4 ms·

Great! But the EPA classified DCPA as a "likely carcinogen" 29 years ago. Why does it take 30 years to stop spraying the stuff?

yesco 2y ago
[flagged]
gruez 2y ago
>Great! But the EPA classified DCPA as a "likely carcinogen" 29 years ago Is this the same list as the IARC group 2A list, which contains stuff like red meat, hot beverages, and french fries[1]? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acrylamide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acrylamide
- delichon 2y ago
  Red meat is on IARC 2A: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IARC_group_2A https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IARC_group_2A. The IARC is an agency of the World Health Organization, so these lists don't impose any obligations on the FDA.
  - TeaBrain 2y ago
    The parent comment's mention of the IARC list is completely irrelevant. IARC doesn't have anything to do with the EPA. Edit: Prior to it being edited, the comment I responded to here posed the question to the original IARC comment of whether the EPA could ban red meat due to it classified as a carcinogen by IARC.
  - stonemetal12 2y ago
    Isn't that their point? If the Chemical in question is a carcinogen, but a weak one categorized the same way as other foods like red meat, then it probably isn't going to get banned.
    - TeaBrain 2y ago
      The parent of their comment seems to be confused by how the EPA and IARC are not related, so I don't think they do have a point. Prior to my comment, the comment you responded to originally posed the question of whether the EPA could ban red meat due to it being on IARCs list, before being stealth edited.
      - mmcdermott 2y ago
        I don't think the point was organizational, that decisions by the IARC must be respected by the EPA, but more common sensical: if a substance is roughly equivalent in risk to food, which is ingested, then it surely can't be more harmful to spray it than it is to eat it. That may not hold in all situations, but it doesn't seem crazy as a general principle.
- TeaBrain 2y ago
  Why bring this IARC list up out of the blue? The parent comment mentioned an EPA classification and you brought up a list of IARC classifications. The EPA and IARC frequently disagree on their classifications.
  - jws 2y ago
    Probably because you don't find a list from the EPA. The two categories are very similar, they are sort of aimed at the same result but have slightly different criteria. e.g. the EPA considers exposure levels, IARC requires at least some human evidence. So you wouldn't say one is stricter than the other, just different ways of skinning a cat.
rsynnott 2y ago
In this case it doesn't seem to have been due to its carcinogen classification, but due to fetal toxicity.
- culi 2y ago
  Birth defects > DCPA exposure in pregnant women can cause thyroid level changes in their unborn babies. These changes are linked to low birth weight, impaired brain development, decreased IQ and impaired motor skills later in life.
croes 2y ago
Lobbyists?
- culi 2y ago
  Don't know why you're downvoted. In both the EPA and the USDA scientists only play a consultant role. Their advice has no teeth. No actual power on the final decisions made by the organizations. Industry representatives are "in the room where it happens" much more so than scientists
blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
I think an even better question is why private organizations are allowed to spray random chemicals all over the environment without the safety being proven first. This will keep happening with some new alternative substance if the current approach continues.
- mschuster91 2y ago
  The fundamental divide in approaching regulation between the US and Europe. The US prefers libertarianism and only regulates (if at all) when problems grow so large they cannot be swept under the rug any more, while European countries generally prefer "big governments" that have an obligation to protect every single citizen. The US may have more innovation and a more powerful economy as a result, but at least we don't have drinking water taps that can be set ablaze because the drinking water is oversaturated with fracking gas.
  - CarpaDorada 2y ago
    As a European I find your assessment appalling. The oft repeated lie that Europe has protected its citizens against anything is bizarre, European governments only protect their big governments. The ban of US pesticides is to stifle American infiltration of EU agriculture, and basically every other law can be viewed under this lens. It is as if people live in a lie, they do not understand what has taken place in the past 200 years, the devastating destruction of the environment with pollution worldwide. As for protecting its citizens, what can really be said about this other than: ignorance is bliss.
