The USA lags behind other agricultural nations in banning harmful pesticides
The United States of America (USA), European Union (EU), Brazil and China are four of the largest agricultural producers and users of agricultural pesticides in the world. Comparing the inclination and ability of different regulatory agencies to ban or eliminate pesticides that have the most potenti...
Saved in:
| Published in | Environmental health Vol. 18; no. 1; pp. 44 - 12 |
|---|---|
| Main Author | |
| Format | Journal Article |
| Language | English |
| Published |
England
BioMed Central Ltd
07.06.2019
BioMed Central BMC |
| Subjects | |
| Online Access | Get full text |
Cover
Loading…
| Abstract | The United States of America (USA), European Union (EU), Brazil and China are four of the largest agricultural producers and users of agricultural pesticides in the world. Comparing the inclination and ability of different regulatory agencies to ban or eliminate pesticides that have the most potential for harm to humans and the environment can provide a glimpse into the effectiveness of each nation's pesticide regulatory laws and oversight.
The approval status of more than 500 agricultural pesticides was identified in the USA, EU, Brazil and China and compared between nations. The amount of pesticides that were used in the USA and banned in these other nations was compiled and linear regression was used to identify trends in use.
There are 72, 17, and 11 pesticides approved for outdoor agricultural applications in the USA that are banned or in the process of complete phase out in the EU, Brazil, and China, respectively. Of the pesticides used in USA agriculture in 2016, 322 million pounds were of pesticides banned in the EU, 26 million pounds were of pesticides banned in Brazil and 40 million pounds were of pesticides banned in China. Pesticides banned in the EU account for more than a quarter of all agricultural pesticide use in the USA. The majority of pesticides banned in at least two of these three nations have not appreciably decreased in the USA over the last 25 years and almost all have stayed constant or increased over the last 10 years.
Many pesticides still widely used in the USA, at the level of tens to hundreds of millions of pounds annually, have been banned or are being phased out in the EU, China and Brazil. Of the pesticides banned in at least two of these nations, many have been implicated in acute pesticide poisonings in the USA and some are further restricted by individual states. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) has all but abandoned its use of non-voluntary cancellations in recent years, making pesticide cancellation in the USA largely an exercise that requires consent by the regulated industry. |
|---|---|
| AbstractList | Abstract Background The United States of America (USA), European Union (EU), Brazil and China are four of the largest agricultural producers and users of agricultural pesticides in the world. Comparing the inclination and ability of different regulatory agencies to ban or eliminate pesticides that have the most potential for harm to humans and the environment can provide a glimpse into the effectiveness of each nation’s pesticide regulatory laws and oversight. Methods The approval status of more than 500 agricultural pesticides was identified in the USA, EU, Brazil and China and compared between nations. The amount of pesticides that were used in the USA and banned in these other nations was compiled and linear regression was used to identify trends in use. Results There are 72, 17, and 11 pesticides approved for outdoor agricultural applications in the USA that are banned or in the process of complete phase out in the EU, Brazil, and China, respectively. Of the pesticides used in USA agriculture in 2016, 322 million pounds were of pesticides banned in the EU, 26 million pounds were of pesticides banned in Brazil and 40 million pounds were of pesticides banned in China. Pesticides banned in the EU account for more than a quarter of all agricultural pesticide use in the USA. The majority of pesticides banned in at least two of these three nations have not appreciably decreased in the USA over the last 25 years and almost all have stayed constant or increased over the last 10 years. Conclusions Many pesticides still widely used in the USA, at the level of tens to hundreds of millions of pounds annually, have been banned or are being phased out in the EU, China and Brazil. Of the pesticides banned in at least two of these nations, many have been implicated in acute pesticide poisonings in the USA and some are further restricted by individual states. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) has all but abandoned its use of non-voluntary cancellations in recent years, making pesticide cancellation in the USA largely an exercise that requires consent by the regulated industry. The United States of America (USA), European Union (EU), Brazil and China are four of the largest agricultural producers and users of agricultural pesticides in the world. Comparing the inclination and ability of different regulatory agencies to ban or eliminate pesticides that have the most potential for harm to humans and the environment can provide a glimpse into the effectiveness of each nation's pesticide regulatory laws and oversight. The approval status of more than 500 agricultural pesticides was identified in the USA, EU, Brazil and China and compared between nations. The amount of pesticides that were used in the USA and banned in these other nations was compiled and linear regression was used to identify trends in use. There are 72, 17, and 11 pesticides approved for outdoor agricultural applications in the USA that are banned or in the process of complete phase out in the EU, Brazil, and China, respectively. Of the pesticides used in USA agriculture in 2016, 322 million pounds were of pesticides banned in the EU, 26 million pounds were of pesticides banned in Brazil and 40 million pounds were of pesticides banned in China. Pesticides banned in the EU account for more than a quarter of all agricultural pesticide use in the USA. The majority of pesticides banned in at least two of these three nations have not appreciably decreased in the USA over the last 25 years and almost all have stayed constant or increased over the last 10 years. Many pesticides still widely used in the USA, at the level of tens to hundreds of millions of pounds annually, have been banned or are being phased out in the EU, China and Brazil. Of the pesticides banned in at least two of these nations, many have been implicated in acute pesticide poisonings in the USA and some are further restricted by individual states. