Damning Probe Finds EPA 'Turning Blind Eye' to Toxic Chemical Cocktails
Despite the EPA's claims, information on dangerous synergistic effects is publicly available. In fact, the agro-giants collected it themselves.
While the use of one toxic chemical--on our foods, lawns, and elsewhere--has its inherent risks, scientists warn that the combination of two or more such ingredients in common pesticides could have an even more noxious impact, one which is commonly overlooked.
In fact, a investigation released Tuesday by the environmental watchdog Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) found that over the past six years the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has approved nearly 100 pesticide products that contain these so-called "synergistic" compounds, effectively "increasing the dangers to imperiled pollinators and rare plants."
As CBD explains, "[s]ynergy occurs when two or more chemicals interact to enhance their toxic effects," turning "what would normally be considered a safe level of exposure into one that results in considerable harm."
"The EPA is supposed to be the cop on the beat, protecting people and the environment from the dangers of pesticides. With these synergistic pesticides, the EPA has decided to look the other way, and guess who's left paying the price?" asked Nathan Donley, a scientist with the Center and author of the report, Toxic Concoctions: How the EPA Ignores the Dangers of Pesticide Cocktails (pdf).
One toxic cocktail that has gotten some attention is Dow AgroScience's Enlist Duo, which contains two of the most commonly used pesticides in the nation: 2,4-D and glyphosate. The EPA approved the product in October 2014 but revoked the license after discovering a patent application in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Database that warned of synergistic toxicity to plants.
Following the lead of the EPA, Donley analyzed the patent database for other recent pesticide products approved by the EPA for agrochemical giants, Bayer, Dow, Monsanto, and Syngenta.
According to Donley, among the key findings are:
- 69 percent of these products (96 out of 140) had at least one patent application that claimed or demonstrated synergy between the active ingredients in the product;
- 72 percent of the identified patent applications that claimed or demonstrated synergy involved some of the most highly used pesticides in the United States, including glyphosate, atrazine, 2,4-D, dicamba and the neonicotinoids thiamethoxam, imidacloprid and clothianidin, among others.
As the research notes, another example of a common pesticide that has proven synergy but that the EPA has failed to cross-examine for compounded impacts are bee-harming neonicotinoids.
"It's alarming to see just how common it's been for the EPA to ignore how these chemical mixtures might endanger the health of our environment," Donley said.
"It's pretty clear that chemical companies knew about these potential dangers, but the EPA never bothered to demand this information from them or dig a little deeper to find it for themselves," he added.
Andre Leu, an organic farmer based in Australia and president of the International Federation of Organic Agricultural Movements (IFOAM), has done extensive research on the subject of synergistic compounds.
In Leu's 2014 report The Myths of Safe Pesticides (pdf), he states unequivocally that it is a "myth" that pesticide formulations are "rigorously tested."
Leu writes: "Given that the other chemical ingredients are chemically active as they are added to the formations to make the active ingredient work more effectively, the assumption that they are inert and will not increase the toxicity of thew hole formulation lacks scientific credibility. The limited scientific testing of formulated pesticide products shows that they can be hundreds of times more toxic to humans than the pure single active ingredient."
Donley said that "the EPA has turned a blind eye for far too long to the reality that pesticide blends can have dangerous synergistic effects. Now that we know about all the data that are out there, the EPA must take action to ensure that wildlife and the environment are protected from these chemical cocktails."
Urgent. It's never been this bad.
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission from the outset was simple. To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It’s never been this bad out there. And it’s never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed and doing some of its best and most important work, the threats we face are intensifying. Right now, with just three days to go in our Spring Campaign, we're falling short of our make-or-break goal. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Can you make a gift right now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? There is no backup plan or rainy day fund. There is only you. —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
While the use of one toxic chemical--on our foods, lawns, and elsewhere--has its inherent risks, scientists warn that the combination of two or more such ingredients in common pesticides could have an even more noxious impact, one which is commonly overlooked.
In fact, a investigation released Tuesday by the environmental watchdog Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) found that over the past six years the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has approved nearly 100 pesticide products that contain these so-called "synergistic" compounds, effectively "increasing the dangers to imperiled pollinators and rare plants."
As CBD explains, "[s]ynergy occurs when two or more chemicals interact to enhance their toxic effects," turning "what would normally be considered a safe level of exposure into one that results in considerable harm."
"The EPA is supposed to be the cop on the beat, protecting people and the environment from the dangers of pesticides. With these synergistic pesticides, the EPA has decided to look the other way, and guess who's left paying the price?" asked Nathan Donley, a scientist with the Center and author of the report, Toxic Concoctions: How the EPA Ignores the Dangers of Pesticide Cocktails (pdf).
One toxic cocktail that has gotten some attention is Dow AgroScience's Enlist Duo, which contains two of the most commonly used pesticides in the nation: 2,4-D and glyphosate. The EPA approved the product in October 2014 but revoked the license after discovering a patent application in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Database that warned of synergistic toxicity to plants.
