v-Fluence Archives

January 18, 2025

EPA moves to withdraw decision on paraquat, delays report on risks

By Carey Gillam

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is moving to withdraw its interim regulatory decision on paraquat, announcing that it needs more time to examine the potential health effects of the weed killing chemical that has been widely used in agriculture for decades, but also linked for years to the incurable brain ailment known as Parkinson’s disease.

The EPA had promised to issue a report by Friday, January 17 updating its position on paraquat after a petition filed by the Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson’s Research and several other health advocacy organizations challenged the EPA’s 2021 interim registration review decision in which the agency concluded that there was “insufficient” evidence linking paraquat exposure to Parkinson’s.

That interim EPA decision did call for certain mitigation measures to reduce risks the agency said it found necessary to protect human health and the environment, and labels on paraquat products were amended in 2022 to reflect those measures. But critics have pressed the EPA to go further and ban the pesticide entirely.

The petition, filed in the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals, challenged not only the agency’s position on Parkinson’s risk, but also the EPA’s analysis of respiratory and dermal exposures, exposure risks from paraquat drift, and how to balance paraquat’s risks and benefits.

As part of the process of reexamining its interim decision, the agency said a year ago that it would spend 2024 analyzing new information about paraquat health effects and considering public comments about the issue. The agency said last year it would issue a final document and potential next steps for paraquat use by the mid-January 2025 date.

Instead, on Friday, the EPA said it is delaying any action. The agency issued a statement saying it had “determined that additional data are necessary to resolve the uncertainty” surrounding certain paraquat risks. The agency cited the “potential for paraquat to volatize,” and said it would be trying to determine potential “inhalation risks to bystanders from the volatilization of paraquat.” Such data “could change the underlying human health risk assessment,” and the regulatory decision based on that assessment, the EPA said.

And on Friday, the EPA asked the 9th Circuit to allow it to withdraw its interim decision on paraquat while it further investigates the concerns surrounding the chemical.

“EPA intends to withdraw the Interim Decision and will promptly do so once the Court rules on this motion,” the agency states in its court filing. If the court agrees, the case brought by the health advocacy groups will become moot, the EPA argues in the filing.

September 27, 2024

“Defend or be damned” – How a US company uses government funds to suppress pesticide opposition around the world

By Carey Gillam, Margot Gibbs and Elena DeBre

In 2017, two United Nations experts called for a treaty to strictly regulate dangerous pesticides, which they said were a “global human rights concern”, citing scientific research showing pesticides can cause cancers, Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s, and other health problems.

Publicly, the industry’s lead trade association dubbed the recommendations “unfounded and sensational assertions”. In private, industry advocates have gone further.

Derogatory profiles of the two UN experts, Hilal Elver and Baskut Tuncak, are hosted on an online private “social network” portal for pesticide company employees and a range of influential allies.

Members of the network can access a wide range of personal information about hundreds of individuals from around the world deemed a threat to industry interests, including US food writers Michael Pollan and Mark Bittman, the Indian environmentalist Vandana Shiva and the Nigerian activist Nnimmo Bassey. Many profiles include personal details such as the names of family members, phone numbers, home addresses and even house values.

The profiling is part of a broad campaign – that was financed partly with US taxpayers dollars – to downplay pesticide dangers, discredit opponents, and undermine international policymaking harmful to the pesticide industry, according to court records, emails and other documents obtained by the non-profit newsroom Lighthouse Reports in an investigative reporting collaboration with The New Lede, the Guardian, and other international media partners.

The efforts were spearheaded by a “reputation management” firm in Missouri called v-Fluence. The company, founded by former Monsanto executive Jay Byrne, provides self-described services that include “intelligence gathering”, “proprietary data mining” and “risk communications”.

The revelations demonstrate how industry advocates established a “private social network” to counter resistance to pesticides and genetically modified (GM) crops in Africa, Europe and other parts of the world, while also denigrating organic and other alternative farming methods. More than 30 current government officials are on the membership list of the private network, most of whom are from the US Department of Agriculture (USDA).

Elver, who is now a university research professor and a member of a United Nations food security committee, said public money would have been better spent on scientific research into the health impacts of pesticides than on profiling people such as herself.

“Instead of understanding the scientific reality, they try and shoot the messenger. It is really hard to believe,” she said.

Author Michael Pollan’s profile portrays him as an “ardent opponent” of industrial agriculture and (GM) crops and a proponent of organic farming. His profile includes a long list of criticisms and details such as the names of his siblings, parents, son and brother-in-law.

“It’s one thing to have an industry come after you after publishing a critical article. This happens all the time in journalism,” Pollan said. “But to have your own government pay for it is outrageous. These are my tax dollars at work.”