Kelly Baclija
Mr. Ippolito
AP Biology
September 23, 2020
Friedman, Lisa. “E.P.A. Rejects Its Own Findings That a Pesticide Harms Childrens' Brains.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 23 Sept. 2020, www.nytimes.com/2020/09/23/climate/epa-pesticide-chlorpyrifos-children.html.
There has recently been evidence released that links chlorpyrifos, a pesticide widely used on soybeans, almonds, grapes, as well as other crops, to grave health problems--specifically stunting brain development in children. However, the Environmental Protection Agency announced that “despite several years of study, the science addressing neurodevelopmental effects remains unresolved”, although multiple studies have found an exact correlation between the pesticide and developmental disorders. The E.P.A. has received much backlash on the matter, some stating that the organization has essentially disregarded the prevention of children’s exposure from the extremely toxic chemical, all the while their own scientists have previously recommended to ban it; Erik D. Olson, the senior director for health at the Natural Resources Defense Council says “the science is being overridden by politics”, considering governmental agencies and the Trump administration are skeptical to put strict regulations on the pesticide in place. The argument about banning chlorpyrifos has been happening for more than 13 years-- the Obama administration declared the pesticide would be banned after studies by the E.P.A presented its negative attributes, until the decision was ultimately overturned. Today, however, multiple environmental and labor groups are suing the agency in hopes of forcing an immediate ban; several states, such as California, New York, and Hawaii, are trying to help the cause by enacted bans of varying levels of strictness and the world’s largest manufacturer of chlorpyrifos, Corteva, announced it will stop producing the chemical by the end of the year.
The topic of this article is incredibly relevant, especially in today’s society; something as necessary as banning a toxic pesticide, which numerous studies have proved causes serious health problems, should not be a political debate, especially to a governmental agency that has been formed to tackle environmental issues. Despite this setback, however, states and large manufacturers have managed to band together to form a solution in getting rid of chlorpyrifos which emphasizes their determination and tenacity. Furthermore, this article highlights how practices that were previously seen as useful are now proving themselves to be dangerous, considering that chlorpyrifos was patented in 1966 by the Dow Chemical Company, when its toxicity was largely unknown. This begs the question whether or not materials that are used commonly today will be shown to be harmful in the future.
I think that this article was relatively well written since it offers plenty of information concerning the timeline of chlorpyrifos and its usage, especially by including the fact that the debate over the pesticide has been relevant for more than a decade; this allows the audience to get more of an understanding of the situation. Despite this, Friedman does not offer much perspective from the E.P.A. and thus has a biased manner of writing the article; although a ban on the pesticide is definitely necessary, there was not many responses from officials of the agency and instead focused on those of the opposing side. All in all, I believe Friedman brought to light an important topic that has evidently been shown to not have a solution yet, although it is bound to happen gradually in the future.
Kelly's current event begins with the proper MLA format for the original article and the link as well.
ReplyDeleteThis opinion piece on the highly debated pesticide, chlorpyrifos, was not only engaging but also very informative. Kelly used numerous quotes from chemical agencies and scientific experts on the manner, including the Natural Resources Defense Council and Environmental Protection Agency. As well, she politely implemented her agreement of the perspective of the article into her review, which allowed my own opinions to go unbothered. Another aspect well accomplished in this review is the acknowledgement of both sides of the debate; whether or not to ban the use of chlorpyrifos. She states "Friedman does not offer much perspective from the E.P.A. and thus has a biased manner of writing the article..." The inclusion of both sides of the argument is very critical in an opinion piece.
Though Kelly's piece was very well done, there are a few improvements to be made. First, though it is relatively clear the point of view of the E.P.A, she never fully explains their side or includes quotes. She simply adds the fact that the E.P.A has not banned the pesticide yet. She could fix this by adding a quote from the E.P.A.'s website on their perspective of the pesticide. Secondly, Kelly didn't add any data to back her argument, simply that there were studies which stated the pesticide was harmful to people. She could fix this by looking up specific data from the studies.
Kelly's article opened my eyes to the dangers of pesticides on food I ingest regularly. I will make sure to wash my grapes, and various other fruits/vegetables very carefully with soap and water. This review will forever change my life and how I go about eating safely.
Citations
ReplyDeleteFriedman, Lisa. “E.P.A. Rejects Its Own Findings That a Pesticide Harms Childrens'
Brains.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 23 Sept. 2020, www.nytimes.com/2020/09/23/climate/epa-pesticide-chlorpyrifos-children.html.
