The pesticide chlorpyrifos is used on a variety of fruits and vegetables—including apples and broccoli—that millions of American moms and dads feed their kids every day. Photo: Martinan/iStock

7 States Give Pruitt an “F” in Science, Challenge EPA Over Pesticide That Harms Children

, senior analyst, Food and Environment | June 6, 2017, 5:25 pm EST
Bookmark and Share

Back in March, EPA Administrator and science skeptic Scott Pruitt ignored his agency’s own science when he canceled a planned ban on chlorpyrifos, a well-studied pesticide that has been shown to damage children’s developing brains and make farmworkers sick. But the fight to protect kids and workers from this toxic pesticide isn’t over. In a welcome new twist, the Attorney General of New York and his counterparts in six other states announced today that they have filed an objection with the EPA for its inaction.

Joining New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman in the legal challenge are the Attorneys General of California, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Washington, and Vermont. They charge that the EPA “failed to make a key safety finding needed to continue to allow levels of chlorpyrifos, a common agricultural pesticide, on fruits and vegetables consumed by the public.  The federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (Food Act) requires EPA to revoke allowable levels—or ‘tolerances’—for pesticide residues on foods if the Agency is unable to determine that the levels are safe.”

Chlorpyrifos has been studied for decades and increasingly regulated, but it’s still used on a variety of fruits and vegetables—including apples and broccoli—that millions of American moms and dads feed their kids every day. The EPA was all set to ban those last uses due to the pesticide’s ability to damage children’s developing brains, when Pruitt abruptly changed course.

The announcement of the states’ lawsuit comes as the saga of this pesticide continues to grow. Chlorpyrifos reportedly poisoned nearly 50 California farmworkers in an incident near Bakersfield in May.

And in another troubling development last month, Pruitt also put the kibosh on a planned proposal to ensure that pesticides including chlorpyrifos are safely applied. That proposal was supposed to regulate “restricted use pesticides,” defined by the EPA as having the “potential to cause unreasonable adverse effects to the environment and injury to applicators or bystanders without added restrictions.” It would have required workers handling such pesticides—including chlorpyrifos—to be at least 18 years old and to have regular safety training.

 

 

 

 

Posted in: Food and Agriculture Tags: , ,

Support from UCS members make work like this possible. Will you join us? Help UCS advance independent science for a healthy environment and a safer world.

Show Comments


Comment Policy

UCS welcomes comments that foster civil conversation and debate. To help maintain a healthy, respectful discussion, please focus comments on the issues, topics, and facts at hand, and refrain from personal attacks. Posts that are commercial, self-promotional, obscene, rude, or disruptive will be removed.

Please note that comments are open for two weeks following each blog post. UCS respects your privacy and will not display, lend, or sell your email address for any reason.

  • Thank you for your interest in this topic. We’re now suspending comments.

  • Viva La Evolucion

    Yes, I know we are talking about chlorpyrifos. The article I linked to is talking about chlorpyrifos as well. “Test results found small traces of an insecticide called chlorpyrifos (CY) inside the room – a chemical that is used to get rid of bed bugs.”

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1385518/Bed-bug-pesticide-poisoning-caused-death-California-woman-tourists-Thailand.html

  • FarmersSon63

    50 years of extensive use and still not even one confirmed illness or death from consuming it’s residues on foods.
    Following storage, handling and application directions has proven to be safe to handlers and the environment.
    Lets all hope that Drama Queen activists do not win over real world proof of safety.

    • kstillerman

      FarmersSon, as amusing as it is to be labeled a “Drama Queen” (capital D, capital Q, no less), it’s also disappointing that you feel the need to revert to name-calling. Anyway, taking extra care to protect children from harm isn’t being dramatic, it’s being prudent. And it’s the law. The federal Food Quality Protection Act (passed unanimously by Congress in 1996) requires that the EPA consider the developmental susceptibility of infants and children, and their dietary habits, when making regulatory decisions about pesticides. The law built in a 10-fold “safety factor” to be sure kids would be protected.

      I encourage you to read the EPA human health risk assessment if you want to understand this issue better: https://www.epa.gov/ingredients-used-pesticide-products/revised-human-health-risk-assessment-chlorpyrifos

      • FarmersSon63

        The EPA has approved and re-approved these pesticides over and over due to their proven safety. The EPA constantly evaluates safety.

