| The rational move would be to err on the side of caution instead of potentially creating another asbestos, DDT, or thalidomide risk here. The EPA's previous decision was a 100% rational public policy decision based on solid science, regardless of how partisans try to spin it. >a 20 patient, retrospective, observational study of MRI scans Well, that's certainly a lot more evidence than most Trump 'scientific' policies like climate change being a "Chinese hoax." Funny how Trump supporters ignore how terrible he is on science yet somehow find nitpicking justifiable on legitimate studies to defend his odious views. Also its a lie to say there's only one study on chlorpyrifos's effect on humans and the environment. Heck the article even states based 'partly' on the study you are criticizing. Did you actually bother reading it or are you just copy and pasting some talking points? Because I'm seeing almost the exact same questionable points on other sites. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Chlorpyrifos+human&btnG... https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Chlorpyrifos+harmful&bt... >has potential catastrophic implications that would disproportionately harm those in poverty The DDT or asbestos or lead ban wasn't good for some parts of society either, yet it was the greater good that mattered. There are other pesticides and the targeted economic sectors can handle changes from regulations by migrating to different chemicals and processes. The oil and automotive industries didn't collapse when we told them to stop putting lead in gas, for example. Lastly, Dow has been running a disinformation campaign on this product for their own financial self-interest. Beware the astroturfing and political corruption at work here. https://www.nrdc.org/experts/jennifer-sass/highly-hazardous-... |