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) has all but abandoned its use of non-voluntary cancellations in recent years, making pesticide cancellation in the USA largely an exercise that requires consent by the regulated industry. Background The United States of America (USA), European Union (EU), Brazil and China are four of the largest agricultural producers and users of agricultural pesticides in the world. Comparing the inclination and ability of different regulatory agencies to ban or eliminate pesticides that have the most potential for harm to humans and the environment can provide a glimpse into the effectiveness of each nation’s pesticide regulatory laws and oversight. Methods The approval status of more than 500 agricultural pesticides was identified in the USA, EU, Brazil and China and compared between nations. The amount of pesticides that were used in the USA and banned in these other nations was compiled and linear regression was used to identify trends in use. Results There are 72, 17, and 11 pesticides approved for outdoor agricultural applications in the USA that are banned or in the process of complete phase out in the EU, Brazil, and China, respectively. Of the pesticides used in USA agriculture in 2016, 322 million pounds were of pesticides banned in the EU, 26 million pounds were of pesticides banned in Brazil and 40 million pounds were of pesticides banned in China. Pesticides banned in the EU account for more than a quarter of all agricultural pesticide use in the USA. The majority of pesticides banned in at least two of these three nations have not appreciably decreased in the USA over the last 25 years and almost all have stayed constant or increased over the last 10 years. Conclusions Many pesticides still widely used in the USA, at the level of tens to hundreds of millions of pounds annually, have been banned or are being phased out in the EU, China and Brazil. Of the pesticides banned in at least two of these nations, many have been implicated in acute pesticide poisonings in the USA and some are further restricted by individual states. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) has all but abandoned its use of non-voluntary cancellations in recent years, making pesticide cancellation in the USA largely an exercise that requires consent by the regulated industry. Background The United States of America (USA), European Union (EU), Brazil and China are four of the largest agricultural producers and users of agricultural pesticides in the world. Comparing the inclination and ability of different regulatory agencies to ban or eliminate pesticides that have the most potential for harm to humans and the environment can provide a glimpse into the effectiveness of each nation's pesticide regulatory laws and oversight. Methods The approval status of more than 500 agricultural pesticides was identified in the USA, EU, Brazil and China and compared between nations. The amount of pesticides that were used in the USA and banned in these other nations was compiled and linear regression was used to identify trends in use. Results There are 72, 17, and 11 pesticides approved for outdoor agricultural applications in the USA that are banned or in the process of complete phase out in the EU, Brazil, and China, respectively. Of the pesticides used in USA agriculture in 2016, 322 million pounds were of pesticides banned in the EU, 26 million pounds were of pesticides banned in Brazil and 40 million pounds were of pesticides banned in China. Pesticides banned in the EU account for more than a quarter of all agricultural pesticide use in the USA. The majority of pesticides banned in at least two of these three nations have not appreciably decreased in the USA over the last 25 years and almost all have stayed constant or increased over the last 10 years. Conclusions Many pesticides still widely used in the USA, at the level of tens to hundreds of millions of pounds annually, have been banned or are being phased out in the EU, China and Brazil. Of the pesticides banned in at least two of these nations, many have been implicated in acute pesticide poisonings in the USA and some are further restricted by individual states. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) has all but abandoned its use of non-voluntary cancellations in recent years, making pesticide cancellation in the USA largely an exercise that requires consent by the regulated industry. Keywords: Pesticide, Regulation, Agriculture, Environmental Protection Agency The United States of America (USA), European Union (EU), Brazil and China are four of the largest agricultural producers and users of agricultural pesticides in the world. Comparing the inclination and ability of different regulatory agencies to ban or eliminate pesticides that have the most potential for harm to humans and the environment can provide a glimpse into the effectiveness of each nation's pesticide regulatory laws and oversight. The approval status of more than 500 agricultural pesticides was identified in the USA, EU, Brazil and China and compared between nations. The amount of pesticides that were used in the USA and banned in these other nations was compiled and linear regression was used to identify trends in use. There are 72, 17, and 11 pesticides approved for outdoor agricultural applications in the USA that are banned or in the process of complete phase out in the EU, Brazil, and China, respectively. Of the pesticides used in USA agriculture in 2016, 322 million pounds were of pesticides banned in the EU, 26 million pounds were of pesticides banned in Brazil and 40 million pounds were of pesticides banned in China. Pesticides banned in the EU account for more than a quarter of all agricultural pesticide use in the USA. The majority of pesticides banned in at least two of these three nations have not appreciably decreased in the USA over the last 25 years and almost all have stayed constant or increased over the last 10 years. Many pesticides still widely used in the USA, at the level of tens to hundreds of millions of pounds annually, have been banned or are being phased out in the EU, China and Brazil. Of the pesticides banned in at least two of these nations, many have been implicated in acute pesticide poisonings in the USA and some are further restricted by individual states. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) has all but abandoned its use of non-voluntary cancellations in recent years, making pesticide cancellation in the USA largely an exercise that requires consent by the regulated industry. The United States of America (USA), European Union (EU), Brazil and China are four of the largest agricultural producers and users of agricultural pesticides in the world. Comparing the inclination and ability of different regulatory agencies to ban or eliminate pesticides that have the most potential for harm to humans and the environment can provide a glimpse into the effectiveness of each nation's pesticide regulatory laws and oversight.BACKGROUNDThe United States of America (USA), European Union (EU), Brazil and China are four of the largest agricultural producers and users of agricultural pesticides in the world. Comparing the inclination and ability of different regulatory agencies to ban or eliminate pesticides that have the most potential for harm to humans and the environment can provide a glimpse into the effectiveness of each nation's pesticide regulatory laws and oversight.The approval status of more than 500 agricultural pesticides was identified in the USA, EU, Brazil and China and compared between nations. The amount of pesticides that were used in the USA and banned in these other nations was compiled and linear regression was used to identify trends in use.METHODSThe approval status of more than 500 agricultural pesticides was identified in the USA, EU, Brazil and China and compared between nations. The amount of pesticides that were used in the USA and banned in these other nations was compiled and linear regression was used to identify trends in use.There are 72, 17, and 11 pesticides approved for outdoor agricultural applications in the USA that are banned or in the process of complete phase out in the EU, Brazil, and China, respectively. Of the pesticides used in USA agriculture in 2016, 322 million pounds were of pesticides banned in the EU, 26 million pounds were of pesticides banned in Brazil and 40 million pounds were of pesticides banned in China. Pesticides banned in the EU account for more than a quarter of all agricultural pesticide use in the USA. The majority of pesticides banned in at least two of these three nations have not appreciably decreased in the USA over the last 25 years and almost all have stayed constant or increased over the last 10 years.RESULTSThere are 72, 17, and 11 pesticides approved for outdoor agricultural applications in the USA that are banned or in the process of complete phase out in the EU, Brazil, and China, respectively. Of the pesticides used in USA agriculture in 2016, 322 million pounds were of pesticides banned in the EU, 26 million pounds were of pesticides banned in Brazil and 40 million pounds were of pesticides banned in China. Pesticides banned in the EU account for more than a quarter of all agricultural pesticide use in the USA. The majority of pesticides banned in at least two of these three nations have not appreciably decreased in the USA over the last 25 years and almost all have stayed constant or increased over the last 10 years.Many pesticides still widely used in the USA, at the level of tens to hundreds of millions of pounds annually, have been banned or are being phased out in the EU, China and Brazil. Of the pesticides banned in at least two of these nations, many have been implicated in acute pesticide poisonings in the USA and some are further restricted by individual states. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) has all but abandoned its use of non-voluntary cancellations in recent years, making pesticide cancellation in the USA largely an exercise that requires consent by the regulated industry.CONCLUSIONSMany pesticides still widely used in the USA, at the level of tens to hundreds of millions of pounds annually, have been banned or are being phased out in the EU, China and Brazil. Of the pesticides banned in at least two of these nations, many have been implicated in acute pesticide poisonings in the USA and some are further restricted by individual states. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) has all but abandoned its use of non-voluntary cancellations in recent years, making pesticide cancellation in the USA largely an exercise that requires consent by the regulated industry. |
| ArticleNumber | 44 |
| Audience | Academic |
| Author | Donley, Nathan |
| Author_xml | – sequence: 1 givenname: Nathan orcidid: 0000-0001-9935-261X surname: Donley fullname: Donley, Nathan |
| BackLink | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31170989$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed |
| BookMark | eNp1kk1vFCEYxyemxr7oB_BiJvHiZeoDAwxcTDaNL0028WCbeCPAwCybWVhhxsRvL9NttdtoOEDg__yeF_7n1UmIwVbVawSXCHH2PiMsCDSARAOE8waeVWeIdKwBJr6fPDqfVuc5bwFQxxl9UZ22CHUguDir1jcbW99-W9WjGnKt7caHvo7TxqZaDcmbeZzmpMY6qMnHkGsfaq1C8GGoNyrt3DzWe5snb3xv88vquVNjtq_u94vq9tPHm6svzfrr5-ur1boxDLOp0Qwo14BACEKoBgGaYc0pt4IqBNoAZ9qYngnrSG-sUw5rJIhzAnOH2vaiuj5w-6i2cp_8TqVfMiov7y5iGqRKpabRSsJdi5VTQjBOCCtZBEOUOFqGwajmhfXhwNrPemdLtjCVfo-gxy_Bb-QQf0pGKe1gKebdPSDFH3OZhdz5bOw4qmDjnCVuMbQdRQQX6dsn0m2cUyijkhgTLAqNk7-qQZUGfHCx5DULVK6ogK5toVvqvvyHqqze7rwpPnG-3B8FvHnc6J8OH7xQBN1BYFLMOVknjZ_uvr2Q_SgRyMV18uA6WVwnF9dJKJHoSeQD_P8xvwGiV9bO |