        When city people step in acting like there has not been any original or ongoing safety evaluations, it really shows their lack of knowledge.

      • patzagame

        You’re so funny…The EPA constantly evaluates safety based on information provided by industry.Biased,money driven propaganda.

      • FarmersSon63

        The EPA creates the tests and testing paramaters.
        If you do not follow them to a T, you will not get anything approved.
        What time is X-Files rerun on tonight?

      • Rob Bright

        I’m afraid any attempt to engage FarmersSon63 will prove to be a waste of time and effort. He’s a well known pro-GMO, pro-agrochemical industry “spokesperson” who has been trolling social media articles on agriculture for years in order to promote and defend the industry. He does not engage in civil discussions, but rather chooses the most coarse troll-like behaviours of bullying, name-calling, gas-lighting, etc. He has nothing of substance to contribute to any rational discussion. (Probably best to ignore…)

  • solodoctor

    It is heartening that 7 states are fighting this terrible decision by Pruitt. Please keep us informed as to how this lawsuit proceeds.

    • hyperzombie

      What is your solution?

      • kstillerman

        Same as the states are requesting. EPA should act on its own rigorous scientific assessment by revoking the remaining uses of chlorpyrifos.

      • FarmersSon63

        They originally evaluated the safety of this pesticide and approved it for commercial use.
        50 years later they still believe it is a safe product.
        Zero confirmed illnesses or deaths from consuming its residues on foods over 50 years is proof of this.

      • Viva La Evolucion

        Thanks for linking to the sciencedirect site. That was very helpful. Basically every study I read that is done on the actual formulations of Roundup sold in stores shows that it is bad. For instance, this study showing how bad Roundup is for fertility of rat exposed and decreased sperm count. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0940299316302585

      • kstillerman

        Viva, to be clear, these are two different pesticides. The active ingredient in Roundup is glyphosate. The pesticide at issue in this blog post is a different chemical called chlorpyrifos. Unlike glyphosate, which is widely used both in agriculture and in home yards and gardens, EPA has already ended or restricted many of the original uses of chlorpyrifos. The EPA action being urged by state AGs and other stakeholders in the courts is to end all remaining uses of chlorpyrifos.

      • Viva La Evolucion

        Oh thanks, yes I have heard of Chlorpyrifos. When I was in Thailand I had heard that Chlorpyrifos pesticide was used in some hotels and wasn’t aired out well enough before the guests checked in and several tourists and a local person died. It is also my understanding that pesticide is not particularly bad for children with developing brains.

      • FarmersSon63

        But of course you cannot give one real world example of where this has actually been confirmed, right?

      • Viva La Evolucion
      • FarmersSon63

        Maybe that is why that insecticide is banned in the US.
        We are talking about Chlorpyrifos.
        You are dumber than a box of rocks.

      • Viva La Evolucion

        I believe the Chlorpyrifos ban in the US was recently overturned. Do you concur?

      • FarmersSon63

        Chlorpyrifos was never banned in the US.
        I am getting tired of educating you.
        Please attempt to educate yourself.

      • Viva La Evolucion

        your previous statement “Maybe that is why that insecticide is banned in the US.” Now it was never banned. I think it was scheduled to be phased out, but that decision was reversed.

      • FarmersSon63

        Knocking on Viva’s noggin….is anyone home?
        Your link referred to an insecticide that was not Chlorpyrophos.
        The insecticide referred to in your link has been banned in the US and most countries around the world.
        LOL
        Pure Comedy.
        Are you drunk?

      • Viva La Evolucion

        Yes, I know that we were talking about chlorpyrifos. And the article I linked to is talking about chlorpyrifos too. “Test results found small traces of an insecticide called chlorpyrifos (CY) inside the room – a chemical that is used to get rid of bed bugs.”

        http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1385518/Bed-bug-pesticide-poisoning-caused-death-California-woman-tourists-Thailand.html

      • FarmersSon63

        “A probe by the New Zealand current affairs programme 60 Minutes has
        revealed the hotel rooms had been sprayed with a potentially lethal
        toxin called pyrophus, which has been banned from indoor use in many
        other countries.”

      • Viva La Evolucion

        Yes, I believe Pyrophos is the brand or product name and Chlorpyrifos is the active ingredient, because below that it says “Test results found small traces of an insecticide called chlorpyrifos (CY) inside the room – a chemical that is used to get rid of bed bugs.”

