U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth District in a 2-1 decision: "there was no justification for the EPA’s decision in its 2017 order to maintain a tolerance for chlorpyrifos in the face of scientific evidence that its residue on food causes neurodevelopmental damage to children".
Court says EPA ignored dangers of pesticide linked to brain damage in kids, orders ban. The use of this drug on foods explain why so many US-born Americans are brain dead.
The pesticide has a long and sordid history:
Chlorpyrifos was introduced in 1965 by Dow Chemical as an alternative to the controversial pesticide DDT, which was banned several years later. As health concerns rose, the federal government negotiated a settlement with the chemical industry to eliminate its use in most residential settings in 2000, but it was still permitted in agriculture. Although several companies manufacture it, Dow is still the biggest marketer of the product, according to the Natural Resources Defense Council.
According to the EPA’s website, high doses of chlorpyrifos can cause nausea, dizziness and confusion. A 2017 report in the Journal of Neurochemistry said exposure to the chemical can lead to “neurological deficits that range from cognitive impairments to tremors in childhood.”
====================================
Aug 09, 2018
By
Shelby Lin Erdman, Cox Media Group National Content Desk
SEATTLE, WASH. —
After reversing a 2015 Obama administration recommendation to extend a ban on the widely used pesticide chlorpyrifos, a Seattle appeals court has ordered the Environmental Protection Agency to ban the use of it on crops such as fruits, vegetables and nuts, according to news reports.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision Thursday, overturned former EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt’s decision to leave the pesticide on the market against the recommendations of EPA scientists, ruling that the agency offered “no defense” in delaying the ban, according to the HuffPost.
The court also said the agency offered no counter defense of “scientific evidence that its (the pesticide’s) residue on food causes neurodevelopment damage in children,” Reuters reported.
Chlorpyrifos, an organophosphate insecticide, has been used on crops since the 1960s and has been linked to brain damage and developmental disabilities in children.
New York was one of the states suing to reverse Pruitt’s decision. New York State Attorney General Barbara Underwood called the decision “a major court victory banning the Trump EPA from allowing the extremely toxic pesticide chlorpyrifos to be used on food.”
Erik Olson, a senior director with the Natural Resources Defense Council, another plaintiff in the lawsuit, said the ruling is a “victory for parents everywhere,” the HuffPost reported.
“Some things are too sacred to play politics with – and our kids top that list,” Olson said in a statement. The court has made it clear that children’s health must come before powerful polluters.
The court has given the EPA 60 days to enact the ban on chlorpyrifos.
NRDC:
BREAKING: After Trump took office, the EPA illegally delayed its ban on chlorpyrifos, so we sued and won! Today, a court ruled that @EPA must finalize its ban on the pesticide chlorpyrifos from use on produce sold in the U.S. within 60 days.
=========================================
Seattle, WA — The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency must ban a widely used organophosphate pesticide linked to brain damage in children, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled today. The appellate court ordered EPA to finalize its proposed ban on chlorpyrifos based on undisputed findings that the pesticide is unsafe for public health, and particularly harmful to children and farmworkers.
“The Court ended EPA’s shameful actions that have exposed children and farmworkers to this poison for decades,” said Earthjustice attorney Marisa Ordonia. “Finally, our fields, fruits, and vegetables will be chlorpyrifos-free.”
Chlorpyrifos is a dangerous nerve agent pesticide that can damage the developing brains of children. Prenatal and early life exposure to chlorpyrifos is linked to lower birth weight and neurodevelopmental harms, including reduced IQ, loss of working memory, attention disorders, and delayed motor development. It is also acutely toxic to farmworkers — routinely sickening workers and sending them to the hospital.
EPA had been on course to ban that pesticide before fromer EPA Administator Scott Pruitt, over a year ago, reversed EPA’s position — shortly after meeting with the head of Dow Chemical, which is the largest manufacturer of chlorpyrifos. Why? Pruitt claimed that the science behind chlorpyrifos was still “unresolved.”
“If Congress’s statutory mandates are to mean anything, the time has come to put a stop to this patent evasion.”
