Importantly, for the sake of science, there’s also been no real data to suggest that larvicides are to blame or are unsafe.
The curious case of how activists are misleading people about Monsanto, Zika and microcephaly
Monsanto Company

“No real data to suggest larvicides are unsafe”

We’re happy to see you taking this subject on, as there appears to be a lot of misinformation floating around out there.

I’ve found toxicity information for pyriproxyfen from a variety of online websites and compiled it here for reference:

Its hard reading the excerpted material from the Material Safety Data Sheets and believing Monsanto when you say that there is no data to prove that larvicides are unsafe.

Here’s just one example of an MSDS for a pyriproxyfen product which says in disposal of the container, to not allow it to contaminate drinking water:

[Source linked above]

When you say “unsafe” — unsafe to whom or what? In your own article above, you freely explain that this substance is being applied to drinking water:

“a larvicide added to drinking water to stop the development of mosquito larvae in drinking water tanks”

Also from documents linked above:

How exactly are technicians applying these substances supposed to “avoid release to the environment?” How can something have very toxic and long lasting effects to aquatic organisms, but not to the watery organs of humans?

Speaking of, do we actually have full toxicological information for exposure to humans? Many online sources surprisingly lack information:

There appear to be a great deal of “not listed” toxicity items across many different publicly-available health and safety documents for pyriproxyfen.

[All screenshot sources available in linked article at top]

What I see is a disturbing lack of scientific documentation, not a product which we can categorically claim to be NOT “unsafe”.

So if you’re saying there is no evidence to prove that it is unsafe, can you therefore also claim that it is “safe” — and on what basis, according to what battery of tests performed by whom?

In my opinion, and under what I’ve been piecing together under international environmental law surrounding the precautionary and preventive principles, the onus is and should be on the developer of products to prove that they are safe. We should not be required to wait and find out later that this product was dangerous all along just because someone told us it was “not unsafe.”