Thank you Propublica. Things like this happen pretty regularly in the US, but they normally fly under the radar. This case is particularly egregious both because of the methodology and because as...
Against the guidance of scientific advisory panels, the EPA is relying on industry-backed tests to relax regulations on acephate, which has been linked to neurodevelopmental disorders.
[...]
But rather than banning the pesticide, as the European Union did more than 20 years ago, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency recently proposed easing restrictions on acephate.
[...]
“It’s exactly what we recommended against,” Veena Singla, a member of the children’s committee who also teaches at Columbia University, said of the EPA’s acephate proposal. “Children’s development is exquisitely sensitive to toxicants. … It’s disappointing they’re not following the science.”
Thank you Propublica. Things like this happen pretty regularly in the US, but they normally fly under the radar. This case is particularly egregious both because of the methodology and because as they're ignoring so much clear advice from groups they reached out to for input.
Hopefully this article and others that follow will draw enough attention in the public comment phase to make them rethink. And also discourage them from relying on this kind of bad science going forward. Not because they'll realize their mistake, this appears intentionally corrupt rather than just stupid, but because it will communicate that the public is watching.
I can understand why people would want to not use animal testing for these kinds of things, but if we don’t do it that way, then the only real ethical option we have is human experimentation. If...
I can understand why people would want to not use animal testing for these kinds of things, but if we don’t do it that way, then the only real ethical option we have is human experimentation. If we are making bets on if a dosage is safe for human consumption than we are already experimenting on humans; if we do it formally than we are at least getting consent to do it.
what about cultured human cells? obviously not as encompassing of the biochemistry as an entire organism, but testing on animals isn't exaclty apples:apples.
....the only real ethical option is human experimentation...
what about cultured human cells? obviously not as encompassing of the biochemistry as an entire organism, but testing on animals isn't exaclty apples:apples.
Personally speaking I think that the USDA “GRAS” classification of is far too permissive as it is, so in effect a lot of food additives are nonconsenting human experimentation. Even if animals are...
Personally speaking I think that the USDA “GRAS” classification of is far too permissive as it is, so in effect a lot of food additives are nonconsenting human experimentation. Even if animals are not a 1:1 analogue to humans, it would still be a better test than cultured human cells because their bodies are far better simulacra than a Petrie dish could ever be.
Agreed, and it's an easy take to support. Most of Europe is far quicker to ban or restrict toxic substances when the science is there. And we know from decades of science that culture results fail...
Agreed, and it's an easy take to support. Most of Europe is far quicker to ban or restrict toxic substances when the science is there.
And we know from decades of science that culture results fail to translate to human results more often than they don't. You can learn a lot that way but it's a transparent industry ploy to claim it's a reasonable test of safety.
I think we should go a step farther and err in favor of restricting unstudied substances until there is solid independent science demonstrating safety.
Just a dream of course, since half the industries on earth would rally to kill that initiative.
“I think the companies see this as a new way over a 10- or 20-year period to gradually lobby” the EPA “to allow higher levels of pesticides in food,” said Charles Benbrook, an agricultural economist who has monitored pesticide regulation for decades. “If they can convince regulators to not pay attention to animal studies, they have a very good chance of raising the allowable exposure levels.”
Thank you Propublica. Things like this happen pretty regularly in the US, but they normally fly under the radar. This case is particularly egregious both because of the methodology and because as they're ignoring so much clear advice from groups they reached out to for input.
Hopefully this article and others that follow will draw enough attention in the public comment phase to make them rethink. And also discourage them from relying on this kind of bad science going forward. Not because they'll realize their mistake, this appears intentionally corrupt rather than just stupid, but because it will communicate that the public is watching.
I can understand why people would want to not use animal testing for these kinds of things, but if we don’t do it that way, then the only real ethical option we have is human experimentation. If we are making bets on if a dosage is safe for human consumption than we are already experimenting on humans; if we do it formally than we are at least getting consent to do it.
what about cultured human cells? obviously not as encompassing of the biochemistry as an entire organism, but testing on animals isn't exaclty apples:apples.
Personally speaking I think that the USDA “GRAS” classification of is far too permissive as it is, so in effect a lot of food additives are nonconsenting human experimentation. Even if animals are not a 1:1 analogue to humans, it would still be a better test than cultured human cells because their bodies are far better simulacra than a Petrie dish could ever be.
Agreed, and it's an easy take to support. Most of Europe is far quicker to ban or restrict toxic substances when the science is there.
And we know from decades of science that culture results fail to translate to human results more often than they don't. You can learn a lot that way but it's a transparent industry ploy to claim it's a reasonable test of safety.
I think we should go a step farther and err in favor of restricting unstudied substances until there is solid independent science demonstrating safety.
Just a dream of course, since half the industries on earth would rally to kill that initiative.
Our democracy in action:
We the
PeopleCorporations“People”