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals was not amused and today ordered EPA to finalize its proposed ban on chlorpyrifos based on undisputed findings that the pesticide is unsafe for public health, and particularly harmful to children and farmworkers. The court explained that enough was enough. Judge Jed S. Rakoff, who authored the majority opinion, concluded that “there was no justification for the EPA’s decision in its 2017 order to maintain a tolerance for chlorpyrifos in the face of scientific evidence that its residue on food causes neurodevelopmental damage to children.”
He wrote that “If Congress’s statutory mandates are to mean anything, the time has come to put a stop to this patent evasion.”
The lawsuit was brought by the League of United Latin American Citizens, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the United Farmworkers and 8 other organizations. The groups groups have been trying to ban chlorpyrifos since 2007. The California Farm Bureau Federation, which opposes banning the pesticide “said the chemical is used on about 1.3 million acres of state farmland and is a crucial tool in controlling pests that harm almonds, apricots, cotton and scores of other mainstay crops.” The panel vote was 2-1, with Jacqueline H. Nguyen and Rakoff supported the ban, and Ferdinand F. Fernandez dissenting, arguing that the court had no jurisdiction.
The pesticide has a long and sordid history:
Chlorpyrifos was introduced in 1965 by Dow Chemical as an alternative to the controversial pesticide DDT, which was banned several years later. As health concerns rose, the federal government negotiated a settlement with the chemical industry to eliminate its use in most residential settings in 2000, but it was still permitted in agriculture. Although several companies manufacture it, Dow is still the biggest marketer of the product, according to the Natural Resources Defense Council.
According to the EPA’s website, high doses of chlorpyrifos can cause nausea, dizziness and confusion. A 2017 report in the Journal of Neurochemistry said exposure to the chemical can lead to “neurological deficits that range from cognitive impairments to tremors in childhood.”
Things Aren’t As Bad As They Seem
Despite the claims of the Trump administration that they are rolling back regulatory protections right and left, the long administrative process and court decisions have slowed much of the destruction. A recent “fact checker” in the Washington Post awarded three Pinocchios to Vice President Pence’s claim that “This president has actually repealed 22 federal regulations for every new federal rule put on the books.” The problem is that it takes a new regulation to repeal an old regulation, and the process does not work very quickly.
A long article in Politico last April argued that
Pruitt has not yet killed or rolled back any significant regulations that were in place when President Donald Trump took office. While Pruitt is often hailed (or attacked) as Trump’s most effective (or destructive) deregulatory warrior, the recent spotlight on his ethics—allegations of a sweetheart housing deal; pay raises for favored aides; lavish spending on travel, furniture and security; and retaliation against underlings who questioned him—has arguably overshadowed his lack of regulatory rollbacks during his first 15 months in Washington. The truth is that Scott Pruitt has done a lot less to dismantle the EPA than he—or his critics—would have you believe.
But, they warn “It’s not for lack of trying. Pruitt has taken aim at just about every major Obama-era EPA rule.”
Meanwhile, inquiring minds want to know what progress EPA is making on banning methylene chloride and whether the courts will step in eventually if no action is taken.
So, the message here is “Don’t Despair.” Keep fighting the rollbacks of environmental, worker and consumer protections everywhere you can. File lawsuits, participate in regulatory hearings, submit comments, talk to the press. And most important, vote this November for representatives that promise to enforce the law, and to hold oversight hearings about why this Administration is failing in its mandate to protect the American people
============================
LULAC V.WHEELER
Case: 17-71636, 08/09/2018
SUMMARY
Pesticides
The panel granted a petition for review, and vacated the Environmental Protection Agency’s (“EPA”) 2017 order maintaining a tolerance for the pesticide chlorpyrifos, and remanded to the EPA with directions to revoke all tolerances and cancel all registrations for chlorpyrifos within 60 days.
The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (“FFDCA”) authorizes the EPA to regulate the use of pesticides on foods according to specific statutory standards, and grants the EPA a limited authority to establish tolerances for pesticides meeting statutory qualifications. The EPA is subject to safety standards in exercising its authority to register pesticides under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (“FIFRA”).
The EPA argued that FFDCA’s section 346a(g)(2)’s administrative process deprived this Court of jurisdiction until the EPA issues a response to petitioner’s administrative objections under section 346a(g)(2)(C), which it has not done to date.
