Chlorpyrifos: A Hostage of the Secret Science Rule?

By Michael Dourson — March 27, 2020 @ The American Council on Science and Health

In short, the public is often worried about chemical exposure, as they should be when such exposure exceeds a safe dose. The public’s interest is best served by trusting experts dedicated to public health protection and not by withholding scientific data from independent analysis.

By Michael Dourson,Bernard K. Gadagbui, and Patrician M. McGinnis

Many groups have weighed-in on EPA’s recent secret science rule. Generally missing from nearly all these opinions is the perspective(s) of risk scientists charged with protecting public health.

As scientists know well, results of any one study, especially one with significant societal impact, should be replicated because positive findings occur, on average, in one out of every 20 studies due to chance.  If a study cannot be replicated, then it (at least) needs to be consistent with the pattern of available data. Studies that are not replicated or that do not “make sense” in an overall pattern are still considered by EPA (and other authoritative agencies). Scientists within these agencies will often contact the authors(s) to obtain additional information in order to conduct their own analysis.

A case in point is the publication of a series of studies on a single human group from exposure to chlorpyrifos that shows an unexpected effect at extremely low exposures. This finding has not been replicated in other human studies and is in contrast to extensive animal and limited human studies that all point to changes in a blood enzyme (cholinesterase) as sentinel, at higher exposures. In this case, EPA scientists asked authors of studies from this single human group for the underlying data in order to confirm this lower effect. The authors demurred citing confidentiality concerns despite the fact that EPA has rigorous procedures in place to handle confidential information. Thus, EPA was not able to conduct its own analysis, and since EPA had neither confirmatory studies, nor information consistent with other studies, it chose not to use the information from this single human group.

A recent publication confirms the EPA decision. In brief, Rauh et al. (2011) reported evidence of neurological deficits in children at 7 years old as a function of prenatal chlorpyrifos exposures that were much lower than levels causing cholinesterase inhibition. Since the raw data had not been made available, Dourson et al. (2020) extracted data from published figures of Rauh et al. (2011), and plotted these extracted data as response versus log dose, a common risk assessment approach.

Surprisingly, a significant portion of the data was not found in these published figures. Moreover, the reported associations of chlorpyrifos levels were also not replicated in our analysis. Like EPA, Dourson et al. (2020) sent multiple requests to Rauh et al. (2011) for access to the data so that confirmation could be attempted. No response was forthcoming. This general lack of data, inconsistency with cholinergic responses in other research studies, and refusal by the authors to share data and to write an editor-invited letter to the editor, raises concerns about the lack of data transparency.

From our perspective as toxicologists and risk scientists, EPA’s decision not to use such studies where information is not provided, suitably redacted to protect confidential information, is correct. The public’s interest is best served when science is replicable and consistent. When studies cannot be replicated or are not consistent with other information, using such studies then depends on having access to the underlying data for independent analysis. If the underlying data are not provided, it is difficult to use such studies to make a credible scientific risk judgment, much less national rulemaking.

In short, the public is often worried about chemical exposure, as they should be when such exposure exceeds a safe dose. The public’s interest is best served by trusting experts dedicated to public health protection and not by withholding scientific data from independent analysis. Others have also had thoughts on this topic.

Authors: Michael L. Dourson, PhD., DABT, FATS, FSRA; Bernard K. Gadagbui, MS, PhD, DABT, ERT; and Patrician M. McGinnis, PhD, DABT of the Toxicology Excellence for Risk Assessment (TERA)

Authors: Michael L. Dourson, PhD., DABT, FATS, FSRA; Bernard K. Gadagbui, MS, PhD, DABT, ERT; and Patrician M. McGinnis, PhD, DABT of the Toxicology Excellence for Risk Assessment (TERA)

Point: Trump’s War on Junk Science

Angela Logomasini July 10, 2017

According to many news outlets, President Donald Trump has “declared a war on science.” Yet judging from at least one recent decision, the opposite is true. The Trump administration is trying to prevent policies based on junk science.

A key example is the Trump administration’s denial of an activist petition to ban agricultural uses of the pesticide chlorpyrifos, which farmers have safely used for decades. This decision makes sense when you consider the history.

Residential uses of chlorpyrifos, such as for bug spray, were phased out starting in the year 2000, but not because it was proven dangerous. Rather, chemical company Dow Agrosciences voluntarily phased out home uses because Environmental Protection Agency regulations proved too expensive and onerous, making the product unprofitable.......To Read More....

