When does one plus one not equal two? When mounting evidence says glyphosate, the key ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup pesticide, does more damage to our health and environment than we thought. And the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) responds by approving higher, not lower, allowable limits of the pesticide residue.
Please sign the letter below. Tell the EPA you want lower, not higher, limits on Monsanto’s glyphosate and Roundup!
This month (May 2013) the EPA announced a final ruling to increase, yet again, the allowed residue limits in food and animal feed of glyphosate, the key active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide. Under the ruling, the allowed glyphosate level in animal feed will rise to 100 parts per million (ppm) and 40 ppm in oilseed crops.
There is precedence for final rulings to be revisited, even reversed, if enough people voice their opposition. The EPA will take comments on the ruling until July 1, 2013.
The EPA ruling defies sound science and undermines public health. Peer reviewed studies show rats fed diets as low as 2ppm of glyphosate were 70 percent to 80 percent more likely to develop tumors. Infertility, affecting both the sperm and the egg, was documented in animals subjected to glyphosate residue levels as low as .05 ppm. Birth defects in frog and chicken embryos resulted after being subjected to glyphosate residues of just 2.03 ppm.
Yet the EPA claims glyphosate is only “minimally toxic” to humans, and 40 ppm is nothing to worry about?
The EPA’s decision is all the more unjustifiable in light of two recently published, peer reviewed studies revealing glyphosate to be a far greater threat to human health than previously determined.
According to a study published in the journal Entropy in April 2013, glyphosate is related to debilitating diseases like gastrointestinal disorders, diabetes, heart disease, obesity, autism, Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s. The study says the negative impact on the human body is “insidious and manifests slowly over time, as inflammation damages cellular systems throughout the body… it may in fact be the most biologically disruptive chemical in our environment.”
A 2012 study published in the journal Archives of Toxicology showed Roundup is toxic to human DNA even when diluted to concentrations 450-fold lower than used in agricultural applications. Industry regulators and long-term studies look at glyphosate in isolation, instead of looking at Roundup’s full formulation, which includes secret added ingredients. These “confidential” and unlabeled ingredients, when measured as a whole, affect all living cells, including human cells.
Glyphosate is the most widely used herbicide in the world. According to the EPA, at least 208 million tons of Roundup were sprayed on GE crops, lawns and roadsides in the years 2006 and 2007. In 2007, as much as 185 million pounds of glyphosate was used by U.S. farmers, double the amount used just six years ago.
A 2009 study found that Americans use about 100 million pounds of glyphosate annually on their lawns and gardens. It’s safe to assume all these number are much higher now. Why? Because GE crops are now being invaded by new strains of herbicide-resistant “superweeds” requiring higher and higher doses of poison.
Beyond Pesticides has assembled extensive documentation of past research linking glyphosate to increased cancer risk, neurotoxicity and birth defects, as well as eye, skin, respiratory irritation, lung congestion, increased breathing rate, damage to the pancreas, kidney and testes.
Glyphosate also endangers the environment, destroys soil and plants, and is linked to a host of health hazards. The EPA’s decision to increase the allowed residue limits of glyphosate is out of date, dangerous to the health of people and the environment and scientifically unsupportable.
Please sign the letter below. Tell the EPA you want lower, not higher, limits on Monsanto’s glyphosate and Roundup!
I am very concerned about the increase in glyphosate residue limits proposed for food and commodity crops. Mounting evidence points to the need to lower, not raise, the allowable limits of glyphosate residue.
Peer reviewed studies show rats fed diets as low as 2ppm of glyphosate were 70 percent to 80 percent more likely to develop tumors. Infertility, affecting both the sperm and the egg, was documented in animals subjected to glyphosate residue levels as low as .05 ppm. Birth defects in frog and chicken embryos resulted after being subjected to glyphosate residues of just 2.03 ppm.
One recent study, http://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/15/4/1416 published in the journal Entropy in April 2013, revealed glyphosate to be a far greater threat to human health than previously determined. According to the study, glyphosate is related to debilitating diseases like gastrointestinal disorders, diabetes, heart disease, obesity, autism, Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s. The study says the negative impact on the human body is “insidious and manifests slowly over time, as inflammation damages cellular systems throughout the body… it may in fact be the most biologically disruptive chemical in our environment.”
The EPA’s science on glyphosate is outdated. I urge you to do a complete review of the toxicity of glyphosate and adjust the tolerance levels allowed in the U.S. feed and food supply downward, not upward. Thank you.
Showing posts with label EPA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label EPA. Show all posts
Friday, May 17, 2013
Tuesday, October 30, 2012
7 Nasty Things Pesticides Are Doing To Your Body
Agrochemicals, home bug sprays, and lawn treatments could be causing chronic illness in your family.
Pesticides are designed to kill, although the mode of action they use to put the stranglehold on pests varies. Whether it’s nerve gas–like neurological disruption, the unbalancing of key hormones, or the stunting of a plant’s ability to absorb life-sustaining trace minerals from the soil, none of the chemical interventions seems all that appetizing, especially considering that chemical residues routinely wind up on and even inside of the food we eat everyday. Pesticides are also blamed for diminishing mineral levels in foods.
Agrochemical supporters tend to fall back on a “the dose makes the poison” theory, meaning tiny exposures aren’t really that harmful. Increasingly, though, independent scientists are debunking that belief, even proving that incredibly tiny doses could set a person up for health problems that might not crop up until decades down the line. Luckily, eating organic, less processed foods can cut back on your pesticide exposure.
Here are 7 health problems associated with pesticide-based agrochemicals.
Diabetes
Scientists have been noticing a link between pesticides and diabetes for years. The latest evidence comes out of the Endocrine Society’s 94th Annual Meeting, where Robert Sargis, MD, PhD, released the results of a study that suggest tolyfluanid, a fungicide used on farm crops, creates insulin resistance in fat cells. A 2011 study published in Diabetes Care found that overweight people with higher levels of organochlorine pesticides in their bodies also faced a higher risk of developing type 2 diabetes.
Prevent it: To save money on organic fare raised without pesticides, cook with organic dried beans. In the home, avoid using chemical air fresheners and artificially scented products—these things are also blamed for inducing type 2 diabetes.
Cancer
More than 260 studies link pesticides to various cancers, including lymphoma, leukemia, soft tissue sarcoma, and brain, breast, prostate, bone, bladder, thyroid, colon, liver, and lung cancers, among others.
Prevent it: The President’s Cancer Panel suggests eating organic and avoiding plastic to lower your risk of environmentally triggered cancers.
Autism & Other Developmental Diseases
How do you get autism? The world’s leading autism researchers believe the condition develops from a mix of genes and the pollutants encountered in the mother’s womb and early in life. Many insecticides effectively kill bugs by throwing off normal neurological functioning. That same thing appears to be happening in some children. A 2010 Harvard study found that children with organophosphate pesticide breakdown materials in their urine were far more likely to live with ADHD than kids without the trace pesticide residues.
Prevent it: Switching to an organic diet rapidly eliminates pesticide residues in the body.
Obesity
Some agrochemical pesticides act as hormone disruptors, meaning they act like a fake version of a naturally occurring hormone in your body, they block important hormone communication pathways in the body, or they interfere with your body’s ability to regulate the healthy release of hormones. More than 50 pesticides are classified as hormone disruptors, and some of them promote metabolic syndrome and obesity as they accumulate in your cells, according to 2012 study appearing in Environmental Health Perspectives.
Parkinson’s Disease
More than 60 studies show a connection between pesticides and the neurological disease Parkinson’s, a condition characterized by uncontrolled trembling. The association is strongest for weed- and bug-killing chemical exposures over a long period of time, meaning it’s important to keep these toxic compounds out of your household routine.
