theguardian.com
Diquat: Roundup's Toxic Replacement Under EPA Scrutiny
New research shows diquat, a glyphosate replacement in Roundup, damages gut bacteria and multiple organs, despite being banned in many countries but allowed in the US due to weak regulations and industry influence.
- How does the EPA's regulatory approach to diquat compare to other countries, and what factors contribute to this discrepancy?
- The study details diquat's damage to the gut lining, reducing key proteins, allowing toxins into the bloodstream and triggering inflammation. It also harms kidneys, lungs, and liver, potentially causing multiple organ dysfunction syndrome. This contrasts with the EPA's inaction despite evidence of diquat's toxicity.
- What are the immediate health consequences of using diquat, and how does its toxicity compare to glyphosate, given its continued use despite bans in other countries?
- New research reveals that diquat, a glyphosate replacement in Roundup and other weedkillers, harms gut bacteria and multiple organs. Diquat's toxicity surpasses glyphosate; it's banned in the UK, EU, and China, yet the EPA allows its use in the US, leading to a "regrettable substitution.
- What systemic changes are needed in US pesticide regulation to prevent future "regrettable substitutions" of harmful chemicals, and how can the influence of industry be mitigated?
- The EPA's continued allowance of diquat highlights weaknesses in US pesticide regulations, overshadowed by battles over other banned substances. This inaction, coupled with the industry's influence and a "necessary evil" philosophy within the EPA, suggests limited progress in protecting public health from toxic pesticides.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The article frames diquat as inherently dangerous, emphasizing the negative research findings and highlighting the concerns of environmental advocacy groups. The headline itself likely contributes to a negative perception. The use of terms like "regrettable substitution" and quotes highlighting the toxicity of diquat compared to glyphosate shape the narrative towards a conclusion of diquat's danger. The placement of information about the EPA's inaction near the end reinforces the negative portrayal.
Language Bias
The article uses loaded language, such as "quite a bit nastier," "regrettable substitution," and describing diquat as a "neurotoxin" and linked to Parkinson's, all contributing to a negative portrayal. These terms are not fully balanced by discussion of potential counterarguments or uncertainties. More neutral alternatives could include describing diquat's toxicity relative to glyphosate using specific data points, and substituting evocative words with more scientific and less emotionally charged descriptions. The repeated emphasis on the negative effects of diquat reinforces a negative tone.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on the negative impacts of diquat, but omits discussion of potential benefits or alternative perspectives on its use. While acknowledging that more research is needed on low, long-term exposure, the piece doesn't explore existing research that might counter the negative findings presented. The lack of comment from Bayer is noted, but no attempt is made to seek other industry perspectives. The article also omits details on the regulatory processes and reasoning behind the EPA's decision not to ban diquat, beyond citing weak regulations and industry influence. This omission limits the reader's ability to form a fully informed opinion.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a false dichotomy by framing the issue as a simple choice between glyphosate and diquat, without acknowledging the complexity of pesticide regulation and the existence of other potential alternatives. This oversimplification ignores the possibility of developing safer pesticides or exploring non-chemical weed control methods.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article highlights the negative health impacts of diquat, a herbicide replacing glyphosate. Diquat is linked to damage in multiple organs (kidneys, lungs, liver), gut bacteria disruption, and potential for multiple organ dysfunction syndrome. This directly contradicts SDG 3, which aims to ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages. The replacement of one toxic substance with another equally or more harmful one exemplifies a failure to prioritize public health.