A commonly used pesticide has been ban by the EPA due to irreversible damage on unborn children
News Article: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/epa-ban-dcpa-pesticide-unborn-babies/
DCPA, a pesticide sold under the brand name Dacthal is a weed killer and used to control weed growth surrounding certain vegetables like broccoli, cabbages, onions and some fruits as well. Interestingly the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been trying to gather data for the pesticide DCPA from the company that sell Dacthal, but no data was ever released until November of 2023.
DCPA has adverse effects on the development of the fetus's thyroid hormone levels, thus leading to impairment on brain development, result in lower IQ and potentially impaired motor skills. All of which can result in irreversible damage. It is not known whether the company had already done those studies and these effects were already known for a while, hence why the EPA has decided to incorporate a ban on the pesticide after failure of the company's administration to provide the necessary paperwork and studies for over a decade. According to an article published on Science of The Total Environment, it could potentially also lead to cancer.
However, the study that the news article references is not necessary about DCPA. In essence is a study that finds out that the top pesticides in terms of toxicity-weighted use are Chlorpyrifos, thiram, mancozeb, and chlorothalonil on Ventura County in California. That is out of the reported 17 million pounds of pesticides used in that county between 2016-2018. FYI: DCPA is not even on the top ones.
The study breaks down the pesticides into two categories: Amount used, and Toxicity index of the pesticide itself. Then they correlate both categories to find out which of the used pesticides is more toxic based on both the amount used and how toxic it's potentially. We can see DCPA is around the mid-low end of the graphs, whereas just by looking at the article you would expect it to see it amongst the most toxic ones. Bear in mind, using around a million pounds of a mid-toxic compound can be just as equally bad or more as using less of a highly toxic one. Sometimes the amount used can overweight the toxicity index.
In addition to assessing their toxicity, they also report that it's mostly non-white neighborhoods that uses the higher amount of these toxic pesticides, claiming that there is a disparity in pesticide use. It's mostly the non-Caucasian neighborhoods that are at risk of developing health problems due to the pesticide use.
The problem in particular with DCPA is that is very commonly used and sold since the 1960s and it wasn't only until November of 2023 that the company that makes it finally released the studies to the EPA, which have no resulted in the pesticide being banned. It pretty much would affect unborn babies, probably increasing the mortality rate of babies born from parents that were exposed to DCPA.
I would gave the article a 4 out of 10... being kind because it does raise awareness of the problems with DCPA and how it's important to push companies for data regarding chemical products. However, the article it cites as source has almost no correlation to it whatsoever, except that DCPA is amongst the 20+ pesticides the article works with. What I want you to think about is that, that is how most of the news articles that you find on social medias like Facebook, Instagram, Thread, etc. and it's usually seniors who look at them and take their word as absolute but while in this case it does raise awareness about ONE specific pesticide, it doesn't even scrape the surface of the issue.
There are multiple reports of pesticides already being absorbed by fruits, where if you were to bite into an apple, the peel does contain traces of pesticides and since they're organic, water won't remove them. Additionally they may have already seeped through into the pulp!!
Highly recommend to read this news article and check it's sources: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/apr/18/what-is-pesticide-safety-organic-fruits-vegetables
You will find more data there.
Thanks and keep a sharp eye out there!!
~Emanuel Rivera 🐾🐾
This has been an issue since modern agricultural practices started. The EPA’s recent suspension of DCPA is a much-needed action on a problem that’s been around for far too long. It’s concerning that a chemical with known health risks could stay in use despite growing evidence over the years. This decision is a reminder of how important it is to have timely reporting, stronger oversight, and a more proactive approach when it comes to regulating substances that affect both people and the environment. It’s encouraging to see progress, but it also shows how much work is still needed.
ReplyDeleteYes! I totally agree. Honestly it's kind of crazy that the EPA has been asking for documentation for years and only two years ago they actually received something! It shows how sometimes the priority are profits are above everything these days.
DeleteGreat blog post! I'm a bit shocked that DCPA has been used since the 60's, but studies about it were only released two years ago. I'm curious, is this pesticide something that people can use in their own personal gardens as a weed killer, or is it mostly used on larger scale farms? As someone who grew up with a large garden, I'm hoping that any of the weed killers we may have used didn't contain any of these harmful chemicals, but I'm sure they did. Very interesting!
ReplyDeleteI would assume that any farmer can buy it. Hard to say how much it would've cost before the ban, but I think it's been used more industrially on big farms rather than personal gardens, otherwise it wouldn't have gotten much attention I believe. There is research done on using natural herbicides from plant extracts. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e36088 so hopefully we will get alternatives soon. I even saw that stink bugs can be used as biological control for other species because of their pheromones.
DeleteI read the original article, and honestly, it doesn’t really explain the actual reasons why DCPA is considered toxic. It just keeps repeating how dangerous it is, like a constant warning without digging into the science behind it. It almost feels like a sudden announcement from multiple organizations joining forces to say, “This is super dangerous, it’s banned.”
ReplyDeleteI’m not really sure who this kind of news is aimed at. But if the goal is to make most users think twice before using it, I guess it works. Not everyone needs to understand the deep logic, sometimes it’s enough to just hear “don’t use this” over and over to get the message.
But for people like us, who naturally stay skeptical, we want to know more. That’s why Emanuel looked into the research and found that DCPA isn’t actually that toxic, and how much you use also matters a lot. So he ended up with a more balanced view.
If we’re just talking about casual reading, I think the article is fine at least it left me with a strong impression like, “okay, this stuff is toxic, better not mess with it.”