Prevent it: Don’t turn to chemical interventions to kill bugs in your home or garden. Instead, use natural pest control measures.
Infertility
Pesticides spell trouble in the baby-making department, thanks to their bad habit of not staying put. For instance, atrazine, a common chemical weed killer used heavily in the Midwest, on Southern sugar cane farms, and on golf courses, has been detected in tap water. Doctors and scientists point to published evidence tying atrazine to increased miscarriage and infertility rates. Other pesticides cause a plunge in male testosterone levels. A 2006 study found chlorpyrifos, a chemical used in nonorganic apple and sweet pepper farming, and carbaryl, a go-to pesticide in strawberry fields and peach orchards, caused abnormally low testosterone levels.
Prevent it: Avoid the worst summer fruit, the kinds most likely to be laced with toxic pesticides. Instead, choose organic grapes, strawberries, and imported plums.
Birth Defects
Babies conceived during the spring and summer months—a time of year when pesticide use is in full swing—face the highest risk of birth defects. During these months, higher pesticide levels turn up in surface waters, increasing a mother’s risk of exposure. Spina bifida, cleft lip, clubfoot, and Down syndrome rates are higher when moms become pregnant during high season for pesticides.
Prevent it: To protect yourself, use a water filter that is certified by NSF International to meet American National Standards Institute Standard 53 for VOC (volatile organic compound) reduction. This will significantly reduce levels of atrazine and other pesticides in your tap water.
Pesticides are designed to kill, although the mode of action they use to put the stranglehold on pests varies. Whether it’s nerve gas–like neurological disruption, the unbalancing of key hormones, or the stunting of a plant’s ability to absorb life-sustaining trace minerals from the soil, none of the chemical interventions seems all that appetizing, especially considering that chemical residues routinely wind up on and even inside of the food we eat everyday. Pesticides are also blamed for diminishing mineral levels in foods.
Agrochemical supporters tend to fall back on a “the dose makes the poison” theory, meaning tiny exposures aren’t really that harmful. Increasingly, though, independent scientists are debunking that belief, even proving that incredibly tiny doses could set a person up for health problems that might not crop up until decades down the line. Luckily, eating organic, less processed foods can cut back on your pesticide exposure.
Here are 7 health problems associated with pesticide-based agrochemicals.
Diabetes
Scientists have been noticing a link between pesticides and diabetes for years. The latest evidence comes out of the Endocrine Society’s 94th Annual Meeting, where Robert Sargis, MD, PhD, released the results of a study that suggest tolyfluanid, a fungicide used on farm crops, creates insulin resistance in fat cells. A 2011 study published in Diabetes Care found that overweight people with higher levels of organochlorine pesticides in their bodies also faced a higher risk of developing type 2 diabetes.
Prevent it: To save money on organic fare raised without pesticides, cook with organic dried beans. In the home, avoid using chemical air fresheners and artificially scented products—these things are also blamed for inducing type 2 diabetes.
Cancer
More than 260 studies link pesticides to various cancers, including lymphoma, leukemia, soft tissue sarcoma, and brain, breast, prostate, bone, bladder, thyroid, colon, liver, and lung cancers, among others.
Prevent it: The President’s Cancer Panel suggests eating organic and avoiding plastic to lower your risk of environmentally triggered cancers.
Autism & Other Developmental Diseases
How do you get autism? The world’s leading autism researchers believe the condition develops from a mix of genes and the pollutants encountered in the mother’s womb and early in life. Many insecticides effectively kill bugs by throwing off normal neurological functioning. That same thing appears to be happening in some children. A 2010 Harvard study found that children with organophosphate pesticide breakdown materials in their urine were far more likely to live with ADHD than kids without the trace pesticide residues.
Prevent it: Switching to an organic diet rapidly eliminates pesticide residues in the body.
Obesity
Some agrochemical pesticides act as hormone disruptors, meaning they act like a fake version of a naturally occurring hormone in your body, they block important hormone communication pathways in the body, or they interfere with your body’s ability to regulate the healthy release of hormones. More than 50 pesticides are classified as hormone disruptors, and some of them promote metabolic syndrome and obesity as they accumulate in your cells, according to 2012 study appearing in Environmental Health Perspectives.
Parkinson’s Disease
More than 60 studies show a connection between pesticides and the neurological disease Parkinson’s, a condition characterized by uncontrolled trembling. The association is strongest for weed- and bug-killing chemical exposures over a long period of time, meaning it’s important to keep these toxic compounds out of your household routine.
Prevent it: Don’t turn to chemical interventions to kill bugs in your home or garden. Instead, use natural pest control measures.
Infertility
Pesticides spell trouble in the baby-making department, thanks to their bad habit of not staying put. For instance, atrazine, a common chemical weed killer used heavily in the Midwest, on Southern sugar cane farms, and on golf courses, has been detected in tap water. Doctors and scientists point to published evidence tying atrazine to increased miscarriage and infertility rates. Other pesticides cause a plunge in male testosterone levels. A 2006 study found chlorpyrifos, a chemical used in nonorganic apple and sweet pepper farming, and carbaryl, a go-to pesticide in strawberry fields and peach orchards, caused abnormally low testosterone levels.
Prevent it: Avoid the worst summer fruit, the kinds most likely to be laced with toxic pesticides. Instead, choose organic grapes, strawberries, and imported plums.
Birth Defects
Babies conceived during the spring and summer months—a time of year when pesticide use is in full swing—face the highest risk of birth defects. During these months, higher pesticide levels turn up in surface waters, increasing a mother’s risk of exposure. Spina bifida, cleft lip, clubfoot, and Down syndrome rates are higher when moms become pregnant during high season for pesticides.
Prevent it: To protect yourself, use a water filter that is certified by NSF International to meet American National Standards Institute Standard 53 for VOC (volatile organic compound) reduction. This will significantly reduce levels of atrazine and other pesticides in your tap water.
Monday, September 17, 2012
EPA Gives Grant To China For Coal Plants
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/4F8CTor-1Oc?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Government Of By And For The EPA
“EPA’s power grab picks the pockets of every American business and
citizen, making it increasingly expensive to fill gas tanks, heat and
cool homes and offices, run hospitals and factories, or buy food and
consumer goods,” says this article by Paul Driessen.
“My article this week addresses the serious and growing problem of junk science, disinformation and outright fraud by the US Environmental Protection Agency, as it seeks to advance its and President Obama’s anti-hydrocarbon agenda, at the expense of jobs, economic growth and, indeed, the overall health and welfare of American citizens,” says Driessen. “These are serious charges, but this article backs them up with examples and links to more than 20 articles and reports that further buttress its points.”
Seven score and nine years ago, President Lincoln resolved to take increased devotion to ensuring that government of the people, by the people and for the people shall not perish from the Earth.
Yet, today, our lives are determined not so much by We the People, as by a distant central government, particularly increasingly powerful, unelected and unaccountable Executive Branch agencies. Foremost among them, by almost any standard, is the Environmental Protection Agency.
Under Administrator Lisa Jackson, the Gettysburg vision has mutated into government of, by and for the EPA. Indeed, Ms. Jackson seeks not merely to regulate, but to legislate; not merely to protect our health and environment against every conceivable risk, but to control every facet of our economy, livelihoods and lives. Under her direction, EPA increasingly flaunts the naked power of regulators gone wild.
Instead of following laws and policies set by our elected representatives, EPA is now controlled by environmental ideologues, determined to impose their utopian ideas, via a massive and arrogant power grab. President Obama set the tone, with his promises to “bankrupt” coal and utility companies and “radically transform” our economy and society, and serves as the rogue agency’s cheerleader-in-chief. With few exceptions, our courts have refused to intervene, and the Senate has obstructed any meaningful efforts to constrain agency overreach or reexamine the laws under which it claims jurisdiction.