| CitedBy_id | crossref_primary_10_1016_j_chemosphere_2020_127358 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_envint_2024_108653 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_rechem_2024_101440 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_tibtech_2021_07_003 crossref_primary_10_38126_JSPG220201 crossref_primary_10_3390_ijpb16010027 crossref_primary_10_1002_ps_7091 crossref_primary_10_1007_s00394_021_02717_7 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_ijheh_2023_114275 crossref_primary_10_3390_foods12132458 crossref_primary_10_1111_ppa_14078 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_jphotobiol_2022_112548 crossref_primary_10_3389_fenvs_2021_643847 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_chemosphere_2022_134577 crossref_primary_10_1007_s11356_021_17283_y crossref_primary_10_3389_fpls_2022_923880 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_scitotenv_2022_156696 crossref_primary_10_1093_aje_kwab162 crossref_primary_10_1097_JOM_0000000000002859 crossref_primary_10_51599_10_51599_are_2022_08_02_10 crossref_primary_10_21307_jofnem_2020_125 crossref_primary_10_1002_ps_8105 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_etap_2022_104046 crossref_primary_10_1094_PHYTOFR_01_21_0001_R crossref_primary_10_3389_fonc_2022_904813 crossref_primary_10_1007_s41348_023_00839_0 crossref_primary_10_3390_agronomy10050709 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_fct_2021_112000 crossref_primary_10_1128_aem_00761_22 crossref_primary_10_3390_agrochemicals3040016 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_chemosphere_2019_124912 crossref_primary_10_1021_acsomega_3c00870 crossref_primary_10_1094_PHYTO_10_23_0357_IA crossref_primary_10_1016_j_envres_2023_117034 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_fcr_2023_108819 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_scitotenv_2022_159053 crossref_primary_10_1021_acsomega_2c05217 crossref_primary_10_1080_03067319_2021_2015582 crossref_primary_10_3390_ijerph19063258 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_foreco_2022_120537 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_pestbp_2023_105460 crossref_primary_10_1007_s11356_024_34363_x crossref_primary_10_3390_jox12040024 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_oneear_2023_06_003 crossref_primary_10_1186_s12889_022_13057_4 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_chemosphere_2021_133234 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_jip_2021_107626 crossref_primary_10_51599_are_2022_08_02_10 crossref_primary_10_3389_fenvs_2024_1430170 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_ecoenv_2024_117225 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_enmm_2023_100880 crossref_primary_10_3389_fsufs_2023_1241601 crossref_primary_10_3390_crops1030016 crossref_primary_10_2139_ssrn_4181457 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_chemosphere_2023_140357 crossref_primary_10_3390_ijerph17010034 crossref_primary_10_1007_s41348_020_00408_9 crossref_primary_10_1029_2021GH000544 crossref_primary_10_1186_s12958_022_00907_4 crossref_primary_10_3390_w13243631 crossref_primary_10_1101_cshperspect_a041643 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_chemosphere_2022_137705 crossref_primary_10_1093_hr_uhac255 crossref_primary_10_3390_pr12071339 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_jflm_2023_102548 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_toxlet_2024_04_006 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_envint_2020_106081 crossref_primary_10_3390_toxics10110676 crossref_primary_10_1007_s10661_022_10394_0 crossref_primary_10_3390_jox14040099 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_scitotenv_2024_171032 crossref_primary_10_3390_cancers13174477 crossref_primary_10_3390_ijerph192416851 crossref_primary_10_1021_acs_est_0c06625 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_scitotenv_2023_168924 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_cotox_2020_01_003 crossref_primary_10_1021_acs_est_4c06534 crossref_primary_10_3390_agronomy11050870 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_heliyon_2022_e11810 crossref_primary_10_1186_s12940_021_00696_0 crossref_primary_10_1007_s11356_024_33638_7 crossref_primary_10_1111_ppa_13318 crossref_primary_10_3390_horticulturae9030376 crossref_primary_10_3390_su142114008 crossref_primary_10_3390_foods12142709 crossref_primary_10_1002_mdc3_13344 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_jhazmat_2021_125990 crossref_primary_10_1016_S2214_109X_21_00019_X crossref_primary_10_1016_j_cub_2022_12_002 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_ejmech_2023_115417 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_envres_2022_114230 crossref_primary_10_1080_10807039_2024_2402805 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_ecoenv_2024_117008 crossref_primary_10_3390_microorganisms9040817 crossref_primary_10_1093_jxb_erae150 crossref_primary_10_38126_JSPG190106 crossref_primary_10_1007_s11356_021_17031_2 crossref_primary_10_3389_fpls_2021_634796 crossref_primary_10_1007_s11270_023_06225_8 crossref_primary_10_3390_jof10120851 crossref_primary_10_3390_agriculture11060486 crossref_primary_10_1093_toxsci_kfab020 crossref_primary_10_1186_s12302_022_00636_w crossref_primary_10_1038_s41531_023_00603_z crossref_primary_10_1186_s40538_023_00466_9 crossref_primary_10_1289_EHP13954 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_cej_2024_154989 crossref_primary_10_2174_2405461507666220106114229 crossref_primary_10_1111_ddi_13170 crossref_primary_10_3390_life13091874 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_micres_2021_126901 crossref_primary_10_1136_oemed_2021_108046 crossref_primary_10_1152_ajpendo_00358_2021 crossref_primary_10_1007_s13530_022_00141_w crossref_primary_10_1002_ps_8421 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_freeradbiomed_2024_04_233 crossref_primary_10_3390_su16188004 crossref_primary_10_3390_toxics9020021 crossref_primary_10_1080_14786419_2023_2174536 crossref_primary_10_1094_PHYTO_04_24_0127_R crossref_primary_10_1007_s10661_025_13665_8 crossref_primary_10_1017_wsc_2019_59 crossref_primary_10_3390_ijms232214067 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_scitotenv_2021_147147 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_jhazmat_2025_138038 