    - biorach 2y ago
      > The ban of US pesticides is to stifle American infiltration of EU agriculture, and basically every other law can be viewed under this lens. You really really need to cite some sources for this
      - CarpaDorada 2y ago
        For my own opinions, if you'd like to hear more, you can just ask me. I will only provide the citation as a one-off... <https://www.britannica.com/topic/agriculture/Economics-politics-and-agriculture https://www.britannica.com/topic/agriculture/Economics-polit...>: >Agriculture has always been influenced by the actions of governments around the world. Never has this been more evident than during the first half of the 20th century, when two major wars profoundly disrupted food production. In response to the tumultuous economic climate, European countries implemented tariffs and other measures to protect local agriculture. ---Rasmussen, Wayne D. , Mellanby, Kenneth , Nair, Kusum , Gray, Alic William , Ordish, George , Crawford, Gary W. and Fussell, George Edwin. "origins of agriculture". Encyclopedia Britannica, 28 Oct. 2024, https://www.britannica.com/topic/agriculture https://www.britannica.com/topic/agriculture. Accessed 30 October 2024. This puts it in the context of WW2. Here's one example where you find the opposite of "protections" at play: in the US you need prescriptions for antibiotics, in EU 7% is without. <https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/sante/newsletter-archives/4487 https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/sante/newsletter-archives/4487> (their PDF link is broken; one that works is <https://health.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2020-06/amr_arna_report_20170717_en_0.pdf https://health.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2020-06/amr_arna_re...> "Antimicrobial resistance and causes of non-prudent use of antibiotics in human medicine in the EU" (2017)) Here's their Figure 2.6 e.g. <https://imgur.com/a/wLfoV7h https://imgur.com/a/wLfoV7h>.
BJones12 2y ago
"Carcinogenic risk estimate for exposure to DCPA, HCB, and dioxin/furans through food were 3.5e-7, and 7e-8, respectively. All of these risk estimates are within the range (zero to 1e-6) generally considered to be negligible by the Agency. Thus, the Agency concludes that DCPA use does not pose a significant excess lifetime cancer risk." [0] [0] https://www3.epa.gov/pesticides/chem_search/reg_actions/reregistration/fs_G-31_1-Nov-98.pdf https://www3.epa.gov/pesticides/chem_search/reg_actions/rere...
- culi 2y ago
  And now in 2024 they've issued an emergency order... > Effective Aug. 7, DCPA may not be sold, distributed or used in any manner. Consumers with current stocks of the product cannot use it. We need to start retesting pesticide safety more often and be more strict. Currently pesticides are only rechecked every 15 years
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - parineum 2y ago
    How about they just recheck when there is data to show their previous decision is wrong? What's the point of looking at the same data every 15 years?
  - toofy 2y ago
    while i whole heartedly agree, science and testing takes funding and being more strict requires teeth. neither of which is a popular idea with some people. being more strict would show results, but like above, showing results isn’t a popular idea with some people, they need inefficiencies to point towards.
jws 2y ago
For the EPA, "likely carcinogen" means: • There is evidence of carcinogenicity in animals. (Multiple, consistent studies) • The substance is shown to directly or indirectly cause chromosomal damage or mutations in a way that is relevant to humans. • There are no or limited human studies, they are inconclusive, or otherwise inadequate. ((Note: This is sort of a "Why isn't this classified higher?" factor.)). ((If a substance isn't in widespread use, it is kind of hard to design an ethical human study. I mean, you aren't going to have some of your test subjects drink a bunch of likely carcinogen each morning.)) So this is a a classification for "Let's maybe not go nuts with this stuff, and someone really ought to check this out. And if you plan to ship tons of this stuff you might want to talk to your lawyers and lawsuit judgement mitigation team." I didn't manage to find an exhaustive list of things the EPA has listed with this, but I found one that included higher risks as well, and in my little warehouse/workshop I identified 8 things at a casual glance that I have in inventory or generate. Proper use of these have minimal exposure to my squishy bits for most of them, and the others a well informed user should know to take adequate precautions. (e.g. "wood dust": wear a respirator) The US does not currently fund the EPA to commission studies to further investigate likely carcinogens, so they stay on the list for ages.

