Viewpoint: The EPA is embracing ‘precautionary politics’ — and abandoning its long-time commitment to evidence-based risk-benefit assessments of agricultural chemicals

Unlike the European Union, the U.S. has maintained a reasonable standard on studied substances allowed for use in modern agriculture because the U.S does not pursue the goal of boosting an “organic food only” type of policy . Unfortunately, that appears to be changing.

When the Environmental Protection Agency reauthorized atrazine in 2019, it did so according to a mandate by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act to consider both risks and benefits arising from the registration. 

The fight over atrazine has the new EPA embroiled in a legal battle. Following lawsuits by environmental organizations against the reauthorization of atrazine, the EPA is now asking the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco to instruct itself to reconsider the previous assessment.

With this move, the EPA moves away from the scientific approach to risk and benefit assessment by circumventing the recurring reevaluation periods.

Related on the SLP

Viewpoint: How the EPA deprives farmers of safe and effective pesticides by capitulating to environmental activist agendas New Zealand scientist challenges ‘scaremongering’ about herbicide glyphosate

Viewpoint: Why are the less intelligent more likely to be conservative—and smarter people more socially liberal?

AI is helping develop new vaccines

The heated debate over trans athletes in the WNBA

…

Using the court system to revisit settled regulatory decisions runs the risk of politicizing a process, in this case the regular registration review of herbicides and pesticides, that is constructed and designed to be apolitical and to function the same way regardless of who is in the White House.

This is an excerpt. Read the original post here.