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.

  • AA5B@lemmy.world
    53·
    7 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·
      7 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·
        7 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·
        7 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