Via the Emmett Environmental Law and Policy Clinic 

Earlier this year, the Emmett Environmental Law & Policy Clinic submitted an amicus brief on behalf of several health professional organizations in a case challenging the Environmental Protection Agency’s failure to ban agricultural uses of the organophosphate pesticide chlorpyrifos.  On August 9, in a victory for public health and for science-based decisionmaking, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned EPA’s decision and ordered the agency to ban the pesticide within 60 days.

In 2016, EPA had proposed to remove all food tolerances for chlorpyrifos under the Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA)—an action that would have prohibited all use of the pesticide on food crops.  Last year, however, Scott Pruitt reversed course and decided not to ban it, claiming that the science was not certain enough to justify researching a decision.  This action was one of many examples of how EPA under the Trump administration is ignoring science and basing its decisions on the wishes of industry.

A coalition of environmental and farmworkers’ organizations represented by Earthjustice challenged that reversal in the Ninth Circuit.  The Clinic, representing the Alliance of Nurses for Health Environments, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Public Health Association, Migrant Clinicians Network, Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR) and the San Francisco Bay Area Chapter of PSR, submitted an amicus brief in support of this challenge.  The brief reviewed the extensive scientific evidence indicating that children are vulnerable to long-lasting neurological harm from exposure to chlorpyrifos during pregnancy, even at levels far below the current tolerances permitted by EPA.  In particular, the studies show that chlorpyrifos can alter the very structure of the brain, as well as leading to attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and other behavioral problems.  In light of the large and robust research data demonstrating these harms, the brief argued that EPA could not reasonably cite scientific uncertainty as a basis for failing to take action.

Read more about the case here.

Filed in: Legal & Policy Work

Contact Office of Clinical and Pro Bono Programs