US Lawmakers On EPA To Ban Pesticide Linked To Parkinson's Disease (theguardian.com)
- Reference: 0175379003
- News link: https://science.slashdot.org/story/24/11/02/0337230/us-lawmakers-on-epa-to-ban-pesticide-linked-to-parkinsons-disease
- Source link: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/nov/01/epa-ban-paraquat-pesticide
> More than 50 US lawmakers are calling on the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to join dozens of other countries in [1]banning a widely used weedkiller linked to Parkinson's disease and other health dangers . In a [2]October 31 letter (PDF) to the agency, seven US senators said that paraquat, a weedkiller commonly applied on US farms, was a "highly toxic pesticide whose continued use cannot be justified given its harms to farmworkers and rural communities". The call for a ban from the senators came after 47 members of the US House of Representatives [3]sent a similar letter (PDF) to the EPA calling for a ban earlier in October.
>
> The lawmakers cite scientific links between paraquat use and development of Parkinson's and other "life threatening diseases" as well as "grave impacts on the environment". "Health risks include a higher risk of Parkinson's disease, with some studies finding a 64% increase in the likelihood of developing Parkinson's, non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma, thyroid cancer, and other thyroid issues," they wrote. The New Jersey senator Cory Booker, organizer of the Senate letter, said the risks of paraquat exposure were "well documented" and that it was "irresponsible" for the EPA to continue to allow its use. "I hope the EPA will follow the science and ban paraquat," Booker said. The EPA has long maintained that there is no "clear link" between paraquat exposure and Parkinson's disease, though the agency does have a number of restrictions on use of the chemical due to its acute toxicity. The agency issued a draft report earlier this year affirming its position. Still, the agency said at that time that it would be reviewing more scientific studies and would issue a final report by January 17, 2025.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/nov/01/epa-ban-paraquat-pesticide
[2] https://www.thenewlede.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/Letter-to-EPA-re-banning-paraquat.pdf
[3] https://casar.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/casar.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/casar-paraquat-epa-letter.pdf
The famous killer weed made true. (Score:2)
From Wikipedia,
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
"During the late 1970s, a controversial program sponsored by the US government sprayed paraquat on cannabis fields in Mexico.[46] Following Mexican efforts to eradicate marijuana and poppy fields in 1975, the United States government helped by sending helicopters and other technological assistance. Helicopters were used to spray the herbicides paraquat and 2,4-D on the fields; marijuana contaminated with these substances began to show up in US markets, leading
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraquat
Paraquat (Score:2)
Paraquat is indeed quite poisonous to humans, [1]but it doesn't clearly cause Parkinson's [sciencedirect.com].
[1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0161813X21000917?via%3Dihub
Re: (Score:2)
Reread the summary, but slower. Bonus points if you search for "cause" and tell your browser to highlight all occurrences.
Re: (Score:1)
I'm sure you have a point, but I have no idea what it is. Write clearly.
Re:Paraquat for slower readers (Score:1)
"One final comment is relevant. As mentioned earlier, there are civil lawsuits currently making their way through the U.S. legal system that allege, contrary to the scientific consensus described in this paper , that paraquat causes Parkinson’s disease."
bolding added for slow readers.
Not sure what reading slower does, that is, if you are arguing somehow that phantomfive's reading the summary slowly would cause he/she/they to come to a different conclusion than stated?
Re: (Score:2)
> Reread the summary, but slower. Bonus points if you search for "cause" and tell your browser to highlight all occurrences.
Does the summary not say lawmakers allege that paraquat causes Parkinson's? What else could they mean by "associated with"--that Parkinson's causes paraquat usage?
good (Score:1)
My grandma and her sibling all developed dementia later in life. She has 10 other siblings. Pretty much the same outcome. My great grandma too, and while I didn't meet great grandfather, he died over years before his wife. They lived on a farm during the 30s, 40s, and 50a. The golden age of new farm chemicals. Who you vote for will either make sure this stuff sticks around or if it gets banned. Inwhish they would end lawn services. When anneior has TrueGreen come, the smell lasts for hours. Are those gu
Lack of herbicides is a problem for farmers... (Score:3)
Most of my career was spent in pesticide regulatory arena and I can vouch that paraquat is incredibly toxic to humans. For herbicides, it's an outlier for mammalian toxicity and is infamous in developing countries as a way to commit suicide. On the surface, it's remarkable that paraquat has been left on the market for so long in the US. It's been banned since 2007 in the European Union. And if you think "why can't growers just not use herbicides and/or go organic?" -- when we surveyed organic growers in California about their pest control problems, they overwhelmingly said that weed control was by far their biggest expense and problem. Mechanical weed control (plowing) is energy intensive and expensive.
