EPA Approves New 'Forever Chemical' Pesticides For Use On Food (washingtonpost.com) 95
The EPA has approved new pesticides that qualify as PFAS "forever chemicals" (paywalled; alternative source), sparking criticism from scientists and environmental groups who warn these decisions could increase Americans' exposure through food and water at a time when many states are moving to restrict such substances. The Washington Post reports: This month, the agency approved two new pesticides that meet the internationally recognized definition for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, also known as PFAS or fluorinated substances, and has announced plans for four additional approvals. The authorized pesticides, cyclobutrifluram and isocycloseram, which was approved Thursday, will be used on vegetables such as romaine lettuce, broccoli and potatoes. The agency also announced plans to relax a rule requiring companies to report all products containing PFAS and has proposed weakening drinking water standards for the chemicals. "Many fluorinated compounds registered or proposed for U.S. pesticidal use in recent years offer unique benefits for farmers, users, and the public," EPA spokeswoman Brigit Hirsch said in a statement.
"It is important to differentiate between the highly toxic PFAS such as PFOA and PFOS for which the EPA has set drinking water standards, versus less toxic PFAS in pesticides that help maintain food security," notes Doug Van Hoewyk, a toxicologist at Maine's Department of Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry. He added that concerns about food residue depend on the PFAS and the quantity.
Nathan Donley, a senior scientist at the Center for Biological Diversity, also commented: "The data we have about the use of PFAS pesticides is already seven years old, and since there have been many new approvals during that time, those numbers are sure to underestimate the amount were using today."
"It is important to differentiate between the highly toxic PFAS such as PFOA and PFOS for which the EPA has set drinking water standards, versus less toxic PFAS in pesticides that help maintain food security," notes Doug Van Hoewyk, a toxicologist at Maine's Department of Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry. He added that concerns about food residue depend on the PFAS and the quantity.
Nathan Donley, a senior scientist at the Center for Biological Diversity, also commented: "The data we have about the use of PFAS pesticides is already seven years old, and since there have been many new approvals during that time, those numbers are sure to underestimate the amount were using today."
Poisoning people for profit? (Score:5, Funny)
Hell yes! It is the American Way!
Re: (Score:1)
If you poison them... you can sell the medicine later....... Think of all the healthcare expenses. GDP will explode if you do that.
Re: (Score:2)
Die rich or die trying
Re: (Score:3)
It's like something from that Captain Planet cartoon, or an 80s movie sci-fi dystopia.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. Dark times.
Re:Poisoning people for profit? (Score:5, Interesting)
It's like something from that Captain Planet cartoon, or an 80s movie sci-fi dystopia.
Remember when the villains on Captain Planet seemed too simplistically evil and greedy to actually exist? Where even little kids were thinking, "These guys are absurd!" Sadly, some of the big decision makers now were little kids then, and watching those guys thinking, "I can't wait until I have enough power to do what those guys are doing."
Re: (Score:2)
Completely agree. Captain Planet is a prime example, but there are so many examples of fictional villains that I used to think of as childishly unrealistic. They were not just comically evil, but pointlessly comically evil. These days I have had to seriously rethink that opinion.
Re: (Score:2)
They want everyone to be as brain damaged as our "leaders".
Re: (Score:1)
Brain-damaged people vote for rich blowhards, magnifying the cycle.
Transgressions (Score:5, Interesting)
Rather than being a carefully considered weighing up of risk against benefit, I sense a revelling in the feeling of transgression - A sort of "drill baby drill" attitude.
I look forward to... (Score:2)
I look forward to cooking on my non-stick lettuce, because I certainly won't eat that shit.
I look forward to the accumulation of non-stick chemicals being so great that instead of absorbing water, the soil just has it pool on the surface.
I look forward to watching insects sliding off plants and just wallowing in the dirty.
I look forward to dying young and leaving a shiny, cancerous corpse.
Re: (Score:2)
Rather than being a carefully considered weighing up of risk against benefit, I sense a revelling in the feeling of transgression - A sort of "drill baby drill" attitude.
