In an effort to balance public health and agricultural needs, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed new regulations limiting the use of chlorpyrifos, a pesticide widely applied in farming. This tentative policy would allow the use of chlorpyrifos on 11 specific crops—alfalfa, apple, asparagus, cherry, citrus, cotton, peach, soybean, strawberry, sugar beets and wheat—while prohibiting its use on other crops. If enacted, these reforms are projected to reduce the annual use of insecticides from 5.3 million pounds to 3.9 million pounds—a 70% reduction from the total historical amount. While valued for its affordability and effectiveness in killing insects and pests, the usage of chlorpyrifos remains a topic amid controversial debate due to its blatant risk to human health.
The EPA’s decisions are grounded on scientific assessments of the pesticide’s effect. Chlorpyrifos, an organophosphate, functions by eroding the neurotransmitters of the insect. Unfortunately, these effects are not limited to pests. High levels of human exposure to organophosphates lead to neurological effects such as tremors, fatigue, and nausea.
Children are especially vulnerable to these detrimental side effects. For children aged 7, studies have displayed an inverse relationship between the amount of pesticide in umbilical cord blood samples and the children’s IQ score. Lawyers for Earthjustice criticized the agency for not enacting a widespread ban. Lawyer Patti Goldman noted, “They have evidence in front of them that children exposed to chlorpyrifos are having these disorders at very, very small amounts of exposure.”
The case of chlorpyrifos is not unique; the hidden shortcomings of pesticides only emerge after prolonged usage. For instance, in Kerala, India, a pesticide called endosulfan was extensively used in cashew plantations for a 20-year period. With the practice of spraying endosulfan first being adopted in 1977, it wasn’t until the late 1990s that the negative impacts of the pesticide came to light. Exposure to endosulfan within the local population has been linked to a significant increase in congenital disabilities, developmental disorders, and chronic illnesses such as endocrine dysfunction, neurological disorders, and certain types of cancer. Following years of long-winded advocacy and legal battles, India banned endosulfan in 2011.
A more globally recognized instance of pesticide regulation involves DDT (dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane). Initially celebrated for its effectiveness in combating malaria and agricultural pests in the mid-20th century, DDT’s adverse effects also gradually became evident over time. Studies linked the pesticide to being a carcinogen, hindering human nervous systems, and increasing infertility rates. Apart from human impact, DDT also has profound effects on wildlife—primarily creating reproductive issues. Particularly in birds, it has previously been linked to causing eggshell thinning and obstructing the development of the embryo. Additionally, its residues have often washed into nearby waterways, in which fish and aquatic plants that end up absorbing the chemical are prone to contaminating both humans and wildlife. While the United States banned DDT in 1972, several countries, like India, Botswana, South Africa, and Mozambique, continued its use despite the pesticide’s well-documented risks.
The ongoing debates surrounding chlorpyrifos and similar pesticides emphasize the challenge of balancing agricultural productivity with public health and environmental preservation. Lessons gained from past experiences illustrate the recurring importance of adopting precautionary measures and prioritizing sustainable practices. As the EPA finalizes its decision, it must weigh immediate agricultural benefits against long-term health and ecological risks—ultimately striving for policies that protect people and the planet.
By Jack Murdock