Great! But the EPA classified DCPA as a "likely carcinogen" 29 years ago. Why does it take 30 years to stop spraying the stuff?
• 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.
[0] https://www3.epa.gov/pesticides/chem_search/reg_actions/rere...
> 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
What's the point of looking at the same data every 15 years?
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.
Is this the same list as the IARC group 2A list, which contains stuff like red meat, hot beverages, and french fries[1]?
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
You really really need to cite some sources for this
<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>.
I, for one, enjoy having strict safety requirements for consumer products. I'm also glad to share this endeavour with many similar countries, since it would be wasteful and unfeasible for small nations otherwise.
Companies can, and do, develop various new compounds and then immediately start using them. There're only stringent regulations for food and medicine, but the stuff around it isn't protected. In addition, many of these chemicals make it into local water. We've had to set up countless superfund sites to clean it up later.
Our approach of reactionary vs proactive just doesn't work. Typically, these companies don't do safety tests. Sometimes, companies don't even know what exactly goes into their products.