The EPA Is Routinely Failing to Require Warnings on Cancer-Linked Pesticides Fearless Independent Journalism The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is failing to put warnings on pesticides linked to cancer — even when the agency itself determined a product’s ingredients are carcinogenic, according to two new analyses of federal data. The EPA has put cancer warnings on 1.4% — 69 of 4,919 — of pesticide labels for products that contain an active ingredient that the agency itself has designated “probable” or “likely” to cause cancer, the analyses found. In addition, just 1.1% — 242 of 22,147 — of pesticide labels that contain ingredients with “possible” or “suggestive” links to cancer have cancer warnings from the EPA., come as one of the world’s top pesticide manufacturers, Bayer, seeks to rid itself of costly litigation over whether its glyphosate-based herbicides cause cancer. The company is pushing the U.S. Supreme Court to rule the EPA should have sole authority over pesticide cancer labels — a ruling that would have far-reaching implications for pesticide labeling.in late April. Bayer, which maintains that its glyphosate herbicides do not cause cancer, has also for years led lobbying efforts to bar states from having stricter pesticide labels than the EPA. The new analyses show, however, that state laws, specifically California’s Proposition 65, are the only reason some cancer-causing pesticides have warnings at all. The EPA “violated its duty” to protect Americans from harmful products and a Bayer victory at the Supreme Court would only further the “deadly” consequences of inconsistent and inadequate warnings, said Nathan Donley, environmental health science director for the Center for Biological Diversity.“The EPA is signaling to the court that it is capable of doing this but we have shown here that the agency is not capable at all,” he said. “The EPA is not requiring cancer warnings on labels that absolutely need them and that the public deserves.”Donley and colleagues at the Center for Biological Diversity examined over 93,000 historic and currently approved pesticide labels and found that just 311 of the labels contained a cancer warning. Of the 125 active pesticide ingredients currently used that are linked to cancer, products that contain 119 of those ingredients have no cancer warnings, the analyses found.that pesticide applicators in North Carolina and Iowa who sprayed the insecticide carbaryl often during their career have a higher risk of getting stomach, esophageal, tongue and prostate cancers. “Even when the EPA acknowledges that there is a link to cancer, the agency is rarely requiring warnings on pesticide labels, so this agency is essentially incapable of providing a reasonable warning to the public,” Donley said. The Center for Food Safety’s analysis looked at 570 pesticides that the EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs tested for links to cancer — including those that are no longer registered in the U.S. They found that 35% were classified as either “possibly” or “likely” carcinogenic to humans, and for another 11% the EPA lacked sufficient data to make a determination. Of these 200 pesticides that are possible or likely human carcinogens, 125 are still registered for use. Bill Freese, science director at the Center for Food Safety, said it’s important to examine both in-use and past pesticides because it can take decades after exposure to a carcinogen for cancer to develop. The analysis further found the EPA often approves pesticides that exceed the EPA’s “benchmark of concern” for cancer risk, which is one additional cancer case among one million exposed., estimated to cause cancer in up to 4.3 in 10,000 people exposed to it via drinking water; and the herbicide“The EPA has actually done these assessments and itself said that these particular pesticides pose risks of cancer,” Freese said, adding that the EPA approves pesticides assuming that workers will wear proper protective equipment such as respirators and gloves but studies show this isn’t always the case. “A cancer warning on a pesticide label could greatly increase the use of this personal protective equipment,” he said. “What we’re really talking about are measures to save lives.” Wendy Wagner, the Richard Dale Endowed Chair in Law and professor at the University of Texas, said the EPA’s cancer-risk determinations already rely on “assumption-laden” exposure models and added that most of the research produced to inform pesticide registrations is coming from industry, so the information guiding registration decisions “is already much more industry-leaning.” “It’s very hard for the public to challenge an inadequate warning,” she said. “Industry can much more easily say the EPA is requiring too many warnings.”The Center for Biological Diversity analysis found that 1,250 pesticide labels had cancer warnings due to California’s Proposition 65, which has stricter requirements than federal rules for pesticides. “California’s Prop. 65 labeling is picking up some of the slack,” Donley said. “Having cancer warnings only be required by the federal EPA would leave so many holes, as we see in our analysis.” For example, the pesticide ingredients mancozeb and chlorothalonil are both designated “likely” human carcinogens by the EPA, but only include cancer warnings specific to Prop. 65. Such state labeling is at the heart of both the upcoming Bayer Supreme Court case and state pesticide “preemption” battles around the country. Since purchasing Monsanto, maker of the glyphosate-based Roundup herbicide, Bayer has faced tens of thousands of lawsuits alleging that its glyphosate herbicides caused people’s cancer, a claim the company denies.assessing the last 10 years of scientific evidence on glyphosate issued a consensus statement urging US and European regulators to more tightly regulate the weed killer in light of strong scientific evidence that the pesticide can cause cancer and other health problems., Bayer argues that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act , which governs the registration, distribution, sale, and use of pesticides in the US, preempts such “failure-to-warn” claims against the company. Because the EPA has approved labels — including on glyphosate — with no cancer warning, failure-to-warn claims should be barred, the company maintains. “Congress created the right incentives by empowering EPA to strike a balance between meeting the needs of farmers and managing inevitable risks, including through labels that neither under- nor over-warn,” the company said in ansaid Bayer’s position on preemption “correctly allows EPA to determine on a nationwide basis what warnings must appear on a particular pesticide’s label to avoid an unreasonable risk to human health.”that Bayer executives met with EPA officials last year to discuss “litigation” issues – including “Supreme Court Action” over its glyphosate weed killer – just months before the Trump administration took a series of steps to boost Bayer’s case at the high court, according to afor state laws that bar people from suing pesticide manufacturers for failing to warn them of health risks, as long as the product labels are approved by the EPA. Two states —which will soon go to a floor vote, would force uniform pesticide labels across the country, which preempts state or local governments from mandating stricter labels that differ from those of the EPA. “This provision would handcuff states and local communities when federal regulators drag their feet or bow to industry pressure, and it would slam the courthouse doors on people who’ve been poisoned and harmed,” U.S. Representative Chellie Pingree, a Democrat from Maine, said in a Freese said that people should have the right to sue a corporation for putting out a product that doesn’t warn of cancer risks and “that’s exactly what Bayer is trying to prevent here.”As Trump cracks down on political speech, independent media is increasingly necessary. Truthout produces reporting you won’t see in the mainstream: journalism from the frontlines of global conflict, interviews with grassroots movement leaders, high-quality legal analysis and more. Our work is possible thanks to reader support. Help Truthout catalyze change and social justice — make a tax-deductible monthly or one-time donation today.This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.. He is a veteran reporter and editor, and has been awarded both local and national awards for his health and environmental reporting. He is a member of the Society of Environmental Journalists.