Web Date: March 30, 2017
EPA denies petition to ban chlorpyrifos
News Channels: Environmental SCENE
Keywords: pesticides, chlorpyrifos, EPA

The Trump EPA has denied a petition from environmental groups to ban the pesticide chlorpyrifos. Under the Obama Administration, EPA proposed twice to revoke all food tolerances for the organophosphate insecticide. EPA previously said that exposure to chlorpyrifos from food and drinking water poses a human health risk, citing neurotoxicity concerns. Dow AgroSciences, which makes the pesticide, and farmers have been pushing hard to keep chlorpyrifos on the market. They claim that chlorpyrifos is safely used on dozens of crops in the U.S. and that there are no alternatives for many pests. The Trump Administration sided with pesticide and farm groups and reversed EPA’s earlier decision. Responding to the petition from environmental groups, EPA says that “the science addressing neurodevelopmental effects remains unresolved,” and further evaluation is warranted. EPA plans to continue evaluating the risks of chlorpyrifos over the next five years. The agency must complete its review of all chlorpyrifos uses by Oct. 1, 2022, as part of its routine review of pesticides. Groups that filed the petition are outraged by EPA’s about-face move. “EPA’s refusal to ban this dangerous pesticide is unconscionable,” says Patti Goldman, an attorney for one of the groups, Earthjustice. “EPA is defying its legal obligation to protect children from unsafe pesticides,” she says. The groups plan to go back to court to challenge EPA’s decision.
- Chemical & Engineering News
- ISSN 0009-2347
- Copyright © American Chemical Society
Leave A Comment
golfcourses that know better such as at Martha's Vineyard they don't use this pesticides but others are ill informed and they do.
Leave A Comment
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-07/documents/chlorpyrifos_sap_april_2016_final_minutes.pdf
The agency never should have agreed to ban Chlorpyrifos in the first place. FIFRA requires a cost/benefit analysis of any ban, which to my knowledge was never done. So a ban would have violated it's own agencies rules. Since FIFRA requires a registration review in 2022 anayway, the prudent and scientific course of action when knowing there are concerns with the studies used to push a can, is to collect more data...which is what the Agency is doing. It is legally, scientifically and morally indefensible for the agency to push a ban they way they did.
Lest not forget how they banned Argon, that noblest of gasses, because of shoddy science done by Environmental activists groups like Earthjustice, Greenpeace, etc. Groups like those do not care about science. They only care about science that fits their agenda...period.
Leave A Comment
Leave A Comment
Leave A Comment
Leave A Comment
Leave A Comment
Leave A Comment
Leave A Comment
Leave A Comment