The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has proposed approving another pesticide containing forever chemicals for use on crops such as canola, corn, soybeans, and wheat, a move that has sparked significant concern among environmentalists and experts.
This is the fifth per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) based pesticide the EPA has sought to approve since Donald Trump started his second term as president.
“Trump promised to make America healthy again and rein in use of the worst pesticides, but his EPA just proposed approving its fifth new ‘forever’ pesticide that will put people at risk for generations to come,” Nathan Donley, environmental health science director at the Center for Biological Diversity, said in a statement.
The EPA told Newsweek: “Comments from EPA critics are just another example of partisan organizations pedaling mistruths to the American public to drum up fear and distrust. Sadly, some organizations are only interested in advancing political attacks rather than in engaging with the facts about EPA’s work or science-based decision-making.”
Why It Matters
Trump’s EPA has been implementing various measures regarding PFAS chemicals and pesticides that have been concerning experts in recent months. These measures include efforts to roll back drinking water regulations on certain PFAS chemicals, changes to companies’ reporting of PFAS chemical use, and the reinstatement of pesticides that were previously banned by different federal courts.
The EPA also recently released its final registration decision for products containing one of the previously proposed PFAS pesticides, cyclobutrifluram, for use on turf, ornamentals, and romaine lettuce, as well as cotton and soybean seed.
The newly proposed pesticide, epyrifenacil, can break down into trifluoroacetic acid (TFA), and TFA is widely found in drinking water sources. Some believe it can have notable, irreversible impacts on human health, according to the Center for Biological Diversity.
PFAS chemicals are more broadly known to pose human health risks, even at extremely low concentrations. They are classified as a Group 1 human carcinogen, and their impact on various systems and organs in the body has been widely documented in research.
What To Know
The EPA proposed on November 3 to approve the pesticide epyrifenacil for use. In its proposal, the agency noted that for a pesticide to be approved, it must not pose an “unreasonable risk to man or the environment,” which takes into account the economic, social, and environmental costs and benefits of using any pesticide.
In a toxicity profile, the EPA determines that epyrifenacil has a “moderate acute toxicity profile,” that it is classified as “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans” when it is below doses that cause liver injury, and that it “is anticipated not to produce” any negative endocrine or hormonal effects on humans.
The EPA proposed implementing spray drift buffers, requiring runoff mitigation points to reduce aquatic exposure risks, and restricting application during rain and when soils are saturated, to prevent any possible side effects of use.
Despite these proposed measures to avoid potential harm to the environment, some have warned that this will not be enough to limit the harm epyrifenacil can cause, pointing to research showing that forever chemical pesticides are significantly contributing to environmental and water PFAS contamination, which they say has “documented adverse impacts on human health, wildlife, and ecosystem quality.”
Rainer Lohmann, a professor of oceanography at the University of Rhode Island, told Newsweek that many first-generation pesticides have “contributed to the contamination of groundwaters or wildlife,” and that newer pesticides are “hopefully not as persistent as older ones, so hopefully they will not impact human health directly.”
However, they can break down TFA, which is very long-lived, and “will pollute groundwater reservoirs,” he added, and said that “if there is exposure, either through exposure from contaminated water or fish, problems can arise for humans.”
“This new compound has been demonstrated to contribute to liver cancer in mouse studies, but it is less clear whether this is relevant to humans,” he said.
Lohmann also said that there is a concern about a “rush to approve too many chemicals without due review, in particular as the workforce at EPA has been severely decimated, and relevant expertise has been lost.”
What People Are Saying
The EPA told Newsweek: “EPA has registered dozens of pesticides with fluorinated compounds spanning both Republican and Democratic administrations. It is also true that numerous other countries have registered pesticides containing a fluorinated carbon. To ensure transparency and public trust, EPA published a new webpage on pesticides with a fluorinated carbon. This resource provides clear, science-based information about how pesticides are carefully reviewed using the best available science. The public deserves facts grounded in science, not politically motivated distortions aimed at undermining the important work of this administration and the Trump EPA.”
Rainer Lohmann, a professor of oceanography at the University of Rhode Island, told Newsweek: “There is always the hope that newer pesticides are less harmful than prior ones. This new pesticide is supposed to be less volatile than prior compounds, which would mean less drifting away from the application regions, which should result in less contamination of sites beyond the fields. However, this also depends on farmers applying the new pesticides responsibly and as recommended.”
He added, “There is clear evidence that some of the newer pesticides are very effective at low doses. However, the flip side is that some are so powerful that these pesticides also contribute to the decline in the abundance of insects and species. This is a difficult balance to get right.”
What Happens Next
The public is able to comment on the proposal, docket ID EPA-HQ-OPP-2022-0354 at www.regulations.gov, until December 3. After that point, the EPA will consider the comments and then finalize its biological evaluation, among other necessary stages, before the proposal can be implemented.