April 28, 2017 at 4:53 p.m.
When it comes to science, beware the scientists
When it comes to science, beware the scientists
The mainstream media and environmental organizations pretty much went berserk, especially given that the Obama administration had approved the ban and it was almost in place before the Trump EPA aborted it.
Usually, the political hysteria emanating from those quarters is nothing to get excited about, as they generally declare the world to be ending two or three times a week. "The end is near" screams are even louder now that Trump is president.
In this case, though, the alarmists may have a point, even if they are still over-the-top in their behavior. Chlorpyrifos has been banned for home use since 2001, precisely because of its toxic nature and its human impacts, especially on children.
Surely, if chlorpyrifos is too toxic to be used in the home, it is too toxic to be applied to the fruits and vegetables we eat, especially since the pesticide's residue remains on the produce even after it is washed.
Hmmmm.
The critics of the science showing chlorpyrifos - and its maker, Dow Chemical - to be a bad actor attack the science as ideologically driven. They have a point, since most science these days is.
Clearly, as our report shows, there are inherent problems with the epidemiological studies used to support the ban. Group A with high exposure might show neurological impairment compared with Group B that does not have high exposure, but that does not rule out that other non-pesticide factors might have caused the impairment in Group A.
That is precisely part of the criticism launched by industry advocates and Trump EPA officials, and there is a certain validity to the reasoning.
Still, it doesn't mean the higher impairment levels are not due to exposure, and in fact overall the research does point in that direction. The results might be doubted in a study or two, but a growing number of studies shows the same result, and that represents a high correlative indication.
And what about studies downplaying the risks of chlorpyrifos? They exist, too. But most if not all of them are industry funded, directly or indirectly, and that must rule out their consideration as counter-evidence from the get-go. When and if independent studies show no harm from the pesticide, that should be given proper weight.
There is no doubt that bureaucrats in the Obama EPA relied on some shaky, or at least inconclusive, science to reach their decision to ban, even if a ban might still be reasonable. Meanwhile, those opposing the ban are largely corporatists who depend on those corporations for their meal tickets.
The point is, when it comes to science, it's not just bureaucrats who can't be trusted, it's scientists, too. Many of them are driven by ideology.
Thomas Jefferson once argued that we should not vest too much power in unelected judges because, after all, judges are human and thus no more or no less honest or partisan than other humans. The same goes for scientists and bureaucrats.
In this case, the corporate bias within corporate funded studies is obvious, and the lack of independent verification telling.
Those who support a ban probably have the better argument, but their own revolving-door ties to environmental groups must not be discounted, especially when there is a past history of using bad science to justify new regulations (see ozone and asthma risks, to cite one example). When headlines scream that the Trump EPA is ignoring its own science, it's worth it to ask, Was that science ideologically driven in the first place?
What concerns us most about this incident is the way the mainstream media played up Trump's apparent surrender to Dow Chemical and all the chemical buy guys. They played up Dow's $1 million contribution to Trump's inauguration and painted the president as a crony capitalist, and the media certainly pointed to Dow's ongoing attempt to whitewash "sound science."
The president may well have surrendered good reason on this occasion, but the science behind it is anything but sound. If it can be characterized, it might be described as reasonable or probable, and the ban labeled as 'better to be safe than sorry."
The media's double standard with Trump was fully at work. For instance, the press constantly promotes studies showing no link between autism and vaccines, every one of them funded by pharmaceutical companies and those on their payrolls, without disclosing the scientists' conflicts of interest, as they did with Dow.
They never talked, either, about the revolving door ties between environmental interest groups and the Obama administration. They would have more credibility criticizing Trump on this issue if they had.
For the record, ban chlorpyrifos, and get it off our tables and out of our children's hands.
But don't trust the bureaucrats until you see from where they have come, and don't trust the scientists until you see who is paying them.
Comments:
You must login to comment.