"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]
• 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.
> 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.
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.
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.
Red meat is on IARC 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
>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. Accessed 30 October 2024.
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
> Effective Aug. 7, DCPA may not be sold, distributed or used in any manner. Consumers with current stocks of the product cannot use it.
This probably means we got a huge increase in DCPA usage. In the 1970s when they found out Di-bromochloropropane made most workers infertile and caused extremely high rates of birth defects for those that were still fertile, it was banned immediately in the US. Companies that had large stockpiles of the chemical simply sold them to banana republics. This caused an epidemic of infertility and birth defects in many countries in South America and it still an ongoing concern:
More generally, from a public policy perspective, how do we tax product externalities, not merely population health impact of product use, but additionally the environmental impact, inclusive of production and disposal, wherever those costs may be incurred across the globe.
The easily agreed upon stuff is done?? Gasoline is taxed enough to remove its carbon afterwards? Coal carries an environmental surcharge? Methane leaks are fined? The really obvious stuff is done?? Where?
You actually think those things were "easily agreed upon"? They most certainly are not!
I'll give you a tiny example:
> Gasoline is taxed enough to remove its carbon afterwards?
Gasoline is the entire reason we have an economy, do anything to make it more expensive and you'll unleash an earthquake of inflation and lower productivity. That's like the last thing you want to tax!
Note: it's irrelevant if you agree with the argument, (or even if I agree with it) - the issue is that the argument exists.
It would incorporate a present value calculation for medical costs, present value of future earnings, work life expectancy, and account for disability-adjusted life years. The marginal price increase would correspond to the hazard ratio adjusted risk of causing harm.
The action comes after years of mounting scientific evidence of the dangers posed by exposure to the chemical dimethyl tetrachloroterephthalate, also known as DCPA or Dacthal.
Yet. Just like this chemical. Just like DDT. Just like BPA. Just like PFCs.
Not nearly enough testing is ever done on these things. Everyone is in such a rush to get these things into our environment and our bodies, no regard for higher order effects, which is why this pattern keeps repeating.
>Not nearly enough testing is ever done on these things. Everyone is in such a rush to get these things into our environment and our bodies, no regard for higher order effects, which is why this pattern keep repeating.
It was discovered more than 50 years ago and the evidence for its harm is still "inconclusive". How much more evidence do you need? When does "precautionary principle" become crankiness (eg. vaccine skepticism or cellphones cause cancer)?
I don't have a good enough stat's background for digging deep into the Lancet or IARC citations on Wiki that are the support for IARC's classification of "probably carcinogenic to humans" but the rest of the sub from Wikipedia says that it is low risk.
A glass of the concentrate is where it starts to get worrisome.
The LD50 is somewhere in the 5000 mg/kg range; that's around 250 grams for a 50kg person. For concentrated glyphosate, you're in that ballpark with around a liter of concentrate, depending on the exact dilution.
GMOs can reduce need for pesticide and insecticide use, reduce water and fertilizer use, increase yields and make produce last longer. Are there any credible studies showing any GMOs in the states to be harmful?
Disclaimer: each GMO product needs to be looked at individually, just like each chemical product. When people say GMOs are good or bad, it's as silly as saying chemicals are good or bad.
That aside,
> GMOs can reduce need for pesticide and insecticide use
A funny thing happened on the way to quarterly report. I believe that the most popular GMO product is Roundup Ready corn [0], and it does the exact opposite. It allows the creator's cash cow product to be applied more liberally.
Just a lot of anecdotal stories that people suffering from various forms of food intolerance (gluten intolerance in particular seems to be strongly correlated with GMO grains) can't eat most GMO/non-organic American food, but can eat food from Europe, where GMO foods are banned and regulatory bodies do not allow new things until clinically proven to not be harmful.
More generally, I'm a proponent of the philosophical view that the FDA and EPA should allowlist things, not denylist. A pesticide, GMO technique, additive, dye, preservative, etc. should be proven via clinical trials before being allowed, not allowed by default until proven harmful.
As it is, this allow-by-default makes the US population the test case for everything at once, making causes of harm difficult to trace (as certain vendors are financially incentivized to want them to be). Furthermore, regulators can be bought via lobbyists, preventing things from being banned until long after their harmfulness is well-known.
Wanting to do things better is nice, but it's no excuse for failing to sufficiently test new things in isolation.
Great! But the EPA classified DCPA as a "likely carcinogen" 29 years ago. Why does it take 30 years to stop spraying the stuff?
"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/rere...
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
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.
In this case it doesn't seem to have been due to its carcinogen classification, but due to fetal toxicity.
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.
>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
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.
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.
Red meat is on IARC 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Tbf it takes a while for unborn babies to grow up and change things
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.
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.
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.
> 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
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-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. 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> (their PDF link is broken; one that works is <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>.
Lobbyists?
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
This happened back in August, the real press release is here:
https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-issues-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.
This probably means we got a huge increase in DCPA usage. In the 1970s when they found out Di-bromochloropropane made most workers infertile and caused extremely high rates of birth defects for those that were still fertile, it was banned immediately in the US. Companies that had large stockpiles of the chemical simply sold them to banana republics. This caused an epidemic of infertility and birth defects in many countries in South America and it still an ongoing concern:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-62120058
More generally, from a public policy perspective, how do we tax product externalities, not merely population health impact of product use, but additionally the environmental impact, inclusive of production and disposal, wherever those costs may be incurred across the globe.
