Lethbridge Herald

Pesticide maker tries to discredit risk studies

Dow Chemical says government studies are flawed

- Michael Biesecker

Dow Chemical is pushing a Trump administra­tion open to scrapping regulation­s to ignore the findings of federal scientists who point to a family of widely used pesticides as harmful to about 1,800 critically threatened or endangered species.

Lawyers representi­ng Dow, whose CEO is a close adviser to Trump, and two other manufactur­ers of organophos­phates sent letters last week to the heads of three of Trump’s Cabinet agencies. The companies asked them “to set aside” the results of government studies the companies contend are fundamenta­lly flawed.

Dow Chemical wrote a $1 million check to help underwrite Trump’s inaugural festivitie­s, and its chairman and CEO, Andrew Liveris, heads a White House manufactur­ing working group.

The industry’s request comes after EPA Administra­tor Scott Pruitt announced last month he was reversing an Obama-era effort to bar the use of Dow’s chlorpyrif­os pesticide on food after recent peerreview­ed studies found that even tiny levels of exposure could hinder the developmen­t of children’s brains. In his prior job as Oklahoma’s attorney general, Pruitt often aligned himself in legal disputes with the interests of executives and corporatio­ns who supported his state campaigns. He filed more than a dozen lawsuits seeking to overturn some of the same regulation­s he is now charged with enforcing.

Pruitt declined to answer questions from reporters Wednesday as he toured a polluted Superfund site in Indiana. A spokesman for the agency later told AP that Pruitt won’t “prejudge” any potential rule-making decisions as “we are trying to restore regulatory sanity to EPA’s work.”

The letters to Cabinet heads, dated April 13, were obtained by The Associated Press. As with the recent human studies of chlorpyrif­os, Dow hired its own scientists to produce a lengthy rebuttal to the government studies.

Over the past four years, government scientists have compiled an official record running more than 10,000 pages indicating the three pesticides under review — chlorpyrif­os, diazinon and malathion — pose a risk to nearly every endangered species they studied. Regulators at the three federal agencies, which share responsibi­lities for enforcing the Endangered Species Act, are close to issuing findings expected to result in new limits on how and where the highly toxic pesticides can be used.

“We have had no meetings with Dow on this topic and we are reviewing petitions as they come in, giving careful considerat­ion to sound science and good policymaki­ng,” said J.P. Freire, EPA’s associate administra­tor for public affairs. “The administra­tor is committed to listening to stakeholde­rs affected by EPA’s regulation­s, while also reviewing past decisions.”

The office of Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, who oversees the Natural Marine Fisheries Service, did not respond to emailed questions. A spokeswoma­n for Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke, who oversees the Fish and Wildlife Service, referred questions back to EPA.

The EPA’s recent biological evaluation of chlorpyrif­os found the pesticide is “likely to adversely affect” 1,778 of the 1,835 animals and plants accessed as part of its study, including critically endangered or threatened species of frogs, fish, birds and mammals. Similar results were shown for malathion and diazinon.

In a statement, the Dow subsidiary that sells chlorpyrif­os said its lawyers asked for the EPA’s biological assessment to be withdrawn because its “scientific basis was not reliable.”

“Dow Agro-Sciences is committed to the production and marketing of products that will help American farmers feed the world, and do so with full respect for human health and the environmen­t, including endangered and threatened species,” the statement said. “These letters, and the detailed scientific analyses that support them, demonstrat­e that commitment.”

FMC Corp., which sells malathion, said the withdrawal of the EPA studies would allow the necessary time for the “best available” scientific data to be compiled.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Canada