Emily Marquez's blog

A recent report from UCLA researchers evaluated the role of California county agricultural commissioners (CACs) and their permitting practices for restricted use pesticides. CACs are supposed to evaluate safer alternatives and cumulative exposures of these pesticides, and their power lies in their ability to grant permits to applicators.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) used to release “Pesticide Industry Sales and Usage” reports every two years — but that was almost 20 years ago. Several months ago, after fielding a question from a colleague, I found the most recent iteration of this report, released at the end of 2017 and covering market estimates from 2008 to 2012.

I try to be optimistic, but the past year hasn't been a great one for science.

The "war on science" you hear people talking about? It's real, and we're already seeing its results. Without input from researchers on the leading edge of science, policymakers are less equipped to make informed decisions — and it's easier for industry lobbyists to get their way.

With pesticide drift sweeping across the South and Midwest this summer, and EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt’s recent decision to keep the brain-harming pesticide chlorpyrifos on the market, children’s and community health is at the front of our minds here at PAN.

Lately scientific evidence seems to matter a lot less than it used to. It's not that evidence hasn't been ignored by policymakers in the past. But there are some unique things happening under the new administration that seem to directly and fundamentally challenge the value of science. Across the country, scientists are responding by standing up and speaking out.