Scott Pruitt's Decision on Chlorpyrifos

Yesterday, The New York Times ran an article about Scott Pruitt’s – the head of the Environmental Protection Agency – recent statements regarding the recommended ban on chlorpyrifos, a harmful insecticide still used by farmers. Under an image of Pruitt speaking behind a podium, the story presents his remarks as representative of a sort of internal opposition (his reversal of the agency’s previous position under Obama was a rejection of “the scientific conclusion of the agency’s own chemical safety experts”). This sort of framing might appear to be a sort of delegitimizing tactic and critique of Pruitt’s qualifications to be in the position he’s in, but he also has a long history of oppositional behavior regarding EPA policies and procedures; in other words, the story aligns with the general criticism his appointment has evoked since he assumed office. The story juxtaposes reputable scientific findings (the author is sure to mention that scientists were conducting research at Columbia, specifically) with those who stand to lose the most from it being banned: Dow Chemical, the manufacturer of the insecticide. There is some balance presented as well – a panel of chemical safety experts reviewed the data – but the consensus within the scientific community remains: the chemical should be banned, and Pruitt is clearly catering to corporate relationships rather than keeping the health of the population in mind.

NPR ran a similar story that same day, though theirs began with a noticeably different tone and position: rather than visually draw the reader to Pruitt – and his status as an unqualified leader inciting internal turmoil within the agency – it led with an image of an orange grove that had been treated with the chemical; a skull and crossbones is included with the sign’s “do not enter until...” disclaimer, presenting a particular sort of bias against its safe use on consumable goods. While the article does describe Pruitt’s actions as being counter to his own agency, the focus appears to be more so on the effects of the chemical rather than the discrepancies among those determining the legal parameters of its usage. For instance, studies of families that had been exposed to chlorpyrifos are referenced as evidence that shifted the agency’s initial stance on the chemical being safe to use as long as it was outdoors, and a farmer’s testimony is presented to balance claims of the chemical’s harm: if it is used correctly, then there’s nothing wrong with it. Both The Times and NPR draw on statements from the former assistant administrator of the EPA (Jim Jones) and an attorney with one of the environmental groups that has petitioned for a ban (Patti Goldman of Earthjustice) with an overarching assessment that unless a chemical is proved to be harmless, it shouldn't be allowed. Chlorpyrifos doesn't satisfy that criterion, which, regardless of NPR's more balanced attempt at framing the dilemma, reminds readers how protection is going to be qualified by the current administration.