Following the lead of the EPA, Donley analyzed the patent database for other recent pesticide products approved by the EPA for agrochemical giants, Bayer, Dow, Monsanto, and Syngenta.
According to Donley, among the key findings are:
- 69 percent of these products (96 out of 140) had at least one patent application that claimed or demonstrated synergy between the active ingredients in the product;
- 72 percent of the identified patent applications that claimed or demonstrated synergy involved some of the most highly used pesticides in the United States, including glyphosate, atrazine, 2,4-D, dicamba and the neonicotinoids thiamethoxam, imidacloprid and clothianidin, among others.
As the research notes, another example of a common pesticide that has proven synergy but that the EPA has failed to cross-examine for compounded impacts are bee-harming neonicotinoids.
"It's alarming to see just how common it's been for the EPA to ignore how these chemical mixtures might endanger the health of our environment," Donley said.
"It's pretty clear that chemical companies knew about these potential dangers, but the EPA never bothered to demand this information from them or dig a little deeper to find it for themselves," he added.
Andre Leu, an organic farmer based in Australia and president of the International Federation of Organic Agricultural Movements (IFOAM), has done extensive research on the subject of synergistic compounds.
In Leu's 2014 report The Myths of Safe Pesticides (pdf), he states unequivocally that it is a "myth" that pesticide formulations are "rigorously tested."
Leu writes: "Given that the other chemical ingredients are chemically active as they are added to the formations to make the active ingredient work more effectively, the assumption that they are inert and will not increase the toxicity of thew hole formulation lacks scientific credibility. The limited scientific testing of formulated pesticide products shows that they can be hundreds of times more toxic to humans than the pure single active ingredient."
Donley said that "the EPA has turned a blind eye for far too long to the reality that pesticide blends can have dangerous synergistic effects. Now that we know about all the data that are out there, the EPA must take action to ensure that wildlife and the environment are protected from these chemical cocktails."
While the use of one toxic chemical--on our foods, lawns, and elsewhere--has its inherent risks, scientists warn that the combination of two or more such ingredients in common pesticides could have an even more noxious impact, one which is commonly overlooked.
In fact, a investigation released Tuesday by the environmental watchdog Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) found that over the past six years the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has approved nearly 100 pesticide products that contain these so-called "synergistic" compounds, effectively "increasing the dangers to imperiled pollinators and rare plants."
As CBD explains, "[s]ynergy occurs when two or more chemicals interact to enhance their toxic effects," turning "what would normally be considered a safe level of exposure into one that results in considerable harm."
"The EPA is supposed to be the cop on the beat, protecting people and the environment from the dangers of pesticides. With these synergistic pesticides, the EPA has decided to look the other way, and guess who's left paying the price?" asked Nathan Donley, a scientist with the Center and author of the report, Toxic Concoctions: How the EPA Ignores the Dangers of Pesticide Cocktails (pdf).
One toxic cocktail that has gotten some attention is Dow AgroScience's Enlist Duo, which contains two of the most commonly used pesticides in the nation: 2,4-D and glyphosate. The EPA approved the product in October 2014 but revoked the license after discovering a patent application in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Database that warned of synergistic toxicity to plants.
Following the lead of the EPA, Donley analyzed the patent database for other recent pesticide products approved by the EPA for agrochemical giants, Bayer, Dow, Monsanto, and Syngenta.
According to Donley, among the key findings are:
- 69 percent of these products (96 out of 140) had at least one patent application that claimed or demonstrated synergy between the active ingredients in the product;
- 72 percent of the identified patent applications that claimed or demonstrated synergy involved some of the most highly used pesticides in the United States, including glyphosate, atrazine, 2,4-D, dicamba and the neonicotinoids thiamethoxam, imidacloprid and clothianidin, among others.
As the research notes, another example of a common pesticide that has proven synergy but that the EPA has failed to cross-examine for compounded impacts are bee-harming neonicotinoids.
"It's alarming to see just how common it's been for the EPA to ignore how these chemical mixtures might endanger the health of our environment," Donley said.
"It's pretty clear that chemical companies knew about these potential dangers, but the EPA never bothered to demand this information from them or dig a little deeper to find it for themselves," he added.
Andre Leu, an organic farmer based in Australia and president of the International Federation of Organic Agricultural Movements (IFOAM), has done extensive research on the subject of synergistic compounds.
In Leu's 2014 report The Myths of Safe Pesticides (pdf), he states unequivocally that it is a "myth" that pesticide formulations are "rigorously tested."
Leu writes: "Given that the other chemical ingredients are chemically active as they are added to the formations to make the active ingredient work more effectively, the assumption that they are inert and will not increase the toxicity of thew hole formulation lacks scientific credibility. The limited scientific testing of formulated pesticide products shows that they can be hundreds of times more toxic to humans than the pure single active ingredient."
Donley said that "the EPA has turned a blind eye for far too long to the reality that pesticide blends can have dangerous synergistic effects. Now that we know about all the data that are out there, the EPA must take action to ensure that wildlife and the environment are protected from these chemical cocktails."