      • FarmersSon63

        No, it is NOT Chlorpyrifos.
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetraethyl_pyrophosphate
        It is Tetraethyl pyrophosphate.

      • Viva La Evolucion

        I wonder why they say that traces of Chlorpyrifos were found inside the room. here is another article about it: https://merrilynhope.wordpress.com/2014/07/15/insecticide-chlorpyrifos-kills-tourists-in-thailand/

      • FarmersSon63

        More than likely someone with a 1st grade level of understanding of pesticides wrote the article.
        That is why you took it hook, line and sinker.

      • Viva La Evolucion

        Here is another article on the issue. Why do you think so few acres of farmland in the US are planted with cover crops? http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/money/agriculture/2017/03/14/study-whos-using-cover-crops-iowa-hardly-anyone/99168598/

      • FarmersSon63

        It adds a lot of cost.
        You have to plant again, you have to pay for seed again, you have to pay for herbicides again, you have to pay for fuel again…. with no crop to sell.
        Very few have realized enough gain to offset these costs.

      • Viva La Evolucion

        If it adds so much costs then why do you do plant such a high percentage of your land with cover crops? You said you plant 25% of your land with cover crops, right? Why would you waste your money on the seeds, fuel,herbicides, etc..if very few have realized enough gain to offset those cost. 25% seems like a pretty significant amount of your land to dedicate to cover crops if few can make them work. Are you receiving some sort of goverment handout to plant those cover crops or do you just enjoy wasting money planting cover crops on 25% of your land?

      • FarmersSon63

        This particular ground id highly erodable.

      • Viva La Evolucion

        so why not plant more cover crops if your particular ground is highly erodible?

      • FarmersSon63

        The ground I have cover crops planted on severe slopes is highly erodable.
        The rest of my land lays fairly flat.

      • Viva La Evolucion

        So you think cover crops are good for highly erodible land? What types of cover crops do you grow?

      • FarmersSon63

        I plant erosion channels to stabilize during the winter.
        Rye, oats and peas mixture.

      • Viva La Evolucion

        that’s a great idea. I like that you are planting cover crops to prevent erosion. I wish more farmers planted 25% of their land with cover crops as you do. Have you tried a roller crimper for no-till termination of your rye? You can put a roller crimper on the front and seeder on the back and terminate your cover crop and plant in 1 pass.

      • FarmersSon63

        If you let the cover crop get too tall in the spring, it takes too much moisture from the spring crop. I never let the cover crop grow beyond 6 inches tall.

      • Viva La Evolucion

        How do you terminate your cover crop?

      • FarmersSon63

        Burndown with either Gramoxone or generic Glyphosate.

      • Viva La Evolucion

        do you spray the herbicide yourself, or do you hire someone to do that job?

      • FarmersSon63

        I spray myself.

      • Viva La Evolucion

        I am surprised you are not worried about reduction in your sperm count or severe degenerative testicular architectural lesions that were seen in the Roundup exposed rats in this study, considering that you are exposed to Roundup more than the average person.

        http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0940299316302585

      • razorjack

        Many of us have seen the toll taken on fake farmers intellect and ability to recognize the truth. It’s likely that his health has been degraded by all those “safe” pesticides he is exposed to.

      • patzagame

        I’m thinking you are on the right track there.

      • FarmersSon63

        I have been spraying pesticides for over 40 years.
        Roundup is less toxic than table salt.

      • patzagame

        That explains it…lol!

      • FarmersSon63

        Over 200 million acres of cropland has been sprayed annually for 80 years.
        Yet still no detectable trend confirming problems.
        The opposite is true. Farmers tend to be healthier than the general population.
        https://aghealth.nih.gov/about/

      • patzagame

        Sure,tell that to the farm workers.

      • FarmersSon63

        Farmers and farm workers are healthier and have less disease than non-farm workers.

      • Viva La Evolucion

        This study makes me think that farm workers who spray Roundup may have lower sperm count and fertility problems. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0940299316302585

      • FarmersSon63

        You are sure putting a lot of faith on 8 rats.
        But zero faith on thousands of other studies.

