Chlorpyrifos Banned For Residential Use, But Still OK for Crops?

After the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) failed to respond to a 2007 petition requesting the ban of a toxic pesticide called chlorpyrifos, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA) are suing in federal court to force the EPA to decide on the chemical's status once and for all (PDF of lawsuit).

The pesticide, which is banned for residential use but is still sprayed on crops such as corn, cotton, alfalfa, and wheat, is described by the suing groups in a press release as "acutely poisonous and is among a class of pesticides initially developed for World War II-era chemical warfare."

U.S. crops are sprayed with between eight and ten million pounds of this toxic stuff every year. A color-coded map shows where in the country it is most heavily used, with Nebraska, Illinois, Indiana, and California's San Joaquin Valley weighing in with some of the heaviest use. Among the crops that carry its residue are all manner of common foods, such as apples, bell peppers, kale, and asparagus.

Chlorpyrifos is a very potent air contaminant, rising in gas form from leaf and soil surfaces, particularly when it's hot outside. The California Air Resources Board found that one-third of all ambient air in the San Joaquin Valley contained chlorpyrifos, at times reaching levels that represent a serious health threat to young children. And of course, those who actually work with the chemical face far more intense exposure than what is present in ambient air samples, so fieldworkers are at extreme risk. “The overwhelming evidence shows that chlorpyrifos is dangerous, especially to children and fieldworkers,” Aaron Colangelo, a senior attorney with NRDC, said in a statement.

“Chlorpyrifos is among a class of pesticides that targets developing nervous systems — in insects and humans alike. These pesticides are linked to a host of devastating diseases ranging from ADHD to childhood brain cancer,” said a senior scientist for PANNA, Margaret Reeves. “Their human health costs are just too high and farmers are farming successfully without them. There's no defensible reason for continuing to use chlorpyrifos.”

Beyond its impact on humans, Chlorpyrifos is also toxic to birds, bees, and fish, and the EPA has stated that the chemical is also a threat to small mammals. “This dangerous pesticide has no place in our fields, near our children, or on our food,” Earthjustice attorney Kevin Regan stated.

So what the heck is wrong with the EPA that the agency will ban a chemical from use in our homes and then completely ignore legitimate warnings about the dangers of using that same chemical on our food? Is it, as former employee William Sanjour writes, that "drafting and implementing rules for environmental protection means making enemies of powerful and influential people," so that "the people who get ahead are those clever ones with a talent for procrastination, obfuscation, and coming up with superficially plausible reasons for accomplishing nothing"?

Or is it that they are convinced by Dow AgroScience's reasoning that calling the chemical's safety into question is unfair because "oral doses of chlorpyrifos are about 100 times less toxic than chemical warfare agents." Greeeeat. So next time someone tells me I shouldn't flavor my breakfast cereal with rat poison, I'll just respond that at least it's 100 times less toxic than Agent Orange. And where else could I get that great, nutty flavor?

Photo: resignent via stock.xchng