Bad Ideas for $500: USDA drops data tracking for pesticide and fertilizer use

In what might be the only time that environmental groups and industry and trade groups agree on something, pretty much everyone is upset by USDA's recent announcement that they were ending their tracking program of pesticide and fertilizer use.

USDA has been tracking chemical use on agriculture since 1990, and the data is free and open to the public. I know I've used it plenty of times- in both my non-profit work and my academic work. This is the only data that is free, accessible, and nationwide tracking pesticide and fertilizer use. Because only California has a good state-wide tracking program, this data is irreplaceable. Even EPA, the agency in charge of pesticide regulation, depends on this data.

The USDA blames a lack of funding as the reason they are shutting down the program. I agree with Bill Freese, senior policy analyst with the Center for Food Safety, who said, "It's a really serious blow to efforts to improve the safety of our agriculture. The USDA claims it doesn't have funding, but that's no excuse. If you want to do it, you make it a priority and you get it done."

The bloggers at bushtheidiot.com said it well too: "I am just amazed that there are no funds for the U.S.D.A. to supply information to our farmers and agricultutral scientists, but we can send our tax dollars in the billions to any country and cause outside our own borders."

After a slew of groups, companies, and individuals wrote letters of protest, apparently the Senate Appropriations committee recommended that the funds be made available in the 2009 budget for USDA to reinstate the program. Hopefully, Congress will make this happen, and this valuable resource won't be lost. Already, its too late to collect the 2007 data. After all, if we don't even know whats being sprayed on our fields, how can we stop it?

Source: Environmental Science and Technology

Congress Removes Toxins from Toys, Exxon Proves Itself To Be More Evil Than Originally Thought

In a rare victory in the world of toxic chemicals, Congress decided earlier this week to ban phthalates in children's toys and reduce lead levels. As I reported last week, phthalates are chemicals used to soften plastic that are commonly used in children's toys such as rubber duckies and teething rings. They have been linked to reduced sperm counts, damaged DNA, and undescended testicles in baby boys.

Obviously, taking toxic chemicals out of toys that babies chew on is a good thing. Exxon Mobil, who manufactures DINP, one of the most common phthalates, has a different view on the ban, however: "What's at stake is, in fact, children's safety," said Elissa Sterry, a vice president at Exxon Mobil Chemicals. "If DINP is replaced by alternative products, that's a potential risk to children."

Really, Exxon? Really? You want to play that game? Because that sounds suspiciously like a threat.

And if that wasn't bad enough, Keith Hennessey, director of Bush's Economic Policy Council, wrote to the Senate with a similarly idiotic claim that a ban on toxic chemicals in toys could hurt children. "Banning a product before a conclusive, scientific determination is reached is short-sighted and may result in the introduction of unregulated substitute chemicals that harm children's health," he wrote.

It seems like there is a pretty easy solution to that: Start regulating chemicals that children are exposed to. Oh yeah, and stop being evil.

Source: The Washington Post

Brief Love-Hate Relationship with EPA Reverts Back to Hate-Hate

Oh, EPA. On the same day that I praised you for doing something good, like banning a toxic pesticide, you have to go and screw it all up. The Washington Post reported yesterday that EPA instructed its staff members not to talk to reporters, congressional investigators, and even EPA's own enforcement officers. This is only the latest in a long history of EPA trying to suppress its staff members from speaking out against the agency.

Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, a great government watchdog group, made the discovery through an EPA email they got a hold of. Senator Boxer (D-CA), head of the Senate environment committee and part-time superhero, said on Monday that EPA administrator Stephen Johnson had turned "the EPA into a secretive, dangerous ally of polluters, instead of a leader in the effort to protect the health and safety of the American people." Oh, Snap! Take that, EPA.

Things that make you say "duh"

This just in: voluntary measures for industry to reduce greenhouse gases haven't worked so well.


obvi.

Funny but sad headline of the day

"These nipples are dangerous."

Apparently pacifiers and other baby paraphernalia have been found to contain heavy metals, including lead, cadmium, and chromium.

Thanks for sharing the article, Brian.

EPA Proves Me Wrong, Protects Health and the Environment

Just when I lambasted EPA for being too lax on chemical regulation, they go and do something good. Last week, they announced that they were banning carbofuran, a particularly nasty pesticide that is toxic to birds--especially eagles and migratory songbirds--and causes a host of health effects in humans, from nausea and dizziness to respiratory paralysis and death.

While carbofuran isn't used a whole lot in the United States, it is commonly used abroad on crops such as coffee, bananas, corn, rice, and sugarcane. By banning carbofuran residues in food, the rule will have a big effect worldwide on the way that crops are grown.

Grist says it best:

Using language we didn't even think was in the EPA's vocabulary, the agency's James Gulliford said, "While there is little exposure today [to the pesticide], we don't think there's a need, a reason for any exposure."

Good work, EPA! I still have my eye on you though...

Maine Does EPA's Job Better Than EPA

Since You-Know-Who took office in 2001, environmentalists, social activists, and those who like rainbows and sunshine have had to look places other than the federal government--namely, states and municipalities--for positive change. While not all states have been successful at passing laws for environmental protection (ahem, Michigan), some like California and now Maine, have been able to actually pass state legislation.

In the absence of EPA doing its job and protecting the public from toxic chemicals, Maine has stepped up and passed its own legislation to identify and investigate "chemicals of concern" in consumer products. It sounds like they are going to have their hands full. I suggest they start with phthalates, triclosan, and flame retardants (oh my!).

Good work, Maine! Way to step up again Lord Voldemort. I mean, President You-Know-Who. I mean...