Linkedin Facebook X-twitter Youtube Pinterest Envelope Viber

Banning Pesticides: Is This in the Public’s Best Interest?

May 2, 2022

 

Farmers routinely use pesticides, whether organic or not, to control insects and weeds on our crops. This often results in pesticide exposures to our farmers, and occasionally to us when a little bit of pesticide remains on the crops after harvest. However, when the pesticide is used according to its instructions, the safety of our farmers and ourselves is assured due to the extensive testing by industry (millions of dollars in studies) and review by government scientists, many of them who are doctorate-level and board-certified toxicologists. We, the public, also get the benefit of increased crop yields, which usually translates into lower food prices and the benefit of product availability. 

So is banning pesticides in the public’s best interest? The answer is an emphatic yes when the science indicates that exposures are not safe. But does good science always get used in making decisions? Fortunately the answer is nearly always yes, with some exceptions. For example, EPA recently banned all uses of the pesticide dursban (also know as chlorpyrifos). This was despite the fact that EPA scientists determined that levels of dursban were safe on many crops when used according to its directions, even for sensitive humans and children. This ban prompted a lawsuit by a number of food producers for soybeans, sugarbeets and cherries asking EPA to follow the findings of its own scientists. Why? Well the State of Michigan grows a majority of U.S. tart cherries and a good portion of U.S. sweet cherries, and dursban is considered to be critical to the Michigan cherry industry as there are no alternative pesticides that effectively control trunk borers. Those of us who have tried to grow apples, pears or peaches without the aid of spaying our trees—and ending up with little to no edible fruit—can certainly relate. So to the Michigan cherry famers, EPA’s ban might be Cherry-O…

But why would EPA ban all uses of dursban when its own scientists said many of its uses were safe? The answer, as are many, is complex. But one reason is not the lack of qualified staff. EPA has highly credentialed staff, more so than many other organizations. One of the reasons might have to do with environmental activists who want to ban all pesticides that cause toxicity to the nervous system of insects, and also in humans that get exposed from improper use. If dursban exposures were actually causing harmful effects at EPA’s determined safe levels, this would be entirely appropriate. But this is likely not the case as one recent scientific publication suggests.

So again, should we worry about pesticides to which we are daily exposed? Well, it all depends on how much of the exposure one gets, as previously described. Too much of any one thing is likely not to be good for us. This includes pesticides, like dursban, but also other natural, organic and conventional pesticides. However, government agencies work very hard to keep us safe. Follow the labels on the various chemical products to stay safe, use products in moderation, and of course follow the science.

WEEL OEL

Occupational Exposure Limits (OELs) are designed to safeguard the health of healthy workers during their careers. These limits are based on the assumption of repeated daily exposure throughout a working lifetime, typically averaged over an 8-hour workday. Their purpose is to prevent both immediate (acute) and long-term (chronic) health issues arising from workplace exposures. It’s important to note that OELs are not intended for the general public, which includes vulnerable groups like infants, the elderly, and those with pre-existing health conditions.

Workplace Environmental Exposure Levels (WEELs) are health-based guidelines for chemical hazards in the workplace. These values represent air concentrations believed to protect the majority of workers from negative health effects resulting from occupational chemical exposure.

The WEEL Process
Click Here

The development of new or revision of existing WEELs is typically assigned to voluntarily designated subcommittees. A subcommittee usually comprises 3 – 4 members from the WEEL Committee. New WEELs are developed using the OARS-WEEL administrative standard operating procedure (SOP), while existing WEELs are usually revised every 10 years, unless the availability of significant new data which may impact the existing WEEL value compels the committee to make a revision sooner. The OARS-WEEL SOP contains procedures and guidelines governing conflicts of interest, draft document preparation, literature searches, draft document review, balloting process, post-ballot WEEL documentation quality assurance scientific review, and publication.

Once a subcommittee has prepared a draft WEEL document, a review of the draft is scheduled for the next available Committee meeting. The WEEL Committee members are expected to have reviewed all such drafts prior to the meeting. If no major changes are necessary to a draft, the attending Committee membership may, by a simple majority, approve the WEEL for balloting. Alternatively, the Committee may direct the subcommittee to revise the WEEL and present it for further discussion at a future meeting. If a ballot is not approved by a two-thirds majority of non-abstaining Committee members, it is discussed at the next Committee meeting to determine the appropriate course of action. Once the WEEL is approved by a two-thirds majority of non-abstaining Committee members, copies of ballot comments are forwarded to the designated subcommittee and all substantive comments must be addressed in the final draft. If resolution of a substantive comment results in a change to the WEEL value or a change in the basis for the value, the draft must be re-balloted.

Once all comments have been addressed on a successfully balloted draft, document formatting and editorial review are performed by TERA, before the draft WEEL document is made available for public comment (usually for a period of 30 days but may be extended if the need arises). After the public comment period has elapsed, comments are addressed by the subcommittee responsible for that specific draft, after which the WEEL documentation is submitted to Toxicology and Industrial Health (TIH), a peer-reviewed medical journal that covers research in the fields of occupational health and toxicology, for publication. A thorough review of the galley proof by the scientific content quality coordinator at TERA, and proofreaders and editors at TIH is the penultimate step before eventual publication of the WEEL documentation.

The WEEL Committee

The OARS-WEEL Committee is composed of volunteer experts specializing in the scientific determination of occupational exposure levels. This committee actively seeks a balanced representation of professionals from toxicology and industrial hygiene, drawing upon a diverse range of experience from industry, government, academia, and consulting. Importantly, each member contributes to the Committee based on their individual expertise and not as an official representative of their respective employer, organization, or agency.