I've seen it said elsewhere and dismissed it as hyperbole, but more and more it seems, "The cruelty is the point."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, only I think it's more of a "uses own turds to graffiti bathroom walls" attitude.
See also: "Uses own turds to graffiti the capitol."
Good luck with exports (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good luck with exports (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't worry there will be additional tariffs for any countries that try and refuse toxic American fruit and veg.
Re: (Score:2)
And Argentina also has a state-supplied health care system, which la Presidenta is helping to subsidize with that $40 Billion ($20 Billion now, $20 Billion later). The reason is that both his sons and Bessent (Sec. of the Treasury) had crypto investments in the crap Milei was promoting before it went south. The $40 Billion of U.S. taxpayer money is to preserve la Presidenta's Crime Family's and Bessent's investments. Are we tired of winning yet?
Re: Good luck with exports (Score:2)
Like Greenland?
Re: (Score:2)
Well China seemed interested for awhile so, why not?
Re:Good luck with exports (Score:5, Insightful)
Who said tariffs? There just won't be trade. Look at the historic trade deal Trump made with Australia. It opened up the beef industry to Australia reduced the restrictions on import. Hurrrah!. Except precisely no one is importing American beef, and literally every major beef supplier in Australia said they have no intention of stocking any American imports as their idea of "quality" doesn't care what Trump negotiated with the Australian government.
At this point much of the world has figured out it's easier to just wait out another 3 years until the Orange Piggy is gone.
Re: (Score:2)
Yup. Not many people in other countries want the beef on their plate pumped full of antibiotics just to promote growth and to hell with the bacteria resistance it causes as a side effect.
Re: (Score:2)
That is no longer legal in the US. Of course no regulation is perfect or perfectly enforced, but do you have any information on whether this is still happening?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
And growth hormones. And stuffed full of GMO / pesticide-laden corn before slaughter. No thanks.
Re:Good luck with exports (Score:5, Interesting)
Who said tariffs? There just won't be trade. Look at the historic trade deal Trump made with Australia. It opened up the beef industry to Australia reduced the restrictions on import. Hurrrah!. Except precisely no one is importing American beef, and literally every major beef supplier in Australia said they have no intention of stocking any American imports as their idea of "quality" doesn't care what Trump negotiated with the Australian government.
At this point much of the world has figured out it's easier to just wait out another 3 years until the Orange Piggy is gone.
And in those three years, most of the world will have figured out how to route around the US altogether in such a way that it'll be a far bigger pain in the ass to start including us again than it would be to just continue to avoid us. Trump's lasting legacy will be that he's turned the United States into a non-player on the world stage. Making America Irrelevant Again should have been his slogan.
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
And in those three years, most of the world will have figured out how to route around the US altogether in such a way that it'll be a far bigger pain in the ass to start including us again than it would be to just continue to avoid us. Trump's lasting legacy will be that he's turned the United States into a non-player on the world stage. Making America Irrelevant Again should have been his slogan.
Yes America's reputation in the world as sketchy is now permanent.
Re: Good luck with exports (Score:1)
Remember when BRICS was going to route around the dollar's "hub currency" role in international trade?
Re: (Score:3)
You say that as if BRICS hasn't dramatically reduced the dollar's use as a hub currency. Since the formation (and increasing strength and membership thanks to the USA's fuckups) of BRICS the remenbi has surged as a currency of choice for international trade. Argentina at one point was trading with China in predominantly renminbi instead of USD. Chille switched from USD to EUR when dealing with EU trade. India is buying Russian crude in renminbi with a few rubles tossed in for good measure. 10% of Chinese tr
Re:Good luck with exports (Score:4, Insightful)
Money buys you access and else you'll just line up the Trumpster to force your way in.
Re: (Score:2)
The maga is strong with the mods...
Re:Good luck with exports (Score:4, Informative)
Your logic means nothing to MAGA. They will cheer for this while taking a hit from their vape pen.
