Investigation needed into influence of pesticide companies on EPA
This week, four Congressional leaders submitted a letter to the chair of the Energy and Commerce Committee, calling for a Congressional investigation into the influence of big pesticide companies on the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In light of the EPA’s recent questionable safety reviews of both chlorpyrifos and glyphosate — two widely-used pesticides which have been linked to serious health problems — such an investigation is needed. More members of Congress should sign on to this letter.
The letter highlights the EPA’s recent decision to continue the sale and use of chlorpyrifos on crops. Last year, the agency’s own scientists concluded the pesticide is dangerous and can harm brain development in infants and toddlers. The Congressional representatives question whether any trade groups or big business may have unduly influenced this sudden, and seemingly-illogical, decision on chlorpyrifos. The EPA’s flip flopping on the danger of chlorpyrifos “seems to be part of an emerging pattern,” the letter reads. The health of infants and toddlers should be EPA’s priority.
The EPA’s shocking decision on chlorpyrifos comes just as new evidence has come to light pointing to possible interference by Monsanto and other agribusinesses in the agency’s review of Roundup’s active ingredient, glyphosate. Has the EPA glossed over sound, independent science in favor of industry-backed information? The verdict is still out, but the evidence is certainly worrisome.
In April of 2016, the EPA “mistakenly” published a draft report online, which stated that glyphosate is not likely to be carcinogenic to humans. This conclusion was is in direct contradiction to the World Health Organization cancer agency’s much more comprehensive report, which stated in 2015 that glyphosate is a “probable human carcinogen.” This report was pulled from the EPA’s website several days later, after which the agency announced that they would convene a scientific advisory panel to review the safety of glyphosate. EPA official Jess Rowland resigned a few days after the report was pulled.
The scientific panel on glyphosate was scheduled to meet in October of 2016. Then, just a few days before the panel was to begin, the EPA suspended the meeting, rescheduled it for December of 2016, and announced that it was taking epidemiologist Dr. Peter Infante off the panel. The EPA never explained why it pulled the doctor. However, only a few days previously, the agency received a letter from CropLife America, a trade group for Monsanto and other agribusinesses, specifically asking for Dr. Infante’s removal. CropLife stated that “any person who has publicly expressed an opinion regarding the carcinogenicity of glyphosate” should be kept off the panel.
The mistakenly-published draft report and the removal of an independent scientist from a panel were concerning actions by the EPA. But a trove of court documents which recently became unsealed in a lawsuit over glyphosate really sounded the alarm. They indicate that Monsanto had a large and potentially inappropriate role in the registration process for glyphosate. Specifically, the documents reveal that Monsanto employees may have ghostwritten scientific papers on glyphosate, which the EPA has relied on in its scientific panel on glyphosate.
This, along with the agency’s recent decision not to ban chlorpyrifos — a pesticide which was labeled as dangerous by EPA scientists previously, it is appropriate to investigate whether there is corporate influence in pesticide regulation.
The mission of the EPA is to protect human health and the environment. It is the agency’s duty to review risks associated with the pesticides we use and take appropriate action. But in two critical safety reviews, the EPA has made questionable decisions that seem to reflect the will of agribusinesses instead of what is best for our health. That’s why we support the letter sent by Congressional leaders asking for an investigation into recent EPA decisions on pesticides. The EPA must put public health and safety before corporate profit.