crossref_primary_10_1080_10408444_2020_1864721 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_jece_2023_111338 crossref_primary_10_1371_journal_pone_0287089 crossref_primary_10_1017_S0029665123002161 crossref_primary_10_1111_brv_12817 crossref_primary_10_1007_s13762_021_03716_1 crossref_primary_10_1093_toxsci_kfae113 crossref_primary_10_1289_EHP15445 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_envpol_2022_120378 crossref_primary_10_1007_s13280_022_01790_4 crossref_primary_10_3390_ijerph21111396 crossref_primary_10_1155_2022_9408535 crossref_primary_10_3390_su12135456 crossref_primary_10_1038_s41429_020_0287_4 crossref_primary_10_3389_fmicb_2020_622926 crossref_primary_10_3390_ijerph18126576 crossref_primary_10_1093_ismejo_wrae028 crossref_primary_10_1186_s13750_022_00259_x crossref_primary_10_1016_j_scitotenv_2021_149731 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_envres_2023_115664 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_bioeco_2023_100054 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_atech_2024_100510 crossref_primary_10_3390_membranes12111035 crossref_primary_10_1021_acs_jchemed_4c00810 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_lana_2022_100255 crossref_primary_10_1007_s42161_024_01622_2 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_ecoenv_2022_114352 crossref_primary_10_1038_s41467_024_49738_4 crossref_primary_10_1093_ee_nvad048 crossref_primary_10_3390_world2020018 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_envres_2024_120096 crossref_primary_10_1188_20_CJON_S2_31_38 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_foodcont_2021_108581 crossref_primary_10_1111_jmp_12643 crossref_primary_10_2139_ssrn_4057269 crossref_primary_10_3389_fmicb_2021_810026 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_scitotenv_2022_155009 crossref_primary_10_1186_s12302_023_00758_9 crossref_primary_10_3390_su15032308 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_envint_2023_108042 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_reprotox_2023_108472 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_scitotenv_2024_175553 crossref_primary_10_3389_fsufs_2022_1004256 crossref_primary_10_1111_jdv_15964 crossref_primary_10_3390_molecules29163780 crossref_primary_10_3390_nu13020377 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_reprotox_2023_108357 crossref_primary_10_1093_toxsci_kfaa183 crossref_primary_10_55643_fcaptp_5_58_2024_4492 crossref_primary_10_1093_aesa_saab041 crossref_primary_10_1093_etojnl_vgaf010 crossref_primary_10_3390_su12166313 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_foodcont_2021_108575 crossref_primary_10_1186_s43170_020_00001_y crossref_primary_10_3390_ijms22179396 crossref_primary_10_1525_elementa_2021_053 crossref_primary_10_1186_s12940_020_0571_6 crossref_primary_10_1186_s41935_020_00201_7 |
| Cites_doi | 10.3109/15563650.2015.1102927 10.1542/peds.2012-2758 10.1093/scipol/sct020 10.1051/agro:2004061 10.1007/978-94-007-7796-5_2 10.2139/ssrn.2502986 10.3109/15563650.2013.863906 10.1080/15563650.2016.1245421 10.1017/err.2017.38 10.1046/j.1439-0418.2002.00634.x 10.1021/cen060111090251 10.1080/15563650.2017.1388087 10.1016/j.cropro.2018.02.001 10.1016/S2214-109X(17)30299-1 10.1002/ps.4316 10.1093/biosci/biu138 10.1371/journal.pbio.2003671 10.3109/15563650.2014.987397 10.1016/j.foodcont.2011.11.001 10.1046/j.1462-2920.2002.00277.x 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002671 10.1079/PAVSNNR201611014 10.5772/15775 10.1590/S0034-89102005000500020 10.1146/annurev.en.39.010194.003023 10.1289/EHP358 10.1590/S0103-90162011000100009 |
| ContentType | Journal Article |
| Copyright | COPYRIGHT 2019 BioMed Central Ltd. 2019. This work is licensed under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License. The Author(s). 2019 |
| Copyright_xml | – notice: COPYRIGHT 2019 BioMed Central Ltd. – notice: 2019. This work is licensed under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License. – notice: The Author(s). 2019 |
| DBID | AAYXX CITATION CGR CUY CVF ECM EIF NPM 3V. 7T2 7U7 7X7 7XB 88E 8C1 8FE 8FG 8FI 8FJ 8FK ABJCF ABUWG AEUYN AFKRA ATCPS AZQEC BENPR BGLVJ BHPHI C1K CCPQU DWQXO FYUFA GHDGH GNUQQ HCIFZ K9. L6V M0S M1P M7S PATMY PHGZM PHGZT PIMPY PJZUB PKEHL PPXIY PQEST PQGLB PQQKQ PQUKI PRINS PTHSS PYCSY 7X8 5PM DOA |
| DOI | 10.1186/s12940-019-0488-0 |
| DatabaseName | CrossRef Medline MEDLINE MEDLINE (Ovid) MEDLINE MEDLINE PubMed ProQuest Central (Corporate) Health and Safety Science Abstracts (Full archive) Toxicology Abstracts Health & Medical Collection ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016) Medical Database (Alumni Edition) Public Health Database ProQuest SciTech Collection ProQuest Technology Collection Hospital Premium Collection Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition) ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016) Materials Science & Engineering Collection ProQuest Central (Alumni) ProQuest One Sustainability ProQuest Central UK/Ireland Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection ProQuest Central Essentials ProQuest Central Technology Collection Natural Science Collection Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management ProQuest One Community College ProQuest Central Korea Health Research Premium Collection Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni) ProQuest Central Student SciTech Premium Collection ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni) ProQuest Engineering Collection ProQuest Health & Medical Collection Medical Database Engineering Database Environmental Science Database ProQuest Central Premium ProQuest One Academic Publicly Available Content Database ProQuest Health & Medical Research Collection ProQuest One Academic Middle East (New) ProQuest One Health & Nursing ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE) ProQuest One Applied & Life Sciences ProQuest One Academic ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition ProQuest Central China Engineering Collection Environmental Science Collection MEDLINE - Academic PubMed Central (Full Participant titles) Directory of Open Access Journals - May need to register for free articles |