      • Viva La Evolucion

        Please provide a link to another study done on an actual formulation of Roundup being sold in stores, and I will be happy to check it out. The majority of studies that come up under Roundup search on ScienceDirect are done on Glyphosate, and not actual formulations of Roundup that are sold in stores. Unfortunately, most of the studies that are done on the actual formulations of Roundup sold in stores do not show that it is safe.

      • FarmersSon63

        I showed you over 1,000.
        Please read.

      • FarmersSon63

        http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273230099913715
        and
        http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0045653507013616
        Ask yourself…
        Why did the US EPA, The WHO, The EU and every single regulatory agency in the world all agree that glyphosate is safe to use and safe for consumers?
        I guarantee they did not latch on to one peer reviewed study and block their mind on thousands of other studies.

      • FarmersSon63

        “There were no effects on fertility or reproductive parameters in two multigeneration reproduction studies with glyphosate.”

      • Viva La Evolucion

        here are two more showing Roundup to cause fertility problems.
        http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0891584913003262

        http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0045653517303363

        Ask yourself, How many of the pesticides that were approved for sale in the 60s and 70s are now banned?

        I guarantee that many of the pesticides approved for sale today will be banned 50 years from now.

      • FarmersSon63

        First study. …Roundup is not labeled to be injected into humans or rats.
        Second study…Roundup is labeled to be sprayed in aquatic environments.
        Roundup has been determind NOT to be an endocrine disruptor by the EPA.
        file:///C:/Users/Joe%20Tvrdy/Downloads/EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0634-0219.pdf
        80 years of extensive pesticide use and still not even one confirmed illness or death from consuming their residues on foods.
        Pesticides are much safer than in the 60’s.
        https://gmoanswers.com/sites/default/files/pesticide-toxicity-graph.png
        I agree. Wacko activists will continue to get pesticides banned out of unfounded fear.
        An excellent example is DDT.
        There was never even one confirmed human illness or death from consuming their residues on foods. The theory of thinning of Bald Eagle egg shells was debunked by the original scientist who came up with the theory. The result? The death of over 1 million people who could have been saved if the disease carrying mosquitos could have been controlled with DDT.
        Yet wack environmentalists still claim victory

      • Viva La Evolucion

        So, you are saying that DDT shouldn’t have been banned, even though it persists in the environment and bioaccumulates? What are some more pesticides that you think should have not been banned?

      • FarmersSon63

        The formulation they tested is no longer available for sale and has not been for years.

      • Viva La Evolucion

        which formulation is that?

      • FarmersSon63

        * Maybe that is why that insecticide is banned in the US.
        We are talking about Chlorpyrifos.

      • Folks, while we welcome robust discussion, we need to keep it civil and on-topic and avoid personal attacks. OK? Thanks.

      • Rob Bright

        FarmersSon63 is a well known pro-agrochemical industry troll who generally resorts to bullying and name-calling to forward his argument (if he has any in the first place.) You can find him trolling social media articles on GMOs and pesticides 24/7 in order to promote and defend them.

      • FarmersSon63

        Roundup may interfere with spermatogenesis and impair fertility in male gonad.
        May sure is not a very definitive word.

      • Viva La Evolucion

        While it doesn’t sound like they identified the mechanism of action that caused the rat’s sperm count to be reduced they definitely saw “Significant reductions (p < 0.05) in sperm count" on the rats exposed to Roundup.

      • FarmersSon63

        Insignificant reduction.

      • Viva La Evolucion

        Yea, you’re right. It was probably just a coincidence that the rats exposed to Roundup had significantly reduced sperm count. I wouldn’t worry about that too much. I have extremely high sperm count anyways, so worse case scenario a little Roundup exposure will just get me down to a normal human level.

      • FarmersSon63

        Less than a 5% reduction is not significant in the small sample they had.

      • Viva La Evolucion

        “Significant reductions (p < 0.05) in sperm count, percentage motility and significant (p < 0.05) increased in abnormal sperm cells were observed in the exposed rats". If it wasn't significant then they wouldn't say significant.

      • Rob Bright

        Looks like it’s you who needs to “attempt to educate” himself, eh, Fake Farmer?

      • FarmersSon63

        This one proves glyphosate is a cancer inhibitor.
        https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3749059/

      • Viva La Evolucion

        Was surfactant included, as is the case with actual formulations of Roundup being sold, or is that another study on the active ingredient only?

      • FarmersSon63

        Don’t know how to read a scientific study?

