E.P.A. Denies an Environmental Group’s
Request to Ban a Widely Used Weed Killer
The E.P.A. is allowing
2,4-D, a widely used herbicide, to stay on the market despite a petition from
the Natural Resources Defense Council. The
N.R.D.C. cited studies suggesting that exposure to the chemical could cause
cancer, hormone disruption and genetic mutations among other problems. 2,4-D is one of the most widely used weed
killers in the world, and has been in used for more than 70 years. It is not only produced by its major
manufactured Dow Chemical, but has also been approved in variations that are
created by several other companies. Additionally,
Dow Chemical is pursuing federal approval to sell seed of corn genetically
engineered to be resistant to 2,4-D which will greatly increase the use of the
chemical.
The E.P.A. said that the
environment group had not shown that the chemical was harmful under the
conditions in which it is intended to be used.
Some studies have shown a higher risk of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma in
farmers who use the herbicide, but the E.P.A. has asserted that the framers
might have been exposed to many things and consequently it is difficult to name
2,4-D as the cause. While this may be
perfectly true, it nevertheless reminds me of the evasive attitude that was
seen in many of our readings, (particularly in Hyde Park). The N.R.D.C, which filed a petition in 2008
asking that allowable residue levels of the herbicide—as well as its
registration—be withdrawn, sued the E.P.A. in February because they felt that
the petition had not been address in a timely manner. The E.P.A. has now reviewed the safety of
2,4-D several times. It is encouraging
to see an organization looking to make sure the herbicide has been thoroughly
investigated, as well as pursuing accountability in that process. They not only looked to have the chemical
reviewed after concerns were raised, they took action against the E.P.A. itself
when they felt that they were not fulfilling their duty. This also raises concern about smaller groups
looking for justice that cannot afford to exert extra force to get their issues
addressed.
This also reminds me of the studies we've read that point to the limitations of scientific evidence in cases of contamination. The burden of proof lies with the scientists, but the relationship between pollutants and health is often difficult to prove. As the EPA has cited, there can always be other confounding factors. Still, it seems that the EPA should be doing all it can to protect the health of farmers, and if banning, or at least limiting the use of this pesticide could do that, it should at least be given some consideration beyond what the statistics say. As usual, there are obviously the interests of Dow and other chemical companies at play here. I also find it encouraging that groups like Earthjustice have made it their duty to voice the concerns of effected groups that might not have the resources or time to do so.
ReplyDelete“The E.P.A. said that the environment group had not shown that the chemical was harmful under the conditions in which it is intended to be used.” In today’s society, we have to have only black and white, yes/no answers to everything, and I believe this is the wrong approach to both science and justice. Even most scientists will talk about how awesome it is to see all sorts of relationships working and interacting together for an outcome—just look at what a well-oiled machine the human body is. So why do we ignore the confounding variables and externalities of science? Just because it isn’t harmful under those “intended” conditions, if it is getting in places where it is unintended to be, there should still be steps taken to minimize the dangers. And just because it isn’t a direct cause to physical harm, it could be a highly contributing factor to health problems.
ReplyDeleteAnother interesting point about this article is the lobbying: obviously Dow Chemical is a big company and probably has a louder voice in important decision making than other, smaller groups in the same field. Is that fair? It’s a relief that the EPA is looking into 2,4-D again, but why are they dragging their feet? Isn’t that a loss of their funds—they should want to clear this up with their (nonsensical) yes/no answer system as soon as possible. So why aren’t they?