EPA’s power grab picks the pockets of every American business and citizen, making it increasingly expensive to fill gas tanks, heat and cool homes and offices, run hospitals and factories, or buy food and consumer goods. The Employment Prevention Agency’s $100-billion diktats are killing countless jobs, making America more dependent on foreign sources of energy and raw materials that we have in abundance right here at home, and endangering our economic health and national security.
Under Lisa Jackson’s agenda, fossil fuels are to be relegated to the dustbin of history. America is to get its energy from intermittent, unreliable, “renewable” sources, whenever they are available. Regulations on carbon dioxide and other “greenhouse gases,” mercury, soot and other substances are to make non-hydrocarbon energy appear cheaper by comparison, and pave the way for crony-corporatist “alternatives” like wind, solar, ethanol, wave and tidal action, and even biofuel for the Navy and Air Force.
In a mere six instances, our courts have delayed or blocked some of EPA’s worst excesses. Ruling that the agency had exceeded its authority, the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia struck down EPA’s “cross-state” air pollution rule, which would have controlled power plant emissions on the ground that computer models predicted the pollutants might harm neighborhoods hundreds of miles away.
In far too many other cases, however, EPA has been given carte blanche to regulate as it sees fit. A key pretext is the 1970 Clean Air Act, as amended by Congress in 1977 and 1990. The act deals primarily with six common pollutants: sulfur dioxide, nitrous oxides, particulates (soot), ozone, lead and carbon monoxide. It never mentions carbon dioxide, the plant-fertilizing gas that is essential for all life.
As EPA itself acknowledges, between 1970 and 2010, those six “criteria” air pollutants declined by an average of 63% and will continue to do so under existing regulations and technologies. Moreover, those dramatic reductions occurred even as coal-based electricity generation increased 180% … overall US energy consumption rose 40% … miles traveled soared 168% … and the nation’s population increased by 110 million. However, EPA intends to go much further, to advance its radical agenda.
It ruled that carbon dioxide is a “pollutant,” ignoring solar influences and citing claims by alarmists like James Hansen and the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that this essential gas (0.0395% of Earth’s atmosphere) “contributes” to “dangerous” global warming.
Since hydrocarbons provide 85% of the energy used to power America, this single ruling gives EPA effective control over our transportation, manufacturing, heating, cooling and other activities – virtually our entire economy – while making it all but impossible to operate existing coal-fired power plants or build new ones.
To ensure that coal really is excised from our energy mix, EPA also issued oppressive new rules on other emissions. Its new mercury rule is based on computer-generated risks to hypothetical American women who eat 296 pounds of fish a year that they catch themselves, its determination to prevent a theoretical reduction in IQ test scores by “0.00209 points,” and its refusal to recognize that coal-fired power plants contribute just 3% of the total mercury deposited in American watersheds, and thus in fish tissue.
EPA’s new PM2.5 soot standard is equivalent to having one ounce of super-fine dust spread equally in a volume of air one-half mile long, one-half mile wide and one story tall – while other rules demand that water from coal mines be cleaner than Perrier bottled water!
The agency repeatedly denied Shell Oil permits to drill in the Chukchi Sea off Alaska, because emissions from drilling rig and icebreaker engines might contribute to global warming. It opposes the Keystone XL Pipeline on the ground that burning Canadian oil sands fuel might likewise “contribute” to catastrophic climate change – whereas that would presumably not be the case if China burned that same fuel.
When Congress failed to act, it imposed new 54.5 mpg automobile standards that will make cars less affordable, but also smaller, more lightweight and less safe, causing thousands of additional injuries, disabilities and deaths every year. The agency bragged about fuel savings, and ignored the human toll.
EPA also added industrial pollution, habitat destruction and fertilizer runoff as more reasons why irrigation water should not be turned on again in California’s San Joaquin Valley, to “protect” the delta smelt at the expense of farm jobs and families, after a judge ordered water to be turned back on.
To further justify its despotic decisions, EPA grossly overstates the economic benefits of its rules – insisting that each “premature death” theoretically avoided creates $9 million in hypothetical societal economic gains, whether the assumed “person” was a newborn or an 85-year-old in hospice care.
If even that isn’t enough, it uses human subjects in laboratory tests, exposing them to what Ms. Jackson has testified are dangerous, even toxic levels of fine soot. The agency also pays activist groups millions of taxpayer dollars a year to promote and applaud its farfetched claims and rogue actions.
Finally, EPA ignores the clearly harmful impacts its regulations have on human health and welfare. The rules cost jobs, thereby increasing the risk of depression, alcohol abuse, spousal and child abuse, cardiovascular disease and suicide. They just as obviously raise the cost of food, electricity, heating, air conditioning, commuting, healthcare and other necessities, thereby reducing health, welfare, living standards, civil rights progress and environmental justice – especially for poor, elderly and minority families.
EPA is out of control, and thus far unaccountable for its abuses of power, its disinformation and fraud, and the harm it is inflicting – for little or no health or environmental benefit.
Our founding fathers provided for elections, so that the American people could choose leaders who make the major decisions affecting their lives – and not be subjected to involuntary servitude at the hands of unelected, unaccountable kings or bureaucrats.
Rarely in history has one election meant so much, or one agency asserted so much control over our lives, livelihoods and freedoms. The 2012 elections will determine whether America once again enjoys a new birth of freedom, or continues suffering under an EPA that enslaves and impoverishes us, rather than protects us.
“My article this week addresses the serious and growing problem of junk science, disinformation and outright fraud by the US Environmental Protection Agency, as it seeks to advance its and President Obama’s anti-hydrocarbon agenda, at the expense of jobs, economic growth and, indeed, the overall health and welfare of American citizens,” says Driessen. “These are serious charges, but this article backs them up with examples and links to more than 20 articles and reports that further buttress its points.”
Government of, by and for the EPA
EPA advances anti-energy agenda, with little regard for Americans’ health or welfare
By Paul DriessenSeven score and nine years ago, President Lincoln resolved to take increased devotion to ensuring that government of the people, by the people and for the people shall not perish from the Earth.
Yet, today, our lives are determined not so much by We the People, as by a distant central government, particularly increasingly powerful, unelected and unaccountable Executive Branch agencies. Foremost among them, by almost any standard, is the Environmental Protection Agency.
Under Administrator Lisa Jackson, the Gettysburg vision has mutated into government of, by and for the EPA. Indeed, Ms. Jackson seeks not merely to regulate, but to legislate; not merely to protect our health and environment against every conceivable risk, but to control every facet of our economy, livelihoods and lives. Under her direction, EPA increasingly flaunts the naked power of regulators gone wild.
Instead of following laws and policies set by our elected representatives, EPA is now controlled by environmental ideologues, determined to impose their utopian ideas, via a massive and arrogant power grab. President Obama set the tone, with his promises to “bankrupt” coal and utility companies and “radically transform” our economy and society, and serves as the rogue agency’s cheerleader-in-chief. With few exceptions, our courts have refused to intervene, and the Senate has obstructed any meaningful efforts to constrain agency overreach or reexamine the laws under which it claims jurisdiction.
EPA’s power grab picks the pockets of every American business and citizen, making it increasingly expensive to fill gas tanks, heat and cool homes and offices, run hospitals and factories, or buy food and consumer goods. The Employment Prevention Agency’s $100-billion diktats are killing countless jobs, making America more dependent on foreign sources of energy and raw materials that we have in abundance right here at home, and endangering our economic health and national security.