      • Wally

        Monsanto’s own scientists told them Roundup/glyphosate caused cancer over 35 years ago. Instead of disclosing that fact, they colluded with the EPA who approved glyphosate over the objections of their own staff scientists and called the science “inconvenient” and hid the science away from other scientists, the courts, and the people as a trade secret while at the same time telling us it was safe.

        Monsanto study with 240 rats in their 2-year feeding trial concluded in 1990, which is called “Stout and Ruecker” in the literature. The data from this are revealed in the 1991 EPA memo and in Greim (2015) and clearly show cause for concern which was swept under the rug in the 1991 memo. Three EPA toxicologists also did not concur with the conclusions and did not sign the memo.

        Monsanto’s 1981 glyphosate study in rats by Lankas & Hogan shows that Glyphosate causes malignant LYMPHOMA .. . Glyphosate induced Malignant Lymphoma particularly in the female rats. These malignant lymphomas were found ONLY in the treated animals and found in fourteen different types of tissue. The controls animals did not have any lymphomas.

        Both the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and the World Health Organization have declared glyphosate to be a probable human carcinogen.

        A recent peer review scientific study posted on the Nature website shows that Roundup causes fatty liver disease a concentrations over 430,000 times lower that the contamination allowed in the food supply.

        The cancers related to transgenic organisms and glyphosate mainly increase cancers that were far more rare. Cancer of thyroid, pancreas, liver, blader, stomach and esophagus are all up since introduction of transgenics and rise in glyphosate application by 17 fold.

        Table 3. Pearson’s coefficients between disease and glyphosate applications (N=21
        encompassing 1990-2010), except autism (N=16; autism data only available for 1995-2010).
        Disease Coefficient, R R 2 × 100 Probability, p
        Thyroid cancer (incidence) 0.988 97.6 =7.6E-9
        Liver cancer (incidence) 0.960 92.1 =4.6E-8
        Bladder cancer (deaths) 0.981 96.2 =4.7E-9
        Pancreatic cancer (incidence) 0.918 84.2 =4.6E-7
        Kidney cancer (incidence) 0.973 94.8 =2.0E-8
        Table 4. Pearson’s coefficients between disease and the percentage of US corn and soy crops
        that are GE (N=15 encompassing 1996-2010; GE crops were first planted in 1995).
        Disease Coefficient, R R 2 × 100 Probability, p
        Thyroid cancer (incidence) 0.938 87.9 =2.2E-5
        Liver cancer (incidence) 0.911 82.9 =5.4E-5
        Bladder cancer (incidence) 0.945 89.3 =7.1E-6
        Pancreatic cancer (incidence) 0.841 70.7 =4.0E-4
        Kidney cancer (incidence) 0.940 88.4 =2.0E-5
        Myeloid leukaemia (deaths) 0.889 79.0 =5.4E-5
        Genetically engineered crops, glyphosate and the deterioration of health in the United States of America

        ISSN 1177-4258

        Glyphosate is a potent endocrine disruptor that has no safe dose. It causes DNA breaks and irreversible cellular death. It mimics glycine in the body. It causes rapid aging, multiple diseases, and early death.

        Glyphosate should be banned from the planet. It is the perfect slow kill agent of genocide.

      • FarmersSon63

        Creating a correlation between two things without ever doing any lab experiments to confirm or deny the hypothesis is junk science.
        81% of all Sprague Dawley test rats get cancer no matter what they eat.

      • GOOSE

        Who are you trying to kid? Wally posted Monsanto studies.

        Monsanto study with 240 rats in their 2-year feeding trial concluded in 1990, which is called “Stout and Ruecker” in the literature. The data from this are revealed in the 1991 EPA memo and in Greim (2015) and clearly show cause for concern which was swept under the rug in the 1991
        memo. Three EPA toxicologists also did not concur with the conclusions and did not sign the memo.

        Monsanto’s 1981 glyphosate study in rats by Lankas & Hogan shows that Glyphosate causes malignant lymphoma.. . Glyphosate induced Malignant Lymphoma particularly in the
        female rats. These malignant lymphomas were found ONLY in the treated animals and found in fourteen different types of tissue. The controls animals did not have any lymphomas.

        Wally posted studies from the Nature website

        A recent peer review scientific study posted on the Nature website shows that Roundup causes fatty liver disease a concentrations over 430,000 times lower that the contamination allowed in the food supply.

