Jeffrey Bland, a biochemist, argues the EPA made a dangerous mistake when Scott Pruitt reversed a 2016 ban on chlorpyrifos, a pesticide used in agriculture. Bland cites studies linking childhood exposure to the chemical with significant IQ losses and higher ADHD rates.
Questions this video answers
New England Journal of Medicine, March 29 issue.
Since 1995.
An EPA mandate in 2016 to eliminate chlorpyrifos from all foods (zero tolerance).
Under EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt in 2017, the decision was made to allow continued allotment/use of chlorpyrifos in agriculture.
He states low-level exposure in children 0–5 could reduce a cumulative 16.9 million IQ points and increase ADHD risk.
Chapters
Have you ever been overcome by righteous indignation? Well, such is the case for me right now. When I picked up my issue of the New England Journal of Medicine March 29 issue this year and read an article entitled Polluting Developing EPA failure on Chlorpyrifos. And it got me thinking about chlorpyrifos. And I went way back in my previous history as a young parent back in the late 1960s with the development of something that was to be put in the bedrooms of all of us, including children. And in this case we had an infant son when the windows were open and no screens in the summer and this would kill bugs. It was called the no pest strip. And then later with more extensive evaluation has found that this no pest strip was working by releasing this nerve gas agent that was a very close chemical relative of the family of organophosphates of which chloropyrifos belongs. Chlorpyrifos, it turns out, is one of the most highly used agricultural pesticides in growing of vegetable and fruit crops in the United States. And it's been under examination for the better part of 25 years with the EPA actively involved since 1995 and trying to find ways of regulating it and ultimately getting it out of our food production system. In fact, it finally ended up in 2016 with a EPA mandate that this particular agricultural chemical would be eliminated from all foods, zero tolerance, and therefore would stop being used in agriculture as we know it. Well, that's all well and good until 2017 with a new administration and a new secretary of the epa, Scott Pruitt, who based upon his judgment, in the absence of his scientific advisory group and medical advisory group and the existing mandate from the law, he made the decision, no, we're going to put that aside and we will continue to allot the use of chlorpyrifos on our agricultural lands. Now, there are many parts of this that are very scary. Over those 25 years, from 1995 until 2016, many different studies were done and different evaluations and reports. One of which showed in a review of the evidence that in children 0 to 5 in 25 million children reviewed kind of the relative risk these kids as infants and children would have from.
The exposure to low levels of this.
Chemical, was found that it could reduce IQ points by 16.9 million IQ points because of its adverse effect on neurocognitive development. And it would also be associated with the increased risk to attention related hyperactivity disorder. So when you start putting this together, you say, well, what are we doing, even on the presumption of data that would suggest that this chemical can cause that degree of harm to sensitive children and infants, that we're allowing it now to be used continually in the face.
Of all this evidence? So what is this?
This is a regulation by executive fiat and decree that Scott Pruitt, as attorney general in Oklahoma, who was known to be the person come bringing the state EPA to court in which he lost almost all of those battles of EPA.
Regulations at the state of Oklahoma level.
Now, because of him being the secretary.
Of the epa, is able, with executive fiat, to put at all of the.
Science that had been done by his.
Own scientific group within the EP, suggesting this was a harmful chemical and should be removed from the environment.
This is a scary trend.
This is the value of a few for the expense of many. It's exactly the wrong way for us to go as a society, as a.
Nation, as a country that's in peril.
With all sorts of things that erode our health, erode our ability to think and act clearly. And it goes along the list of insidious forces, I believe, that undermine the integrity of what we as a country people, free and equal, to have good health and good life to achieve that outcome. So, yes, I have righteous indignation and I think it's well justified. And as we move forward, we must align to fight back against this darkness. One might say, well, we need this agricultural chemical to prevent bugs growing in our fields. But we've learned very clearly that this particular agricultural chemical is not necessary. We can have a sustained agricultural system that's still economically very viable and still providing occupations for generations to the farming community. And in the absence of the use of this chemical, it's the value of a few for the expense of many. It cannot be tolerated. Thanks for listening.