Under Lisa Jackson’s agenda, fossil fuels are to be relegated to the dustbin of history. America is to get its energy from intermittent, unreliable, “renewable” sources, whenever they are available. Regulations on carbon dioxide and other “greenhouse gases,” mercury, soot and other substances are to make non-hydrocarbon energy appear cheaper by comparison, and pave the way for crony-corporatist “alternatives” like wind, solar, ethanol, wave and tidal action, and even biofuel for the Navy and Air Force.
In a mere six instances, our courts have delayed or blocked some of EPA’s worst excesses. Ruling that the agency had exceeded its authority, the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia struck down EPA’s “cross-state” air pollution rule, which would have controlled power plant emissions on the ground that computer models predicted the pollutants might harm neighborhoods hundreds of miles away.
In far too many other cases, however, EPA has been given carte blanche to regulate as it sees fit. A key pretext is the 1970 Clean Air Act, as amended by Congress in 1977 and 1990. The act deals primarily with six common pollutants: sulfur dioxide, nitrous oxides, particulates (soot), ozone, lead and carbon monoxide. It never mentions carbon dioxide, the plant-fertilizing gas that is essential for all life.
As EPA itself acknowledges, between 1970 and 2010, those six “criteria” air pollutants declined by an average of 63% and will continue to do so under existing regulations and technologies. Moreover, those dramatic reductions occurred even as coal-based electricity generation increased 180% … overall US energy consumption rose 40% … miles traveled soared 168% … and the nation’s population increased by 110 million. However, EPA intends to go much further, to advance its radical agenda.
It ruled that carbon dioxide is a “pollutant,” ignoring solar influences and citing claims by alarmists like James Hansen and the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that this essential gas (0.0395% of Earth’s atmosphere) “contributes” to “dangerous” global warming.
Since hydrocarbons provide 85% of the energy used to power America, this single ruling gives EPA effective control over our transportation, manufacturing, heating, cooling and other activities – virtually our entire economy – while making it all but impossible to operate existing coal-fired power plants or build new ones.
To ensure that coal really is excised from our energy mix, EPA also issued oppressive new rules on other emissions. Its new mercury rule is based on computer-generated risks to hypothetical American women who eat 296 pounds of fish a year that they catch themselves, its determination to prevent a theoretical reduction in IQ test scores by “0.00209 points,” and its refusal to recognize that coal-fired power plants contribute just 3% of the total mercury deposited in American watersheds, and thus in fish tissue.
EPA’s new PM2.5 soot standard is equivalent to having one ounce of super-fine dust spread equally in a volume of air one-half mile long, one-half mile wide and one story tall – while other rules demand that water from coal mines be cleaner than Perrier bottled water!
The agency repeatedly denied Shell Oil permits to drill in the Chukchi Sea off Alaska, because emissions from drilling rig and icebreaker engines might contribute to global warming. It opposes the Keystone XL Pipeline on the ground that burning Canadian oil sands fuel might likewise “contribute” to catastrophic climate change – whereas that would presumably not be the case if China burned that same fuel.
When Congress failed to act, it imposed new 54.5 mpg automobile standards that will make cars less affordable, but also smaller, more lightweight and less safe, causing thousands of additional injuries, disabilities and deaths every year. The agency bragged about fuel savings, and ignored the human toll.
EPA also added industrial pollution, habitat destruction and fertilizer runoff as more reasons why irrigation water should not be turned on again in California’s San Joaquin Valley, to “protect” the delta smelt at the expense of farm jobs and families, after a judge ordered water to be turned back on.
To further justify its despotic decisions, EPA grossly overstates the economic benefits of its rules – insisting that each “premature death” theoretically avoided creates $9 million in hypothetical societal economic gains, whether the assumed “person” was a newborn or an 85-year-old in hospice care.
If even that isn’t enough, it uses human subjects in laboratory tests, exposing them to what Ms. Jackson has testified are dangerous, even toxic levels of fine soot. The agency also pays activist groups millions of taxpayer dollars a year to promote and applaud its farfetched claims and rogue actions.
Finally, EPA ignores the clearly harmful impacts its regulations have on human health and welfare. The rules cost jobs, thereby increasing the risk of depression, alcohol abuse, spousal and child abuse, cardiovascular disease and suicide. They just as obviously raise the cost of food, electricity, heating, air conditioning, commuting, healthcare and other necessities, thereby reducing health, welfare, living standards, civil rights progress and environmental justice – especially for poor, elderly and minority families.
EPA is out of control, and thus far unaccountable for its abuses of power, its disinformation and fraud, and the harm it is inflicting – for little or no health or environmental benefit.
Our founding fathers provided for elections, so that the American people could choose leaders who make the major decisions affecting their lives – and not be subjected to involuntary servitude at the hands of unelected, unaccountable kings or bureaucrats.
Rarely in history has one election meant so much, or one agency asserted so much control over our lives, livelihoods and freedoms. The 2012 elections will determine whether America once again enjoys a new birth of freedom, or continues suffering under an EPA that enslaves and impoverishes us, rather than protects us.
Friday, April 13, 2012
EPA Approves Agent Orange Pesticide
The Environmental Protection Agency has refused a petition that aimed to ban the sale of a powerful pesticide linked with cancer — and while already available, a surge in sales is expected as scientists ready a new crop resistant to the chemical.
Not only has the EPA rejected a petition that sought to prohibit the domestic sale of the dangerous 2,4-D pesticide — a key ingredient in Agent Orange — but the main manufacturer of the chemical predicts that sales will skyrocket in the coming months. The reason, it would seem, is that Dow Chemicals is awaiting federal approval of a genetically engineered crop they’ve created that will be resistant to 2,4-D.
If approved, farmers will be able to plant the frankencrop corn variant and douse their fields with the pesticide to eliminate unwanted weeds with greater success. Although 2,4-D isn’t currently used to a large degree on corn fields, all that could soon change for the country’s most successful crop. Opponents argue, though, that the potential side effects of the pesticide are enough to push for a ban on 2,4-D altogether.
The Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental watch group, has argued that expose to 2,4-D has caused in some cases cancer, hormone disruption, genetic mutations and neurotoxicity, reports the New York Times. In voting not to hear the petition against the pesticide, however, the EPA says that they believe there to be a lack of evidence that would be significant enough to raise suspicion.
“After considering public comment received on the petition and all the available studies, EPA is denying the request to revoke all tolerances and the request to cancel all registrations,” the agency says in their explanation this week.
According to the National Resources Defense Council, the truth behind the toxicity of the chemical is quite the contrary.
“This dangerous pesticide is lurking all over the place – from ball fields and golf courses, to front lawns and farms – exposing an enormous amount of the American public to cancer and other serious health risks,” NRDC senior scientist Dr. Gina Solomon wrote earlier this year. “There’s no reason to continue allowing a toxic Agent Orange-ingredient in the places our children play, our families live and our farmers work. EPA must step up and finally put a stop to it.”
The NRDC is not alone in their opposition, either. The Center for Food Safety has also fought to ban the sale of 2,4-D as Dow develops their pesticide resistant-crop. “Dow’s ‘Agent Orange’ corn will trigger a large increase in 2,4-D use — and our exposure to this toxic herbicide — yet USDA has not assessed how much, nor analyzed the serious harm to human health, the environment or neighboring farms,” the center’s executive director, Andrew Kimbrell, warns. “This novel corn will foster resistant weeds that require more toxic pesticides to kill, followed by more resistance and more pesticides — a chemical arms race in which the only winners are pesticide/biotechnology firms.”
In discussing the seriousness of the consequences, Dr. Amy Dean adds to the Center for Food Safety that “Many studies show that 2,4-D exposure is associated with various forms of cancer, Parkinson’s Disease, nerve damage, hormone disruption and birth defect.”
