TY - JOUR
T1 - Assessing the scientific support for U.S. EPA pesticide regulatory policy governing active and inert ingredients
AU - Bruce, Analena B.
AU - Borlu, Yetkin
AU - Glenna, Leland L.
N1 - Funding Information:
Model 2 includes the attitudinal variables, as well as the variables measuring whether the scientists received funding from the private sector and whether they engage in excludable research (Table ). The results indicate that scientists oriented towards public science (Public Science: 0.137, p < 0.001) and those who think that government regulations are unduly influenced by corporate interests (Government Regulation: 0.205, p < 0.001) are more likely to think that inert ingredients should be regulated along with active ingredients. Those oriented towards private science (Private Science: – 0.081, p < 0.01) are less likely to think that inert ingredients should be regulated. Similarly, those receiving funding from industry trade groups or private firms (Private Funding: – 0.192, p < 0.01) are less likely to think that inert ingredients should be regulated. Excludable research outputs are not significant in this model. Field remains significant in model 2, but applied research is no longer significant. Model 2 captures over 10% of the variance in scientists’ support for regulating inert ingredients. More important than the variance explained is that the significant variables enable us to confirm our hypothesis.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2022, AESS.
PY - 2023/3
Y1 - 2023/3
N2 - US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) pesticide regulatory policy only requires environmental impact and safety testing and labeling of the active ingredients of pesticide products, rather than the end use formula. This policy is thought to partially explain the conflicting outcomes of the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and EPA assessments on glyphosate, and there is substantial scientific evidence that this approach has led to an underestimation of risk. In this paper, we present a review of EPA pesticide policy governing the regulation of active and other ingredients and findings from a survey of US agricultural scientists focused on their views of this EPA policy. The survey findings indicate that the scientists we surveyed support a more comprehensive approach to the regulation of pesticide products, including both active and inert ingredients, as well as the end use product, to test for combined effects. They also support the disclosure and labeling of inert ingredients to support independent testing of these chemicals. The results also indicate that university scientists oriented towards public science are more likely to support regulation than university scientists oriented towards private science. Overall, despite substantial evidence that the combination of all ingredients in pesticide products may be more toxic than the active ingredients alone, the current regulatory approach does not provide a pathway for the agency to respond to this science. In this sense, the scientific support for the agency’s current regulatory approach is unclear.
AB - US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) pesticide regulatory policy only requires environmental impact and safety testing and labeling of the active ingredients of pesticide products, rather than the end use formula. This policy is thought to partially explain the conflicting outcomes of the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and EPA assessments on glyphosate, and there is substantial scientific evidence that this approach has led to an underestimation of risk. In this paper, we present a review of EPA pesticide policy governing the regulation of active and other ingredients and findings from a survey of US agricultural scientists focused on their views of this EPA policy. The survey findings indicate that the scientists we surveyed support a more comprehensive approach to the regulation of pesticide products, including both active and inert ingredients, as well as the end use product, to test for combined effects. They also support the disclosure and labeling of inert ingredients to support independent testing of these chemicals. The results also indicate that university scientists oriented towards public science are more likely to support regulation than university scientists oriented towards private science. Overall, despite substantial evidence that the combination of all ingredients in pesticide products may be more toxic than the active ingredients alone, the current regulatory approach does not provide a pathway for the agency to respond to this science. In this sense, the scientific support for the agency’s current regulatory approach is unclear.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85137049904&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85137049904&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1007/s13412-022-00788-4
DO - 10.1007/s13412-022-00788-4
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85137049904
SN - 2190-6483
VL - 13
SP - 1
EP - 13
JO - Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences
JF - Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences
IS - 1
ER -