| DatabaseTitle | CrossRef MEDLINE Medline Complete MEDLINE with Full Text PubMed MEDLINE (Ovid) Publicly Available Content Database ProQuest Central Student Technology Collection ProQuest One Academic Middle East (New) ProQuest Central Essentials ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni) ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition) SciTech Premium Collection ProQuest One Community College ProQuest One Health & Nursing ProQuest Central China Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management ProQuest Central ProQuest One Applied & Life Sciences ProQuest One Sustainability ProQuest Health & Medical Research Collection ProQuest Engineering Collection Health Research Premium Collection Health and Medicine Complete (Alumni Edition) Natural Science Collection ProQuest Central Korea Health & Medical Research Collection Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection Health & Safety Science Abstracts ProQuest Central (New) ProQuest Medical Library (Alumni) Engineering Collection Engineering Database ProQuest Public Health Toxicology Abstracts ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition ProQuest Hospital Collection ProQuest Technology Collection Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni) ProQuest SciTech Collection ProQuest Hospital Collection (Alumni) Environmental Science Collection ProQuest Health & Medical Complete ProQuest Medical Library ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition Materials Science & Engineering Collection Environmental Science Database ProQuest One Academic ProQuest One Academic (New) ProQuest Central (Alumni) MEDLINE - Academic |
| DatabaseTitleList | MEDLINE Publicly Available Content Database MEDLINE - Academic |
| Database_xml | – sequence: 1 dbid: DOA name: DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals url: https://www.doaj.org/ sourceTypes: Open Website – sequence: 2 dbid: NPM name: PubMed url: https://proxy.k.utb.cz/login?url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed sourceTypes: Index Database – sequence: 3 dbid: EIF name: MEDLINE url: https://proxy.k.utb.cz/login?url=https://www.webofscience.com/wos/medline/basic-search sourceTypes: Index Database – sequence: 4 dbid: 8FG name: ProQuest Technology Collection url: https://search.proquest.com/technologycollection1 sourceTypes: Aggregation Database |
| DeliveryMethod | fulltext_linktorsrc |
| Discipline | Medicine Agriculture |
| EISSN | 1476-069X |
| EndPage | 12 |
| ExternalDocumentID | oai_doaj_org_article_48f32afa9968446b8596154f500165b8 PMC6555703 A590733078 31170989 10_1186_s12940_019_0488_0 |
| Genre | Journal Article |
| GeographicLocations | United States Brazil Washington DC United States--US China |
| GeographicLocations_xml | – name: United States – name: China – name: Washington DC – name: United States--US – name: Brazil |
| GroupedDBID | --- 0R~ 29G 2WC 2XV 4P2 53G 5GY 5VS 6PF 7X7 7XC 88E 8C1 8FE 8FG 8FH 8FI 8FJ A8Z AAFWJ AAJSJ AASML AAWTL AAYXX ABDBF ABJCF ABUWG ACGFO ACGFS ACIHN ACIWK ACPRK ACUHS ADBBV ADFRT ADRAZ ADUKV AEAQA AENEX AEUYN AFKRA AFPKN AFRAH AHBYD AHMBA AHYZX ALIPV ALMA_UNASSIGNED_HOLDINGS AMKLP AMTXH AOIJS ATCPS BAPOH BAWUL BCNDV BENPR BFQNJ BGLVJ BHPHI BMC BPHCQ BVXVI C6C CCPQU CITATION CS3 DIK E3Z EAD EAP EAS EBD EBLON EBS ECGQY EJD EMB EMK EMOBN ESX F5P FYUFA GROUPED_DOAJ GX1 HCIFZ HMCUK HYE IAO IEP IHR INH INR ITC ITG ITH KQ8 L6V L7B M1P M48 M7S M~E O5R O5S OK1 OVT PATMY PGMZT PHGZM PHGZT PIMPY PQQKQ PROAC PSQYO PTHSS PYCSY RBZ RNS ROL RPM RSV SEV SOJ SV3 TR2 TUS U2A UKHRP WOQ WOW XSB CGR CUY CVF ECM EIF NPM PMFND 3V. 7T2 7U7 7XB 8FK AZQEC C1K DWQXO GNUQQ K9. PJZUB PKEHL PPXIY PQEST PQGLB PQUKI PRINS 7X8 5PM PUEGO |
| ID | FETCH-LOGICAL-c626t-b6058b01099445b090b62b858e95a10bc086bccd69ef4dcefaf2b194ff928f133 |
| IEDL.DBID | M48 |
| ISSN | 1476-069X |
| IngestDate | Wed Aug 27 00:00:24 EDT 2025 Thu Aug 21 17:55:45 EDT 2025 Tue Aug 05 11:07:38 EDT 2025 Fri Jul 25 10:57:30 EDT 2025 Tue Jun 17 21:06:52 EDT 2025 Tue Jun 10 20:42:29 EDT 2025 Thu Apr 03 07:02:02 EDT 2025 Thu Apr 24 23:08:47 EDT 2025 Tue Jul 01 02:00:21 EDT 2025 |
| IsDoiOpenAccess | true |
| IsOpenAccess | true |
| IsPeerReviewed | true |
| IsScholarly | true |
| Issue | 1 |
| Keywords | Agriculture Regulation Environmental Protection Agency Pesticide |
| Language | English |
| License | Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. |
| LinkModel | DirectLink |
| MergedId | FETCHMERGED-LOGICAL-c626t-b6058b01099445b090b62b858e95a10bc086bccd69ef4dcefaf2b194ff928f133 |
| Notes | ObjectType-Article-1 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-2 content type line 14 content type line 23 |
| ORCID | 0000-0001-9935-261X |
| OpenAccessLink | http://journals.scholarsportal.info/openUrl.xqy?doi=10.1186/s12940-019-0488-0 |
| PMID | 31170989 |
| PQID | 2242903384 |
| PQPubID | 44372 |
| PageCount | 12 |
| ParticipantIDs | doaj_primary_oai_doaj_org_article_48f32afa9968446b8596154f500165b8 pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_6555703 proquest_miscellaneous_2320375142 proquest_journals_2242903384 gale_infotracmisc_A590733078 gale_infotracacademiconefile_A590733078 pubmed_primary_31170989 crossref_citationtrail_10_1186_s12940_019_0488_0 crossref_primary_10_1186_s12940_019_0488_0 |
| ProviderPackageCode | CITATION AAYXX |
| PublicationCentury | 2000 |
| PublicationDate | 2019-06-07 |
| PublicationDateYYYYMMDD | 2019-06-07 |
| PublicationDate_xml | – month: 06 year: 2019 text: 2019-06-07 day: 07 |
| PublicationDecade | 2010 |
| PublicationPlace | England |
| PublicationPlace_xml | – name: England – name: London |
| PublicationTitle | Environmental health |
| PublicationTitleAlternate | Environ Health |
| PublicationYear | 2019 |
| Publisher | BioMed Central Ltd BioMed Central BMC |
| Publisher_xml | – name: BioMed Central Ltd – name: BioMed Central – name: BMC |