“Because it poses significant health risk, exposure should not be increased, but significantly reduced to protect the public’s health,” the doctor insists.
The 2,4-D chemical was also instrumental in the formula for Agent Orange, the chemical weapon used by the US during the Vietnam War that is believed to have either killed, maimed or disfigured one million people.
The NRDC had filed their petition to end sales of 2,4-D back in November 2008. After over two years of waiting without response, they sued the EPA in February for not acting quickly enough, Only on April 9, 2012 did the EPA officially announce it would deny the petition. Mae Wu, a lawyer with the group, tells the New York Times that the NRDC was “disappointed that it has taken this long to deny our petition” and also “disappointed that they are not protecting public health by getting this toxic chemical off the market.”
Not only has the EPA rejected a petition that sought to prohibit the domestic sale of the dangerous 2,4-D pesticide — a key ingredient in Agent Orange — but the main manufacturer of the chemical predicts that sales will skyrocket in the coming months. The reason, it would seem, is that Dow Chemicals is awaiting federal approval of a genetically engineered crop they’ve created that will be resistant to 2,4-D.
If approved, farmers will be able to plant the frankencrop corn variant and douse their fields with the pesticide to eliminate unwanted weeds with greater success. Although 2,4-D isn’t currently used to a large degree on corn fields, all that could soon change for the country’s most successful crop. Opponents argue, though, that the potential side effects of the pesticide are enough to push for a ban on 2,4-D altogether.
The Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental watch group, has argued that expose to 2,4-D has caused in some cases cancer, hormone disruption, genetic mutations and neurotoxicity, reports the New York Times. In voting not to hear the petition against the pesticide, however, the EPA says that they believe there to be a lack of evidence that would be significant enough to raise suspicion.
“After considering public comment received on the petition and all the available studies, EPA is denying the request to revoke all tolerances and the request to cancel all registrations,” the agency says in their explanation this week.
According to the National Resources Defense Council, the truth behind the toxicity of the chemical is quite the contrary.
“This dangerous pesticide is lurking all over the place – from ball fields and golf courses, to front lawns and farms – exposing an enormous amount of the American public to cancer and other serious health risks,” NRDC senior scientist Dr. Gina Solomon wrote earlier this year. “There’s no reason to continue allowing a toxic Agent Orange-ingredient in the places our children play, our families live and our farmers work. EPA must step up and finally put a stop to it.”
The NRDC is not alone in their opposition, either. The Center for Food Safety has also fought to ban the sale of 2,4-D as Dow develops their pesticide resistant-crop. “Dow’s ‘Agent Orange’ corn will trigger a large increase in 2,4-D use — and our exposure to this toxic herbicide — yet USDA has not assessed how much, nor analyzed the serious harm to human health, the environment or neighboring farms,” the center’s executive director, Andrew Kimbrell, warns. “This novel corn will foster resistant weeds that require more toxic pesticides to kill, followed by more resistance and more pesticides — a chemical arms race in which the only winners are pesticide/biotechnology firms.”
In discussing the seriousness of the consequences, Dr. Amy Dean adds to the Center for Food Safety that “Many studies show that 2,4-D exposure is associated with various forms of cancer, Parkinson’s Disease, nerve damage, hormone disruption and birth defect.”
“Because it poses significant health risk, exposure should not be increased, but significantly reduced to protect the public’s health,” the doctor insists.
The 2,4-D chemical was also instrumental in the formula for Agent Orange, the chemical weapon used by the US during the Vietnam War that is believed to have either killed, maimed or disfigured one million people.
The NRDC had filed their petition to end sales of 2,4-D back in November 2008. After over two years of waiting without response, they sued the EPA in February for not acting quickly enough, Only on April 9, 2012 did the EPA officially announce it would deny the petition. Mae Wu, a lawyer with the group, tells the New York Times that the NRDC was “disappointed that it has taken this long to deny our petition” and also “disappointed that they are not protecting public health by getting this toxic chemical off the market.”
Sunday, February 12, 2012
Agent Orange Ingredient To Be Used In GM Crops
By Dr. Mercola
Agent Orange, produced by both Monsanto and Dow Chemicals, was used to defoliate jungles during the Vietnam War.
During that time, millions of gallons of the toxic chemical mixture were sprayed on trees and vegetation, and the aftermath left hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese sick, with countless numbers of their children suffering birth defects, and a still growing group of U.S. veterans with related diseases ranging from cancer to Parkinson's disease.
Agent Orange was a horrific chemical concoction that never should have been used, and if you want to see some of its effects on children who were exposed in the womb, you can do so here -- but I warn you the photos are very graphic and upsetting.
Agent Orange is no longer produced -- so why am I bringing it up now?
Because Dow AgroSciences (a subsidiary of Dow Chemicals), who was one of the original manufacturers of Agent Orange (AO), has developed a new generation of genetically modified (GM) crops -- soybeans, corn and cotton -- that are designed to resist a major ingredient in AO: the herbicide called 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D).
The use of 2,4-D, however, is not new, as it is actually one of the most widely used herbicides in the world.
What is new – and disturbingly so – is that now that staple crops like soy and corn have been engineered to be resistant to 2,4-D, it may soon be applied to U.S. arable land on an unprecedented scale -- not unlike its indiscriminate application during Vietnam.
The whole point of engineering resistance to an herbicide within a GMO plant, of course, is so that you can "carpet bomb" an entire field, leaving only your "Frankenfoods" standing, without having to exert even a fraction of the effort required raise crops organically and sustainably.
In fact, if 2,4-D resistant crops receive approval and eventually come to replace Monsanto's failing Roundup-resistant crops as Dow intends, it is likely that billions of pounds will be needed, on top of the already insane levels of Roundup now being used (1.6 billion lbs were used in 2007 in the US alone!).
Agent Orange Ingredient to be Used in GMO Crops
Dow's new GM product, dubbed "Enlist," is a three-gene, herbicide-tolerant soybean that has been engineered to be resistant to glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto's popular Roundup herbicide, along with glufosinate and 2,4-D. The company expects to earn $1.5 billion in additional profit in 2013 by selling these triple herbicide-resistant seeds. As noted by the U.S. Department of Veteran Affairs:
"The two active ingredients in the Agent Orange herbicide combination were equal amounts of 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) and 2,4,5-trichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4,5-T), which contained traces of 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD)."
Ironically, while Dow's new crops would seriously escalate the use of 2,4-D, Monsanto is currently facing a class-action lawsuit involving the other Agent Orange ingredient, 2,4,5-T. The suit alleges that homes and schools near one of its 2,4,5-T chemical plants are now contaminated with cancer-causing dioxin, a byproduct of the manufacturing process. This should be a wake-up call to those considering widespread application of any toxic Agent Orange ingredient.
Dow, however, is touting the new product as a solution to Monsanto's Roundup Ready GM crops, which currently dominate the GM seed market but are now being overshadowed by problems with weed resistance (not to mention that glyphosate itself is also incredibly toxic, and has been linked to infertility, among other serious health problems).
Where Monsanto has failed, Dow and other chemical rivals like DuPont, Syngenta, and Bayer (which are also working on their own herbicide-resistant GM seeds) see opportunity. So Dow has trotted in on their white horse to offer a new variety of GM crop, which they say will not pose the "superweed" problem that Roundup Ready crops have created.
This is not so, according to an article in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, in which researchers state that suggesting 2,4-D will not lead to widespread weed resistance "misrepresented the potential for 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D)–resistant weeds in 2,4-D–resistant cropping systems and exaggerated the sustainability of their approach to addressing glyphosate-resistant weed problems in agriculture."
