1 / 8

Pesticides & Children: Ten Y ears After FQPA

Explore the impact of the FQPA on children's health, debate its effectiveness, flawed science claims, and the need for holistic food safety measures. Gain insights from experts in the field and understand the implications for protecting our children's well-being.

arlener
Download Presentation

Pesticides & Children: Ten Y ears After FQPA

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Pesticides & Children: Ten Years After FQPA • 1996 FQPA requires EPA to: • Use an extra 10X safety factor to assure the protection of infants and children; • Assess total pesticide exposure from all non-occupational sources including through the diet, in drinking water, and as a result of residential pesticide use; • Assess effects of exposure to multiple pesticides with a common mechanism of toxicity; • Assess potential effects on the endocrine system.

  2. Great Debate on FQPA - Healthier Children or Unnecessary Burden • Looking back • Dr. Penelope Fenner-Crisp (USEPA-Retired) • Enhanced & improved children’s health protection • Dr. James Bus (DowAgro) • Misdirected science & resources • Looking ahead • Dr. Elaine Faustman (University of Washington) • Future research to benefit children’s health protection

  3. Misdirected Science and Resource • FQPA is based on flawed science • FQPA does not protect children, and may even cause harm

  4. Flawed Science Foundation • Additional 10X UF is not supported by science • Toxicity is substance dependent • Common mechanism and aggregate risk unwarranted • “Common mechanisms” not “common” at real-world exposures • Mixture interactions begin around/above NOELs/LOELs of individual substances • Endocrine endpoint attention not justified • Low-dose synergism study retracted • Low-dose “inverse-U” finding not replicated • Costly “screening” tests need validation and offer no information beyond existing toxicity tests.

  5. TO PROTECT CHILDREN THE ENTIRE FOOD MUST BE THE SAFEST POSSIBLE FQPA AS APPLIED DOES NOT PROTECT FOOD AND DOES NOT PROTECT CHILDREN FQPA IGNORES THE FOOD ITSELF

  6. No Meaningful Protection, Possible Harm • NAS (1973, 1996): “Nutritious food is…a mixture of thousands of chemicals, any one of which [could be] harmful. • “Healthy” food fails even worse under FQPA

  7. EPA NEEDS TO LOOK BOTH WAYS NATURAL SYNTHETIC DON’T ASSUME IT IS A ‘GOOD’ TRUCK

  8. NOT A GOOD WAY TO PROTECT PUBLIC HEALTH • WHY?? • SOCIAL • FUNDING • POLICY • BLIND IN • ONE EYE LOST IT HERE LOOKING HERE

More Related