Re: (Score:1)
No. Most of them suck on those Trump-cum flavored nicotine pouches.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed, Canada has been opening markets for its produce and they advertise that their stuff is free of nasty things the countries do not want, and, most importantly, their record are open for customers to see.
Re: (Score:3)
Yea, because most people don't want to poison themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
The 1990s called, they want their meme back.
Mad cow disease, seriously? That hasn't been a thing for 30 years.
Re: (Score:2)
The 1990s called, they want their meme back.
Mad cow disease, seriously? That hasn't been a thing for 30 years.
There is inevitably someone with absolutely no sense of humour.
Also clearly not British, we tend to enjoy that kind of self deprivation.
Re:Good luck with exports (Score:5, Informative)
Indeed, Trump says of the EU "they don't take our food, they don't take our cars, they don't take anything".
The solution? Make the food *worse* - yeah, that'll work. (Your cars were always terrible, so difficult to make them worse).
The reason the EU doesn't take american "food" is that it falls well short of the food standards we have here. "corn is corn" just isn't true - somehow Americans have found a way to utterly bastardise corn into some franken-corn, which only an idiot would consider "food" or "healthy". Given your unprocessed ingredients are all (by EU standards) "processed", there's simply no way you can sell more processed foods successfully - they'll all fail every check there is.
Is there a food security issue? (Score:1, Troll)
If you drive through rural America will you too see vast overproduction such that corn derivative hedges make farmers more than their actual crop?
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, it is a well-known fact that one can drive by a corn field and immediately tell if it was part of overproduction. That's one amazing set of eyes you have.
Re: Is there a food security issue? (Score:1)
What if you listen to the Rural SXM radio channel, which confirms that corn prices are falling due to too much corn, and talks more about financial trading than actual planting?
Make them eat the poison they approve (Score:5, Insightful)
If they think it's safe, then they should be the first to demonstrate it first hand, using their own bodies.
The issue with PFAS is not necessarily direct product-to-human exposure. The whole problem with this class of molecules is that they are extremely long-lived in the environment, due to their chemical structure. Their persistence is what causes bioaccumulation in ecosystems and food chains. Sure, the farmers might wash off the residue before delivering them to the market, but where does the effluent go? And if the EPA further relaxes the reporting standards, what is the most economically efficient path these agribusinesses will take with respect to these waste products?
So consider the industrial-scale usage of persistent pesticides without adequate reporting and oversight. It'll kill off insect populations (because that's exactly what they are designed to do), which then disrupts the ecosystem. Animals that feed off of these insects will accumulate these chemicals. Fish and amphibians will accumulate them because they're swimming in the polluted water. The whole food web gets tainted.
There is no escaping the conclusion that this decision is based in corruption and absolutely will pollute the environment and kill/injure people.
Re:Make them eat the poison they approve (Score:5, Insightful)
Less toxic is still toxic. So, they *know* it's bad for you (and probably the environment/local ecology too), just not as bad, and yet they still expect you to be grateful for their efforts and quite literally lap it up. Good luck getting that shit on the shelves of places like the EU that have reasonable food standards, regardless of any tariffs or TACOs.
Re: (Score:3)
Are there any completely non-toxic pesticides? I mean the thing has to poison bugs and worms. Can something like that be completely safe for humans?. Probably not. People spraying it probably have to wear gas masks and other protective equipment.
Re: Make them eat the poison they approve (Score:2)
Hence the reason people without financial pressure eat organically grown food.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Actually most "organic" is not. Ag theft is a huge issue in the areas that grow your food. The roundup is stolen from one farm and sold to the next door "organic" farm. Then when it's "certified" there is no record of the chemical use. Suddenly the $100 per ton crop is a $500 per ton crop, it's magic i tell you! But hey, buy organic if it makes you feel better about yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
Diatomaceous earth is the closest I can think of, it works by physically damaging the bugs instead of chemical reaction.
Re: (Score:1)
Are there any completely non-toxic pesticides?
Glyphosate (plants are also pests).
