- ‹ previous
- 250 of 1542
- next ›
EPA Pesticide Tests Seriously Shortsighted
Hard to believe but the Environmental Protection Agency commonly uses 4-day tests to set safe levels of pesticide exposure for humans and animals. New research suggests this timescale is way too short and doesn't begin to account for long-term effects.
The new data, published in Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, describe how the highly toxic pesticide endosulfan—a neurotoxin banned in several nations but still used extensively in US agriculture (check out the CDC's outdated description)—exhibits a "lag effect" after direct contact has ended.
The researchers exposed nine species of frog and toad tadpoles to endosulfan levels already occurring in the wild for the EPA's required 4-day period. After 4 days the amphibians were transferred to clean water for an additional 4 days.
Although endosulfan was ultimately toxic to all species, three species of tadpole showed no significant sensitivity to the chemical until after they were transferred to fresh water. Within 4 days of being moved, up to 97 percent of leopard frog tadpoles perished along with up to 50 percent of spring peeper and American toad tadpoles.
Tadpoles and other amphibians are famously sensitive to pollutants and considered environmental indicator species. The authors suggest that if endosulfan does not kill the world's most susceptible species in 4 days, then the 4-day test period is inadequate to gauge the long-term effects for larger, less-sensitive species—like us.
Co-author Rick Relyea said: "For most pesticides, we assume that animals will die during the period of exposure, but we do not expect substantial death after the exposure has ended. Even if EPA regulations required testing on amphibians, our research demonstrates that the standard 4-day toxicity test would have dramatically underestimated the lethal impact of endosulfan on even this notably sensitive species."
A second paper by some of the same authors in the same journal expands on Relyea's earlier findings that the popular weed-killer Roundup® is "extremely lethal" to amphibians in concentrations found in the environment. The latest report on Roundup® is available on Pitt's website (pdf).
Last year Relyea reported that the world's 10 most popular pesticides combine to create "cocktails of contaminants" that can destroy amphibian populations—even if the concentration of each individual chemical is within levels considered safe to humans and animals. I reported on this at TBM at the time. The cocktail killed 99 percent of leopard frog tadpoles. Endosulfan alone killed 84 percent.
A month earlier, Relyea published a paper in Ecological Applications reporting that gradual amounts of malathion (the most popular insecticide in the US)—too small to directly kill developing leopard frog tadpoles—nevertheless sparked a biological chain reaction that deprived the amphibians of their primary food source. As a result, nearly half the tadpoles in the experiment would have died in nature.
In other words, pesticides really really suck. How much research more does the EPA need to embrace 21st-century science?






























4 days!
The EPA is effectively rubber stamping anything that doesn't kill immediately.
The people of America deserve an EPA that looks after their interests; not agri-business.
Will the EPA ever change?
sigh ... more lazy journalism
Its tough to get past the first sentence of this article to realize how little work went into it.
Case in point: Data requirements for a new conventional pesticide -
http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-PEST/2007/October/Day-26/p20826.htm
Yes it is long on legalese but a more than cursory glance at the requirements tells you that a company has to do more than a 4-day test. The data requirements under FIFRA are probably the gold standard of chemical regulation that this country has to date ... all talk of TSCA reform (how all non-pesticidal companies) should look to FIFRA in terms of data requirements to prove a chemical is safe for use in products.
But then again, I'm defending pesticides I guess so I must really really suck as well.
WHOOPS " ... all THIS talk
WHOOPS
" ... all THIS talk of TSCA reform (TSCA is THE LAW WHICH MOST non-pesticidal CHEMICALS ARE REGULATED UNDER) should look to FIFRA in terms of data requirements to prove a chemical is safe for use in products."
Okay, as you say, data
Okay, as you say, data requirements for a new conventional pesticide... what about the old ones?
Julia Whitty, Environmental Correspondent, Mother Jones
old pesticides have the same requirements ...
... in fact older pesticides have an additional layer of review called "reregistration review" where the science is updated and all applications reconsidered and tweaked if need be. This schedule for rereg review is often moved around depending on public sentiment or headlines. Case in point: the reg review for pyrethroids was moved up in time due to several headlines coming out of California earlier this year and last year about how exposures to these are on the upswing.
EPA's web site has a wealth of info. Go check it out.
So are we gonna move
So are we gonna move endosulfan to the top of the list? And what about Relyea's findings on the ugly synergy between compounds? How does the EPA handle that?
Julia Whitty, Environmental Correspondent, Mother Jones
Glass Houses of Propaganda
The test to which all this fuss refers used technical grade pesticide rather than a registered formulation. The illicit mix was added to an aquatic environment in a manner that does not reflect drift in to any wild life reserve. The only conclusion deserving of such amateurish work is that the Ethics Committee which permitted such wanton slaughter of tadpoles should be called to account.
Ed Hardy is a famous tattoo
Ed Hardy is a famous tattoo artist and designer that popularized the concept of tattoo as an art. His artistic designs made their way to the fashion and casual clothing industry giving birth to the Ed Hardy line and accessories. The most popular Ed Hardy items are the tattoo art designed Ed Hardy Belts. You can match these casual tattoo belts with your Abercrombie casual wear to emphasize the elegance of your style. So here are some basic tips in choosing the right Ed Hardy belt so you can achieve the perfect casual style.
coach handbags
rolex watches
Designers of fashionable
Designers of fashionable things make fashion costly and everyone can not afford it. But now they don't have to worry because replicas of designers' products are available in the market. These replicas are not that must costly. Handbag is one of the accessories which designers love to design. These designers handbags are with higher cost and common woman can not afford it. It is nice option for those ladies who can not have enough budgets to buy designers handbags. It is designer replica handbags. Replica handbags are with reasonable price and one can by several replica handbags in the price of one designer handbag.
fake handbags
replica chanel
replica gucci
replica louis vuitton
replica handbags wholesale
replica shoes