yesco 2y ago

[flagged]

gruez 2y ago

>Great! But the EPA classified DCPA as a "likely carcinogen" 29 years ago Is this the same list as the IARC group 2A list, which contains stuff like red meat, hot beverages, and french fries[1]? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acrylamide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acrylamide

delichon 2y ago
Red meat is on IARC 2A: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IARC_group_2A https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IARC_group_2A. The IARC is an agency of the World Health Organization, so these lists don't impose any obligations on the FDA.
- TeaBrain 2y ago
  The parent comment's mention of the IARC list is completely irrelevant. IARC doesn't have anything to do with the EPA. Edit: Prior to it being edited, the comment I responded to here posed the question to the original IARC comment of whether the EPA could ban red meat due to it classified as a carcinogen by IARC.
- stonemetal12 2y ago
  Isn't that their point? If the Chemical in question is a carcinogen, but a weak one categorized the same way as other foods like red meat, then it probably isn't going to get banned.
  - TeaBrain 2y ago
    The parent of their comment seems to be confused by how the EPA and IARC are not related, so I don't think they do have a point. Prior to my comment, the comment you responded to originally posed the question of whether the EPA could ban red meat due to it being on IARCs list, before being stealth edited.
    - mmcdermott 2y ago
      I don't think the point was organizational, that decisions by the IARC must be respected by the EPA, but more common sensical: if a substance is roughly equivalent in risk to food, which is ingested, then it surely can't be more harmful to spray it than it is to eat it. That may not hold in all situations, but it doesn't seem crazy as a general principle.
TeaBrain 2y ago
Why bring this IARC list up out of the blue? The parent comment mentioned an EPA classification and you brought up a list of IARC classifications. The EPA and IARC frequently disagree on their classifications.
- jws 2y ago
  Probably because you don't find a list from the EPA. The two categories are very similar, they are sort of aimed at the same result but have slightly different criteria. e.g. the EPA considers exposure levels, IARC requires at least some human evidence. So you wouldn't say one is stricter than the other, just different ways of skinning a cat.

rsynnott 2y ago

In this case it doesn't seem to have been due to its carcinogen classification, but due to fetal toxicity.

culi 2y ago
Birth defects > DCPA exposure in pregnant women can cause thyroid level changes in their unborn babies. These changes are linked to low birth weight, impaired brain development, decreased IQ and impaired motor skills later in life.

croes 2y ago

Lobbyists?

culi 2y ago
Don't know why you're downvoted. In both the EPA and the USDA scientists only play a consultant role. Their advice has no teeth. No actual power on the final decisions made by the organizations. Industry representatives are "in the room where it happens" much more so than scientists

blackeyeblitzar 2y ago

I think an even better question is why private organizations are allowed to spray random chemicals all over the environment without the safety being proven first. This will keep happening with some new alternative substance if the current approach continues.