There has been pressure on the US EPA to keep paraquat on the market as the number of herbicide active ingredients (AIs) has been declining owing to AIs losing registration and the lack of new AIs being developed. Until recently, there had not been a single new herbicide AI commercialized for 30 years. This article explains why:
What’s preventing a new era of herbicides?
[1]https://www.farmprogress.com/c... [farmprogress.com]
And as an example of how hard it is to bring a new chemical AI onto the market, BASF released a new herbicide AI (trifludimoxazin) in 2020:
EPA Proposes Registration of Trifludimoxazin, a New Herbicide Active Ingredient
[2]https://www.epa.gov/pesticides... [epa.gov]
but soon withdrew it from the market when fish toxicity issues were found:
BASF to Stop Selling Pesticide Trifludimoxazin Rather Than Continue Litigation
[3]https://www.centerforfoodsafet... [centerforfoodsafety.org]
[1] https://www.farmprogress.com/commentary/what-s-preventing-a-new-era-of-herbicides-
[2] https://www.epa.gov/pesticides/epa-proposes-registration-trifludimoxazin-new-herbicide-active-ingredient
[3] https://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/press-releases/6570/basf-to-stop-selling-pesticide-trifludimoxazin-rather-than-continue-litigation
Breaking news (Score:2)
Paraquat has been known to cause Parkinsinism ever since marijuana fields were sprayed with it some decades ago when people smoked sprayed weed and got it.
Once Again (Score:4, Insightful)
Once again, depending who gets elected, this will or will not happen. It is getting to the point where the third year of every presidential the US goes into a holding pattern.
There was a time in Lame Duck session, a lot of needed laws would be passed, now it seems the next admin, if of a different party, would undo the work of the previous admin.
No wonder Europe is starting to distance themselves from the US, people want a stable partner. These days the US is far from stable.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you really believe Bobby Kennedy is going to advocate for pesticides in the food supply?
Really?
This administration has been in power since 2021 but just days before the election they're considering MAHA planks?
Re: (Score:2)
The EPA's most recent evaluation was in 2021 and they decided it was [1]still acceptable for use with additional safety measures [epa.gov]. The current administration isn't going to do anything during the lame duck period to be potentially undone in the first place. If they wanted to, they've had nearly four years to do so already. As another poster pointed out, I'd be more inclined to believe something happening if Trump were elected just because RFK Jr. will make more of a stink about it than anyone else in D.C.
The
[1] https://www.epa.gov/pesticides/epa-finalizes-new-stronger-safety-measures-pesticide-paraquat
Don't feed the troll (was Re:Once Again) (Score:2)
> Once again, depending who gets elected, this will or will not happen. It is getting to the point where the third year of every presidential the US goes into a holding pattern.
Reducing public health risks to election cycles is insulting; this is about preventing severe diseases, not playing political games.
> There was a time in Lame Duck session, a lot of needed laws would be passed, now it seems the next admin, if of a different party, would undo the work of the previous admin.
Nostalgic nonsense. Addressing a toxic pesticide linked to Parkinson's isn't about "admin turnover"; it's about protecting lives.
> No wonder Europe is starting to distance themselves from the US, people want a stable partner. These days the US is far from stable.
Europe has banned paraquat because it respects public health over corporate profit. Dragging “US stability” into a pesticide discussion is a cheap attempt to stoke anti-US sentiment—pure opportunism. If you want to air your grievance
Re: (Score:2)
> No wonder Europe is starting to distance themselves from the US, people want a stable partner. These days the US is far from stable.
The one big thing the US has going for it is extreme inefficiency in the legislative process. It is really hard to pass federal laws in the US due to procedural rules in both houses, the committee system, the power of the Speaker and the Senate majority leader to block most bills, the Senate filibuster, the need for reconciling exact text from both houses, and the presidential veto. Americans complain about this lethargic system, but it is a foundational contributor to the relative stability of US laws.