Re: (Score:2)
There's a few, BTK and Diatomaceous earth come to mind. First is a bacteria that attacks grubs, including caterpillars and the 2nd is sharp stuff that scratches exoskeletons which kills the insects.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Less toxic is still toxic
Yeah. I couldn't help when I read the statement by the spokesperson talking back to them in my head to point out that they are talking about pesticides. i.e. substances that kill pests through ingestion or contact. Also known as poisons. Targeted poisons, sure, but poisons nonetheless. In fact, I can't help thinking about DDT and why that was such an issue. It was precisely the same potential problem as here, it persisted in the environment without breaking down easily. Of course DDT had Chlorine instead of
Re: (Score:2)
It's been done before. Like this man claiming glyphosate was safe enough to drink. He seemed a bit scared when someone took him up on the offer. https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
The guy responsible for leaded gasoline inhaled that stuff during a press conference, lying that the stuff is safe and then later taking a leave of absence to recover from lead poisoning. That was in 1924.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes and no.
Based on the article, the fluorochemicals are additives. They are probably spreader stickers, designed to lower the surface tension of the pesticides so they fully coat foliage and even penetrate the stomata (if desired). They may also form a waxy layer upon drying so rain doesn't wash the pesticides off--or they may be part of this general chemistry, allowing the right kind of emulsion to form so the "soapy" spreading action doesn't mean the pesticide just gets washed off (as would happen if you
Re:Science? (Score:5, Informative)
You guys need to do something about this. (Score:5, Insightful)
Disclaimer: European here.
There are well over a thousand food additives that are banned and illegal in Europe, some of which are classified as effing prime-grade toxic waste(!) - meaning they cannot even be legally disposed of in a drain or a regular landfill - that are "legal" food additives in the US.
It is proven beyond any doubt that forever chemicals accumulate in liver and other vital mammalian (read: also human) organs and cause chronic diseases beyond low threshholds and now they're supposed to be legal food additives?
This is insane. No wonder your cancer rates are through the roof.
I suggest you people raise a stink and write some letters to congress. And ramp up subsidies for organic farming and natural produce. And limit them for processed foods. US health is deteriorating at a measurable pace and you guys should want to change that.
Just sayin'.
Two thumbs up and good luck!
Re: (Score:2)
We would but America has a giant Butt-Plug in the Oval Office right now. Maybe the next election will contact Roto-Rooter for removal of that obnoxious obstruction.
Re:You guys need to do something about this. (Score:5, Insightful)
Technically incorrect, you have a giant asshole in the Oval Office, the buttplugs are in congress and they are actively trying to outdo each other to see who can get in that asshole the deepest.
Re: (Score:3)
Thoughful point.
Re: (Score:2)
Sometimes I say things quite profound XD
Re: (Score:2)
Technically incorrect, you have a giant asshole in the Oval Office, the buttplugs are in congress and they are actively trying to outdo each other to see who can get in that asshole the deepest.
I usually learn a lot from the comments here, specially from technical disagreements, where the deepest insights come to light. Having said that, I did not anticipate this amount of depth... keep up the good work!!
Re:You guys need to do something about this. (Score:5, Insightful)
Two thumbs up and good luck!
It'll be three thumbs up shortly at the rate they're going.
Completely agree with your post BTW.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not a thumb. That's just a cancerous growth.
Re: (Score:2)
That "growth" might be useful when playing golf, so Trump thinks of it as a positive.
Re: (Score:1)
"through the roof" Dramatic much? Or how about just plain lies...
https://seer.cancer.gov/statfa... [cancer.gov]
Cancer rates are trending down and survival is trending up.
Re: (Score:2)
Now for my favorite slashdot rebuttal
Correlation does not equal causation.
Re: (Score:2)
There are well over a thousand food additives that are banned and illegal in Europe... that are "legal" food additives in the US.
