
E.P.A. Chief, Rejecting Agency’s Science, Chooses Not to Ban Insecticide - edsheeran
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/03/29/us/politics/epa-insecticide-chlorpyrifos.html
======
regeland
It's interesting that not one sentence in the article is from scientists or
epidemiologists who published or reviewed the study itself. The scientific
evidence that the ban was based on is shockingly weak - a 20 patient,
retrospective, observational study of MRI scans that weren't even
substantiated by clinical findings in those very same patients in the same
study.

The quoted study design has well understood flaws from selection, observation,
and publication biases. And until the findings are independently replicated,
this can't really be called "science" but rather a "single scientific
publication"
[http://www.pnas.org/content/109/20/7871.abstract](http://www.pnas.org/content/109/20/7871.abstract).

The economic effects of banning organophosphates based on a single
observational study would be undoubtedly horrendous to the third world. The
NYT article adds little careful review and seems to simply draw on the
"chemicals are ruining the earth" narrative. Taken to its logical conclusion,
although popular and on its surface appealing, basing policy simply on a "fear
of chemicals" has potential catastrophic implications that would
disproportionately harm those in poverty:
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2984095/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2984095/)

~~~
russdill
I'm confused, this pesticide has been around since 1965. There has been a lot
more research on it than just a single study with 20 patients. The key phrase
is "based in part"

[https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=Chlorpyrifos](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=Chlorpyrifos)

~~~
russdill
Oh, and "replicated"? It can't be in the US because household use has been
banned since 2000. Are you suggesting that we must intentionally expose
pregnant women?

------
drallison
I find it curious that the moderators grayed out the references provided in
comments by "randomgthoughts". I would be curious to know the rationale. It
seems to me that citations into the literature are a plus and not a minus.

The elided references are:

[https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-
OPP-2015-0653-...](https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-
OPP-2015-0653-..).

"D. Drew et al., Chlorpyrifos: Revised Human Health Risk Assessment for
Registration Review, December 29, 2014, D424485; 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Literature Review on Neurodevelopment
Effects & FQPA Safety Factor Determination for the Organophosphate Pesticides,
September 15, 2015, D331251; 

R. Bohaty and J. Hetrick. Chlorpyrifos Registration Review Drinking Water
Assessment, April 14, 2016, D432921 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Chlorpyrifos Issue Paper: Evaluation of
Biomonitoring Data from Epidemiology Studies, March 11, 2016 and supporting
analyses presented to the FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel’s (SAP) meeting on
April 1921, 2016, (EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0062). "

[https://www.epa.gov/ingredients-used-
pesticide-](https://www.epa.gov/ingredients-used-pesticide-) products/revised-
human-health-risk-assessment-chlorpyrifos

~~~
tptacek
The moderators almost certainly didn't do anything. If you have a question
about something that happened with moderation, mail it to hn@ycombinator.com.

------
jeffdavis
Rejected a _policy recommendation_. A scientist making a policy recommendation
does not mean that the policy recommendation is science.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Really? A conclusion based on science can be dismissed? It isn't just some
opinion that you can disagree with like that, right? Its a fair cop - the
action was ignorant and anti-science.

~~~
regeland
It was actually not science that the original ban was based on. Who knows
whether the new EPA chief is basing the reversal on science or politics, but
the end effect is probably a better policy than throwing bans around on
chemicals that have major benefits reducing crop failures, starvation, pain,
and suffering.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
There are other pesticides.

~~~
pvnick
The bar to ban things has dropped so low because of that handwavey line of
reasoning, despite real economic effects to people whose livelihoods are at
stake (i.e. farmers).

------
coldcode
It's one thing to make a policy decision, it's another to claim it's based on
science when the science says no.

~~~
anubisresources
The science behind a ban wasn't all that great. See:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13996137](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13996137)

~~~
coldcode
The science is actually quite good, the campaign by DOW is also quite good
which apparently counts for more. Given the EPA head has no interest or
knowledge of science but a long history of attacking his agency for everything
it ever stood for, this is not surprising to me at all.

------
kbenson
> EPA Chief Scott Pruitt Chooses Not to Ban Insecticide Despite Autism Risk

That is not the title of the article, and the article itself makes no mention
of Autism. Please do not editorialize in the submissions, _especially_ about
flamebait topics like Autism and Trump's new EPA head. It's like this was
specifically crafted to mess with people.

~~~
drzaiusapelord
There is an autism link here:

[https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/autism-risk-
highe...](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/autism-risk-higher-near-
pesticide-treated-fields/)

Just because the article doesn't mention it, doesn't mean its not true.

~~~
kbenson
Whether it's true or not, it is inappropriate to put it in the title like that
when the article does not.

A _comment_ here pointing out the link with a reference _is_ the appropriate
place for that.

