Citing “health risks for children” - what a surprise - the EPA announced on June 8 the organophosphate chlorpyrifos will be phased out for home and garden use and tighter restrictions will be applied for agriculture. The chemical is sold as Dursban for the home market and Lorsban in agriculture. It has been used safely for over 30 years and is found in over 800 products, from pet collars to lawn, garden and indoor insect sprays, to termite control. More than 3600 scientific studies have proven it to be harmless when used as directed. It is registered for use on 44 crops in agriculture, is effective and economical, plus it works well in various crop rotations and Intergrated Pest Managment (IPM) programs.
Under an agreement with manufacturers, production of Dursban will stop by the end of the year and existing stocks may be sold through 2001. The tighter agricultural uses are designed to eliminate residue on foods often eaten by children and will include new restrictions on apples and grapes and a complete ban on use on tomatoes.
Dursban’s popularity in the home market led to its demise. It has been targeted by both activists and EPA personnel for years. Efforts even included a personal injury lawsuit aided by EPA staff. The judge threw out EPA documents as being junk science. The chemical is safe when used as labeled.
If the chemical is as dangerous as the articles imply, why doesn’t EPA pull it immediately? The answer is simple. EPA has already stated the chemical poses no imminent threat to the public and they can’t conjure up any science to support the ban. They are justifying the phase-out with some newfound ‘ethical standards’. How’s that for an oxymoron?
Under international regulatory standards there are NO human health risks for labeled uses of chlorpyrifos. This has been determined using human health data obtained over many years by testing the chemical on paid human volunteers given non-toxic doses (everything from pharmaceuticals to beauty products are tested the same way). As opposed to testing on lab animals, there is less scientific uncertainty from human testing.
Source: EAT First, PNAAEF 509-632-5256
Reprint permission given by AgAir Update, P.O. Box 850, Perry, GA 31069 - an international agricultural aviation publication.
Return to Spreading the Facts