They, in fact, note 28 species across 16 plant families that have already evolved resistance to similar herbicides to 2,4-D. Further, as stated on GreenMedInfo, the new Enlist crops are setting the stage for even greater and simultaneous herbicide use, the health ramifications of which are completely unknown:
"Instead of learning from Monsanto's colossal mistakes (which happens when you play geneticist-as-God and use a broad spectrum poison to kill all but your "chosen" plants) Dow AgroScience's solution is to multiply the problem by a factor of three, creating the "first-ever, three-gene," herbicide-tolerant staple crops.
NOTE: This is approved by EPA, USDA etc.
Agent Orange, produced by both Monsanto and Dow Chemicals, was used to defoliate jungles during the Vietnam War.
During that time, millions of gallons of the toxic chemical mixture were sprayed on trees and vegetation, and the aftermath left hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese sick, with countless numbers of their children suffering birth defects, and a still growing group of U.S. veterans with related diseases ranging from cancer to Parkinson's disease.
Agent Orange was a horrific chemical concoction that never should have been used, and if you want to see some of its effects on children who were exposed in the womb, you can do so here -- but I warn you the photos are very graphic and upsetting.
Agent Orange is no longer produced -- so why am I bringing it up now?
Because Dow AgroSciences (a subsidiary of Dow Chemicals), who was one of the original manufacturers of Agent Orange (AO), has developed a new generation of genetically modified (GM) crops -- soybeans, corn and cotton -- that are designed to resist a major ingredient in AO: the herbicide called 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D).
The use of 2,4-D, however, is not new, as it is actually one of the most widely used herbicides in the world.
What is new – and disturbingly so – is that now that staple crops like soy and corn have been engineered to be resistant to 2,4-D, it may soon be applied to U.S. arable land on an unprecedented scale -- not unlike its indiscriminate application during Vietnam.
The whole point of engineering resistance to an herbicide within a GMO plant, of course, is so that you can "carpet bomb" an entire field, leaving only your "Frankenfoods" standing, without having to exert even a fraction of the effort required raise crops organically and sustainably.
In fact, if 2,4-D resistant crops receive approval and eventually come to replace Monsanto's failing Roundup-resistant crops as Dow intends, it is likely that billions of pounds will be needed, on top of the already insane levels of Roundup now being used (1.6 billion lbs were used in 2007 in the US alone!).
Agent Orange Ingredient to be Used in GMO Crops
Dow's new GM product, dubbed "Enlist," is a three-gene, herbicide-tolerant soybean that has been engineered to be resistant to glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto's popular Roundup herbicide, along with glufosinate and 2,4-D. The company expects to earn $1.5 billion in additional profit in 2013 by selling these triple herbicide-resistant seeds. As noted by the U.S. Department of Veteran Affairs:
"The two active ingredients in the Agent Orange herbicide combination were equal amounts of 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) and 2,4,5-trichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4,5-T), which contained traces of 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD)."
Ironically, while Dow's new crops would seriously escalate the use of 2,4-D, Monsanto is currently facing a class-action lawsuit involving the other Agent Orange ingredient, 2,4,5-T. The suit alleges that homes and schools near one of its 2,4,5-T chemical plants are now contaminated with cancer-causing dioxin, a byproduct of the manufacturing process. This should be a wake-up call to those considering widespread application of any toxic Agent Orange ingredient.
Dow, however, is touting the new product as a solution to Monsanto's Roundup Ready GM crops, which currently dominate the GM seed market but are now being overshadowed by problems with weed resistance (not to mention that glyphosate itself is also incredibly toxic, and has been linked to infertility, among other serious health problems).
Where Monsanto has failed, Dow and other chemical rivals like DuPont, Syngenta, and Bayer (which are also working on their own herbicide-resistant GM seeds) see opportunity. So Dow has trotted in on their white horse to offer a new variety of GM crop, which they say will not pose the "superweed" problem that Roundup Ready crops have created.
This is not so, according to an article in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, in which researchers state that suggesting 2,4-D will not lead to widespread weed resistance "misrepresented the potential for 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D)–resistant weeds in 2,4-D–resistant cropping systems and exaggerated the sustainability of their approach to addressing glyphosate-resistant weed problems in agriculture."
They, in fact, note 28 species across 16 plant families that have already evolved resistance to similar herbicides to 2,4-D. Further, as stated on GreenMedInfo, the new Enlist crops are setting the stage for even greater and simultaneous herbicide use, the health ramifications of which are completely unknown:
"Instead of learning from Monsanto's colossal mistakes (which happens when you play geneticist-as-God and use a broad spectrum poison to kill all but your "chosen" plants) Dow AgroScience's solution is to multiply the problem by a factor of three, creating the "first-ever, three-gene," herbicide-tolerant staple crops.
NOTE: This is approved by EPA, USDA etc.
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Monsanto Poisons 400,000,000 Acres US Farm Land
Monsanto and Dow Chemical were the largest producers of 2,4,5-T herbicide that created dioxin as a byproduct and was used as an agricultural herbicide before the 1950′s. Monsanto, Dow Chemical and other makers of dioxin-contaminated herbicide 2,4,5-T produced 50 MILLION pounds of these chemicals per year for agricultural uses in the US! Since 1947, more than 300 million pounds of dioxin laden 2,4,5-T was sprayed on more than 400 MILLION acres of US land, mostly on farms and agricultural property.
The 2,4,5-T dioxin-containing herbicide was later combined with 2,4-D to create Agent Orange for chemical warfare against Viet Nam.
Both Monsanto and Dow Chemical were aware, since the 1950′s, that German company Boeringer was able to produce herbicide 2,4,5-T without any detectable dioxin by slow cooking the chemical for about 12 hours. But Monsanto and Dow ignored this information and cooked their 2,4,5-T batches in 45 minutes or less, thus contaminating the product with dioxin — presumably for higher profits.
Monsanto and Dow Chemical were also aware that dioxin caused health problems. Monsanto and Dow Chemical would go bankrupt if they were actually held accountable for their crimes against humanity and the environment. The herbicide 2,4,5-T was phased out in the late 1970′s.
Dioxin is an umbrella term for a class of super toxic chemicals that cause cancer, birth defects, liver disease, immune system damage and many other health problems. There is no safe ‘threshold’ dose as our bodies have zero defense against dioxin, according to health consultant Jonathan Campbell.
Dioxin has a half life of over 100 years in the environment when it is below the surface or dumped in waterways.
The 2,4,5-T dioxin-containing herbicide was later combined with 2,4-D to create Agent Orange for chemical warfare against Viet Nam.
Both Monsanto and Dow Chemical were aware, since the 1950′s, that German company Boeringer was able to produce herbicide 2,4,5-T without any detectable dioxin by slow cooking the chemical for about 12 hours. But Monsanto and Dow ignored this information and cooked their 2,4,5-T batches in 45 minutes or less, thus contaminating the product with dioxin — presumably for higher profits.
Monsanto and Dow Chemical were also aware that dioxin caused health problems. Monsanto and Dow Chemical would go bankrupt if they were actually held accountable for their crimes against humanity and the environment. The herbicide 2,4,5-T was phased out in the late 1970′s.
Dioxin is an umbrella term for a class of super toxic chemicals that cause cancer, birth defects, liver disease, immune system damage and many other health problems. There is no safe ‘threshold’ dose as our bodies have zero defense against dioxin, according to health consultant Jonathan Campbell.
Dioxin has a half life of over 100 years in the environment when it is below the surface or dumped in waterways.
Thursday, January 12, 2012
Supreme Court Slams EPA
Idaho couple Mike and Chantell Sackett have battled the Environmental Protection Agency for four years in an attempt to build a home on property they own that the EPA has dubbed “protected wetlands.” Finally their case made it way to the Supreme Court, where several justices took up their cause and slammed the EPA for its “heavy-handed enforcement of rules.”
