Toxic ‘forever chemicals’ detected in commonly used insecticides in US, study finds
By Marla Muter
Article Link: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/oct/07/forever-chemicals-found-insecticides-study
Scientific Study Link: https://www-sciencedirect-com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/science/article/pii/S266691102200020X#bib46
My blog post is about a Guardian article titled, "Toxic 'forever chemicals' detected in commonly used insecticides in US, study finds" by Tom Perkins. It discusses the results of a study titled "Targeted analysis and Total Oxidizable Precursor assay of several insecticides for PFAS", by Lasee et al. found that six of the ten insecticides they analyzed contained PFOs, one of the most toxic variations of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS.
In earlier studies by Lasee, insecticides were found to be a source of PFAS contamination in their control plants and the soil they were in at a United States Department of Agriculture cropping systems research laboratory greenhouse. As such, the goal of this study was to further establish insecticides as a source of PFAS contamination in plants and soil. The study authors took samples from ten pesticides that were shown to be at the greenhouse in 2017, as well as dirt and crop (corn, bean, and peanut) samples taken from fields at a USDA crop research site. The insecticide samples were analyzed using targeted and non-targeted Liquid Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry (LC-MS/MS), while the soil and crop samples underwent targeted LC-MS/MS only, from my understanding. Two of the insecticide samples, six and ten, also underwent a Total Oxidizable Precursor (TOP) assay. TOP assays help change PFAS into PFAAS that can be measured in comparison to available standards. Samples six and ten were revealed to have large amounts of "unknown" PFAS, making them perfect for TOP assays.
The authors found that seven out of ten insecticides contained PFAS when they underwent non-targeted analysis, and six out of ten contained PFOs after targeted analysis (Table 1). The TOP assays of insecticide samples six and ten revealed that the amount of PFAS detected increased after the assays were performed (Figure 2). Last, for the soil and crop samples, the targeted analysis also revealed that PFOs were the main PFAS contaminant. However, based on the fact that a variety of PFAS were found on the crop and soil samples, the authors surmised that they most likely came from other sources.
The article, on the other hand, only focuses on the insecticide results and only highlights the highest PFO amount found, which it gets slightly wrong. (The pesticide with the most PFOs contained 19.2 ppm, while the article reports the amount at 19 ppm.) They also neglected to point out that while this value was very high, the insecticide would have needed to be significantly diluted before application so the environmental contamination wouldn't be as bad, which I feel is slightly irresponsible of the author.
After that, I feel that the article devolves more into a criticism of the EPA. Perkins makes the comment that while the EPA does not have a limit on how much PFAS can be in pesticides, it does say that the EPA has PFAS limit of 0.02 ppm for drinking water, most likely to anger his audience. He also mentions that when Steven Lasee, the study's main author, presented his research to the EPA, they did not ask the brand names of the insecticides tested or follow up on interest to have Lasee present to more EPA staff. Finally, Perkins says that the EPA updated their website by saying PFOs were not in insecticides at the time. This makes the EPA look like an uncaring and maybe dishonest organization, which is beyond the scope of the article.
Overall, I would rate the article a 3/10. While it does discuss one piece of the article, it completely ignores the soil and plant samples, which I feel could strengthen the author's call to action. In addition, the one thing it does discuss it gets a bit wrong. All these combined give the impression the author's main goal was to call out the EPA for their inaction and possible lying, which I applaud, but it took away from the actual research.
It's interesting to me that this study had to be done at all in the first place. You would think that companies producing these insecticides would be responsible for reporting this data to the EPA, and there would be consequences for incorrectly reporting data, especially when these chemicals are being exposed to the food we eat. The fact that PFAS, commonly known as a cancer causing "forever chemical" is deliberately being exposed to our food is honestly scary. The fact that companies are allowed to keep their "proprietary blends" of chemicals secret from the public is a glaring flaw in our current system.
ReplyDeleteI agree that PFAS being in our food is terrifying and companies should be required to disclose what they are using in these insecticides, especially since PFAS can be added to insecticides as inactive ingredients. I'm honestly surprised that when Lasee presented his work to them, the EPA didn't ask which insecticides were tested because knowing would have allowed them to take action against these companies.