That's the easy part. The hard part is agreeing what the externality is in the first place!
"My study shows Foobar to cause Baz." "No, your study is wrong, my study shows it doesn't."
All the easily agreed upon stuff is already done - what's left is the stuff people argue about.
The easily agreed upon stuff is done?? Gasoline is taxed enough to remove its carbon afterwards? Coal carries an environmental surcharge? Methane leaks are fined? The really obvious stuff is done?? Where?
You actually think those things were "easily agreed upon"? They most certainly are not!
I'll give you a tiny example:
> Gasoline is taxed enough to remove its carbon afterwards?
Gasoline is the entire reason we have an economy, do anything to make it more expensive and you'll unleash an earthquake of inflation and lower productivity. That's like the last thing you want to tax!
Note: it's irrelevant if you agree with the argument, (or even if I agree with it) - the issue is that the argument exists.
15 years after the EU.
And the EU still has work to do:
https://www.msn.com/en-ie/news/other/proven-child-of-florist...
Why can't harm to the unborn simply be priced in so it's no longer an externality?
because at some point it is no longer an economic question, but a moral one.
Is this a serious question?
How would you price it?
It would incorporate a present value calculation for medical costs, present value of future earnings, work life expectancy, and account for disability-adjusted life years. The marginal price increase would correspond to the hazard ratio adjusted risk of causing harm.
I agree this is a good idea. Actuaries do calculations/models like these all the time. We shouldn't limit ourselves by our imagination
The action comes after years of mounting scientific evidence of the dangers posed by exposure to the chemical dimethyl tetrachloroterephthalate, also known as DCPA or Dacthal.
Great, now do Glyphosate.
Glyphosphate is no where near comparable to this chemical though
Yet. Just like this chemical. Just like DDT. Just like BPA. Just like PFCs.
Not nearly enough testing is ever done on these things. Everyone is in such a rush to get these things into our environment and our bodies, no regard for higher order effects, which is why this pattern keeps repeating.
>Not nearly enough testing is ever done on these things. Everyone is in such a rush to get these things into our environment and our bodies, no regard for higher order effects, which is why this pattern keep repeating.
It was discovered more than 50 years ago and the evidence for its harm is still "inconclusive". How much more evidence do you need? When does "precautionary principle" become crankiness (eg. vaccine skepticism or cellphones cause cancer)?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate#Toxicity
I don't have a good enough stat's background for digging deep into the Lancet or IARC citations on Wiki that are the support for IARC's classification of "probably carcinogenic to humans" but the rest of the sub from Wikipedia says that it is low risk.
Glyphosphate is not toxic. But the stuff in the bottle is mixed with adjuvants and surfactants - and those are toxic.
So you have to distinguish which thing is being studied if you want to research this product.
A 2019 meta-analysis found compelling evidence for a link between Glyphosate-based herbicides and non-Hodgkin lymphoma
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31342895/
nit: Isn't it spelled glyphosate?
Nah, you can totally drink a big glass of that.
A glass of the concentrate is where it starts to get worrisome.
The LD50 is somewhere in the 5000 mg/kg range; that's around 250 grams for a 50kg person. For concentrated glyphosate, you're in that ballpark with around a liter of concentrate, depending on the exact dilution.
You can also drink a big glass of car engine coolant.
You can drink a big glass of nearly anything once.
It's actually true: Propylene glycol is harmless.
Although some use Ethylene glycol, don't drink that.
Something tells me we're not spraying en masse fields with veggies with engine coolants, are we.
Sounds like your car is in better condition than mine.
Great. Now do all the other pesticides developed since the 1950s. And GMO crops while you're at it.
GMOs can reduce need for pesticide and insecticide use, reduce water and fertilizer use, increase yields and make produce last longer. Are there any credible studies showing any GMOs in the states to be harmful?
Disclaimer: each GMO product needs to be looked at individually, just like each chemical product. When people say GMOs are good or bad, it's as silly as saying chemicals are good or bad.
That aside,
> GMOs can reduce need for pesticide and insecticide use
A funny thing happened on the way to quarterly report. I believe that the most popular GMO product is Roundup Ready corn [0], and it does the exact opposite. It allows the creator's cash cow product to be applied more liberally.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roundup_Ready
Just a lot of anecdotal stories that people suffering from various forms of food intolerance (gluten intolerance in particular seems to be strongly correlated with GMO grains) can't eat most GMO/non-organic American food, but can eat food from Europe, where GMO foods are banned and regulatory bodies do not allow new things until clinically proven to not be harmful.
More generally, I'm a proponent of the philosophical view that the FDA and EPA should allowlist things, not denylist. A pesticide, GMO technique, additive, dye, preservative, etc. should be proven via clinical trials before being allowed, not allowed by default until proven harmful.
As it is, this allow-by-default makes the US population the test case for everything at once, making causes of harm difficult to trace (as certain vendors are financially incentivized to want them to be). Furthermore, regulators can be bought via lobbyists, preventing things from being banned until long after their harmfulness is well-known.
Wanting to do things better is nice, but it's no excuse for failing to sufficiently test new things in isolation.