        Most scientists will ignore correlations with P values this high at their own peril.

        You sound like you need to educate yourself.

      • FarmersSon63

        They were Sprague-Dawley rats.
        81% of them develop tumors, no matter what they eat.
        When glyphosate concentrations increased, tumor incidence decreased.
        Therefore glyphosate is a cancer inhibitor.
        https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3749059/
        The science is settled.

      • GOOSE

        So what? They are commonly used in scientific research. The cancer straw-man was created to try and refute the Seralini study which lasted 2 years and used these rats. What Monsanto didn’t say at the time is the fact that they also used these rats in their own long term studies like the one I posted above. The rat issue is only a way to defect from the real issues. It’s bogus. Get over it.

      • FarmersSon63

        The study you showed confirmed glyphosate reduces cancer incidence.

      • GOOSE

        What study are you talking about?

        The cancers related to transgenic organisms and glyphosate mainly increase cancers that were far more rare. Cancer of thyroid, pancreas, liver, blader, stomach and esophagus are all up since introduction of transgenics and rise in glyphosate application by 17 fold.

        Table 3. Pearson’s coefficients between disease and glyphosate applications (N=21
        encompassing 1990-2010), except autism (N=16; autism data only available for 1995-2010).
        Disease Coefficient, R R 2 × 100 Probability, p
        Thyroid cancer (incidence) 0.988 97.6 =7.6E-9
        Liver cancer (incidence) 0.960 92.1 =4.6E-8
        Bladder cancer (deaths) 0.981 96.2 =4.7E-9
        Pancreatic cancer (incidence) 0.918 84.2 =4.6E-7
        Kidney cancer (incidence) 0.973 94.8 =2.0E-8
        Table 4. Pearson’s coefficients between disease and the percentage of US corn and soy crops
        that are GE (N=15 encompassing 1996-2010; GE crops were first planted in 1995).
        Disease Coefficient, R R 2 × 100 Probability, p
        Thyroid cancer (incidence) 0.938 87.9 =2.2E-5
        Liver cancer (incidence) 0.911 82.9 =5.4E-5
        Bladder cancer (incidence) 0.945 89.3 =7.1E-6
        Pancreatic cancer (incidence) 0.841 70.7 =4.0E-4
        Kidney cancer (incidence) 0.940 88.4 =2.0E-5
        Myeloid leukaemia (deaths) 0.889 79.0 =5.4E-5
        Genetically engineered crops, glyphosate and the deterioration of health in the United States of America

        ISSN 1177-4258

      • FarmersSon63

        Exactly what I said.

      • GOOSE

        So you agree that all the cancers have increased since glyphosate laden GMO foods were put on the market in 1996.

      • FarmersSon63
      • GOOSE

        The decline in cancer rates is due to lung cancer being the most prominent and a tremendous reduction in the amount of people smoking tobacco and laws against second hand smoke. The cancers related to transgenic organisms and glyphosate mainly increase cancers that were far more rare. Cancer of thyroid, pancreas, liver, blader, stomach and esophagus are all up since introduction of transgenics and rise in glyphosate application by 17 fold.

        Table 3. Pearson’s coefficients between disease and glyphosate applications (N=21
        encompassing 1990-2010), except autism (N=16; autism data only available for 1995-2010).
        Disease Coefficient, R R 2 × 100 Probability, p
        Thyroid cancer (incidence) 0.988 97.6 =7.6E-9
        Liver cancer (incidence) 0.960 92.1 =4.6E-8
        Bladder cancer (deaths) 0.981 96.2 =4.7E-9
        Pancreatic cancer (incidence) 0.918 84.2 =4.6E-7
        Kidney cancer (incidence) 0.973 94.8 =2.0E-8
        Table 4. Pearson’s coefficients between disease and the percentage of US corn and soy crops
        that are GE (N=15 encompassing 1996-2010; GE crops were first planted in 1995).
        Disease Coefficient, R R 2 × 100 Probability, p
        Thyroid cancer (incidence) 0.938 87.9 =2.2E-5
        Liver cancer (incidence) 0.911 82.9 =5.4E-5
        Bladder cancer (incidence) 0.945 89.3 =7.1E-6
        Pancreatic cancer (incidence) 0.841 70.7 =4.0E-4
        Kidney cancer (incidence) 0.940 88.4 =2.0E-5
        Myeloid leukaemia (deaths) 0.889 79.0 =5.4E-5
        Genetically engineered crops, glyphosate and the deterioration of health in the United States of America

