EPA Scientists Protest Pending Pesticide Approvals
CategoriesFurther to the Notes to the ETC Pesticide meeting (2006/05/24), Here is more fodder, as if more was needed to demonstrate, how the regulatory bodies have been usurped by vested interests and why they have pretty much lost their credibility.
Pesticide industry rhetoric based on regulatory approvals is now just that rhetoric; and it is time to open our eyes and reject any of these toxins from our environment.
Chris Gupta
----------------------------Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility News Release (www.peer.org)
For Immediate Release: May 25, 2006
Contact: Chas Offutt (202) 265-7337Washington, DC In an unprecedented action, representatives for thousands of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency scientists are publicly objecting to imminent agency approval for a score of powerful, controversial pesticides, according to a letter released today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). The scientists cite “compelling evidence” which EPA leadership is choosing to ignore that these “pesticides damage the developing nervous systems of fetuses, infants and children.”
On August 3, 2006, EPA faces a deadline for issuing final tolerance approval for 20 organophosphate and carbamate pesticides. In a letter dated May 24, 2006, leaders of three unions (American Federation of Government Employees, National Treasury Employees Union and Engineers and Scientists of California) representing 9,000 scientists, risk managers and other specialists asked EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson to either adopt maximum exposure protections for these agents or take them off the market.
Organophosphates, derived from World War II-era nerve agents, are banned in England, Sweden and Denmark. In the 1990’s the National Academies of Science criticized EPA’s regulation of these pesticides. The Clinton administration began moves to ban the agents but the Bush administration changed course. In the past few months, the Bush administration approach has been faulted by both EPA’s own Scientific Advisory Panel and its Office of Inspector General.
In their letter, the EPA scientists charge that agency “risk assessments cannot state with confidence the degree to which any exposure of a fetus, infant or child to a pesticide will or will not adversely affect their neurological development.” In addition, the scientists contend that –
* “Our colleagues in the Pesticide Program feel besieged by political pressure exerted by Agency officials perceived to be too closely aligned with the pesticide industry and former EPA officials now representing the pesticide and agricultural community”;
* “In the rush to meet the August 2006 …deadline, many steps in the risk assessment and risk management process are being abbreviated or eliminated in violation of the principles of scientific integrity and objectivity…”; and
* The prevailing “belief among managers in the Pesticide and Toxics Programs [is] that regulatory decisions should only be made after reaching full consensus with the regulated pesticide and chemicals industry.”Notwithstanding the scientific uncertainty and controversy, EPA has announced that is approving one of the most toxic agents, dichlorvos or DDVP, for household use in pet flea collars and no-pest strips.
“Our top public scientists are morally and professionally compromised by the Bush administration partnership with the chemical industry,” stated PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch, pointing, for example, to EPA’s rush to embrace testing of pesticides and other chemicals on human subjects for commercial purposes. “The fact that this letter had to be sent at all is an utter disgrace but, even more disgraceful, is the likelihood that this warning will be disregarded by an agency that is supposed to be protecting public health and the environment.”
###
Read the EPA scientists’ letter of protest
See more information on organophosphates and carbamates
Look at the EPA Inspector General report on the inability to assess child neurotoxicity
Trace the growing corporate role in EPA research
Revisit EPA drive for human subject experimentation
posted by Chris Gupta on Friday May 26 2006
URL of this article:
http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/chris/2006/05/26/epa_scientists_protest_pending_pesticide_approvals.htm
Related ArticlesRoundUp Ready Grass (GE)
Chemical companies are seeking, in the U.S., non-regulated status for genetically engineered grass. Approval of this, in my opinion, will ensure regular blanket-spraying of lawns with RoundUp (glyphosate), a chemical whose goal is to kill all plant life it comes in contact with. Farmers use it between crops to kill off all other plant growth on their fields. You may have heard of RoundUp Ready (Genetically engineered) soybeans and the... [read more]
January 12, 2004 - Chris GuptaResponse to 'expert' views on pesticides & BSE
These follow up comments on the 'expert' response gives a pretty sad commentary on scientific leadership that all of us treasure so highly.... Chris Gupta "Science became an educated cadaver of thought, above which congregate expert players. If the encyclopedia of the ignorance of the acknowledged authorities in the history were to be published, it would number many fat volumes. Nothing will interest scientists anymore. They are like oxen which... [read more]
January 09, 2004 - Chris GuptaIn Canada fuel still has toxic manganese added
Thanks Del, this further supports the Manganese connection to the posts on Coenzyme Q10 Parkinson's disease and Insecticide Causes Mad Cow Disease? "The new work proves that the prions can bond with manganese in animal feeds or mineral licks. These manganese prions cause the neurological degeneration seen in BSE." "Worse still, the prion is then partial to bond with manganese and become a 'rogue' prion. A chain reaction whereby rogue... [read more]
January 08, 2004 - Chris Gupta
