80 likes | 194 Views
Pesticides & Children: Ten Y ears After FQPA. 1996 FQPA requires EPA to: Use an extra 10X safety factor to assure the protection of infants and children;
E N D
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.
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
Misdirected Science and Resource • FQPA is based on flawed science • FQPA does not protect children, and may even cause harm
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.
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
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
EPA NEEDS TO LOOK BOTH WAYS NATURAL SYNTHETIC DON’T ASSUME IT IS A ‘GOOD’ TRUCK
NOT A GOOD WAY TO PROTECT PUBLIC HEALTH • WHY?? • SOCIAL • FUNDING • POLICY • BLIND IN • ONE EYE LOST IT HERE LOOKING HERE