Los Angeles Times

U.S. defends banned nerve agent pesticide

Officials ask an appeals court to allow a chemical believed to disrupt prenatal brain developmen­t.

- By Geoffrey Mohan geoffrey.mohan @latimes.com Twitter: @LATgeoffmo­han

The Trump administra­tion appears ready to go to the mat for chlorpyrif­os, a widely used pesticide that has been linked to developmen­tal disorders in children whose mothers were exposed to it during pregnancy.

The Justice Department filed an appeal on behalf of the Environmen­tal Protection Agency on Monday, saying the San Francisco-based U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals erred when it reinstated an Obama-era ban on the chemical. The appeal asks the court to allow a full panel of 22 judges to reconsider the case.

A rejection by the appeals court would leave the administra­tion with one final attempt to keep the chemical on the market — the Supreme Court.

Scott Pruitt, then the newly approved director of the EPA, overturned the ban in March 2017, in what was widely seen as a bellwether move for an administra­tion that had promised less regulation to its agribusine­ss supporters.

In August, however, an appeals court called Pruitt’s actions improper and reinstated the ban.

Chlorpyrif­os is the most widely used pesticide in agricultur­e. The agricultur­e and chemical industries pushed hard to keep it available for more than 60 crops, including grapes, citrus fruit, almonds, walnuts, alfalfa and cotton. California growers apply about 900,000 pounds of the organophos­phate compound, which attacks the nervous system, on about 640,000 acres each year, the state Department of Pesticide Regulation said.

The department said use has declined steeply from more than a decade ago. Growers have struggled to find a replacemen­t. They have switched to more pestresist­ant crop varieties and tried other ways to control pests, including disruption of their mating cycles.

The original ban, enacted in November 2015, was the result of pressure from lawsuits brought by environmen­tal groups. Those groups cited studies that linked the nerve agent chemical to enduring intellectu­al deficits in children born to mothers who were exposed to the pesticide during pregnancy.

The court said the EPA had violated the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act and the Federal Insecticid­e, Fungicide and Rodenticid­e Act. The laws require the EPA to ban a pesticide from use on food unless there is reasonable certainty that it will cause no harm, the court said.

“The EPA has never made any such determinat­ion and, indeed, has itself long questioned the safety of permitting chlorpyrif­os to be used within the allowed tolerances,” New York District Judge Jed S. Rakoff, who was filling in on the 9th Circuit, wrote for the panel in August.

Agricultur­e Secretary Sonny Perdue disagreed Monday, saying the decision to ban the chemical was “based on a misunderst­anding of both the available scientific informatio­n and EPA’s pesticide regulatory system.”

Environmen­talists vowed to continue their opposition to chlorpyrif­os.

“The Trump administra­tion is shameless in its refusal to ban this dangerous chemical that is poisoning our children’s brains,” said Erik Olson, senior director of health and food at the Natural Resources Defense Council, one of the environmen­tal groups that originally petitioned the EPA to ban the chemical in 2007.

This month, the Department of Pesticide Regulation proposed listing chlorpyrif­os as a toxic air contaminan­t, which would bring tighter rules on its use in the state.

 ?? Damian Dovarganes Associated Press ?? CALIFORNIA GROWERS apply about 900,000 pounds of chlorpyrif­os on about 640,000 acres a year, regulators say. Above, fruit pickers in Arvin, Calif., in 2004.
Damian Dovarganes Associated Press CALIFORNIA GROWERS apply about 900,000 pounds of chlorpyrif­os on about 640,000 acres a year, regulators say. Above, fruit pickers in Arvin, Calif., in 2004.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States