DeleteHi Marla, I absolutely agree that this news article was definitely using the science as a means, instead of using the scientific paper was the basis and end goal of the piece. Moreover, I absolutely feel the heat this author is trying to put onto the EPA and feel that while reasonable, might be a little misplaced for The Guardian. I love how the article missed the whole point behind dilution though, and personally, find it a little humorous that they don't mention how these pesticides are used in the field and why they work. The lack of preface and scientific discussion is shocking, particularly from the Guardian. I also wonder how much of this supposed anger by the article's author toward the EPA is valid and how much is rooted in assumptions (i.e. EPA and similar organizations may have different basis sets for their protocols that do not make sense without heavy discussion and learning; if this is skipped, the "bridging" between cause and effect can be filled with assumptions that can fuel anger).
ReplyDeleteI feel that the article could have been labeled an opinion piece given there was hardly any discussion on the actual study results and more statements about the EPA doing a lackluster job combating PFAS.
DeleteI am also not sure how much anger should be targeted at the EPA either; the author states that the EPA did not find PFOs in pesticides when Lasee et al. did. The EPA may not have access to advanced equipment like the study authors or they have completely different protocols for finding PFAS, so they may have not gotten the same results for those reasons. We can't be mad at the EPA until we know more details.
Thank you for sharing this news article with us which establishes insecticides as a notable source of PFAS contamination in plants and soil, highlighting potential environmental and agricultural risks. This information calls for a reevaluation of pesticide usage practices to mitigate the presence of harmful substances in the ecosystem. I am quiet curious to know that how might incorporating targeted education and awareness campaigns about PFAS contamination in insecticides at the agricultural level reshape practices, ensuring a more sustainable and environmentally conscious approach while fostering collaboration between researchers, farmers, and regulatory bodies?
ReplyDeleteThe optimistic side of me hopes that if farmers were made aware of PFAS in their pesticides they would try and choose brands that don't have these chemicals, as well as demand more transparency from the chemical industry as to what their pesticides contain. It would also encourage the EPA to pay more attention to this issue, force the chemical companies to not include PFAS, and force researchers to find biodegradable alternatives.
DeleteI agree with your last statement that the it seems like the author's main goal was to call out the EPA for lack of inaction. I also agree that I would have like the research to be more developed in the news article, however it brings into question how non-scientists (aka journalists) see the purpose of scientific research. There is some value from the perspective of a journalist to using a small detail from a scientific article to strengthen a point made in an opinion piece. While I agree that the news could have expanded more, it is interesting to being to think about the viewed use of scientific articles to non-scientists.
ReplyDeleteI find it very interesting they did not include a lot of the study's findings, like how the soil had higher levels than expected with just pesticide. On top of that they really made it into an opinion piece about the EPA's lack of response/responsibility. It seems well researched, but feels less about the science and more about garnering a response from people against the EPA. I am curious how you would rate it as an opinion piece/ call to action as opposed to an article focused on research. I do not feel like it is inherently a bad article, but I feel like using the science as a base to push a point, as opposed to using the science to support it, is not appropriate as scientific articles should be about the science.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the notion that the Guardian article reads as an opinion piece. I did find the inclusion of the information regarding Lasee's conversation with the EPA's research and development team interesting. It serves to prove that the EPA did not plan to further investigate the issue of contamination of PFAS in pesticides, as they would have no way of knowing which brands contained the contaminants that Lasee was presenting. Furthermore, the fact that PFAS was detected in soil and plant samples collected alongside the insecticide samples is significant, and would have been important to include in the Guardian article. I don't think the article was terrible, however I definitely think that the author had an angle to prove, and used one major point of the scientific paper to back up their opinion.
ReplyDeleteI think your perspective on the EPA not wanting to know which pesticide brands put PFAS in their products is intriguing. I'm wondering if this wasn't a priority for them at the time so that's why they weren't asked for. However, I'm going to have to disagree with your point that the article wasn't bad. For an article that is supposed to be about a scientific study, it doesn't discuss a majority of it. However, I would agree the article does work as an excellent opinion piece.
DeleteThanks for sharing! It would be interesting if in a future study they looked at the longterm fate of PFAS derived from pesticides. I imagine that different PFAS might deposit into the soil or leach into the ground water at different rates and to a different extent. Suddenly, it makes much more sense why PFAS might be found in well water despite how far the sites are from urban areas.