Baclija, Kelly, “E.P.A Rejects Its Own Findings That a Pesticide Harms Children's Brains”
https://bronxvilleapbiology.blogspot.com/2020/09/epa-rejects-its-own-findings-that.html Bronxville AP Biology Blog, Accessed on September 24th
` In Kelly's review of the article “E.P.A Rejects Its Own Findings That a Pesticide Harms Children’s Brain”, she does a great job of explaining how the debate over the risks of the pesticides chlorpyrifos has become more of a debate over politics, than over the actual health risks it imposes. Kelly does this by mentioning in her article how there have been numerous studies that have found “exact correlation” between the usage of the Chlorpyrifos and pesticides and yet the EPA has still considered the trial inconclusive. Furthermore, she mentions how the EPA’s scientists are even skeptical of the safety of the pesticides and have even recommended banning it as well. Kelly then ties the EPA’s decision to a political decision by quoting Erik D. Olson who believes “science is being overridden by politics” and that the Trump administration is skeptical of doing this. As a reader, this helps me understand clearly why the EPA’s decision to ban the pesticide was so controversial and how it might correlate back to Politics. Kelly also does a great job of mentioning the history of the Chlorpyrifos debate. In her review, she mentions how the debate goes back 13 years and how the Obama administration intended on banning pesticides only to have the decision overturned. As a reader, this helped me understand how ridiculous the decision in the EPA trial was, considering it had been almost banned years earlier and has conclusive evidence to justify a ban. Kelly also does a good job of subtly stating her opinion without taking away from the review of the article. She mentions just briefly how she believes that something that poses a health risk shouldn’t be political, but then shifts her focus right back to the discussion of the article.
While Kelly’s review was very well written and informative, there are some slight changes I would have made. Firstly, she was a little vague in mentioning the studies conducted that proved the risks of using Chlorpyrifos. While she mentions that numerous studies were conducted that showed the pesticides were linked to stunting brain development in Children =, she never goes into the specifics of who conducted these trials and how they did it. I think she could have fixed this by mentioning the epidemiology studies conducted by researchers at Columbia who found direct links between the pesticides and toddler brain development. Mentioning that would have helped make the evidence a little more specific and less vague. Another thing Kelly could improve is finding more evidence on how politics have affected the ultimate decision of not banning pesticides. While she mentions how the Trump administration was skeptical of the ban, I’d like to know more why they think that way and what political gain does the administration gain from not banning the product. She could probably do this by finding a quote from the administration or the president himself that discusses the decision of the pesticides.
Overall, Kelly’s review was very informative and posed a very interesting dilemma we face in today’s society. I learned to stay away from almonds, soybeans, and grapes because of the dangers of chlorophylls and also learned another example of how politics can weigh into decisions that they shouldn’t be making. Reading this review changed my perspective on foods and that just because they are regulated by the government, doesn’t mean they are totally safe. I also realized the danger politics can have on making important health decisions, as politics can get in the way of decisions that should only be based on scientific facts.
Hugh Duffy
ReplyDeleteMr. Ippolito
Current Event 1 (Kelly)
9/24/2020
Friedman, Lisa. “E.P.A. Rejects Its Own Findings That a Pesticide Harms Childrens'
Brains.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 23 Sept. 2020, www.nytimes.com/2020/09/23/climate/epa-pesticide-chlorpyrifos-children.html.
Baclija, Kelly, “E.P.A Rejects Its Own Findings That a Pesticide Harms Children's Brains”
https://bronxvilleapbiology.blogspot.com/2020/09/epa-rejects-its-own-findings-that.html Bronxville AP Biology Blog, Accessed on September 24th
The article Kelly reviewed by Lisa Friedman opens a curtain on pesticides, which politicians and the media have shut for nearly thirteen years. The issue regarding this particular pesticide lies in its contents. Chlorpyrifos, a key component in the composition of many pesticides, have been proven by many researchers to have long lasting, irreversible effects on the development of children’s brains. It appears that politicians and the CEO's of many farming corporations have been adamant in suppressing these studies, paying their own researchers to discredit any findings linking the chlorpyrifos to stunts in brain development. Kelly states in her review “The argument about banning chlorpyrifos has been happening for more than 13 years-- the Obama administration declared the pesticide would be banned after studies by the E.P.A presented its negative attributes, until the decision was ultimately overturned.” (Baclija 1)
Additionally, Kelly points to the large question of whether or not materials such as chlorpyrifos will eventually be discovered as health hazards, and will patents from large corporations affect public safety? While many labor groups and states in the Union are pushing for a ban, the Trump administration is hesitant to ban the toxic chemical in spite of the abundant research against it. Kelly quotes Erick D. Olsen, “the science is being overridden by politics.” (Qtd. in Baclija 1)
Kelly’s review of this article not only exposed me to a debate in which I was unaware of, but enhanced my understanding of the scientific scene in politics. People who haven’t spent years researching these materials suddenly have an opinion regarding an issue in which they are completely ignorant of; non-scientist politicians having the ultimate power regarding something entirely backed by scientific evidence is preposterous.
Kelly’s review was fantastic, however there were some elements regarding the science which became difficult for me, as the reader, to understand. To begin, Kelly opens with the key issue regarding this ingredient in pesticides, however the actual science behind how they cause brain damage is never stated. I would have liked to see more initiative in explaining the root cause of the brain damage, and especially why it is more apparent in the developing brain. This segways into my next suggestion. Which components of the chlorpyrifos cause such damage, and are they harmful to adults? Surely if they can harm a child’s brain development, they must have some effect on an adult brain.
Ultimately, I enjoyed Kelly’s review of “E.P.A. Rejects Its Own Findings That a Pesticide Harms Childrens' Brains.” by Lisa Friedman, as it opened my mind to the credibility of agencies such as the F.D.A.. For the government to allow such a product to remain on store shelves is scary, especially on foods like fruits which appeal to children. Why is the research being suppressed by politicians, what is their ulterior motive, and will humanity be destined for destruction if this continues to extend into issues such as global climate change.?