As physicians, we know the importance of what we eat for our individual well being but often fail to appreciate that the way we grow our food impacts the health of the public. However, this was not the case last year when many respected groups and scientists including Consumers Union, The Environmental Working Group, Physicians for Social Responsibility, and Dr. Phil Landrigan of the Mount Sinai School of Medicine raised concerns over EPA's approval of Enlist Duo, an uber pesticide promising to overcome superweeds resistant to the previously unbeatable pesticide, glyphosate (aka Roundup). The Dr. Oz Show amplified these worries in its programming and encouraged its viewers to join a White House petition, ultimately signed by over 120,000 well-informed citizens, asking the president to stop the approval of Enlist Duo. The White House responded in saying that "EPA and USDA scientists determined that the Enlist Duo system is safe based on current scientific evidence." Nevertheless, on the day before Thanksgiving, when traditionally PR teams recommend that bad news be released to die of neglect over the holiday weekend, the EPA rescinded its premature approval, claiming it did not have all of the relevant information about the synergistic effects of the two main ingredients when they previously reviewed the pesticide. As a result of obtaining this "new information" the agency is now no longer able to determine that the pesticide does not cause "unreasonable effects to the environment."
Enlist Duo contains both the chemicals glyphosate and 2,4 D and was designed to kill the weeds growing among genetically engineered (GE) corn and soybean crops that had become resistant to glyphosate alone. These two chemicals are dangerous to both human health and the environment. The International Agency for Cancer Research has classified glyphosate as probably, and 2,4 D as possibly, carcinogenic to humans. While this appears to have not effected the EPA's decision making it did lead to the Argentina's leading medical group to petition the government to ban these chemicals. Assessing population exposure to chemicals is a crucial part of the process the health risks of these pesticides but even the Government Accountability Office has noted that the government is inadequately measuring the presence of glyphosate in our food supply.
Equally important, the companies creating Enlist Duo claim this pesticide has been formulated to "drift" less. This is not comforting though, because according to the Environmental Working Group there are over 5,600 schools within only 200 feet of a cornfield. Is it wise to take a chance spraying such a potentially dangerous chemical near rapidly developing vulnerable children?
The approval of this pesticide led groups to sue both the manufacturer and EPA demanding the approval be rescinded. We are thankful that our legal system has brought out the information needed for the EPA to finally come to the right decision, but we must ensure that in the future a more comprehensive evaluation is completed. Pesticides should not be rushed to market to solve problems created by other pesticides. The safety of a pesticide should not be determined without all of the information on the toxicity of all of the ingredients, the magnitude of the exposure to those ingredients, and availability of other non-toxic alternatives. The EPA plays a crucial role in our lives and benefits from our citizenry's continued vigilance to ensure that its primary concern is protecting public health.