The panel held that section 346a(h)(1) of the FFDCA does not “clearly state” that obtaining a section (g)(2)(C) order in response to administrative objections is a jurisdictional requirement. The panel held that section 346a(h)(1) contains no jurisdictional label, is structured as a limitation on the parties rather than the court, and only references an exhaustion process that is outlined in a separate section of the statute.
The panel held that in light of the strong individual interests against requiring exhaustion and weak institutional interests in favor of it, petitioners need not exhaust their administrative objections and were not precluded from raising issues on the merits.
Turning to the merits, the panel held that there was no justification for the EPA’s decision in its 2017 order to maintain a tolerance for chlorpyrifos in the face of scientific evidence that its residue on food causes neurodevelopmental damage to children. The panel further held that the EPA cannot refuse to act because of possible contradiction in the future by evidence. The panel held that the EPA was in direct contravention of the FFDCA and FIFRA.
Judge Fernandez dissented. Judge Fernandez would hold that there is no jurisdiction over the petition for review under FFDCA and FIFRA, and dismiss the petition.
The EPA’s 2017 Order maintaining chlorpyrifos is VACATED, and the case is remanded to the EPA with directions to revoke all tolerances and cancel all registrations for chlorpyrifos within 60 days.
==========================
Confused About Chlorpyrifos? We Have Some Answers.
By Tamika Sims, PhD | Apr 19 2017
Last updated Sep 07 2017
News stories and day-to-day conversations about the use of pesticides to protect our food supply can easily get misconstrued and leave us feeling confused about the safety of the foods we eat. We’ve even discussed the use of pesticides in both organic and conventional farming, detailing how both methods produce foods that are safe for consumption. But recent coverage of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) decision not to ban the use of a pesticide called chlorpyrifos may have left you scratching your head all over again. Let’s do a little review on chlorpyrifos to shine some light on this “old, but new” pesticide.
What is Chlorpyrifos?
Chlorpyrifos is a conventional pesticide that has been used since 1965. It is one of the most widely applied (almost 100 countries worldwide). It is utilized for protecting a number of different crops around the country including peanuts, peaches, apples, corn, oranges, sugar beets, sunflowers, cotton and alfalfa. Basically, we can thank chlorpyrifos for helping to protect many of our favorite fruits and my favorite flower!
Chlorpyrifos belongs to a class of pesticides called organophosphates, which are able to control insects such as multiple types of aphids, weevils, ants, and rootworms are among them) that might harm crops.
Setting Standards for Using Chlorpyrifos
As part of chlorpyrifos’ registration eligibility (ability to be used as a crop protection chemical), the EPA sets strict standards. For pesticides to be approved by the EPA and others, vigorous research must be performed to establish the safety guidelines for use.
Extensive research is utilized to mitigate and monitor potential human exposure. Chlorpyrifos can be used to safely protect our food supply, but proper measures need to be employed as farmers apply this pesticide to their crops. A large group of toxicological studies (laboratory animal testing and other scientific assessments) on chlorpyrifos exposure to humans and health impacts has been largely focused on occupational exposure, where levels of exposure can be high. These studies are important for ensuring the safety of workers who use it.
In addition, studies have been done to ensure that exposure to the average individual remains at a minimum. Exposure to chlorpyrifos from produce consumption is kept at a minimum level via the EPA’s tolerance establishments for pesticide residues in food. These low levels of residue exposure are established by extensive risk assessment research. Once the tolerance is set by EPA, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) enforce tolerances to ensure that the nation's food supply is maintained safely.
What Does this Mean for the Foods I Eat?
The EPA, FDA, and USDA do not recommend any change in your diet or children's based on possible chlorpyrifos exposure. Further, EPA states, “….just because a pesticide residue is detected on a fruit or vegetable, that does not mean it is unsafe.” Just like all other pesticides, used in both conventional and organic farming, the exposure to residues is monitored in our food supply.
This has also been supported by USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service’s publication of the 2015 Pesticide Data Program (PDP) Annual Summary. For more than 25 years, the PDP has tested a variety of foods including fresh and processed fruits and vegetables, dairy, meat and poultry, grains, fish, rice, specialty products, and water for the presence of pesticide residues. The most recent report notes that our food remains “safe and wholesome.”