毒死蜱:谁付钱,谁获利?

IF 1.7 Q3 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES
Evan S. Baker, Kyle J. Moon, Rachel C. Branco
{"title":"毒死蜱:谁付钱,谁获利?","authors":"Evan S. Baker, Kyle J. Moon, Rachel C. Branco","doi":"10.1089/env.2022.0074","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Chlorpyrifos is an organophosphate pesticide that has been widely used in agricultural and residential contexts since its introduction in 1965. Policies surrounding chlorpyrifos use changed dramatically over the past two decades. In 2021, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) limited applications to nonfood uses. The EPA's recent policy implementation was catalyzed by research findings published over a decade ago, citing the impacts of chlorpyrifos exposure on the developing nervous system. In this historical essay, we briefly outline the uses and hazards of chlorpyrifos and the factors influencing regulatory guidelines and policy implementation. Using an environmental justice framework, we present the story of chlorpyrifos as a case study of broader trends in the history of environmental hazards and pollution regulation, where regulatory interference allows companies to profit while those outside of the market pay the price. In the case of chlorpyrifos, corporate-funded research on the safety of the pesticide formed the basis for its continued usage. Meanwhile, people who are poor, belong to a racial and ethnic minority, and/or who work in agriculture face disproportionate rates of exposure, giving rise to disparate neurodevelopmental outcomes. In this way, the story of chlorpyrifos regulation is an example of how health inequities can remain entrenched in disenfranchised communities across the United States.","PeriodicalId":46143,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Justice","volume":"243 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Chlorpyrifos: Who Paid and Who Profited?\",\"authors\":\"Evan S. Baker, Kyle J. Moon, Rachel C. Branco\",\"doi\":\"10.1089/env.2022.0074\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Chlorpyrifos is an organophosphate pesticide that has been widely used in agricultural and residential contexts since its introduction in 1965. Policies surrounding chlorpyrifos use changed dramatically over the past two decades. In 2021, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) limited applications to nonfood uses. The EPA's recent policy implementation was catalyzed by research findings published over a decade ago, citing the impacts of chlorpyrifos exposure on the developing nervous system. In this historical essay, we briefly outline the uses and hazards of chlorpyrifos and the factors influencing regulatory guidelines and policy implementation. Using an environmental justice framework, we present the story of chlorpyrifos as a case study of broader trends in the history of environmental hazards and pollution regulation, where regulatory interference allows companies to profit while those outside of the market pay the price. In the case of chlorpyrifos, corporate-funded research on the safety of the pesticide formed the basis for its continued usage. Meanwhile, people who are poor, belong to a racial and ethnic minority, and/or who work in agriculture face disproportionate rates of exposure, giving rise to disparate neurodevelopmental outcomes. In this way, the story of chlorpyrifos regulation is an example of how health inequities can remain entrenched in disenfranchised communities across the United States.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46143,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Environmental Justice\",\"volume\":\"243 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Environmental Justice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1089/env.2022.0074\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environmental Justice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1089/env.2022.0074","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

毒死蜱是一种有机磷农药,自1965年推出以来,已广泛用于农业和住宅环境。过去二十年来,毒死蜱的使用政策发生了巨大变化。2021年,美国环境保护署(EPA)限制了非食品用途的应用。美国环保署最近的政策实施是由十多年前发表的研究结果推动的,研究结果引用了毒死蜱对发育中的神经系统的影响。在这篇历史性的文章中,我们简要概述了毒死蜱的使用和危害以及影响监管指南和政策实施的因素。利用环境司法框架,我们将毒死蜱的故事作为环境危害和污染监管历史上更广泛趋势的案例研究,在这些趋势中,监管干预使公司获利,而市场之外的公司则付出代价。以毒死蜱为例,由公司资助的关于该农药安全性的研究为其继续使用奠定了基础。与此同时,穷人、少数民族和/或从事农业工作的人面临着不成比例的暴露率,从而导致不同的神经发育结果。通过这种方式,毒死蜱监管的故事是一个例子,说明卫生不平等如何在美国各地被剥夺权利的社区中根深蒂固。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Chlorpyrifos: Who Paid and Who Profited?
Chlorpyrifos is an organophosphate pesticide that has been widely used in agricultural and residential contexts since its introduction in 1965. Policies surrounding chlorpyrifos use changed dramatically over the past two decades. In 2021, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) limited applications to nonfood uses. The EPA's recent policy implementation was catalyzed by research findings published over a decade ago, citing the impacts of chlorpyrifos exposure on the developing nervous system. In this historical essay, we briefly outline the uses and hazards of chlorpyrifos and the factors influencing regulatory guidelines and policy implementation. Using an environmental justice framework, we present the story of chlorpyrifos as a case study of broader trends in the history of environmental hazards and pollution regulation, where regulatory interference allows companies to profit while those outside of the market pay the price. In the case of chlorpyrifos, corporate-funded research on the safety of the pesticide formed the basis for its continued usage. Meanwhile, people who are poor, belong to a racial and ethnic minority, and/or who work in agriculture face disproportionate rates of exposure, giving rise to disparate neurodevelopmental outcomes. In this way, the story of chlorpyrifos regulation is an example of how health inequities can remain entrenched in disenfranchised communities across the United States.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Environmental Justice
Environmental Justice ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES-
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
5.00%
发文量
61
期刊介绍: Environmental Justice, a quarterly peer-reviewed journal, is the central forum for the research, debate, and discussion of the equitable treatment and involvement of all people, especially minority and low-income populations, with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. The Journal explores the adverse and disparate environmental burden impacting marginalized populations and communities all over the world. Environmental Justice draws upon the expertise and perspectives of all parties involved in environmental justice struggles: communities, industry, academia, government, and nonprofit organizations.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信