 

Repealing the Ban on DDT is Bigger Than Bed Bugs!

By Rich Kozlovich

On November 20, 2014 Samantha Craggs of CBC News posted an article titled, DDT repeal would do nothing to combat bedbugs, stating that experts say 'DDT is going to have zero effect. All it’s going to do is a lot of damage'.

She goes on to state that:

“Local bed bug and environmental experts say DDT would do little to curb the infestation.   DDT or no DDT, there is no magic chemical that will rid Hamilton of its bed bug problem.”   

And they’re right!  DDT will not do one thing to alleviate the bed bug problem in this city or any other city in Canada, U.S or any other place in the world where DDT was used for this purpose.  But that’s not the real issue here!  Which is what I intend to explore.

Apparently this article was inspired by the thoughts of a new councillor-elect, Matthew Green, that appeared in an article titled, New councillor wants to look at repealing DDT ban to fight bed bugs, that says: 

“he wants the province to take “a closer look” at repealing the 40-year ban on DDT, or other powerful chemicals on a limited basis if they'll help eradicate bed bugs in Hamilton”.   

What triggered his concerns?  Well, I think we can reasonably assume there's nothing like a good epidemic to get things started. 

This Canadian city is in the midst of a “bed bug epidemic since 2006, public health officials say, calls to the city have increased about 600 per cent. CityHousing Hamilton will spend $1 million this year alone battling the problem.”  If you read this article will notice there’s an opportunity for their reading public to vote on whether or not the ban on DDT should be lifted in some way asking “Should DDT ban be repealed to fight Hamilton bed bugs?”  In spite of the fact that I absolutely know DDT will not end their bed bug problem I voted yes to lift that ban along with 466 others.  Of that number 238 (50.96%) voted yes, 198 voted no (42.4%) and 31 (6.64%) didn’t know.

The number that really strikes out at me is how many who didn’t know whether or not the ban should be lifted.  Remember - this is in Canada - where anti-pesticide activists have dominated the process with legislation and rank propaganda from the media, and yet over 6% “didn’t know”.  I think that’s an important statistic in viewing the public’s concerns about pesticides and the impact they make in the lives of western societies.  Between those who want ban lifted and those who don’t know that number comes to 57.6% of Canada’s population who aren't moved by the anti-pesticide claims of the environmental movement and their minions in the media and government, at least in a Canadian city that’s been so badly plagued. 

The article goes on to quote local pest control operator Roger Burley, president of Aanteater Pest Control in Hamilton as saying:

 

“going back to old pesticides won’t fix it, particularly DDT”........“Bed bugs are resistant to DDT and most other pesticides that used to treat it. “DDT is really dangerous, and it’s really not effective against bed bugs anyway,” he said. “I’d love to have a silver bullet that would wipe them right out, but it’s not DDT.” 

The article continues to quote him saying “every chemical that used to kill bed bugs wouldn’t work anymore”, and claims that bed bugs are “immune” to a chemical classification known as organophosphates, which would include Dursban, Diazinon and others.  He continues being quoted saying:

 

“Every 10 years, we have to find something new to kill them”, and “they’ve mutated so much. The chemicals we use now are not even related to those chemicals, and we’re actually having some success.”

The only thing Burley said that was correct was that DDT won’t kill bed bugs and we’re having some success - after that he became lost in the green fever swamps.  Resistance isn’t mutation and they are not resistant to organophosphates, and there’s some argument as to whether or not they’ve developed some resistance to carbamates, which are both still used in countries other than the United States.  Those who have studied the efficacy of propoxur (commonly known as Baygon), a carbamate, claim it’s still effective. 

In point of fact those two chemical classifications were what replaced DDT in the 1950’s when bed bugs became resistant to DDT. Organophosphates and carbamates were so effective we didn’t have bed bug problems again for almost 60 years.  The reality is this - carbamates and organophosphates were so effective against bed bugs we were protecting society from this plague without even being aware of it. An insect that plagued humanity all through human history until modern pesticide chemistry was introduced in the 1940’s with DDT.  

Let’s do a little history here.  This plague DID NOT return until the passage of the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) and the loss of carbamates and organophosphates.  And they were NOT BANNED! 

EPA created a whole new set of regulations based on risk “assumptions” and added testing after 15 years of use.  They managed to side step science in order to create de-facto bans through use of economics and unscientific demands, thereby avoiding all the messy legal problems they would encounter if they actually attempted to ban these chemicals. FQPA created such an economic hardship the primary registrants simply refused to meet their demands and made a business decision to pull their registrations.

