EPA takes partial step to ban chlorpyrifos in a move called “unconscionable”

The long and winding regulatory road for a pesticide known to be harmful to developing babies took another turn on Monday as the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) said it was planning to only partially ban the insecticide chlorpyrifos in farming.

Under pressure from powerful agricultural industry interests and ordered by a federal court to consider the factors raised by the farming groups in a legal petition, the EPA said it would continue to allow chlorpyrifos to be used by farmers growing 11 crops, including apples, asparagus, citrus, peaches, strawberries, wheat, soybeans and others, despite evidence that the pesticide is associated with “neurodevelopmental effects” that can impair the normal development of children. Other uses in farming would be banned, the agency said.

In the most recent Food and Drug Administration (FDA) pesticide residue monitoring report, chlorpyrifos was the 11^th most frequently found pesticide in human food samples out of 209 different pesticides detected by FDA testing.   

“EPA continues to prioritize the health of children,” Michal Freedhoff, assistant administrator for the EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, said in a statement. “This proposed rule is a critical step forward as we work to reduce chlorpyrifos in or on food and to better protect people, including infants and children, from exposure to chemicals that are harmful to human health.”

Public and environmental health advocates saw it differently, saying chlorpyrifos should not be allowed at all, given scientific research showing it has neurotoxic and endocrine disrupting effects, particularly on the developing children of pregnant women.

“The compromises associated with petrochemical chemical use and the public’s health are unconscionable given the availability of cost-effective and productive alternatives…, ” said Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides nonprofit group. “With decisions like this in the aggregate, the toxic load to people and the environment is unsustainable. The decision announced today reflects a failure of both the underlying law and a history of negotiations that fail to fully document the multidimensional catastrophic impact of pesticide use on health, biodiversity, and climate.”

It is unclear exactly how much a partial ban will reduce the amount of the pesticide used each year, though continued use is expected to be substantial. Last year, the agency said that from 2014-2018, use of chlorpyrifos on those 11 crops represented about 55% of the total chlorpyrifos usage in agriculture in average pounds applied. On Monday, the agency said that retaining “only the 11 food uses could decrease average annual pounds of chlorpyrifos applied in the US by 70% as compared to historical usage.” 

“Serious health effects” cited

Chlorpyrifos insecticides were introduced by Dow Chemical in 1965 and have been used widely in agricultural settings. In the early 2000s, Dow Chemical phased out most residential uses of the chemical in an agreement with the EPA because of scientific research showing risks to human health, particularly children. 

In 2012, Columbia University researchers published a study that linked chlorpyrifos exposure to cognitive deficits in children. Additional research has shown that prenatal exposures to chlorpyrifos are associated with lower birth weight, reduced IQ, the loss of working memory, attention disorders, and delayed motor development. The American Academy of Pediatrics has warned that use of chlorpyrifos puts developing fetuses, infants, children and pregnant women at risk.

The European Food Safety Authority banned sales of chlorpyrifos as of January 2020, saying there is no safe exposure level. Thailand also banned chlorpyrifos in 2020. 

Lawsuits by environmental groups, including Earthjustice and the Pesticide Action Network, have pressured the EPA for years to enact a nationwide ban on chlorpyrifos, and the agency’s own scientists have warned of the potential for harm to children exposed to the chemical through food and water. Under the Obama administration, a ban was set to be enacted in 2017, but after the Trump administration took office in 2017 the EPA delayed and then later dropped the ban. 

In December 2017, California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment listed chlorpyrifos as known to “cause reproductive toxicity” and in 2019, state regulators announced a ban on use in farming, citing “serious health effects in children and other sensitive populations at lower levels of exposure than previously understood.”

Back-and-forth ban efforts

Overall, public health advocates have been pushing the federal government to ban chlorpyrifos for close to two decades. But lobbyists for the pesticide industry have pushed back, arguing that the science is weak and the chemical is an important tool in controlling insects that can damage crop production. Both sides have hammered the EPA with a series of legal actions. 

In August 2021, the EPA again said it would stop the use of chlorpyrifos in food production to “better protect human health, particularly that of children and farmworkers”. But that came only after a federal court order forced the agency to act on a 2007 petition by groups seeking a ban.

In response, several farm groups representing sugar, soybean, wheat, cotton and fruit and vegetable producer organizations filed a court action seeking a reversal of the ban, arguing that EPA action to ban chlorpyrifos was “unlawful” and lacking scientific basis. The US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit then vacated the EPA’s August 2021 rule, upending the ban.

In issuing its latest attempt to forge a rule on chlorpyrifos, the EPA said its review of the pesticide continues. And with newly re-elected President Trump set to return to office in January, the EPA’s announcement Monday could be in question, some observers noted.

The difficulty in achieving a ban on chlorpyrifos, a pesticide with such extensive science showing harm, frustrates critics and underscores the challenges in reining in other dangerous toxins.

“Relatively minor gains to reduce pesticide exposure, drawn out over decades of regulatory review and inaction, will not ensure a livable future,” said Feldman.