1980-2024年美国环境保护署有机磷农药毒死蜱风险评估历史

IF 9.6 1区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Christopher Sellers,Ellen Kohl,Marianne Sullivan,Gretchen Gehrke,Jessica Varner,Mark Chambers,
{"title":"1980-2024年美国环境保护署有机磷农药毒死蜱风险评估历史","authors":"Christopher Sellers,Ellen Kohl,Marianne Sullivan,Gretchen Gehrke,Jessica Varner,Mark Chambers,","doi":"10.2105/ajph.2025.308073","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article examines the history of risk assessments of the organophosphate pesticide chlorpyrifos at the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), especially after a ban on household uses in 2000. Federal funding enabled more noncorporate and place-based scientific investigations of this pesticide's harms, including child-cohort epidemiology of populations impacted through environmental injustices. This article argues, first, that their findings challenged the thin knowledge base, mostly from corporate-sponsored toxicology, that originally justified chlorpyrifos's continued use. Second, for decades, outside a court-induced interval in 2015-2016, EPA's risk assessments favored \"de-placed\" toxicological modes and standards of knowledge-forged in the controlled environment of experimental laboratories-while marginalizing science gathered from the actual places and people EPA is supposed to protect. Third, agency officials stuck with a quantifiable, laboratory- and modeling-centered calculus for assessing health risks in part because a united front of corporate and corporate-consultant scientists harped on the uncertainties of newer findings. The article concludes that the agency needs to rethink its risk assessment practices and dependence, as well as more effectively account for financial conflicts of interest in evaluations of policy-relevant science. (Am J Public Health. Published online ahead of print May 1, 2025:e1-e11. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2025.308073).","PeriodicalId":7647,"journal":{"name":"American journal of public health","volume":"68 1","pages":"e1-e11"},"PeriodicalIF":9.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"History of Risk Assessments of the Organophosphate Pesticide Chlorpyrifos at the US Environmental Protection Agency, 1980‒2024.\",\"authors\":\"Christopher Sellers,Ellen Kohl,Marianne Sullivan,Gretchen Gehrke,Jessica Varner,Mark Chambers,\",\"doi\":\"10.2105/ajph.2025.308073\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article examines the history of risk assessments of the organophosphate pesticide chlorpyrifos at the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), especially after a ban on household uses in 2000. Federal funding enabled more noncorporate and place-based scientific investigations of this pesticide's harms, including child-cohort epidemiology of populations impacted through environmental injustices. This article argues, first, that their findings challenged the thin knowledge base, mostly from corporate-sponsored toxicology, that originally justified chlorpyrifos's continued use. Second, for decades, outside a court-induced interval in 2015-2016, EPA's risk assessments favored \\\"de-placed\\\" toxicological modes and standards of knowledge-forged in the controlled environment of experimental laboratories-while marginalizing science gathered from the actual places and people EPA is supposed to protect. Third, agency officials stuck with a quantifiable, laboratory- and modeling-centered calculus for assessing health risks in part because a united front of corporate and corporate-consultant scientists harped on the uncertainties of newer findings. The article concludes that the agency needs to rethink its risk assessment practices and dependence, as well as more effectively account for financial conflicts of interest in evaluations of policy-relevant science. (Am J Public Health. Published online ahead of print May 1, 2025:e1-e11. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2025.308073).\",\"PeriodicalId\":7647,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American journal of public health\",\"volume\":\"68 1\",\"pages\":\"e1-e11\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":9.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"American journal of public health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.2025.308073\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American journal of public health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.2025.308073","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文考察了美国环境保护署(EPA)对有机磷农药毒死蜱(chlorpyrifos)风险评估的历史,特别是在2000年禁止家庭使用之后。联邦政府的资金支持了对这种杀虫剂危害的更多非企业和基于地点的科学调查,包括对受环境不公正影响的人群进行儿童队列流行病学调查。这篇文章认为,首先,他们的发现挑战了薄弱的知识基础,主要来自企业赞助的毒理学,最初证明毒死蜱继续使用是合理的。其次,几十年来,除了2015-2016年这段法院诱导的时间间隔外,EPA的风险评估倾向于“去定位”的毒理学模式和知识标准——在实验实验室的受控环境中形成——而将从实际地点和人群中收集的科学边缘化,EPA应该保护。第三,机构官员坚持采用可量化的、以实验室和模型为中心的计算方法来评估健康风险,部分原因是企业和企业顾问科学家组成的统一战线反复强调新发现的不确定性。这篇文章的结论是,该机构需要重新考虑其风险评估实践和依赖性,以及在评估与政策相关的科学时更有效地考虑经济利益冲突。公共卫生。2025年5月1日提前在线发布:e1-e11。https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2025.308073)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
History of Risk Assessments of the Organophosphate Pesticide Chlorpyrifos at the US Environmental Protection Agency, 1980‒2024.
This article examines the history of risk assessments of the organophosphate pesticide chlorpyrifos at the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), especially after a ban on household uses in 2000. Federal funding enabled more noncorporate and place-based scientific investigations of this pesticide's harms, including child-cohort epidemiology of populations impacted through environmental injustices. This article argues, first, that their findings challenged the thin knowledge base, mostly from corporate-sponsored toxicology, that originally justified chlorpyrifos's continued use. Second, for decades, outside a court-induced interval in 2015-2016, EPA's risk assessments favored "de-placed" toxicological modes and standards of knowledge-forged in the controlled environment of experimental laboratories-while marginalizing science gathered from the actual places and people EPA is supposed to protect. Third, agency officials stuck with a quantifiable, laboratory- and modeling-centered calculus for assessing health risks in part because a united front of corporate and corporate-consultant scientists harped on the uncertainties of newer findings. The article concludes that the agency needs to rethink its risk assessment practices and dependence, as well as more effectively account for financial conflicts of interest in evaluations of policy-relevant science. (Am J Public Health. Published online ahead of print May 1, 2025:e1-e11. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2025.308073).
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
American journal of public health
American journal of public health 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
9.50
自引率
3.90%
发文量
1109
审稿时长
2-4 weeks
期刊介绍: The American Journal of Public Health (AJPH) is dedicated to publishing original work in research, research methods, and program evaluation within the field of public health. The journal's mission is to advance public health research, policy, practice, and education.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信