During Supreme Court arguments, the couple explained that they had no reason to suspect there were wetlands on their property. In 2005, they purchased the land for $23,000 and two years later planned to build a three-bedroom home on it. Workers spent three days filling in just under a half-acre of land with dirt and rocks in preparation for building.
It was at that point that three EPA officials showed up and asserted that the property was protected wetlands. They then ordered the workers to stop when they discovered that the Sacketts had no permit. Six months later, the EPA sent the order that led to the court case. Before the case reached the Supreme Court, lower courts had told the Sacketts that they could not challenge the EPA’s order.
A wetlands biologist did in fact advise the Sacketts in 2007 that their property was a wetlands and that there were wetlands on three sides of their land; however, another wetlands consultant told them in 2010 that the first assessment was wrong.
Justice Department lawyer Malcolm Stewart asserted that if the Sacketts “had wanted a judicial resolution of the coverage question without subjecting themselves to potential penalties, they could have filed a permit application before discharging, they could have gotten review there. All we‘re saying is they can’t discharge fill, wait to see whether EPA notices, and then insist upon immediate judicial review if EPA notices and objects.”
But EPA critics assert that the agency has too many regulations and too much bureaucratic red tape put in place without any real authority.
The Blaze provides some background:
The EPA issues nearly 3,000 administrative compliance orders a year that call on alleged violators of environmental laws to stop what they‘re doing and repair the harm they’ve caused. Major business groups, homebuilders, road builders and agricultural interests all have joined the Sacketts in urging the court to make it easier to contest EPA compliance orders issued under several environmental laws.
Several conservative Supreme Court Justices blasted the Environmental Protection Agency for what they deemed overreach in the Sackett case.
Justice Antonin Scalia criticized the EPA’s “high-handedness” when it comes to dealing with private property, and Samuel Alito called the agency's actions “outrageous,” charging that “this kind of thing can’t happen in the United States." Alito was particularly incensed by the fact that the Sacketts had to wait to be sued by the EPA before they could even challenge the agency regarding the wetlands on their property. He observed,
You think maybe there is a little drainage problem in part of your lot, so you start to build the house and then you get an order from the EPA which says: "You have filled in wetlands, so you can’t build your house; remove the fill, put in all kinds of plants; and now you have to let us on your premises whenever we want to. You have to turn over to us all sorts of documents, and for every day that you don’t do all this you are accumulating a potential fine of $75,000. And by the way, there is no way you can go to court to challenge our determination that this is a wetlands until such time as we choose to sue you.”
Justice John Roberts bemoaned the fact that most people would be hesitant to even challenge the agency’s determination because of the potential fines associated with it. “Because of the administrative compliance order, you’re really never going to be put to the test, because most land owners aren’t going to say, ‘I’m going to risk the $37,000 a day,'" he insisted. “All EPA has to do is make whatever finding it wants, and realize that in 99 percent of the cases, it’s never going to be put to the test.”
Justice Anthony Kennedy voiced the opinion that he was unsure just how far the Supreme Court could go in its ruling, because those who do not comply with the directions of government agencies often receive citations. “Health inspectors go into restaurants all the time and say: ‘Unless you fix this, I’m going to give you a citation.’ Fire inspectors, the same thing,” he noted.
The Sacketts indicate that they are not trying to take away the EPA’s power. Instead, their lawyer Damien Schiff asserts, “Let EPA administer the act and issue compliance orders. But let’s also give homeowners a fair shake, too. Let them have their day in court to contest what the agency has done.”
At issue is whether the EPA is acting outside the bounds of its authority. However, government agencies for years have increased their authority through the process of regulations. Conservative writer Mark Steyn explains:
For more and more Americans, law has been supplanted by “regulation” — a governing set of rules not legislated by representatives accountable to the people, but invented by an activist bureaucracy, much of which is well to the left of either political party. As the newspapers blandly reported in 2010, the bureaucrats weren’t terribly bothered about whether Congress would pass a cap-and-trade mega-bill into law because, if faint-hearted Dems lose their nerve, the EPA will just “raise” "standards” all by itself.
Because the bureaucrats who operate these agencies are appointed, not voted on by the American people, citizens find themselves in a quagmire when told to comply with the rules imposed by these unelected officials.
Critics note that the EPA’s heavy-handed influence is not limited to just the building of homes. They point out that because EPA regulations have blocked the building of new coal mining plants and caused many existing ones to shut their doors, the agency is nearly putting the coal industry out of business.
The EPA acquired a great deal of authority under the Clean Air Act, which permits it to regulate greenhouse gases. The agency posted a statement on its website last year indicating that it would introduce new standards and move unilaterally to clamp down on greenhouse emissions from power plants and oil refineries.
EPA administrator Lisa Jackson asserts that the plans are meant to cope with so-called climate change: “We are following through on our commitment to proceed in a measured and careful way to reduce GHG pollution that threatens the health and welfare of Americans.”
Meanwhile, as the EPA’s regulations are strangling other industries, the size and scope of the agency burgeons as a result of its regulatory overreach. The EPA has stated that in order to carry out all the terms of the Clean Air Act, it would have to hire 230,000 more federal bureaucrats.
During Supreme Court arguments, the couple explained that they had no reason to suspect there were wetlands on their property. In 2005, they purchased the land for $23,000 and two years later planned to build a three-bedroom home on it. Workers spent three days filling in just under a half-acre of land with dirt and rocks in preparation for building.
It was at that point that three EPA officials showed up and asserted that the property was protected wetlands. They then ordered the workers to stop when they discovered that the Sacketts had no permit. Six months later, the EPA sent the order that led to the court case. Before the case reached the Supreme Court, lower courts had told the Sacketts that they could not challenge the EPA’s order.
A wetlands biologist did in fact advise the Sacketts in 2007 that their property was a wetlands and that there were wetlands on three sides of their land; however, another wetlands consultant told them in 2010 that the first assessment was wrong.
Justice Department lawyer Malcolm Stewart asserted that if the Sacketts “had wanted a judicial resolution of the coverage question without subjecting themselves to potential penalties, they could have filed a permit application before discharging, they could have gotten review there. All we‘re saying is they can’t discharge fill, wait to see whether EPA notices, and then insist upon immediate judicial review if EPA notices and objects.”
But EPA critics assert that the agency has too many regulations and too much bureaucratic red tape put in place without any real authority.
The Blaze provides some background:
The EPA issues nearly 3,000 administrative compliance orders a year that call on alleged violators of environmental laws to stop what they‘re doing and repair the harm they’ve caused. Major business groups, homebuilders, road builders and agricultural interests all have joined the Sacketts in urging the court to make it easier to contest EPA compliance orders issued under several environmental laws.
Several conservative Supreme Court Justices blasted the Environmental Protection Agency for what they deemed overreach in the Sackett case.
Justice Antonin Scalia criticized the EPA’s “high-handedness” when it comes to dealing with private property, and Samuel Alito called the agency's actions “outrageous,” charging that “this kind of thing can’t happen in the United States." Alito was particularly incensed by the fact that the Sacketts had to wait to be sued by the EPA before they could even challenge the agency regarding the wetlands on their property. He observed,
You think maybe there is a little drainage problem in part of your lot, so you start to build the house and then you get an order from the EPA which says: "You have filled in wetlands, so you can’t build your house; remove the fill, put in all kinds of plants; and now you have to let us on your premises whenever we want to. You have to turn over to us all sorts of documents, and for every day that you don’t do all this you are accumulating a potential fine of $75,000. And by the way, there is no way you can go to court to challenge our determination that this is a wetlands until such time as we choose to sue you.”