ReplyDeleteI believe this would be an excellent idea for a study; the study authors mentioned that fields near the USDA crop research facility also had PFAS in them. They also surmised that the reason that the PFOS chromatographs of the pesticide samples and the dirt samples looked slightly different was that the PFOS in the USDA facility's fields came from various sources. I think they should definitely compare the PFAS contamination of the nearby fields to that of the USDA facilities to see if the PFAS from these fields leached into the USDA one.
DeleteThis is an interesting topic, although as you say this article might not be the greatest resource when it comes to learning about PFOS/PFAS. The article mentions that the EPA has very low limits for PFAS in drinking water, but no limits for PFAS in pesticides. Why do you think the EPA would set such strict restrictions for PFAS in water but not in pesticides? It's clear that PFAS have a number of detrimental health effects, so I don't understand what the EPA's motivation would be in trying to stop us from consuming it in our water but completely ignoring it in our foods. You mention that much of the article is a criticism of the EPA, so I wonder if the EPA is actually being negligent here as the author is implying or if the author is leaving out information to make the EPA look worse.
ReplyDeleteI do agree with you that the article's emphasis on the EPA takes away from focus of the findings of the study, but I also do kind of appreciate the emphasis as well, though I would have liked to see more information from the study. I think this is important because we as consumers have the right to know to what extent the EPA protects us. I found it especially shocking that the limit of PFAs in drinking water was so low while there is no limit for insecticides. This does not make much sense to me and I really wonder why this it (profits?).
ReplyDeleteVery interesting topic! I find it very interesting that the EPA acknowledges the negative health effects of PFAS by regulating their concentrations in drinking water, but also does not regulate how many PFAS enter the environment through agriculture. The use of PFAS in industry, as well as in academic research, is a topic I've been hearing about more frequently recently as the European Commission is beginning to phase out nonessential PFAS in the EU. When reading the news article, I felt it was using the information to (1) lead readers to recognize this is an issue that is not being addressed by the EPA and (2) serve as a "call to action" for the EPA to start implementing higher regulation on PFAS entering the environment. I agree that the news article definitely could have elaborated more on the findings of this study, and that in turn could have helped get across the overall message of the article to the readers.
ReplyDeleteHi Marla, I feel like this was a missed opportunity by the Guardian to elaborate on some key findings from the research article--I thought it was really interesting that they traced the branched isomer of PFOS formation (via LC-MS/MS) to electrochemical fluorination (ECF) with confirmation of PFH-xS in plant tissue samples. Like some topics discussed last week in class, I think this article reaches a bit too far in the call for action column without providing some background on the initial effectiveness on pesticides, and the scientific writing is a bit sloppy/loses focus when honing in on past EPA actions. Do you think this piece can still be effectively framed as a call for action when 1)ECF-PFAS production has been phased out for over two decades, which was a primary source for much of the PFAS concentrations found in the samples and 2)the EPA is still actively involved in setting regulations when additional research is published?
ReplyDeleteI agree with your statement that the article reads more like an opinion piece. It seems to be a recurring theme in most of the blog posts that, to some degree, journalists often use scientific articles to back up a narrative they are aiming to convey. This is a prime example of that, particularly with the glaring lack of results mentioned in the news article. The articles emphasis on the EPA, while I agree it pulled away from the science, was quite eye opening to me as PFAS in the environment from agriculture is a pretty big deal and seems like something the EPA would be all over.
ReplyDeleteArticles and papers on this topic (like these) are always very interesting to me as they make me think of alternatives to chemical insecticides. As we started talking about in class last week, humans have created thousands chemicals to kill insects, and the rate at which these compounds were created increased rapidly over time. People haven't given as much thought and time as necessary to understand the fallout/environmental implications of using so many new chemicals in such a short amount of time. Personally, the idea of natural insecticides like natural enemies really excites me. In some south American citrus groves, farmers use ants to fight off pest insects that damage trees. I wonder if using more natural-enemy-type pesticides would have long-term benefits to ecosystems all over the world and reduce risk of introducing these forever compounds.
ReplyDeleteThis article seems to be more of an opinion piece than a reflection of the actual scientific findings. I think it is valid to try and warn the readers as to potential contaminates in their everyday lives as this is what news articles are often supposed to do. However, you need to reflect the facts correctly to not cause a panic. Additionally, I think it was a lot of about the new article that they didn't even correctly report the highest PFO amount found. All in all I would agree with a 3/10, if not lower.
ReplyDelete