this post was submitted on 01 May 2024
141 points (98.0% liked)

News

23301 readers
3754 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

The Environmental Protection Agency unveiled a proposal this week to ban a controversial pesticide that is widely used on celery, tomatoes and other fruits and vegetables.

The EPA released its plan on Tuesday, nearly a week after a ProPublica investigation revealed the agency had laid out a justification for increasing the amount of acephate allowed on food by removing limits meant to protect children’s developing brains.

But rather than banning the pesticide, as the European Union did more than 20 years ago, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency recently proposed easing restrictions on acephate.

The federal agency’s assessment lays out a plan that would allow 10 times more acephate on food than is acceptable under the current limits. The proposal was based in large part on the results of a new battery of tests that are performed on disembodied cells rather than whole lab animals. After exposing groups of cells to the pesticide, the agency found “little to no evidence” that acephate and a chemical created when it breaks down in the body harm the developing brain, according to an August 2023 EPA document.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (2 children)

Yeah but the article is intentionally worded to provoke outrage. What if it was more like …..

—-

US EPA tested a common common pesticide and found little to no evidence of an impact on developing brains, so is relaxing restrictions on levels allowed on common fruit

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago

US EPA tested a common common pesticide and found little to no evidence of an impact on developing brains, so is relaxing restrictions on levels allowed on common fruit

Probably because that wasn't what the EPA found because they did their tests on disembodied cells. There was zero testing on animals, which could/would have shown far different results.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (2 children)

Yeah but the article is intentionally worded to provoke outrage.

A lot of posting in communities online are like that, unfortunately.

But still, I highlighted the particular parts that do not seem to be argued, and seem to be accurate, actual facts. So I was able to respond to just those three facts.

US EPA tested a common common factor pesticide and found little to no evidence of an impact on developing brains, so is relaxing standards on levels allowed on common fruit

The fictional rewrite you did though does not talk to the points that I've highlighted (how it was tested, the changing quantity times amount, etc.).

So one could say it's obfuscating, and not ethical as well (AKA sales/propaganda).

~Anti~ ~Commercial-AI~ ~license~ ~(CC~ ~BY-NC-SA~ ~4.0)~

[–] [email protected] 4 points 6 months ago (1 children)

The thing is, typically you are way way more likely to see results at high concentrations in isolated cells vs in an animal or human at more reasonable exposure rates, so you typically only elevate to animal testing once you've shown some pathway of effect in isolated cells.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

The thing is, typically you are way way more likely to see results at high concentrations in isolated cells vs in an animal or human at more reasonable exposure rates, so you typically only elevate to animal testing once you’ve shown some pathway of effect in isolated cells.

Fair enough, wasn't aware of the pathway/elevation technique, as you described it.

~Anti~ ~Commercial-AI~ ~license~ ~(CC~ ~BY-NC-SA~ ~4.0)~

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

My version clearly is minimizing the issue. The wording is misleading. However I believe it is just as accurate as the article and equally misleading.

The points you highlight come from the author, not the source and include nothing to support whether or not it’s bad.

  • removing the limits sounds bad, but finding no danger in a study so relaxing the limits seems reasonable. Yet they say the same thing
  • it does seem like a huge jump but is it? If testing didn’t find a problem with that, then why not?
  • so it all comes down to the testing. Aside from testing inflammatory wording, we’re basing outrage on testing against cell lines instead of animals. Yet we’ve also been clamoring for exactly that: less animal testing. More importantly, not even an opinion much less evidence about whether this is normal or unusual, not even an opinion much less evidence on whether this accurately assesses the danger or not.

Certainly the article makes this seem outrageous, but I’m very dissatisfied with how it gets there

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

Well, I'm not an expect (curious if you are?), just a layman, so I'll defer to your opinion on the matter. But I would hope that the changes would be described better by the authorities so that a non-expert/normal/everyday (not anti-vaxer type) person doesn't get worried about them.

~Anti~ ~Commercial-AI~ ~license~ ~(CC~ ~BY-NC-SA~ ~4.0)~

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

No, just someone who really dislikes poor reporting on scientific topics.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago

No, just someone who really dislikes poor reporting on scientific topics.

Quoting portions of an article is not reporting on the subject, it's just quoting.

~Anti~ ~Commercial-AI~ ~license~ ~(CC~ ~BY-NC-SA~ ~4.0)~