It’s
getting worse under Trump
BioMed Central
Many pesticides that
have been banned or are being phased out in the EU, Brazil and China, are still
widely used in the USA, according to a study published in the open access
journal Environmental Health.
Study author Nathan
Donley at the Center for Biological Diversity, USA said: "The USA is
generally regarded as being highly regulated and having protective pesticide
safeguards in place. This study contradicts that narrative and finds that in
fact, in the last couple of decades, nearly all pesticide cancellations in the
USA have been done voluntarily by the pesticide industry. Without a change in
the US Environmental Protection Agency's current reliance on voluntary
mechanisms for cancellations, the USA will likely continue to lag behind its
peers in banning harmful pesticides."
Donley identified
pesticides that are approved for outdoor agricultural use in the USA and
compared them to pesticides approved in the EU, China and Brazil.
The researcher found that 72, 17 and 11 pesticides are approved for use in the USA which are banned or in the process of being phased out in the EU, Brazil and China, respectively. In addition, Donley identified 85, 13 and two pesticides as being approved in the USA but banned or in the process of being phased out in at least one of the three, two of the three, or all three other agricultural nations, respectively.
The researcher found that 72, 17 and 11 pesticides are approved for use in the USA which are banned or in the process of being phased out in the EU, Brazil and China, respectively. In addition, Donley identified 85, 13 and two pesticides as being approved in the USA but banned or in the process of being phased out in at least one of the three, two of the three, or all three other agricultural nations, respectively.
Of the 1.2 billion
pounds of pesticides used in US agriculture in 2016, approximately 322 million
pounds were pesticides banned in the EU, 40 million pounds were pesticides
banned in China and nearly 26 million pounds were pesticides banned in Brazil.
More than ten percent of total pesticide use in the USA was from pesticide ingredients either banned, not approved or of unknown status in all three of the other nations.
More than ten percent of total pesticide use in the USA was from pesticide ingredients either banned, not approved or of unknown status in all three of the other nations.
Donley found that of
508 pesticide active ingredients that have been used in agriculture in the USA
since 1970, 134 have been cancelled. Out of those, 97 have been voluntarily
cancelled by pesticide registrants or were not renewed after their approval
period ended.
In 37 cases, the US Environmental Protection Agency took unilateral action to prohibit a pesticide from entering the market or cancel its approval.
In 37 cases, the US Environmental Protection Agency took unilateral action to prohibit a pesticide from entering the market or cancel its approval.
The number of
non-voluntary cancellations of pesticides in the USA initiated by the EPA (to
withdraw approval for their use) has decreased substantially in recent years,
whereas voluntary cancellations have greatly increased. They currently account
for nearly all agricultural pesticide cancellations in the USA, according to
Donley's research.
Donley said:
"These findings suggest that the USA utilizes voluntary,
industry-initiated cancellation as the primary method of prohibiting
pesticides, which is different from the non-voluntary, regulator-initiated
cancellations / bans that are predominant in the EU, Brazil and China."
He added:
"Voluntary cancellations ultimately create bias towards pesticides that
are easier to cancel because their use has dropped so much that they have
become less economically viable to pesticides makers. They can also lead to a
significantly longer phase-out period than the typical one year period for most
non-voluntarily cancelled pesticides."
The author cautions
that he did not seek to compare the effectiveness or robustness of pesticide
regulations as a whole between nations and thus the conclusions may not be
generalizable to other aspects of pesticide regulation, such as safeguards that
do not involve the total banning of a pesticides.