E.P.A. Chief, Rejecting Agency’s Science, Chooses Not to Ban Insecticide
mobile.nytimes.comIt's interesting that not one sentence in the article is from scientists or epidemiologists who published or reviewed the study itself. The scientific evidence that the ban was based on is shockingly weak - a 20 patient, retrospective, observational study of MRI scans that weren't even substantiated by clinical findings in those very same patients in the same study.
The quoted study design has well understood flaws from selection, observation, and publication biases. And until the findings are independently replicated, this can't really be called "science" but rather a "single scientific publication" http://www.pnas.org/content/109/20/7871.abstract.
The economic effects of banning organophosphates based on a single observational study would be undoubtedly horrendous to the third world. The NYT article adds little careful review and seems to simply draw on the "chemicals are ruining the earth" narrative. Taken to its logical conclusion, although popular and on its surface appealing, basing policy simply on a "fear of chemicals" has potential catastrophic implications that would disproportionately harm those in poverty: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2984095/
This is about chlorpyrifos, not all pesticides or organophosphates. I don't see any generalization in the article.
And that's not the only study they referenced:
https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0653-...
"D. Drew et al., Chlorpyrifos: Revised Human Health Risk Assessment for Registration Review, December 29, 2014, D424485;
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Literature Review on Neurodevelopment Effects & FQPA Safety Factor Determination for the Organophosphate Pesticides, September 15, 2015, D331251;
R. Bohaty and J. Hetrick. Chlorpyrifos Registration Review Drinking Water Assessment, April 14, 2016, D432921
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Chlorpyrifos Issue Paper: Evaluation of Biomonitoring Data from Epidemiology Studies, March 11, 2016 and supporting analyses presented to the FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel’s (SAP) meeting on April 1921, 2016, (EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0062). "
I'm confused, this pesticide has been around since 1965. There has been a lot more research on it than just a single study with 20 patients. The key phrase is "based in part"
Oh, and "replicated"? It can't be in the US because household use has been banned since 2000. Are you suggesting that we must intentionally expose pregnant women?
Let's be clear that the elephant in the room is that the current head of the EPA denies that the global warming we are seeing is caused by people and, potentially, a threat to our own existence, and will definitely cause lots of suffering and death and ecosystem collapse/damage. And that the current President of the United States also denies these things.
I think it's disingenuous to discuss the EPA's decision without acknowledging this context.
That context is irrelevant to the points raised in the comment you responded to.
The rational move would be to err on the side of caution instead of potentially creating another asbestos, DDT, or thalidomide risk here. The EPA's previous decision was a 100% rational public policy decision based on solid science, regardless of how partisans try to spin it.
>a 20 patient, retrospective, observational study of MRI scans
Well, that's certainly a lot more evidence than most Trump 'scientific' policies like climate change being a "Chinese hoax." Funny how Trump supporters ignore how terrible he is on science yet somehow find nitpicking justifiable on legitimate studies to defend his odious views.
Also its a lie to say there's only one study on chlorpyrifos's effect on humans and the environment. Heck the article even states based 'partly' on the study you are criticizing. Did you actually bother reading it or are you just copy and pasting some talking points? Because I'm seeing almost the exact same questionable points on other sites.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Chlorpyrifos+human&btnG...
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Chlorpyrifos+harmful&bt...
>has potential catastrophic implications that would disproportionately harm those in poverty
The DDT or asbestos or lead ban wasn't good for some parts of society either, yet it was the greater good that mattered. There are other pesticides and the targeted economic sectors can handle changes from regulations by migrating to different chemicals and processes. The oil and automotive industries didn't collapse when we told them to stop putting lead in gas, for example.
Lastly, Dow has been running a disinformation campaign on this product for their own financial self-interest. Beware the astroturfing and political corruption at work here.
https://www.nrdc.org/experts/jennifer-sass/highly-hazardous-...
randomthoughtss, you are dead.
Apologies. I misread your comment thinking you were threatening the other user and downvoted you.
I think you can invite now. I can't remember how.
I find it curious that the moderators grayed out the references provided in comments by "randomgthoughts". I would be curious to know the rationale. It seems to me that citations into the literature are a plus and not a minus.
The elided references are:
https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0653-....
"D. Drew et al., Chlorpyrifos: Revised Human Health Risk Assessment for Registration Review, December 29, 2014, D424485;
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Literature Review on Neurodevelopment Effects & FQPA Safety Factor Determination for the Organophosphate Pesticides, September 15, 2015, D331251;
R. Bohaty and J. Hetrick. Chlorpyrifos Registration Review Drinking Water Assessment, April 14, 2016, D432921
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Chlorpyrifos Issue Paper: Evaluation of Biomonitoring Data from Epidemiology Studies, March 11, 2016 and supporting analyses presented to the FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel’s (SAP) meeting on April 1921, 2016, (EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0062). "
https://www.epa.gov/ingredients-used-pesticide- products/revised-human-health-risk-assessment-chlorpyrifos
The moderators almost certainly didn't do anything. If you have a question about something that happened with moderation, mail it to hn@ycombinator.com.
I deleted them from one of my replies and moved them to a different reply.
Rejected a policy recommendation. A scientist making a policy recommendation does not mean that the policy recommendation is science.
Rejected a policy recommendation that cited a lot of published research.
https://www.epa.gov/ingredients-used-pesticide- products/revised-human-health-risk-assessment-chlorpyrifos
Exactly.
Really? A conclusion based on science can be dismissed? It isn't just some opinion that you can disagree with like that, right? Its a fair cop - the action was ignorant and anti-science.
There are facts/science, and then there are judgements on top.
If the facts say the risk is 0.000001% in the presence of a pesticide Fred may judge that it should be banned. If the facts say the risk is 50%, Sally may judge no action is required.
Fred and Sally are both making judgements based on science; but may have different goals, priorities, etc. that cause them to arrive at different conclusions.
It was actually not science that the original ban was based on. Who knows whether the new EPA chief is basing the reversal on science or politics, but the end effect is probably a better policy than throwing bans around on chemicals that have major benefits reducing crop failures, starvation, pain, and suffering.
There are other pesticides.
The bar to ban things has dropped so low because of that handwavey line of reasoning, despite real economic effects to people whose livelihoods are at stake (i.e. farmers).
Exactly. You mean NYT has a headline that is not fact checked? :-)
It's one thing to make a policy decision, it's another to claim it's based on science when the science says no.
The science behind a ban wasn't all that great. See: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13996137
The science is actually quite good, the campaign by DOW is also quite good which apparently counts for more. Given the EPA head has no interest or knowledge of science but a long history of attacking his agency for everything it ever stood for, this is not surprising to me at all.
> EPA Chief Scott Pruitt Chooses Not to Ban Insecticide Despite Autism Risk
That is not the title of the article, and the article itself makes no mention of Autism. Please do not editorialize in the submissions, especially about flamebait topics like Autism and Trump's new EPA head. It's like this was specifically crafted to mess with people.
Thanks, we've reverted the title from the submitted “EPA Chief Scott Pruitt Chooses Not to Ban Insecticide Despite Autism Risk”.
There is an autism link here:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/autism-risk-highe...
Just because the article doesn't mention it, doesn't mean its not true.
Whether it's true or not, it is inappropriate to put it in the title like that when the article does not.
A comment here pointing out the link with a reference is the appropriate place for that.