Yeah, the article doesn't really say anything if you read it carefully. It's like you say, sometimes they just find a source, cherry pick ONLY a specific set of data to bring their message of "This is bad, avoid this. It's bad for you at all costs." without giving alternatives or options, or even attempting to educate a little bit on the subject. Sadly that is how social media works and it's what is most profitable online. Make your news sound as "click bait" as you can so people click on it and you get money from using Ads in the website. >w<
DeleteThis was a great blog post that really emphasizes the point of the assignment. This article makes a great example of how despite proper sources, if framed properly an author can push whatever message they want to across. I was curious, you mentioned DDT as a chemical in the past that had posed a risk for birds. What was the source of DDT and how did they address it?I have never heard of this situation before. Thank you for your blog post!
ReplyDeleteI believe it was around the mid 1940s where DDT began widespread as the best insecticide, like an insect bomb. And then it's around those years that people, Rachel Carson included started looking into it. Around the '60s is when she published her findings on DDT. It's around these years that the EPA started pushing to ban DDT and it wasn't until 1972 that it went into effect. It was first used in WWII to control Malaria, Lice, even the bacteria that caused the bubonic plague was killed with DDT. Problem was, it's a fat soluble molecule, so it's very persistent.
DeleteThere's been other problems with pesticides around these years. You can check the cranberry scandal where a bunch of cranberry crops where contaminated with high levels of a cancerous weed killer.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteCool post Emanuel! As someone who grew up in a family who pushed organic produce, I would be interested in knowing what kind of pesticide levels are found in the food we consume. Are these health effects listed based solely on proximity to the farms using these products or more on the end of the line consumption? I find the article is mostly aimed at protecting the farm workers but fails to make the connection to the broader consumer.
ReplyDeleteThat is a good observation too. That's another side of this story, how would these eventually carry over and affect the consumers. There are set levels of "tolerance" but research groups have found that sometimes it exceeds the Maximum residual limit (MRLs).
Deletehttps://doi.org/10.3390/molecules27228072
These amounts are generally in the microgram per kilogram of the produce though, but in that study they found that 40% of the pesticides found in some of them exceed the MRLs, in which around 2% of those are high enough to cause chronic effects on the consumer. So it is out there and well known, but with so many products on the market, I honestly can't think of a way to realistically keep everything in check. It's rough out here man.
To me, this really highlights how little we know about what goes into growing and maintaining our food supply. I always take issue with news articles focused on the dangers of specific foods or growing processes because most people don’t eat enough produce anyway. On the other hand, there are parts of the products we consume that are detrimental to our health. You remind us that it’s most important to understand the information being presented so that we can make informed decisions. One of the most vital skills of living in this world is critical thinking.
ReplyDelete"One of the most vital skills of living in this world is critical thinking." 👏🏽 OH 👏🏽 MY 👏🏽 G aWD👏🏽you have no idea how many times I've said this too!! Now a days common sense its Rare sense and critical thinking is dying. It's funny because the reason why I chose this article, even though it's not the best, it's because that is how A LOT of articles are now-a-days and people just click on them when scrolling facebook and unless they know any better, they'll take their message as absolute. It's very ironic how growing up, adults where telling us that not everything on the internet is real and we'd have to be careful. Yet now, we as adults are having to remind this exact concept to seniors and sometimes the younger gens as well 😅
DeleteOh wow I know that book silent spring. In fact this is the same thing during the Vietnam war. US spread the orange agent on the Vietnam jungles to let the enemy not camouflage and hide in the forests, but those toxic residue makes not only Vietnam people sick, but also the veterans of US. I think the author should also talk about some alternatives. OK you do not use these toxic things, but you still need pesticides. What should you use? He should provide some directions on this as well
ReplyDeleteomg yes, Agent Orange was a bit of a beast because it would even just go as far as to remove leaves from trees. The author of the article doesn't really say anything at all about alternatives. I know Rachel Carson did suggest some, but it's just way easier to spray a synthetic compound rather than implementing natural alternatives like using insect's own chemicals as insecticides, which I wonder if some groups are currently looking into. Something I can think of is extracting herbicides, insecticides or fungicides from bacteria or other plant sources and potentially using those natural compounds as a scaffold to synthesize newer ones that would act like the natural ones do. Again, easier said that done I suppose. Another suggestion I've seen is using some insects or animals that are natural predators and/or thrive eating off what "we" consider a pest, but then the question becomes, can we control the population of these after a while? Or what would the ecological impact be on the area if they become hard to control.
ReplyDeleteI really liked your post Emanuel. I think this was a really good and refreshing take on the assignment as it seems as though everyone articles and scientific papers have been closely related; however, you took an example in which the article really glosses over the main point of the paper. Did the news article have any other sources they took from or was it more so acting as if their statements were absolute because of some scientific backing. Additionally, do you think there’s anyway we can prevent this type of data misrepresentation.
ReplyDeleteThis article brings attention to a critical issue, but it’s disappointing that the source it cites doesn’t strongly support its claims. Still, it highlights the importance of demanding transparency from chemical companies and ensuring that substances like DCPA are properly studied before they’re allowed in our food system. By the way, how can we make sure companies are held accountable for withholding safety data on chemicals used in agriculture?
ReplyDeleteThis article was surprising to see after I read your post. It's so weird that they focused on the same chemical when there's so many to worry about. It makes sense to cover the topic of it being banned, but it's odd to completely ignore the fact that there's so many other compounds to be concerned about being in our ecosystem. I wonder how this compound is affecting other living organisms (other than the bugs it's supposed to be killing).
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed reading your post! I agree that this news article really overlooks the main topic of the research they cite. As you mentioned, this seems to be a constant issue with most mainstream news companies, especially when portraying scientific data to the public. It definitely worries me what other lies people will believe if they get it from a 'trustworthy' source. It just goes to show that you should not always believe what you read. Trust, but verify!
ReplyDelete