Pesticide Atrazine: Benefits Outweigh Potential Harm To People?

Photo: KCET

Are there instances in a society where the benefit to the people outweighs the dangers?  Especially when the consumer side of the community is considered?  For example, if a chemical performs very well.  But the threat to society is high by exposing people to this chemical.  What is the right avenue to proceed down?  As a regulator, should the compound be allowed to be incorporated into a given product?  If there are inherent dangers?  What if there is no alternative chemical to the dangerous one?



In brief from Politico Agriculture, the announcement that EPA will still renew the use of the dangerous pesticide Atrazine was reported on:

EPA PUTS ATRAZINE RENEWAL ON THE TABLE: In the same announcement, the agency slid in that it's preparing to re-approve and issue new guidelines for the widely used herbicide atrazine, which is mostly used on corn but also on sugarcane and sorghum. It's also used to fight broadleaf weeds on lawns and turf.

Some research links atrazine to birth defects and cancer, and it's commonly found in waterways and drinking water. Atrazine is banned or being phased out by 35 countries, including the European Union.

To reduce hazards to humans, the EPA said it's proposing a lower use rate for residential turf applications, new protective equipment and handling requirements, and label language intended to mitigate spray drift. The agency also proposed ending an ongoing atrazine water-monitoring program.

"Although there are potential risks of concern associated with the use of atrazine, with the adoption of the mitigation measures ... any remaining potential worker and/or ecological risks are outweighed by the benefits associated with use of atrazine," the agency wrote in its proposed decision.

Green groups were quick to criticize EPA's decision. "It's absolutely shameful that while other countries are banning atrazine, the Trump administration is opening up the tap," said Nathan Donley, a scientist with the Center for Biological Diversity, in a statement. "This disgusting backward step ignores decades of research and will inflict untold damage on people, wildlife and waters across the country."

Regulators need to jump on the EPA for press releases like the one shown above.  Here, a cancer-causing (in some cases) agent is not only being allowed to be used on crops.  The same dangerous agent is going to be discontinued for monitoring in the local water supply surrounding the geographic region of choice.  What?  No more tracking in the local water supply for a dangerous chemical?  Why is Congress not stepping in and taking action?  Is Congress even aware that the decision on behalf of the EPA has been made?



Unbelievable.  The regulation does not need to be overarching and restrictive in all cases.  But having little to none results in the behavior described above. The next time that an elected leader is visiting; ask why the decision by the EPA is let to stand?  Each of us should be entitled to clean water.



Related Blog Posts:


Low Carb Action Network Wants To Change Federal Diet Advice?


Ralph Nader: Boeing’s Perilous Bungling Requires New Leadership


With Globalization, Scientists Should Be Minimizing Carbon Footprints


President Trump Goes After SNAP Recipients to Save Money?


Hemp Growers Now Is Your Chance To Comment On USDA Regulations


Mitigating Pollution from Slaughter Houses -- Why Not Try If Technology Exists?

FDA Stance On PFAS: Study Findings and Survey Results

More Congressional Hearings on PFAS, when can Americans expect Action Taken by Regulators?


Update: EPA Throws Journalists Out Of PFAS Conference - Why?


Update: Congress asks Federal Agencies about Dangerous Chemicals -- PFOA and PFOS


Congress Asks Defense Department and Environmental Protection Agency about Dangerous Chemicals