I wonder what the arguments from the other side are. For instance, I wonder if some of those toxic pesticides aren't present anymore at harvest (so should not cause harm), or whether some pesticides are only harmful during application (so is theoretically safe with PPE). I.e., I'd like to know whether the US is just unhealthy/unsafe as you've implied, or whether we judge risks differently and both sides are reasonable. I bet it's a little from column A, a little from column B.
To make a strong case that the
But but, it's good for profits? (Score:1)
Since when does the public health matter when there are corporate profits at stake?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
RFK's first order of business at EPA would probably be to ban Dihydrogen Monoxide, Hydrogen Hydroxide, Hydroxyl Acid, and other dangerous chemicals.
Idiocracy on track (Score:5, Insightful)
To quote:
"Water had been deemed a threat to brawndo's profit margin.
The solution came during the budget crisis, when the Brawndo corporation simply bought the FDA, and the FCC..."
You guys started with the EPA, fair enough...
Re:Idiocracy on track (Score:5, Informative)
It was started with the republicans filing court cases that the EPA had too much power and was getting in the way of industry. Yes the same EPA that was signed into law by *checks notes* noted woke libtard Richard Nixon.
A Trump EPA Meeting... (Score:2)
Idiocracy (Score:5, Funny)
Exports (Score:1)
Will this pose a problem for exports? It sounds like countries would want to restrict food imports contaminated by these chemicals.
Mmmm pesticides (Score:2)
Nuance is totally lost (Score:2)
Re:Nuance is totally lost (Score:4, Informative)
"Just because some PFAS chemicals are toxic and last forever doesnt necessarily mean that all of them are evil"
The problem is the C-F bond. Its very hard for our ecosystem to break it and even if some of the molecule gets broken down there will still be a flourinated residue compound that isn't.
Re: Nuance is totally lost (Score:1)
Why did scientists create PFAS products in the first place, unless they too grovel at the foot of Money and Looks?
Re: (Score:2)
Turns out they're pretty useful for a lot of stuff. Read up on the history of Teflon etc.
Re: Nuance is totally lost (Score:2)
"When the scientists are sidelined, the leaders are selected for their looks, and their willingness to lick the bossâ(TM) boots and wear a maga hat, and spend more time on their makeup than on the actual issues, for some reason a ton of people arent gonna trust what they say or do."
Unfortunately, for every ton of people who aren't gonna trust them, there are a thousand tons of people who think that is exactly why they should be trusted.
Re: Nuance is totally lost (Score:2)
You think he eats lettuce with his overcooked hockey pucks?
EPA spokeswoman Brigit Hirsch said .. (Score:4, Interesting)
The longterm human health risks of PFAS being:
* Many PFAS build up in the body over time and are linked in studies to higher cholesterol, immune system suppression (including weaker vaccine responses), liver damage, thyroid disruption, and increased risks of some cancers such as kidney and testicular cancer.
* Developing fetuses, infants, and children may be especially vulnerable, with research connecting PFAS exposure to lower birth weight, developmental delays, hormone disruption, and potential effects on bone health.
* Because PFAS persist in soil and water, approving more of them for use on food crops can increase the chances that people are exposed for years through what they eat and drink.
Re: (Score:3)
Developing fetuses, infants ... especially vulnerable ... hormone disruption
It's so strange that the people who hate trans the most do their best to ensure more of them are born.
Re: EPA spokeswoman Brigit Hirsch said .. (Score:2)
It's the same people who want to protect the fetus' life over the mother's.. until they are born.
Make America... (Score:2)
(un)Healthy Again!
Re:Make America... (Score:4)
Brought to you by long term heroin junkie https://www.pbs.org/newshour/h... [pbs.org] and brain parasite enthusiast RFK Jr.
With micro plastics everywhere... (Score:2)
Does this even matter? Sure, it's not good but we're already screwed ourselves with micro-plastics. They are found at the bottom of the ocean and probably at the top of Mt. Everest. They are in our soil and water. It's definitely in all our food.
The only way to MAYBE avoid this would be to do hydroponics, some how filter your water before hand, etc. Basically not feasible.
The industrial revolution will be what ends us, it would seem.