{"id":36068,"date":"2024-08-12T00:01:59","date_gmt":"2024-08-12T04:01:59","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/beyondpesticides.org\/dailynewsblog\/?p=36068"},"modified":"2024-08-14T12:51:34","modified_gmt":"2024-08-14T16:51:34","slug":"elevating-the-urgent-need-to-take-action-drawing-on-the-epas-emergency-ban-of-the-weed-killer-dacthal-dcpa","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/beyondpesticides.org\/dailynewsblog\/2024\/08\/elevating-the-urgent-need-to-take-action-drawing-on-the-epas-emergency-ban-of-the-weed-killer-dacthal-dcpa\/","title":{"rendered":"Elevating the Urgent Need To Act on Biodiversity, Drawing on the EPA\u2019s Emergency Ban of Dacthal Weed Killer"},"content":{"rendered":"\r\n

(Beyond Pesticides<\/em>, August 12, 2024)\u00a0\u00a0When the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued an emergency ban of the weed killer Dacthal<\/a> (DCPA) last week, it said that there are no \u201cpracticable mitigation measures\u201d to protect against identified hazards\u2014a clear and honest assessment of the limits of pesticide product label changes and use restrictions. Now, the question is whether the same thinking can be applied across the EPA’s pesticide program, addressing the urgent need to protect biodiversity.<\/p>\r\n

In the Dacthal proclamation, EPA said it consulted with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) on \u201calternatives to this pesticide,\u201d and presumably determined that there were \u201calternative chemicals\u201d that could be used in chemical-intensive agriculture\u2014while not considering \u201calternatives to<\/strong> chemicals.\u201d This is the framework that is understood to be EPA\u2019s process that keeps pest management on a pesticide treadmill except in extremely rare cases (this being the second in nearly 40 years). It is also the framework that has led to catastrophic events or existential crises on biodiversity collapse, health threats, and the climate emergency.<\/p>\r\n

On biodiversity, the mix of diverse and intricate relationships of organisms in nature that are essential to the sustaining of life, EPA\u2019s pesticide program, the Office of Pesticide Programs, has led the U.S. down a road that can only be described, according to many health and environmental advocates, as apocalyptic, starting with the \u201cinsect apocalypse<\/a>\u201d and extending to all life. This is happening despite the availability of \u201calternatives to<\/strong> chemicals\u201d that EPA does not factor into its decisions to allow, day-after-day and year-after-year, the use of deadly pesticides that are neither necessary nor the most effective way to achieve quality of life<\/a>, public health<\/a> protection, efficacy<\/a> of pest management, productivity and profitability<\/a> of agriculture, aesthetics for lawns and landscapes<\/a>, and a livable future.<\/p>\r\n

>> Tell EPA and Congress to support measures that protect endangered species and their habitats and to reject measures that weaken that protection.<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\r\n

Listen (read these words aloud) to what EPA has to say (see page 4 of linked document) about its current ability to conduct regulatory reviews to \u201cprotect\u201d endangered species: \u201cEven if EPA completed this work for all of the pesticides that are currently subject to court decisions and\/or ongoing litigation, that work would take until the 2040s, and even then, would represent only 5% of EPA’s ESA [Species Act<\/em>] obligations.\u201d This has given cause for too many in the U.S. Congress to call for a weakening<\/em> of ESA, rather than charting a course for the transition to organic land management.<\/p>\r\n

As a result, EPA has come up with a draft strategy, not to transition to alternative systems without reliance on toxic pesticides, but \u201cto provide flexibility to growers to choose mitigations that work best for their situation.\u201d Presumably, if that \u201csituation\u201d in a chemical-intensive agricultural operation requires continued use of a chemical known to destroy endangered species, that may be permitted. The strict standards required to meet the crisis head-on is not a part of this EPA proposal. Because, this is the frame that EPA is using, in the agency\u2019s own words: \u201cWithout certain pesticide products, farmers could have trouble growing crops that feed Americans and public health agencies could lack the tools needed to combat insect-borne diseases.\u201d<\/p>\r\n

Recognizing the real threat with an honest assessment is the first step in adopting a transformational approach to change. Biodiversity, like the threat to human health (and they are intertwined) is an important place to begin to elevate the urgent need for transformational action.<\/p>\r\n

The\u00a0biodiversity crisis<\/a>\u00a0is one of multiple crises that are compounding one another. While human actions are contributing to an ongoing Holocene or\u00a0sixth mass extinction<\/a>, we are also facing crises in\u00a0human disease<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0climate change<\/a>. The\u00a0Endangered Species Act<\/em><\/a> focuses on the species and habitats most at risk of extinction. However, the statement of purpose also recognizes the importance of conserving the ecosystem on which they depend.<\/p>\r\n

Pesticide use is a major cause of declining biodiversity, which is manifested in extinctions, endangered species, and species vulnerable to environmental disturbances\u2014including climate change, habitat fragmentation, and toxic chemicals. If EPA is serious about protecting biodiversity, it must look first at the ways it has contributed to the crisis in the first place.\u00a0<\/p>\r\n

The\u00a0near extinction of a species of vulture<\/a>\u00a0brings into focus the importance of maintaining biodiversity for protecting human health. The loss of these underappreciated carrion eaters in India led to pollution of waterways by effluent from rotting carcasses and a burgeoning population of feral dogs, many of whom carried rabies. Similarly, in Wisconsin, researchers found that the\u00a0presence of wolves reduced vehicle collisions<\/a>\u00a0with deer by 24%\u2014an economic benefit 63 times greater than the cost of wolves killing livestock.\u00a0<\/p>\r\n

The\u00a0World Health Organization<\/a>\u00a0(WHO) summarizes the connections between biodiversity and human health:\u00a0<\/p>\r\n