But environmentalists understand the real issue here, and it isn’t just about bed bugs.  It's all about lifting the ban on DDT that would be far reaching.  The article goes on to say:

 

“a local environmentalist and chemical scientist say thinking about bringing back powerful and banned chemicals is a bad idea.” 

There is the real issue in a nut shell.  If DDT’s ban is lifted then there will be serious efforts to do what this newly elected official wants to do when he uttered the most frightening words no green activist ever wants to hear: “I need to take a closer look at the science, but there are chemical solutions and I’d like to revisit that”.  

The raw emotion created by Rachel Carson’s fallacious diatribe in her successful "science fiction" book Silent Spring against chemical pesticides is long past, and any honest scientific effort to revisit all these laws and regulations used since 1972 to eliminate these life saving products from the marketplace would devastate their movement.

Of course any article about DDT must include claims that it was banned “because of its impact on wildlife, particularly bird populations”, and that it’s “persistent and it bio-accumulates, and it does some not-so-nice things".  All are either fallacious or misleading.

Bird populations were never so high in North America until the extensive use of DDT, and that includes the Bald Eagle, which increased during the DDT years.  Carson’s claim about how the poor robin was going to disappear was not only wrong she was deliberately lying.   Carson was a science writer for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and absolutely had to know that in 1960 there were “12 times more robins, 21 times more cowbirds, 38 times more blackbirds, 131 times more grackles, etc. compared to 1941 numbers.  The claims about bird shell thinning was a lie based on studies that deliberately eliminated calcium from the test bird’s diets.  Carson had to know all of that and deliberately lied.   

 The bio-accumulation argument was a bust. 

 

 “The theory is that if a fish eats a large number of crustaceans, the fish will have a higher concentration of DDT than any one crustacean, and the duck that eats many fish, and the hawk that eats many ducks, will have higher and higher concentrations of DDT. To ``prove'' this, propagandists analyzed the DDT levels in hawk brains (where they are highest) and duck fat, which has levels lower than hawk brain but higher than fish muscle. In fact, if one compares the level in muscle from crustacean, fish, duck, and hawk, there is no biomagnification at all. In fact, most of the DDT in fish comes through the gills; most DDT in food passes through the gut and is eliminated.” 

As for the persistence argument: “Dr. Edwards can cite more than 140 articles demonstrating breakdown of DDT. In one experiment, a large amount of DDT was added to sea water in a glass container, which was closed and suspended in the ocean. After 38 days, 92% of the DDT and its metabolites was gone. The persistence myth was based partly on inaccurate measurements by gas-liquid chromatography. Many substances interfere with the analysis, including PCBs in fluorescent light ballasts or in the plastic tubing within the instrument. GLC, for example, ``showed'' five kinds of chlorinated hydrocarbon insecticides in soil samples, even though none existed until 30 years after the samples were sealed.

Even if the bioaccumulation argument was valid we have to ask ourselves - where was the predicted devastation? Who were devastated?  What animals were devastated?  Since we’re living longer and healthier lives than any time in human history we must ask where's the predicted devastation?  We know that DDT did not then, and does not now, cause cancer, nor do the other pesticides that took its place.

Scientists – if that’s what you choose to call them – have been going along with this propaganda for decades because it’s profitable, and as the years have gone by I have discovered these people are incapable of ramping up the moral fiber to be the rock in the current.

What must really concern the greenies is the fact these other council members aren’t taking a strong stand against the new guy’s desire to review the science on pesticide bans saying:

 

“the notion “needs to be assessed by public health officials, who can separate politics from science and conclude the best practices accordingly.  Another member is “open to forwarding a motion to the province” saying “The province needs to understand the severity of this problem, and if we keep hammering away with what we should be doing and what we can try, they might have to take a look at that”.  Even one who is opposed says, “He's not a fan of the DDT option, but he admires Green's commitment to the issue".  He goes further stating “I welcome councillor-elect Green to this very important discussion table.”  "His advocacy is welcomed." 

This is after decades of indoctrination by the activists, the media, academia and bureaucrats.  As for claims about DDT being linked to all sorts of afflictions.  "Linked to" is a weasel word for some professional’s opinion when in reality they don’t have a clue….but they make all the right noises. 

As for my voting on that poll to restore DDT in spite of knowing it will have no direct positive impact on this city’s bed bug population – we need to understand the ban on DDT is foundational to the green movement.  If that’s overturned their foundation of sand will start to crumble and eventually everything they have promoted will be called into question.

