By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The EPA recently approved ten pesticide products containing isocycloseram, a PFAS “forever chemical,” for use in agriculture and pest control. Although the EPA claims no human health risks were identified when used as directed, environmental advocates express concerns about the long-term dangers associated with PFAS exposure, such as reproductive and liver toxicity. Researchers emphasize the persistence of isocycloseram and its toxicity to pollinators. While the EPA highlighted the benefits for crop management, concerns remain due to the potential ecological and public health impacts.
Read the original article here
The EPA Approved a New PFAS Pesticide — Will It Show Up in Your Produce?
The Environmental Protection Agency recently approved ten pesticide products containing a new chemical called isocycloseram. The catch? Isocycloseram is a PFAS, often referred to as a “forever chemical,” known for its persistence in the environment. This means it doesn’t break down easily and can stick around for a very long time, raising serious questions about its potential impact. The approval of this pesticide for use on agricultural land, turf, and for indoor pest control immediately sparks a concerning question: will this new chemical make its way into the food we eat?
It seems the immediate response is a resounding, yes. Given the nature of how we introduce chemicals in the US, with products often approved before comprehensive safety testing is available, the likelihood of finding isocycloseram in our food seems quite high. Isocycloseram’s persistence in the environment, coupled with its use in agriculture, suggests that it has the potential to contaminate not just the produce itself, but also the soil and water used to grow it. This poses a potential risk to the entire food chain, raising fears of widespread contamination.
Adding to the concern is the fact that isocycloseram is “highly toxic” to pollinators like bees. We’re talking about a chemical that could expose these vital creatures to levels of toxicity 1,500 times greater than what’s considered lethal. This poses serious implications for our food supply. Pollinators play a crucial role in the production of many of the fruits and vegetables we eat, making one out of every three bites of our food dependent on their activity. If pollinators are harmed, it could mean serious trouble for the availability and variety of the produce we can access.
The approval of this pesticide highlights the fundamental differences in how chemicals are regulated in different parts of the world. In the US, the approach tends to be to allow the use of a chemical unless it’s proven to be dangerous, while Europe often requires that a chemical be proven safe before it’s introduced. This contrast underscores the importance of stringent testing and careful consideration of the potential risks before releasing any new chemical into the environment, especially when it is designed to be around forever.
Another worrying aspect is the potential for bioaccumulation. Forever chemicals, by their very nature, can accumulate in the environment and in living organisms. As the chemical moves up the food chain, its concentration can increase, potentially leading to higher levels in the food we consume. This highlights the importance of understanding the long-term effects of these chemicals and the potential for cumulative harm.
The chemical structure of isocycloseram differs from some other PFAS compounds, but it still falls under the “forever chemical” umbrella due to its persistence. Regardless of the nuances, the potential for harm remains. Many are concerned about what the long-term impacts of this chemical could be on human health and the environment. We are right to be skeptical, as the EPA has had a questionable history when it comes to prioritizing health and safety over corporate interests.
There’s also a growing awareness of the limitations of relying on government regulations alone. With concerns raised about the EPA’s motivations and the potential for conflicts of interest, many are considering taking their food supply into their own hands. The idea of growing your own food, though not always easy, is increasingly seen as a way to avoid the potential risks associated with commercially grown produce. This may involve using things like reverse osmosis water filters to protect their drinking water.
It’s clear that the approval of isocycloseram is not just about a single chemical. It’s about a broader trend of introducing potentially harmful substances into our environment and food supply. While it can be disheartening, there is also potential for change. Increased awareness and the actions of a concerned citizenry can help push for greater scrutiny and more responsible regulation. It remains to be seen how the story of isocycloseram will unfold, but one thing is certain: consumers will have to stay informed and vigilant in the face of this and other new chemicals being introduced into our environment.