The ban on acephate comes a week after a ProPublica investigation highlighted the EPA’s controversial finding that the bug killer doesn’t harm the developing brains of children.

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.

  • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.worldEnglish
    192·
    6 months ago

    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.

    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.

    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.

    Wow, okay, that seems like a huge jump in quantity.

    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.

    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)

    • AA5B@lemmy.world
      53·
      6 months ago

      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

      • girlfreddy@lemmy.caOP
        31·
        6 months ago

        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.

      • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.worldEnglish
        43·
        6 months ago

        Yeah but the article is intentionally worded to provoke outrage.

        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.

        US EPA tested a common common factor pesticide and found little to no evidence of an impact on developing brains, so is relaxing standards on levels allowed on common fruit

        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)

        • blargerer@kbin.social
          4·
          6 months ago

          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.

          • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.worldEnglish
            11·
            6 months ago

            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)

        • AA5B@lemmy.world
          22·
          6 months ago

          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.

          • removing the limits sounds bad, but finding no danger in a study so relaxing the limits seems reasonable. Yet they say the same thing
          • it does seem like a huge jump but is it? If testing didn’t find a problem with that, then why not?
          • so it all comes down to the testing. Aside from testing inflammatory wording, we’re basing outrage on testing against cell lines instead of animals. Yet we’ve also been clamoring for exactly that: less animal testing. More importantly, not even an opinion much less evidence about whether this is normal or unusual, not even an opinion much less evidence on whether this accurately assesses the danger or not.

          Certainly the article makes this seem outrageous, but I’m very dissatisfied with how it gets there

    • Buelldozer@lemmy.today
      31·
      6 months ago

      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.

      • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.worldEnglish
        24·
        6 months ago

        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 …

        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.

        Anti Commercial-AI license (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)

        • girlfreddy@lemmy.caOP
          51·
          6 months ago

          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.

          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.

          • chingadera@lemmy.world
            21·
            6 months ago

            If this is accurate, why the fuck do we have a federally regulated agency going off of mob rule? Was no science done?

            • Coreidan@lemmy.worldEnglish
              41·
              6 months ago

              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.

              • chingadera@lemmy.world
                3·
                6 months ago

                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.

            • Buelldozer@lemmy.today
              3·
              6 months ago

              Was no science done?

              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.

        • Buelldozer@lemmy.today
          2·
          6 months ago

          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.”

          • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.worldEnglish
            22·
            6 months ago

            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)