That’s a day that’s long overdue!  The green movement's success has been humanities nightmare.  The socialist and green monsters of the 20th century have left human devastation in their wake. 

Observations From the Back Row

______________________________________________

De Omnibus Dubitandum!

We need to question everything because everything we are told

should bear some resemblance to what we see going on in reality

______________________________________________

Quote of the Day - "When they tell me I'm terminal, I'll look for a quack." ~ Murray Rothbard

From DDT to Dursban
By Henry Payne

Greens can take a bow: Bedbugs are back with a vengeance. Responding to the biggest bedbug outbreak since World War II, the Environmental Protection Agency hosted its first-ever “bedbug summit” Tuesday outside Washington to address a widening public outcry. Some of the most vulnerable communities are inner cities like Detroit, and the major culprit, as it turns out, was the summit host.

Nine years ago, the zealots at Bill Clinton’s EPA banned the pesticide chlorpyrifos (to widespread media and environmentalist hosannas), the most commonly available household product in the world to address bedbugs, cockroaches, and other nuisances. Better known by its trade name, Dursban, chlorpyrifos had been available for 30 years in some 800 products in 88 countries around the world.

But despite widespread protest in the scientific community, EPA Chief Carol Browner erased Dursban from the shelves. “EPA has gone to great lengths to present a highly conservative, worst case, hypothetical risk based in large part on dubious extrapolations . . . and exaggerated risk estimates,” said Michigan State University toxicologist J. I. Goodman in a typical response.

Horrifyingly, Ground Baby Pills Are a Real Thing
Alexander Abad-Santos

In news that will make you want to shut the blinds, go back to bed until next week ... there's disturbing news out of South Korea that since August, officials have found over 17,000 pills filled with human flesh, in particular the placentas and ground up bodies of dead Chinese babies.


Might a little hypocrisy actually be good for society?
By Kelvin Childs

As Washington Post op-ed columnist William Raspberry sees it, the demise of hypocrisy has led to the demise of society. "Speakers and moralists have conspired to give hypocrisy a bad name," ……___"We're still paying the price for the abandonment of the practice of hypocrisy, in everything from family breakdown to drug-spawned crime to the shortsighted selfishness that threatens to erode our institutions, wreck our economy and topple the pillars of our society" ….

"Hypocrisy recognizes that the erosion of standards hurts everybody,….It accepts the sanctity of ethical standards, even while violating them. It says, 'What I'm doing is wrong, therefore I must not do it too often; I must pretend I'm not doing it at all; and I must take care not to be found out.'"…He called standards "an electrified fence that describes the limits of acceptable behavior." People are always tempted to cross the fence, but doing so, he said, "thrills and shocks" us back into line.

My Take – I actually remember reading this article by Raspberry….and if I remember it correctly the title was…”There is something to be said for hypocrisy”. My first disgusted thought was; what in the world could be said for hypocrisy? After I read the article I followed Raspberry’s articles from that time on. You can’t be a hypocrite unless you have rules. We have few hypocrites these days. As the values of the churches deteriorate we have far fewer believers these days also. Is it any wonder that the people fail to believe when the actions and philosophies of these churches spiritual leaders clearly show that neither do they believe either? These questions remain though. Is that an excuse for not believing? Is that an excuse for not having values? Is that an excuse for the downward spiraling societal values? Is that an excuse for not doing right? Is that an excuse for not knowing what is right?

The goal of the Progressive movement from the French Revolution till today was to make the state the final arbiter of all morality. That could only be accomplished by undermining the Judaic/Christian moral ethic, undermining the moral foundation of religion an undermining parental authority. All the things Hitler, Stalin and all the other socialists’ monsters of the 20th century worked and strove for. Did anyone think this was all their own ideas? No….the names and places change, but the philosophy remains using the same terminology, the same tactics, and the same goals and yet society is unaware of the danger. The patterns repeat. We need to get that…there really isn’t anything new under the sun, and your ignorance is necessary for their success. We really need to get that!

Environmental groups collecting millions from federal agencies they sue, studies show
By Joshua Rhett Miller

Deep-pocketed environmental groups are collecting millions of dollars from the federal agencies they regularly sue under a little-known federal law, and the government is not even keeping track of the payouts, according to two new studies.

