Search for: All records

This article examines the history of risk assessments of the organophosphate pesticide chlorpyrifos at the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), especially after a ban on household uses in 2000. Federal funding enabled more noncorporate and place-based scientific investigations of this pesticide’s harms, including child-cohort epidemiology of populations impacted through environmental injustices. This article argues, first, that their findings challenged the thin knowledge base, mostly from corporate-sponsored toxicology, that originally justified chlorpyrifos’s continued use. Second, for decades, outside a court-induced interval in 2015–2016, EPA’s risk assessments favored “de-placed” toxicological modes and standards of knowledge—forged in the controlled environment of experimental laboratories—while marginalizing science gathered from the actual places and people EPA is supposed to protect. Third, agency officials stuck with a quantifiable, laboratory- and modeling-centered calculus for assessing health risks in part because a united front of corporate and corporate-consultant scientists harped on the uncertainties of newer findings. The article concludes that the agency needs to rethink its risk assessment practices and dependence, as well as more effectively account for financial conflicts of interest in evaluations of policy-relevant science. ( Am J Public Health. 2025;115(7):1074–1084. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2025.308073 ) 

Abstract ObjectiveThis study is the first community engagement phase of a project to develop a residential formaldehyde detection system. The objectives were to conduct a feasibility assessment for device use, and identify factors associated with concerns about environmental exposure and community interest in this device. Design and SampleA cross‐sectional, internet‐based survey employing community‐based participatory research principles was utilized. 147 individuals participated from a focused Waycross, Georgia (58.5%) and broader national sample (41.5%). MeasuresVariables included acceptable cost and number of testing samples, interest in conducting tests, levels of concern over pollutants, health status, housing, and demographics. ResultsThe majority of participants desired a system with fewer than 10 samples at ≤$15.00 per sample. Statistically significant higher levels of concern over air quality, formaldehyde exposure, and interest in testing formaldehyde were observed for those with overall worse health status and living in the Waycross, Georgia geographic region. Significant differences in formaldehyde testing interest were observed by health status (OR = 0.31, 95%CI = 0.12–0.81 for home testing) and geographic location (OR = 3.16, 95%CI = 1.22–8.14 for home andOR = 4.06, 95%CI = 1.48–11.12 for ambient testing) in multivariate models. ConclusionsGeographic location and poorer general health status were associated with concerns over and interest in formaldehyde testing.