds in China and 26 million in Brazil.

“The USA is generally regarded as being highly regulated and having protective pesticide safeguards in place. This study contradicts that narrative and finds that in the last couple of decades, nearly all pesticide cancellations in the USA have been done voluntarily by the pesticide industry,” said Donley. “Without a change in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA‘s) current reliance on voluntary mechanisms for cancellations, the USA will likely continue to lag behind its peers in banning harmful pesticides.”

Though states like California and Washington have taken individual action towards the banning of certain pesticides, a majority of those still in use across much of the U.S. had not decreased in the last 25 years or had even stayed the same or increased in the last decade. Generally speaking, the studied pesticides are used to kill “problem” weeds, an issue that occurs in all four of the nation-states but doesn’t explain why they are still so prevalent across the country.

Donley argues this lag in banning has to do with deficiencies in the pesticide regulatory process. Though the EPA is given authority to ban pesticides under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, the majority of cancellations comes from voluntary decisions made by pesticide producers following economic outcomes rather than in response to human or environmental health.

“Bans are the most effective way to prevent exposures to highly hazardous pesticides and can spur the transition to safer alternatives,” said Donley. “A combination of weak laws and the EPA’s broken pesticide regulatory process has allowed the pesticide industry to dictate which pesticides stay in use. That process undermines the safety of agricultural workers and anyone who eats food and drinks water in this country.”

Since 1970, more than 500 pesticides have been used. Just 134 of those have been cancelled due to their harmful nature, and less than one-third of those were prohibited by the EPA.

The study is quick to advise that it did not compare the effectiveness of pesticide regulation between nations and may not accurately reflect other safeguards that may protect consumers against the harmful effects of pesticides, such as restrictions on pesticide labels.

U.S. Annually Uses 388 Million Pounds of Potentially Fatal Pesticides Banned in the EU, China and Brazil

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source:  EcoWatch

By:  Madison Dapcevich Jun. 12, 2019 10:13AM EST

LINK:  https://www.ecowatch.com/us-pesticide-usage-bans-2638789192.html?rebelltitem=4#rebelltitem

++++++++++++++++++++++

Actor and activist Mark Ruffalo speaks at the Fight Forever Chemicals Campaign kick off event on Capitol Hill on Nov. 19, 2019 in Washington, DC, with co-chairs of the PFAS task force Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA) and Rep. Dan Kildee (D-MI). Paul Morigi / Getty Images

Trump to Veto Bill Intended to Keep Forever Chemicals out of Groundwater

www.ecowatch.com

The White House announced Tuesday that it plans to veto the PFAS Action Act of 2019, which aims to keep harmful forever chemicals out of groundwater, as Newsweek reported.


‘Forever’ chemicals, which are often referred to as PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl chemicals), are a class of heat and water-resistant chemicals used in a variety of industrial products, flame retardants and nonstick products, such as raincoats, cookware and packaging and have leeched into water supplies in almost every state in the country, according to The Hill. They are known carcinogens and do not degrade in the environment nor in the human body.

The bill before congress is sponsored by congresswoman Debbie Dingell (D-Michigan) with the intention of reducing unintended, involuntary exposure to PFAS.

“PFAS is a clear threat to human health and our environment,” wrote Dingell in a November 2019 statement, as Newsweek reported.

“The reality is a lot of contamination is connected to military sites and the Defense Department,” Dingell’s statement continued. “We are continuing to champion strong provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act to identify PFAS as a hazardous substance for the purpose of clean up under the EPA’s Superfund program and facilitate coordinated response between local communities and the military.”

The sweeping legislation that Dingell proposed came after there was no mention of regulating PFAS in the annual defense policy bill. Furthermore, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) said it would decide whether or not to regulate PFAS by the end of 2019, but it missed its own self-imposed deadline, according to The Hill.

A vote on Dingell’s bill is scheduled for Thursday, where it is expected to pass the Democratic-controlled House. However, it is likely to face a backlash in the Republican-controlled Senate, according to The Hill. It also may never come up for a vote in the Senate after the White House announced its intention to veto the legislation.

The White House dismissed the bill as not cost-effective and as an affront to the power structure in place, saying in a statement that the bill would “supersede existing statutory requirements” that would prevent the EPA from making proper decisions about the treatment of PFAS in the environment, as Newsweek reported.

“By doing so,” the statement read, “the bill would create considerable litigation risk, set problematic and unreasonable rulemaking timelines and precedents, and impose substantial, unwarranted costs on Federal, State, and local agencies and other key stakeholders in both the public and private sectors.”

Environmental activists were aghast at the White House’s decision to veto legislation that would require making drinking water safer.

“Enough is enough,” said Scott Faber, senior vice president for government affairs at the Environmental Working Group, in a statement. “For too long, the EPA has failed to treat the PFAS contamination crisis like a crisis. Trump’s EPA has sunk to a whole new level of failure.”

The EPA currently recommends that water supplies not have more than 70 parts per trillion of PFAS, but there is no firm requirement in place. Critics say that not only is a requirement needed, but one that is much lower than the current recommended level, as The Hill reported.

“Just days after failing to meet a PFAS deadline, the Trump administration has threatened to veto legislation that would set PFAS deadlines,” said Faber in a statement. “It’s never been clearer that it’s time for Congress to set tough deadlines to reduce PFAS releases into the air and water, set PFAS drinking water standards, and clean up legacy PFAS pollution. If the Trump administration won’t take the necessary steps to protect the public from PFAS, it’s up to Congress to act.”

LINK:  https://www.ecowatch.com/forever-chemicals-bill-pfas-trump-2644584514.html?rebelltitem=1#rebelltitem1
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *