EPA's New Pesticide Proposal: A Dangerous Gamble with Forever Chemicals

Introduction

The recent proposal by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to approve a new pesticide containing forever chemicals for widespread agricultural use raises serious concerns. This move opens the door to fifth per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)-based pesticide since the Trump administration, prompting dire warnings from environmental activists and health experts alike.

“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.” — Nathan Donley, Center for Biological Diversity

What are Forever Chemicals?

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are a group of human-made chemicals found in numerous products, including pesticides, and are notoriously persistent in the environment. Their bioaccumulation poses significant health risks, including cancer, liver damage, and developmental issues. The proposed pesticide, epyrifenacil, is concerning not only for its agricultural application but also for its potential breakdown into trifluoroacetic acid (TFA), a component found in drinking water supplies.

The EPA's Proposals: A Double-Edged Sword

In its effort to justify the approval, the EPA claims that its decisions are grounded in science, stating that epyrifenacil has a moderate acute toxicity profile and is not likely to be carcinogenic to humans under certain conditions. However, this assurance fails to assuage growing fears that these substances contribute to long-term environmental and health issues.

Why It Matters

• Health Risks: Studies have classified PFAS as Group 1 human carcinogens, with established correlations to various health issues. The very presence of these chemicals in agricultural practices signals a breach of both public health and environmental integrity.
• Environmental Impact: Experts like Rainer Lohmann have warned that the long-term impacts of such pesticides may not be immediately visible but will manifest as groundwater contamination and ecological degradation.

The Critique of EPA's Stance

Critics argue that the EPA's defense of its actions as politically motivated fear-mongering minimizes legitimate public concerns. The agency's claim that it is transparent fails to consider that this transparency often obscures the profound implications of its decisions. If the agency is truly intent on safeguarding public trust, it must weigh the potential risks of PFAS against alleged economic benefits. Reinstating pesticides previously banned due to health concerns suggests a blatant disregard for the integrity of environmental and human health.

Public Response and Next Steps

The proposal remains open for public comment until December 3, providing a critical opportunity for advocacy groups and concerned citizens to voice their objections. The deadline is fast approaching, emphasizing the urgency for those affected by these policies to make their voices heard.

Conclusion

As the EPA moves forward with its proposal, we must scrutinize its ramifications closely. The potential approval of epyrifenacil directly threatens public health, and it is imperative that we remain vigilant in holding the agency accountable for its decisions. We owe it to future generations to challenge these moves and ensure that public welfare takes precedence over corporate interests.