        ISSN 1177-4258

      • FarmersSon63

        I proved you wrong.
        You said all cancers are increasing, when actuall all cancers are decreasing.
        A normal person would be embarrassed when shown they are wrong.
        Not you, Ted.
        https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/251d0650b9696c49124ae5a366f587baad317d0aa723011cdb63a02825c90cfa.jpg

      • GOOSE

        Are you talking to me? Why are you spamming us with your industry attempts to distract from the subject here?

        by posting truth tellers who are all telling the truth

      • FarmersSon63
      • GOOSE

        Why are you spamming us with the same old screenshot of people who are all telling the truth? See a shrink. fake farmer…

      • FarmersSon63

        Why did you claim all cancer are increasing?
        Did you think everyone is as dumb as you and wouldn’t check actual facts?

      • GOOSE

        See a psychiatrist soon. You are a certifiable candidate for mental health care help.

      • Wally

        Your scripted PR created spin is not going to save you from your ignorance here.

      • FarmersSon63

        Not even an attempt to debate with science.

      • Wally

        Nobody can have an intelligent debate with a scientifically ignorant person like you, fake farmer. You are a science illiterate.

      • Wally

        “confirmed” by who?

      • patzagame

        Do you ever quit? You believe in science from 50 years ago? http://www.panna.org/publication/generation-in-jeopardy

      • FarmersSon63

        Can you give details on one confirmed illness or death from consuming pesticide residues on foods in their 80 year history?
        Of course you can’t.
        Guess how many people died from consuming alcohol LAST WEEK.
        6 people are severely injured each year from using a Q-Tip in their ear.
        Shouldn’t we instead assess risk and legislate accordingly instead of creating drama where there is none.

      • patzagame

        Nice try at diversion,children are not exposed to alcohol in their food supply.But hey…thats what you you do so well.

      • FarmersSon63

        No details on even one real world illness or death?
        Thats what I thought.

      • Viva La Evolucion
      • FarmersSon63

        Why didn’t they conduct blood tests to confirm their guess?

      • patzagame

        https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/03/opinion/sunday/protect-our-childrens-brains.html?_r=1 An E.P.A. report that came out right after the election, which was the product of this careful vetting, reflected Mr. Jones’s concern. The revised risk assessment relied on evidence of “neurodevelopmental effects in fetuses and children resulting from chlorpyrifos exposure” and drew on studies showing increased risk of delays in mental development, intelligence loss, attention problems and autism spectrum disorder in children who were exposed to organophosphates, the class of pesticides to which chlorpyrifos belongs. Based on this evidence and feedback from the scientific community, the E.P.A. calculated a new safety threshold for chlorpyrifos and found that in some cases children, who are most vulnerable to its effects, may already be exposed to much more than that amount.

      • FarmersSon63

        This has never happened in the real world…..only at concentrations in a lab much higher than real world exposures.

      • patzagame

        What is wrong with you? “the revised risk assessment relied on evidence of “neurodevelopmental effects in fetuses and children resulting from chlorpyrifos exposure” and drew on studies showing increased risk of delays in mental development, intelligence loss, attention problems and autism spectrum disorder in children who were exposed to organophosphates, the class of pesticides to which chlorpyrifos belongs” What did they use lab children and fetuses?

      • FarmersSon63

        It has never been confirmed in a lab!!!!
        It is a correlation!!!

      • patzagame

        You’re unbelievable…Everything does not have to be confirmed in a lab!

      • FarmersSon63

        Lets apply your scientific pricnipals to this then.
        http://www.pd.infn.it/~dorigo/autism_organic_foods.jpg
        Everything you write is a lie…..every time
        https://inequalitybyinteriordesign.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/work-related-deaths1.png

      • GOOSE

        You chart is meaningless PR drivel that has nothing to do with the subject being discussed her.

      • FarmersSon63

        You can never show any real science.
        Untested Correlations are junk science.

      • GOOSE

        I’ll go with my experience and ignore the industry spin from agenda driven biotech chemical industry PR bot operatives.

      • FarmersSon63

        You already have your mind up, facts would just get in the way.

