08/31/2026
Who’s pockets were lined on this one? Oh lemme guess.
The U.S. EPA just approved a carcinogenic herbicide called trifludimoxazin for agricultural use on a wide range of crops, including corn, wheat, oats, soybeans, peanuts, citrus fruits (including oranges), apples, and tree nuts such as almonds.
Trifludimoxazin is also considered by many environmental groups to be a PFAS pesticide because it contains highly fluorinated chemical structures and can break down into persistent fluorinated compounds - i.e. nature can't break it down properly as it's synthetic. Environmental organizations have described it as a "forever chemical" and have filed lawsuits challenging the EPA's approval.
Environmental groups have also pointed out that the company's own studies showed evidence suggesting cancer concerns and that the EPA downplayed those findings whe not was approved. The EPA claims the product is safe and that people shouldn't be concerned. Not a good look for MAHA.
As per usual with a systems view, the EPA's decisions are financial first, not human and ecological wellbeing first. The way they see it, if a herbicide helps farmers control resistant weeds and maintain crop yields, regulators will approve even if they are unsure of the long term consequences on humans and nature.
The short sightedness of this view is that while in some cases you might see higher yields and lower costs, the potential environmental costs may take decades to appear and are spread across society - much like they are now with other unwise decisions that have been made. While the system tends to reward the, it punishes humans and nature in the long term.
Why have we designed a food and regulatory system to avoid looking at cumulative, long-term environmental risks before they become major problems?