The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has routinely failed to put cancer warnings on pesticide products even when its own assessments have found a high risk of those products causing cancer, according to two new analyses released today by the Center for Food Safety and the Center for Biological Diversity.
The Center for Food Safety analyzed the level of risk the EPA permitted for both currently approved and legacy pesticide active ingredients.
The analysis found that pesticides have been allowed on the market with a cancer risk as high as 1 in every 100 people exposed, a far greater level than the EPA’s benchmark of a 1 in a million chance of developing cancer.
Over the last 40 years, the EPA has approved 200 active ingredients that are “likely” or “possible” carcinogens.
The Center for Biological Diversity analysis examined pesticide product labels for all currently approved pesticide products. The EPA has instituted cancer warnings on only 69 of 4,919 pesticide labels (1.4%) containing an active ingredient that the agency has designated a “likely” human carcinogen.
And the agency has instituted cancer warnings on just 242 of the 22,147 pesticide labels (1.1%) that contain an ingredient the agency has designated as a “possible” human carcinogen.
“It’s bad enough that the EPA approves cancer-causing pesticides,” said Bill Freese, science director at the Center for Food Safety.
“But if the agency is going to allow such chemicals to be freely sold at Home Depot, Wal-Mart and farm-supply stores, the very least the EPA must do is require a clear cancer warning on the label. Warnings save lives by incentivizing users to wear protective equipment that reduces risk.”
“It’s dumbfounding that the EPA has failed to require any cancer warning on thousands of pesticide products sold to the public that the agency itself has linked to cancer,” said Lori Ann Burd, environmental health program director at the Center for Biological Diversity.
“Why should anyone have confidence in the EPA’s ability to keep tabs on the pesticide industry and protect us all from harmful poisons when it won’t even compel companies to put long-term health warnings on pesticides it knows are really dangerous?”
These new analyses come before the April 27 oral arguments in the Supreme Court case Monsanto Company v. John L. Durnell.
Monsanto, since acquired by Bayer, is seeking substantial immunity from future lawsuits brought by Americans who used glyphosate-based products like Roundup and contracted rare cancers that numerous studies have linked to the pesticide.
The case hinges on whether the EPA has sole authority to implement pesticide label warnings.
You must be logged in to post a comment.