      • GOOSE

        How would you know? You never post any facts.

      • LOL you always make more spelling errors when you are really mad.

      • GOOSE

        I’ll take the truth posted with a typo to the most well crafted industry lie any day. You should try it some time. It could change your life.

      • You want me to post typo ridden truths? I guess i could give it a go.

      • GOOSE

        It will never happen. You have never posted the truth before, and your industry bias assures that you are totally blind to the truth.

      • Said the well known liar

      • GOOSE

        Said the flagged troll.

      • Said the trolling flagger.

      • GOOSE

        Have it your way.

      • patzagame

        The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimates that 10,000-20,000 farmworkers are poisoned on the job due to pesticide exposure. Several states, e.g., California and Washington State, have state incident reporting systems. In California, in 2009, there were a total of 916 reported cases which were found to be possibly, probably or definitely related to pesticides. Of those 916 cases, 252 (28%) involved agricultural workers. A recent study of acute pesticide poisonings between 1998 and 2005 among agricultural workers in the United States found that an average of 57.6 out of every 100,000 agricultural workers experience acute pesticide poisoning, illness or injury each year. This number excludes the many workers who suffer chronic health problems such as cancer, infertility, and neurological disorders, including Parkinson’s disease, as a result of these toxic exposures.

      • FarmersSon63

        Give us one name of an individual who has gotten ill or died from consuming pesticide residues on foods.
        Just one.

      • FarmersSon63

        You greatly inflate the risk, which is closer to zero than .001%
        The benefits of pesticides far outweigh the risks.
        https://imgur.com/rH6Rmqp

      • GOOSE

        Genetically engineered crops, glyphosate and the
        deterioration of health in the United States of America
        http://www.organic-systems.org/journal/92/JOS_Volume-9_Number-2_Nov_2014-Swanson-et-al.pdf

      • FarmersSon63

        Nothing but untested correlations.
        The conclusion?
        “It is our hope that, in addition to more basic research in the form
        of toxicology and carcinogenic studies, epidemiology studies will be undertaken by experts in each of these disease categories.”
        Guess what else has an increase that also shows a correlation?
        Organic food, smartphones, computer usage, hot sauce consumption, and pet rock decline.

      • GOOSE

        Sure. That is why so many people are finding that their serious unexplained medical issues got much better or resolved completely when they dumped cancer causing glyphosate laden GMO foods and switched to a clean healthy organic food diet.

        I’ll go with my experience and ignore the industry spin from agenda driven biotech chemical industry PR bot operatives.

      • FarmersSon63

        No amount of facts could make you change your mind, Ted.

      • GOOSE

        Are you talking to me?

      • patzagame

        Chlorpyrifos has been studied for decades and increasingly regulated, but it’s still used on a variety of fruits and vegetables—including apples and broccoli—that millions of American moms and dads feed their kids every day. The EPA was all set to ban those last uses due to the pesticide’s ability to damage children’s developing brains, when Pruitt abruptly changed course. Please explain this Pharmer..

      • FarmersSon63

        It is a theory that it causes problems.
        But with real world exposures, there have been zero confirmed cases in its 50 year history.

      • patzagame

        Evidence from testing done by medical professionals on children exposed to pesticides is just a “theory” to you? okaaaay,oblivious one,continue spouting your nonsense. Perhaps a trip to certain South American countries should be on your agenda.

      • FarmersSon63

        Give us the name of one individual that has been confirmed to have any ailment from it’s redidues.
        Just one.

      • patzagame

        I’d say you would make a great candidate.

      • FarmersSon63

        Not even an attempt?

    • kstillerman

      Solodoctor, thanks for reading. Just to clarify, at this point the states haven’t brought a lawsuit, though court challenges are pending from other parties. The action by the state AGs this week was a formal objection filed with EPA, in which they contend that the agency “failed to make the safety finding required by law.” The states’ filing requests that EPA respond to their objections and issue a final rule on the proposed revocation of chlorpyrifos tolerances within 60 days.” You can see the AGs’ filing in full here, https://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/2017_06_05_objections_final.pdf. We’ll update as events unfold.

      • The announcement of the states’ lawsuit comes as the saga of this pesticide continues to grow. Chlorpyrifos reportedly poisoned nearly 50 California farmworkers in an incident near Bakersfield in May.