Chlorpyrifos (CPF), a widely used organophosphate pesticide, was banned for domestic use in 2001, yet the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) recent proposed rule will allow its continued use on 11 agricultural crops. This decision comes despite overwhelming evidence that exposure to this pesticide has been linked to significant delays in early childhood neurodevelopment.
According to earlier research, high prenatal exposure to chlorpyrifos is associated with decreases in both psychomotor and mental development scores among children.1 This means that exposure to even low levels of chlorpyrifos before birth puts children at risk of irreversible brain damage, affecting their cognitive and motor skills long into their lives.
Chlorpyrifos Is Pervasive in Our Environment
Chlorpyrifos, a pesticide with a notorious reputation, is at the center of a heated debate due to its neurotoxic effects, especially in children. Exposure to this chemical occurs through various means, including food, air and water, making it a pervasive threat.
The underlying causes of chlorpyrifos-related health issues are rooted in its chemical structure and mode of action. As part of the organophosphate family, chlorpyrifos functions like nerve gas, inhibiting acetylcholinesterase, an enzyme crucial for nerve function. When acetylcholinesterase is inhibited, acetylcholine accumulates in the synapses, causing continuous nerve stimulation.
This disruption in normal nerve signaling leads to a cascade of neurodevelopmental problems, and overstimulation damages developing brains, particularly in fetuses and young children, whose nervous systems are still forming.
This resulting neurodevelopmental harm manifests as cognitive and motor skill deficits, leading to long-term implications for learning and behavior. Scientific studies have consistently linked even small exposures during pregnancy to irreversible brain damage, decreased IQ, autism and hyperactivity in children.
But despite its known risks, regulatory measures on chlorpyrifos have been inconsistent, leading to ongoing concerns about its risks particularly to the most vulnerable populations. The EPA’s recently proposed rule not only undermines the future of our children but also ignores the clear scientific consensus on the harmful effects of this chemical.
EPA’s Continued Use of Chlorpyrifos Poses Significant Risks to Children’s Health
A recent Earthjustice news article investigated the EPA’s proposed rule allowing the continued use of chlorpyrifos on 11 specific crops, while banning its use on all other food products. This decision comes despite substantial evidence linking chlorpyrifos to severe and irreversible harm in children.2
“Chlorpyrifos will be allowed on alfalfa, apple, asparagus, cherry, citrus, cotton, peach, soybean, strawberry, sugar beet and wheat. This proposed rule follows a 2023 decision by the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals that overturned EPA’s full ban on chlorpyrifos,” Earthjustice reported.3
Chlorpyrifos has been widely used on crops such as soybeans, apples, citrus, broccoli and cherries for decades. However, scientific studies have consistently linked exposure to chlorpyrifos with neurodevelopmental harm in children, showing that even minimal exposures during pregnancy cause irreversible brain damage, leading to decreased IQ, autism and hyperactivity.4
The EPA acknowledges these risks but has chosen to allow chlorpyrifos to remain in use on a significant number of food crops, which represent about one-third of the pesticide’s previous use on food crops.5 The proposed partial ban will eliminate chlorpyrifos from all other food uses, although its application on the remaining 11 crops will continue until at least 2026.
During this period, the agency does not plan to determine the safety of these uses, effectively delaying any comprehensive assessment of chlorpyrifos’s risks.6 This delay highlights a significant gap in safety assurances for the public and underscores the ongoing regulatory struggle over the pesticide’s use.
Environmental and health advocates also view the EPA’s partial ban as insufficient. Patti Goldman, an attorney at Earthjustice, said, “The newly proposed restrictions are a step forward, but they fall short of fully protecting children, farmworkers and our food supply.”7
Originally Posted at https://www.sgtreport.com