| References | JB Mowry (488_CR40) 2013; 51 488_CR1 GP Thelin (488_CR24) 2013 MD Boone (488_CR22) 2014; 64 JB Mowry (488_CR39) 2014; 52 488_CR6 D Gunnell (488_CR76) 2017; 5 488_CR5 US Geological Survey (488_CR2) 2007 488_CR63 488_CR62 FS Ramalho (488_CR30) 1994; 39 488_CR60 488_CR23 488_CR67 488_CR66 488_CR65 D Brito (488_CR72) 2018 488_CR20 488_CR27 488_CR69 ANO Jardim (488_CR17) 2012; 25 488_CR68 MJ Carroll (488_CR61) 2016; 72 488_CR29 488_CR28 EG Garcia (488_CR19) 2005; 39 JB Mowry (488_CR38) 2015; 53 D Atwood (488_CR64) 2017 AR dos Reis (488_CR25) 2011 L Trasande (488_CR21) 2017; 15 488_CR74 E Weber (488_CR26) 2005; 25 488_CR73 488_CR71 488_CR78 488_CR77 488_CR32 V Pelaez (488_CR18) 2013; 40 488_CR75 HE Hummel (488_CR33) 2009; 74 JB Mowry (488_CR37) 2016; 54 D Pimentel (488_CR4) 2014 488_CR79 PN Deligeorgidis (488_CR31) 2002; 126 European Parliament, Council of the European Union (488_CR8) 2009 US Geological Survey. USGS NAWQA (488_CR7) 2016 S Jock (488_CR34) 2002; 4 488_CR41 488_CR45 488_CR43 JB Prado (488_CR44) 2017; 22 488_CR42 488_CR49 488_CR48 488_CR46 JGS Medeiros (488_CR35) 2011; 68 I Hertz-Picciotto (488_CR70) 2018; 15 J-M Peltier (488_CR47) 1999 T Pham (488_CR57) 2012 DD Gummin (488_CR36) 2017; 55 European Parliament, Council of the European Union (488_CR9) 2005 488_CR52 488_CR51 F Snyder (488_CR13) 2017; 8 488_CR50 JR Roberts (488_CR3) 2012; 130 488_CR12 488_CR56 488_CR11 488_CR55 488_CR10 488_CR54 488_CR53 488_CR16 488_CR15 488_CR59 488_CR14 488_CR58 |
| References_xml | – volume-title: Scientific Investigations Report 2013–5009 year: 2013 ident: 488_CR24 – ident: 488_CR12 – ident: 488_CR45 – volume: 53 start-page: 962 year: 2015 ident: 488_CR38 publication-title: Clin Toxicol Phila Pa. doi: 10.3109/15563650.2015.1102927 – volume: 130 start-page: e1765 year: 2012 ident: 488_CR3 publication-title: Pediatrics. doi: 10.1542/peds.2012-2758 – ident: 488_CR60 – volume: 40 start-page: 644 year: 2013 ident: 488_CR18 publication-title: Sci Public Policy doi: 10.1093/scipol/sct020 – ident: 488_CR29 – volume-title: Director’s response concerning norflurazon pursuant to assembly bill 2021 [memorandum] year: 1999 ident: 488_CR47 – ident: 488_CR41 – ident: 488_CR5 – volume: 25 start-page: 109 year: 2005 ident: 488_CR26 publication-title: Agron Sustain Dev doi: 10.1051/agro:2004061 – ident: 488_CR73 – start-page: 47 volume-title: Integrated Pest management year: 2014 ident: 488_CR4 doi: 10.1007/978-94-007-7796-5_2 – ident: 488_CR49 – ident: 488_CR1 – ident: 488_CR77 doi: 10.2139/ssrn.2502986 – ident: 488_CR58 – ident: 488_CR54 – volume: 51 start-page: 949 year: 2013 ident: 488_CR40 publication-title: Clin Toxicol Phila Pa. doi: 10.3109/15563650.2013.863906 – ident: 488_CR16 – ident: 488_CR50 – ident: 488_CR63 – volume: 54 start-page: 924 year: 2016 ident: 488_CR37 publication-title: Clin Toxicol Phila Pa. doi: 10.1080/15563650.2016.1245421 – ident: 488_CR67 – volume-title: Bolsonaro picks agriculture minister, first female in his team. Agencia Brazil year: 2018 ident: 488_CR72 – volume: 8 start-page: 469 year: 2017 ident: 488_CR13 publication-title: Eur J Risk Regul doi: 10.1017/err.2017.38 – ident: 488_CR46 – ident: 488_CR42 – ident: 488_CR6 – volume: 126 start-page: 343 year: 2002 ident: 488_CR31 publication-title: J Appl Entomol doi: 10.1046/j.1439-0418.2002.00634.x – ident: 488_CR74 – ident: 488_CR68 doi: 10.1021/cen060111090251 – volume: 55 start-page: 1072 year: 2017 ident: 488_CR36 publication-title: Clin Toxicol Phila Pa doi: 10.1080/15563650.2017.1388087 – ident: 488_CR78 – ident: 488_CR27 doi: 10.1016/j.cropro.2018.02.001 – ident: 488_CR11 – volume: 5 start-page: e1026 year: 2017 ident: 488_CR76 publication-title: Lancet Glob Health doi: 10.1016/S2214-109X(17)30299-1 – ident: 488_CR53 – ident: 488_CR15 – ident: 488_CR14 – ident: 488_CR62 – volume-title: Investigating the Environmental effects of agriculture practices on natural resources year: 2007 ident: 488_CR2 – volume-title: Pesticides industry sales and usage 2008–2012 market estimates year: 2017 ident: 488_CR64 – ident: 488_CR20 – volume: 72 start-page: 1631 year: 2016 ident: 488_CR61 publication-title: Pest Manag Sci doi: 10.1002/ps.4316 – ident: 488_CR66 – volume-title: Concerning the placing of plant Protection products on the market and repealing council directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC year: 2009 ident: 488_CR8 – volume-title: On maximum residue levels of pesticides in or on food and feed of plant and animal origin and amending council directive 91/414/EEC year: 2005 ident: 488_CR9 – volume: 64 start-page: 917 year: 2014 ident: 488_CR22 publication-title: BioScience. doi: 10.1093/biosci/biu138 – ident: 488_CR43 – volume-title: The pesticide National Synthesis Project. Estimated annual agricultural pesticide use year: 2016 ident: 488_CR7 – ident: 488_CR75 – volume: 15 year: 2017 ident: 488_CR21 publication-title: PLoS Biol doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.2003671 – ident: 488_CR79 – volume: 52 start-page: 1032 year: 2014 ident: 488_CR39 publication-title: Clin Toxicol Phila Pa. doi: 10.3109/15563650.2014.987397 – ident: 488_CR56 – ident: 488_CR10 – ident: 488_CR52 – volume: 25 start-page: 607 year: 2012 ident: 488_CR17 publication-title: Food Control doi: 10.1016/j.foodcont.2011.11.001 – volume: 4 start-page: 106 year: 2002 ident: 488_CR34 publication-title: Environ Microbiol doi: 10.1046/j.1462-2920.2002.00277.x – volume: 15 year: 2018 ident: 488_CR70 publication-title: PLoS Med doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002671 – volume-title: Drug use review. Food and Drug Administration year: 2012 ident: 488_CR57 – ident: 488_CR65 – ident: 488_CR59 – ident: 488_CR32 doi: 10.1079/PAVSNNR201611014 – ident: 488_CR69 – volume: 22 start-page: 395 year: 2017 ident: 488_CR44 publication-title: J Agromedicine – ident: 488_CR23 – volume-title: Soybean - Applications and Technology. InTech year: 2011 ident: 488_CR25 doi: 10.5772/15775 – ident: 488_CR28 – ident: 488_CR48 – volume: 39 start-page: 832 year: 2005 ident: 488_CR19 publication-title: Rev Saúde Pública doi: 10.1590/S0034-89102005000500020 – volume: 39 start-page: 563 year: 1994 ident: 488_CR30 publication-title: Annu Rev Entomol doi: 10.1146/annurev.en.39.010194.003023 – ident: 488_CR71 doi: 10.1289/EHP358 – ident: 488_CR55 – volume: 68 start-page: 57 year: 2011 ident: 488_CR35 publication-title: Sci Agric doi: 10.1590/S0103-90162011000100009 – volume: 74 start-page: 271 year: 2009 ident: 488_CR33 publication-title: Commun Agric Appl Biol Sci – ident: 488_CR51 |