mschuster91 2y ago
The fundamental divide in approaching regulation between the US and Europe. The US prefers libertarianism and only regulates (if at all) when problems grow so large they cannot be swept under the rug any more, while European countries generally prefer "big governments" that have an obligation to protect every single citizen. The US may have more innovation and a more powerful economy as a result, but at least we don't have drinking water taps that can be set ablaze because the drinking water is oversaturated with fracking gas.
- CarpaDorada 2y ago
  As a European I find your assessment appalling. The oft repeated lie that Europe has protected its citizens against anything is bizarre, European governments only protect their big governments. The ban of US pesticides is to stifle American infiltration of EU agriculture, and basically every other law can be viewed under this lens. It is as if people live in a lie, they do not understand what has taken place in the past 200 years, the devastating destruction of the environment with pollution worldwide. As for protecting its citizens, what can really be said about this other than: ignorance is bliss.
  - biorach 2y ago
    > The ban of US pesticides is to stifle American infiltration of EU agriculture, and basically every other law can be viewed under this lens. You really really need to cite some sources for this
    - CarpaDorada 2y ago
      For my own opinions, if you'd like to hear more, you can just ask me. I will only provide the citation as a one-off... <https://www.britannica.com/topic/agriculture/Economics-politics-and-agriculture https://www.britannica.com/topic/agriculture/Economics-polit...>: >Agriculture has always been influenced by the actions of governments around the world. Never has this been more evident than during the first half of the 20th century, when two major wars profoundly disrupted food production. In response to the tumultuous economic climate, European countries implemented tariffs and other measures to protect local agriculture. ---Rasmussen, Wayne D. , Mellanby, Kenneth , Nair, Kusum , Gray, Alic William , Ordish, George , Crawford, Gary W. and Fussell, George Edwin. "origins of agriculture". Encyclopedia Britannica, 28 Oct. 2024, https://www.britannica.com/topic/agriculture https://www.britannica.com/topic/agriculture. Accessed 30 October 2024. This puts it in the context of WW2. Here's one example where you find the opposite of "protections" at play: in the US you need prescriptions for antibiotics, in EU 7% is without. <https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/sante/newsletter-archives/4487 https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/sante/newsletter-archives/4487> (their PDF link is broken; one that works is <https://health.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2020-06/amr_arna_report_20170717_en_0.pdf https://health.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2020-06/amr_arna_re...> "Antimicrobial resistance and causes of non-prudent use of antibiotics in human medicine in the EU" (2017)) Here's their Figure 2.6 e.g. <https://imgur.com/a/wLfoV7h https://imgur.com/a/wLfoV7h>.

BJones12 2y ago

"Carcinogenic risk estimate for exposure to DCPA, HCB, and dioxin/furans through food were 3.5e-7, and 7e-8, respectively. All of these risk estimates are within the range (zero to 1e-6) generally considered to be negligible by the Agency. Thus, the Agency concludes that DCPA use does not pose a significant excess lifetime cancer risk." [0] [0] https://www3.epa.gov/pesticides/chem_search/reg_actions/reregistration/fs_G-31_1-Nov-98.pdf https://www3.epa.gov/pesticides/chem_search/reg_actions/rere...

culi 2y ago
And now in 2024 they've issued an emergency order... > Effective Aug. 7, DCPA may not be sold, distributed or used in any manner. Consumers with current stocks of the product cannot use it. We need to start retesting pesticide safety more often and be more strict. Currently pesticides are only rechecked every 15 years
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- parineum 2y ago
  How about they just recheck when there is data to show their previous decision is wrong? What's the point of looking at the same data every 15 years?
- toofy 2y ago
  while i whole heartedly agree, science and testing takes funding and being more strict requires teeth. neither of which is a popular idea with some people. being more strict would show results, but like above, showing results isn’t a popular idea with some people, they need inefficiencies to point towards.

jws 2y ago

For the EPA, "likely carcinogen" means: • There is evidence of carcinogenicity in animals. (Multiple, consistent studies) • The substance is shown to directly or indirectly cause chromosomal damage or mutations in a way that is relevant to humans. • There are no or limited human studies, they are inconclusive, or otherwise inadequate. ((Note: This is sort of a "Why isn't this classified higher?" factor.)). ((If a substance isn't in widespread use, it is kind of hard to design an ethical human study. I mean, you aren't going to have some of your test subjects drink a bunch of likely carcinogen each morning.)) So this is a a classification for "Let's maybe not go nuts with this stuff, and someone really ought to check this out. And if you plan to ship tons of this stuff you might want to talk to your lawyers and lawsuit judgement mitigation team." I didn't manage to find an exhaustive list of things the EPA has listed with this, but I found one that included higher risks as well, and in my little warehouse/workshop I identified 8 things at a casual glance that I have in inventory or generate. Proper use of these have minimal exposure to my squishy bits for most of them, and the others a well informed user should know to take adequate precautions. (e.g. "wood dust": wear a respirator) The US does not currently fund the EPA to commission studies to further investigate likely carcinogens, so they stay on the list for ages.