Lawrence Solomon: Censored science

True to form, the overwhelming majority of press outlets failed to report the juiciest global-warming gossip of the week — a change of heart on the issue by one of the world’s most celebrated environmentalists. Also true to form, the press failed to report the most profound science story of the week — a startling theory that not only absolves humans of blame in global warming but sheds light on another taboo subject: shortcomings in Darwin’s theory of evolution……. So, why, when Lovelock this week recanted his past views on global warming as being “alarmist,” did virtually every major news outlet on the planet ignore his change of heart? It wasn’t because he minced his words: “The problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago,” he admitted, adding that temperatures haven’t increased as expected over the last 12 years. “There’s nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now.”

The European Central Bank vs. Reality
By Matthew Melchiorre

The four-year charade of central bank bailouts is starting to come undone. Reacting to rising European bond yields in a Saturday meeting with world leaders, U.S. Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner called on the European Central Bank (ECB) to "aggressively" support Europe's insolvency as its various countries try to "stay ahead of markets." Blind to the sinking ship upon which he stands, he threatens to take everyone down with him by clinging to the false hope of monetary stimulus. Europe's problem is the same as the U.S.'s - insolvency. The past 17 years have seen the greatest expansion of global credit in the history of the world. But this didn't happen because the world economy became more prosperous. While the world was sleeping, central bankers around the globe have been printing money to fuel the booms of the past two decades. The inevitable result will be an even greater bust than the current one………

Student Loans Drive Up Tuition, Create Demographic Time Bomb and Higher-Education Bubble
by Hans Bader

Professor Glenn Harlan Reynolds writes in the New York Post about how student loan programs have contributed to skyrocketing debt and rising defaults: The student-debt problem is that too many students are borrowing too much money to finance educations that won’t earn them enough to repay the loans. This leads to misery. A recent Wall Street Journal story noted that many students are postponing marriage, children and home-buying because of the difficulty — in some cases, the impossibility — of keeping up student-loan payments. This is bad for them and the economy, because they won’t be available to soak up the excess houses built during the housing bubble, which also was fueled by cheap government loans. If they postpone having kids, fewer taxpayers will exist to fund Social Security and other programs in a few decades…. Although 37 million adults owe student loans, only 39 percent are actually paying down balances. Some 5.4 million have at least one loan past due; loans totaling $270 billion are at least 30 days delinquent. These numbers are likely to climb in coming months and years as US job-creation remains stagnant

UK aid helps to fund forced sterilisation of India's poor

Money from the Department for International Development has helped pay for a controversial programme that has led to miscarriages and even deaths after botched operation. - Tens of millions of pounds of UK aid money have been spent on a programme that has forcibly sterilised Indian women and men, the Observer has learned. Many have died as a result of botched operations, while others have been left bleeding and in agony. A number of pregnant women selected for sterilisation suffered miscarriages and lost their babies……Activists say that it is India's poor – and particularly tribal people – who are most frequently targeted and who are most vulnerable to pressure to be sterilised. They claim that people have been threatened with losing their ration cards if they do not undergo operations, or bribed with as little as 600 rupees (£7.34) and a sari. Some states run lotteries in which people can win cars and fridges if they agree to be sterilised.

Eco Crowd Growing Desperate—and Dangerous

The climate scaremongers are losing the public relations battle on global warming—and it’s driving them absolutely batty. Take eco-warrior Steve Zwick. Writing for FORBES Zwick calls on so-called “climate deniers” to be treated like war criminals:

Making Extinction Claims Come True? Wildllife Services’ deadly force opens Pandora’s box of environmental problems
By Tom Knudson

Here, in rugged terrain owned by the American public, a little-known federal agency called Wildlife Services has waged an eight-year war against predators to try to help an iconic Western big-game species: mule deer. With rifles, snares and aerial gunning, employees have killed 967 coyotes and 45 mountain lions at a cost of about $550,000. But like a mirage, the dream of protecting deer by killing predators has not materialized. "It didn't make a difference," said Kelley Stewart, a large-mammal ecologist at the University of Nevada, Reno.

For decades, Wildlife Services, part of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, has specialized in trapping, poisoning and shooting predators in large numbers, largely to protect livestock and, more recently, big game. Now such killing is coming under fire from scientists, former employees and others who say it often doesn't work and can set off a chain reaction of unintended, often negative consequences.


Does global warming cause extreme weather?
By Howard Richman and Raymond Richman

Anthropogenic global warming (AGW) theory supporters are in the midst of a big propaganda campaign leading to a global "Connect the Dots" day on May 5. Their goal is to convince the public that recent extreme weather events are due to global warming and that global warming is man-made.


###