| SSID | ssj0017865 |
| Score | 2.6036763 |
| Snippet | The United States of America (USA), European Union (EU), Brazil and China are four of the largest agricultural producers and users of agricultural pesticides... Background The United States of America (USA), European Union (EU), Brazil and China are four of the largest agricultural producers and users of agricultural... Abstract Background The United States of America (USA), European Union (EU), Brazil and China are four of the largest agricultural producers and users of... |
| SourceID | doaj pubmedcentral proquest gale pubmed crossref |
| SourceType | Open Website Open Access Repository Aggregation Database Index Database Enrichment Source |
| StartPage | 44 |
| SubjectTerms | Agricultural practices Agricultural production Agriculture Agriculture - legislation & jurisprudence Agrochemicals Bans Chemical industry Environmental health Environmental Health - legislation & jurisprudence Environmental law Environmental protection Environmental Protection Agency FDA approval Food Fungicides Government Regulation Inclination Insecticides International trade Laws Laws, regulations and rules Memoranda Nations Pesticide Pesticides Registration Regulation Regulatory agencies United States |
| SummonAdditionalLinks | – databaseName: Directory of Open Access Journals - May need to register for free articles dbid: DOA link: http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwrV3daxQxEB-kD6IPovVrtUoEQRCW7keSTR5PsRSxvuhB30KSS9qDY1u6d_9_Z7K55RZBX3zdJEsymdmZ2Zn5DcBHzptVWK0owSH6kgduS2VbXhI4mWitrGPq1nDxU54v-fdLcXnQ6otywkZ44JFwp1zFtrHRol2u0HVxSmhUwjwKMlaES2W-qPP2zlSOH3RKihzDrJU8HVCrURojFewgx5bVTAslsP4_P8kHOmmeL3mggM6ewpNsObLFuONn8CD0x_B4cXWX0TPCMTy8yJHy5_AD758tfy3Yxl4NzIVr9L1ZqrZidlqCrxt_Bg5s3TM3ti9iBGYddxt2SwAcfr0KwwtYnn37_fW8zJ0TSo8OyrZ0FOx0KerFuXCVrpxskHQqaGHrynl0ZJz3K6lD5HisaGPjas1j1I2K6La-hKP-pg-vgdnIa6frEDtbcx8rJ4Js286i2adt6FwB1Z6SxmdYcepusTHJvVDSjMQ3SHxDxDdVAZ-nJbcjpsbfJn-h65kmEhx2eoBMYjKTmH8xSQGf6HINCS1uzttce4BHJPgrsxCamleiuVTAyWwmCpufD-_Zw2RhHwxaQY2u0NfnBXyYhmklJbD14WaHc9qGug3XvCng1chN05Fa6v6jlS6gm_HZ7MzzkX59naDApUgQam_-B5HewqMmSYgsq-4EjrZ3u_AOLa6te5-E6x4ujiQP priority: 102 providerName: Directory of Open Access Journals – databaseName: ProQuest Technology Collection dbid: 8FG link: http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwfV3di9QwEA96guiD6PlVPSWCIAjl-pGkyZOs4nqI54su3FtI0mRvYemu293_35k0W68I99okJZPMZGYyk98Q8p6xqvVtiwkOweXMM5NLU7Mcwcl4bUQZYrWGy5_iYsG-X_GrdOHWp7TK45kYD-p24_CO_BxUTaUKcKjYp-2fHKtGYXQ1ldC4S-6VoGkwpUvOv41RhEYKniKZpRTnPeg2TGbEZzvAt3kx0UURsv__g_mGZppmTd5QQ_PH5FGyH-ls2PAn5I7vTsnD2XKXMDT8Kbl_meLlT8kP4AK6-DWja7PsqfXX4IHT-OaKmnEI_G64EuzpqqN2KGJEEdI6HNZ0izAcbtX6_hlZzL_-_nKRp_oJuQM3ZZ9bDHnaGPtijNtCFVZUVnLpFTdlYR24M9a5VigfGJAVTKhsqVgIqpIBnNfn5KTbdP4loSaw0qrSh8aUzIXCci_qujFg_CnjG5uR4riS2iVwcaxxsdbRyZBCD4uvYfE1Lr4uMvJxHLIdkDVu6_wZt2fsiKDY8cNmt9RJxjSToa5MMODCSfBygVIF9hoLHO1abmVGPuDmahRdmJwz6QUCkIggWHrGFZawBKMpI2eTniBybtp8ZA-dRL7X_xg0I-_GZhyJaWyd3xygT11hzeGSVRl5MXDTSFKNNYCUVBlpJnw2oXna0q2uIyC44BFI7dXt03pNHlSR90VeNGfkZL87-DdgUe3t2yg2fwFhTR0l priority: 102 providerName: ProQuest |
| Title | The USA lags behind other agricultural nations in banning harmful pesticides |
| URI | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31170989 https://www.proquest.com/docview/2242903384 https://www.proquest.com/docview/2320375142 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/PMC6555703 https://doaj.org/article/48f32afa9968446b8596154f500165b8 |
| Volume | 18 |
| hasFullText | 1 |
| inHoldings | 1 |
| isFullTextHit | |
| isPrint | |
| link | http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwnV3di9QwEB_OOzjuRfy2ei4RBEGo9iNpkweRvePWQ9xD1IV9C0k32VtYuud-gP73zqTddYuHD770oUmgM53pzHSS3w_gFefZxE0mtMHBVzF33MTS5DwmcDKRmyL1ga1heFVcjvinsRgfwJbeqlXg6tbSjvikRsv5258_fn1Ah38fHF4W71YYs2iTIh3HQXuMsYI_wsBUEqHBkP9pKpSyEG1j89ZlJ3CcExGLIs73vSgVwPz__mTvxazufsq9ADW4B3fbzJL1G1O4DweufgDHw7Z3_hA-o0Ww0bc-m5vpill3jdU4C-evmJkudxAcrPk9uGKzmtmG0IgRvLXfzNkNQXJUs4lbPYLR4OL7-WXccinEFZYs69hS-9OGPhjnwiYqsUVmpZBOCZMmtsLSxlbVpFDOcxTEG5_ZVHHvVSY9FrKP4bBe1O4pMON5alXqfGlSXvnEClfkeWkwEVTGlTaCZKs7XbVA48R3Mdeh4JCFbjSvUfOaNK-TCN7sltw0KBv_mnxGL2Q3kQCyw43Fcqpbf9Nc-jwz3mA5J7HiRUkV5m7cC8pxhZURvKbXqcmw8OEq055GQBEJEEv3hSI6S0ygIjjtzET3q7rDW4PQW-vVmBdlKsHqn0fwcjdMK2lLW-0WG5yTZ8Q_nPIsgieN_exE2pphBGXHsjoyd0fq2XUABy9EAFV79t8rn8NJFnyiiJPyFA7Xy417gYnX2vbgTjku8SrPU7oOPvbg6Ozi6svXXviV0Qvu9huzNC4F |
| linkProvider | Scholars Portal |
| linkToHtml | http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwtV3db9MwELemIfHxgGB8BQYYCYSEFC1xnMR5QKh8lI61e2GV9mZsx-4qVWlpWiH-Kf5G7pw0LELa215ru4rPd747393vCHnNOSttWWKCgzMht1yFQiU8RHCyNFFZ7Hy3hslpNpryb-fp-R75s6uFwbTK3Z3oL-pyafCN_AhUDSsicKj4h9XPELtGYXR110KjYYsT-_sXuGz1--PPcL5vGBt-Ofs0CtuuAqEB430TagwEah8R4jzVURHpjGmRClukKo60ASNfG1NmhXW8NNYpxzS4-s4VTLgYH0Dhyr_BE9DkWJk-_NpFLXKRpW3kNBbZUQ26FJMnsUwI5CSMerrPtwj4XxFc0oT9LM1Lam94j9xt7VU6aBjsPtmz1QG5M5itW8wOe0BuTtr4_AMyBq6j0-8DulCzmmp7AR4_9TVeVHVL4O-aJ8iaziuqm6ZJFCG03XZBVwj7YealrR-S6bVQ9hHZr5aVfUKocjzWRWxdrmJuXKRTmyVJrsDYLJTNdUCiHSWlacHMsafGQnqnRmSyIb4E4kskvowC8q5bsmqQPK6a_BGPp5uIINz-h-V6JluZlly4hCmnwGUU4FXDTguwD7lL0Y5OtQjIWzxciVcFfJxRbcUDbBFBt-QgLbBlJhhpATnszQQRN_3hHXvI9oqp5T-BCMirbhhXYtpcZZdbmJMw7HEccxaQxw03dVtKsOdQIYqA5D0-6-25P1LNLzwAeZZ64LanV3_WS3JrdDYZy_Hx6ckzcpt5OcjCKD8k-5v11j4Ha26jX3gRouTHdcvsX_XQWj0 |
| openUrl | ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF-8&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fsummon.serialssolutions.com&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=The+USA+lags+behind+other+agricultural+nations+in+banning+harmful+pesticides&rft.jtitle=Environmental+health&rft.au=Donley%2C+Nathan&rft.date=2019-06-07&rft.pub=BioMed+Central&rft.eissn=1476-069X&rft.volume=18&rft_id=info:doi/10.1186%2Fs12940-019-0488-0&rft_id=info%3Apmid%2F31170989&rft.externalDocID=PMC6555703 |
| thumbnail_l | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/lc.gif&issn=1476-069X&client=summon |
| thumbnail_m | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/mc.gif&issn=1476-069X&client=summon |
| thumbnail_s | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/sc.gif&issn=1476-069X&client=summon |