There are facts/science, and then there are judgements on top.

If the facts say the risk is 0.000001% in the presence of a pesticide Fred may judge that it should be banned. If the facts say the risk is 50%, Sally may judge no action is required.

Fred and Sally are both making judgements based on science; but may have different goals, priorities, etc. that cause them to arrive at different conclusions.

It was actually not science that the original ban was based on. Who knows whether the new EPA chief is basing the reversal on science or politics, but the end effect is probably a better policy than throwing bans around on chemicals that have major benefits reducing crop failures, starvation, pain, and suffering.

There are other pesticides.

The bar to ban things has dropped so low because of that handwavey line of reasoning, despite real economic effects to people whose livelihoods are at stake (i.e. farmers).