Dozens of farm workers became violently ill only weeks after Trump lifted ban on insecticide

[phands]

Yet another act of vileness from the Tangerine Turd....

In March 2017, one of the first orders of business for the freshly confirmed EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt was to lift the ban on the pesticide, chlorpyrifos. Caving to the demands of their swampy benefactors, Pruitt announced they would lift the ban, rejecting the findings of scientists at the EPA. From the New York Times in March 2017:

Scott Pruitt, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency, moved late on Wednesday to reject the scientific conclusion of the agency’s own chemical safety experts who under the Obama administration recommended that one of the nation’s most widely used insecticides be permanently banned at farms nationwide because of the harm it potentially causes children and farm workers.
​

Mega-corporation Dow Chemical had lobbied to lift the ban and so it was done. The ban was lifted despite evidence it caused “significant health consequences” for farm workers and young children exposed to it in drinking water. Almost immediately after the ban was lifted, dozens of California farmworkers became extremely ill after a nearby farmer sprayed chlorpyrifos on his orchard. From the New York Times:

For 37 mostly female farm-workers in California's Central Valley, U.S. policy under Environmental Protection Agency chief Scott Pruitt became personal not long after sunup one day in May 2017.
Picking cabbage that morning, the workers noticed a tarry smell drifting from a nearby orchard. Mouths and lips tingled or went numb. Throats went dry. Soon some workers were vomiting and collapsing.
​

The farmer “misapplied” the chlorpyrifos to his crops. Is there any doubt this would be banned if it were affecting suburban Republican voters and their children? Exposing these farm workers and their young children to a harmful pesticide is environmental racism at its worst.

Every day, in every way, trumpo proves that he's a total cunt.

 

[dismal]

Seems like there's a facts oopsie here.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chlorpyrifos

 

[bilby]

Seems like there's a facts oopsie here.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chlorpyrifos

Does it? I can't see anything in that Wikipedia entry that contradicts anything in the OP - Can you quote the specific 'fact' that you think is an 'oopsie'?

 

[dismal]

Seems like there's a facts oopsie here.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chlorpyrifos

Does it? I can't see anything in that Wikipedia entry that contradicts anything in the OP - Can you quote the specific 'fact' that you think is an 'oopsie'?

In English when we say "lifted a ban" there generally needs to have been a ban at some point. Trump basically continued the status quo. But of course who can forget that there were frequent threads here about Obama being Hitler for not banning chlorfrypoiosis right?

 

[bilby]

Seems like there's a facts oopsie here.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chlorpyrifos

Does it? I can't see anything in that Wikipedia entry that contradicts anything in the OP - Can you quote the specific 'fact' that you think is an 'oopsie'?

In English when we say "lifted a ban" there generally needs to have been a ban at some point. Trump basically continued the status quo. But of course who can forget that there were frequent threads here about Obama being Hitler for not banning chlorfrypoiosis right?

Hmm.

From your link:

In 2007 Pesticide Action Network North America and Natural Resources Defense Council (collectively, PANNA) submitted an administrative petition requesting a chlorpyrifos ban. On August 10, 2015, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in PANNA v. EPA ordered the EPA to respond to PANNA's petition by "revok[ing] all tolerances for the insecticide chlorpyrifos", den[ying] the Petition or [issuing] a "proposed or final tolerance revocation" no later than October 31, 2015. The EPA was "unable to conclude that the risk from aggregate exposure from the use of chlorpyrifos [met] the safety standard of section 408(b)(2) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA)" and therefore proposed "to revoke all tolerances for chlorpyrifos."
...
n November 2016, the EPA reassessed its ban proposal after taking into consideration recommendations made by the agency’s Science Advisory Panel which had rejected the EPA’s methodology in quantifying the risk posed by chlorpyrifos. Using a different methodology as suggested by the panel, the EPA retained its decision to completely ban chlorpyrifos. The EPA concluded that, while “uncertainties” remain, a number of studies provide “sufficient evidence” that children experience neurodevelopment effects even at low levels of chlorpyrifos exposure.

(my bold)

So according to your source, there was indeed a ban from October 2015, which was continued after a review in November 2016, and then lifted by the EPA under Scott Pruitt in 2017.

Even Scott Pruitt said there was a ban:

By reversing the previous administration’s steps to ban one of the most widely used pesticides in the world, we are returning to using sound science in decision-making – rather than predetermined results.
— Statement by Scott Pruitt, EPA, Administrator March 29, 2017

(also from your link).

The only 'facts oopsie' I see here is your implication that there was not a ban, and the claim that "Trump basically continued the status quo", both of which are contradicted by the link you provided as evidence of an alleged 'facts oopsie'.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Okay, but did you read the alt facts version with conservative blinders on? In that version, it says whatever conservatives want it to say.

 

[dismal]

Okay, but did you read the alt facts version with conservative blinders on? In that version, it says whatever conservatives want it to say.

Hmm, I read it again. It still says nothing to suggest there was ever a ban.

In your version of reality, exactly what dates was the ban in place? Please provide support.

 

[starwater]

Okay, but did you read the alt facts version with conservative blinders on? In that version, it says whatever conservatives want it to say.

Hmm, I read it again. It still says nothing to suggest there was ever a ban.

In your version of reality, exactly what dates was the ban in place? Please provide support.

Okay in your version of "whatabouts" you are deflecting that this insecticide is bad for people and should be banned. so are you implying it's okay to use ?

 

[dismal]

Okay, but did you read the alt facts version with conservative blinders on? In that version, it says whatever conservatives want it to say.

Hmm, I read it again. It still says nothing to suggest there was ever a ban.

In your version of reality, exactly what dates was the ban in place? Please provide support.

Okay in your version of "whatabouts" you are deflecting that this insecticide is bad for people and should be banned. so are you implying it's okay to use ?

I haven't read all the science. I did read that it has seen widespread use for decades in over 100 countries and the evidence against it seems not to be particularly clear cut. They seem to have had to change their approach to justify the proposed ban.

All that aside, this was Trump bashing thread not a chloropaioahois science thread. Unless you can point me to all the previous threads here on the massive dangers of chlorposppesaia and how Obama was literally Hitler for allowing its use for those 8 years he was President.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Okay, but did you read the alt facts version with conservative blinders on? In that version, it says whatever conservatives want it to say.

Hmm, I read it again. It still says nothing to suggest there was ever a ban.

In your version of reality, exactly what dates was the ban in place? Please provide support.

Okay in your version of "whatabouts" you are deflecting that this insecticide is bad for people and should be banned. so are you implying it's okay to use ?

He appears to be saying it isn't uniquely on Trump as the thread title claims. That doesn't speak to if it is bad. Its best to give the benefit of the doubt here and not presume he doesn't think it is bad.

 

[ZiprHead]

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-reverses-insecticide-ban-dow-chemicals/

One of the actions resulting from this review was a 2000 ban on chlorpyrifos for nearly all residential and indoor uses:

This action comes after completing the most extensive scientific review of the potential hazards from a pesticide ever conducted. This action — the result of an agreement with the manufacturers — will significantly minimize potential health risks from exposure to Dursban, also called chlorpyrifos, for all Americans, especially children.

 

[dismal]

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-reverses-insecticide-ban-dow-chemicals/

One of the actions resulting from this review was a 2000 ban on chlorpyrifos for nearly all residential and indoor uses:

This action comes after completing the most extensive scientific review of the potential hazards from a pesticide ever conducted. This action — the result of an agreement with the manufacturers — will significantly minimize potential health risks from exposure to Dursban, also called chlorpyrifos, for all Americans, especially children.

Tip: This is not a discussion of residential uses.

 

[ZiprHead]

Well, now I'm going to go all dismal on you and say "But it says ban right there."

 

[dismal]

Well, now I'm going to go all dismal on you and say "But it says ban right there."

I like when mods go straight to unmerited personal attacks on forummers. Really uplifts the quality of the forum.

 

[scombrid]

Okay in your version of "whatabouts" you are deflecting that this insecticide is bad for people and should be banned. so are you implying it's okay to use ?

He appears to be saying it isn't uniquely on Trump as the thread title claims.

Scott Pruitt's unilateral action to stop the process of banning the substance is uniquely on Trump/Pruitt.

EPA moves pretty slow on things, especially things that cause a lot of economic disruption if suddenly regulated. Contrary to common Pruitt/Trump/Teabertarian claims, EPA does consider economic impacts from regulatory action, cost benefit analysis and what not. It took almost a decade to get EPA to start moving on this type of organophosphate neurotoxin but movement was happening. He is being disingenuous when he claims that people can't be critical of Pruitt/Trump on this matter because they weren't similarly critical of Obama. Obama and Obama's EPA didn't treat this issue in the same way as Pruitt.

That doesn't speak to if it is bad. Its best to give the benefit of the doubt here and not presume he doesn't think it is bad.

No, his post where he points out that it has been used for a long time and that EPA "had to change their process to justify the proposed ban", is him saying that he doesn't think it is bad.

This type of thing can show an interesting look into how group loyalty shapes perception. A lot of the Trump base are the anti-establishment sort that believe that big agriculture and big chemical have totally corrupted the regulatory process. They have surpassed the typical left wing noise in the realm of spreading conspiracy theories about MONSANTO! et al. Many of them complained about Nestle stomping all over local water rights. Now we have Trump/Pruitt doing the bidding of Dow chemical with respect to blocking pesticide regulation and Trump's folks doing Nestlé's bidding on the issue of breast feeding. Will they complain about the swampiness of those relationships?

 

[ZiprHead]

Well, now I'm going to go all dismal on you and say "But it says ban right there."

I like when mods go straight to unmerited personal attacks on forummers. Really uplifts the quality of the forum.

I'm not a mod. Report it if you feel insulted enough. But note how insulting it is to us when you do it.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I like when random posters on the Intertubes make excuses for corrupt politicians unbanning harmful chemicals. Really uplifts the quality of the country.

 

[dismal]

Well, now I'm going to go all dismal on you and say "But it says ban right there."

I like when mods go straight to unmerited personal attacks on forummers. Really uplifts the quality of the forum.

I'm not a mod. Report it if you feel insulted enough. But note how insulting it is to us when you do it.

I mainly feel you made yourself look bad so I'm OK leaving it up for all to see.

 

[dismal]

No, his post where he points out that it has been used for a long time and that EPA "had to change their process to justify the proposed ban", is him saying that he doesn't think it is bad.

You mean in the same post where I said I haven't reviewed the science about how bad it is?

This type of thing can show an interesting look into how group loyalty shapes perception. A lot of the Trump base

I am not in anyway part of the "Trump base".

Being against the crazy shit the Trump derangement crowd spews is not the same as being pro-Trump.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

... chlorpyrifos ...

... chlorfrypoiosis ...

... chloropaioahois ....

... chlorposppesaia ....

dismal, are you looking up the right thing?