Justice John Roberts bemoaned the fact that most people would be hesitant to even challenge the agency’s determination because of the potential fines associated with it. “Because of the administrative compliance order, you’re really never going to be put to the test, because most land owners aren’t going to say, ‘I’m going to risk the $37,000 a day,'" he insisted. “All EPA has to do is make whatever finding it wants, and realize that in 99 percent of the cases, it’s never going to be put to the test.”
Justice Anthony Kennedy voiced the opinion that he was unsure just how far the Supreme Court could go in its ruling, because those who do not comply with the directions of government agencies often receive citations. “Health inspectors go into restaurants all the time and say: ‘Unless you fix this, I’m going to give you a citation.’ Fire inspectors, the same thing,” he noted.
The Sacketts indicate that they are not trying to take away the EPA’s power. Instead, their lawyer Damien Schiff asserts, “Let EPA administer the act and issue compliance orders. But let’s also give homeowners a fair shake, too. Let them have their day in court to contest what the agency has done.”
At issue is whether the EPA is acting outside the bounds of its authority. However, government agencies for years have increased their authority through the process of regulations. Conservative writer Mark Steyn explains:
For more and more Americans, law has been supplanted by “regulation” — a governing set of rules not legislated by representatives accountable to the people, but invented by an activist bureaucracy, much of which is well to the left of either political party. As the newspapers blandly reported in 2010, the bureaucrats weren’t terribly bothered about whether Congress would pass a cap-and-trade mega-bill into law because, if faint-hearted Dems lose their nerve, the EPA will just “raise” "standards” all by itself.
Because the bureaucrats who operate these agencies are appointed, not voted on by the American people, citizens find themselves in a quagmire when told to comply with the rules imposed by these unelected officials.
Critics note that the EPA’s heavy-handed influence is not limited to just the building of homes. They point out that because EPA regulations have blocked the building of new coal mining plants and caused many existing ones to shut their doors, the agency is nearly putting the coal industry out of business.
The EPA acquired a great deal of authority under the Clean Air Act, which permits it to regulate greenhouse gases. The agency posted a statement on its website last year indicating that it would introduce new standards and move unilaterally to clamp down on greenhouse emissions from power plants and oil refineries.
EPA administrator Lisa Jackson asserts that the plans are meant to cope with so-called climate change: “We are following through on our commitment to proceed in a measured and careful way to reduce GHG pollution that threatens the health and welfare of Americans.”
Meanwhile, as the EPA’s regulations are strangling other industries, the size and scope of the agency burgeons as a result of its regulatory overreach. The EPA has stated that in order to carry out all the terms of the Clean Air Act, it would have to hire 230,000 more federal bureaucrats.
Thursday, October 13, 2011
#Flu Shots Have 250 X EPA Mercury "safe" Limit
'Thimerosal is a widely used vaccine preservative that is present in the majority of flu shots and other vaccines. Thimerosal is 49% mercury by volume, an extremely toxic chemical element that wreaks havoc on the nervous system, neurological function, and overall biological function [1]. Each dose of flu vaccine contains around 25 micrograms of thimerosal, over 250 times the Environmental Protection Agency’s safety limit of exposure.
Mercury, a neurotoxin, is especially damaging to undeveloped brains. Considering that 25 micrograms of mercury is considered unsafe by the EPA for any human under 550 pounds, the devastating health effects of mercury on a developing fetus are truly concerning.'
Mercury, a neurotoxin, is especially damaging to undeveloped brains. Considering that 25 micrograms of mercury is considered unsafe by the EPA for any human under 550 pounds, the devastating health effects of mercury on a developing fetus are truly concerning.'
Tuesday, September 6, 2011
#EPA Declares Hay To Be Pollutant To Put Small Farmers & Ranchers Out Of Biz
“Has the Environmental Protection Agency declared hay a pollutant?” an audience member asked. Callicrate responded affirmatively and explained that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently initiated a formal enforcement action against his Kansas feedlot for, among other things, failure to store his hay in a pollution containment zone. “Now that EPA has declared hay a pollutant, every farmer and rancher that stores hay, or that leaves a broken hay bale in the field is potentially violating EPA rules and subject to an EPA enforcement action,” Callicrate said. “How far are we going to let this agency go before we stand up and do something about it?”
Callicrate is permitted to handle 12,000 cattle at a time in his feedlot, which is considered a small to mid-sized feedlot in an industry now dominated by mega-feedlots such as those owned by the world’s largest beef packer – JBS-Brazil – with a one-time capacity of over 900,000 cattle; or the other mega-feedlot that also feeds hundreds of thousands of cattle at a time and is owned by the nation’s second-largest beef packer - Cargill; or the other handful of mega feedlots with capacities of hundreds of thousands of cattle such as those owned by Cactus Feeders, Inc. and Friona Industries.
In comments submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice, R-CALF USA estimated the above named mega-feedlots feed 18 percent of the nation’s fed cattle each year while one-fourth of the nation’s cattle are fed in feedlots with a one time capacity of 50,000 head or more. The largest of feedlots are getting larger and Callicrate’s feedlot is among the group of small to mid-sized feedlots that are being pressured to exit the industry so beef packers and corporate feedlot owners can increase their respective capacities. Data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) show that 45 feedlots with one-time capacities of between 1,000 or more cattle but less than 16,000 cattle have exited the industry from 2008 to 2010.
R-CALF USA contents beef packers are deliberately forcing small to mid-sized feedlots out of business through unfair and abusive cattle-buying practices that effectively restrict market access for all but the largest of feedlots. “The proposed GIPSA rule (USDA Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration rule) will put a stop to such unfair and abusive practices, but only if USDA issues a final rule,” said Callicrate.
Callicrate’s feedlot is the perfect example. In late 1998, the nation’s largest beef packers blackballed Callicrate because he called attention to the unfair buying practices of the corporate meatpackers. Callicrate was forced to cease his feedlot operations until 2000 when he opened Ranch Foods Direct, a meat processing and distribution company in Colorado Springs, Colorado, and began marketing his own beef more directly to consumers.
NOTE: In rural areas everybody has a few animals, cows, sheep, goats, horses, llamas, pigs and everyone uses hay. Bales always break, not a big deal, the seeds go back into the ground or act as mulch. Hay is a nutrient rich food and could never be considered a pollutant. It would be the same as calling any food a pollutant.
Callicrate is permitted to handle 12,000 cattle at a time in his feedlot, which is considered a small to mid-sized feedlot in an industry now dominated by mega-feedlots such as those owned by the world’s largest beef packer – JBS-Brazil – with a one-time capacity of over 900,000 cattle; or the other mega-feedlot that also feeds hundreds of thousands of cattle at a time and is owned by the nation’s second-largest beef packer - Cargill; or the other handful of mega feedlots with capacities of hundreds of thousands of cattle such as those owned by Cactus Feeders, Inc. and Friona Industries.
In comments submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice, R-CALF USA estimated the above named mega-feedlots feed 18 percent of the nation’s fed cattle each year while one-fourth of the nation’s cattle are fed in feedlots with a one time capacity of 50,000 head or more. The largest of feedlots are getting larger and Callicrate’s feedlot is among the group of small to mid-sized feedlots that are being pressured to exit the industry so beef packers and corporate feedlot owners can increase their respective capacities. Data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) show that 45 feedlots with one-time capacities of between 1,000 or more cattle but less than 16,000 cattle have exited the industry from 2008 to 2010.
R-CALF USA contents beef packers are deliberately forcing small to mid-sized feedlots out of business through unfair and abusive cattle-buying practices that effectively restrict market access for all but the largest of feedlots. “The proposed GIPSA rule (USDA Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration rule) will put a stop to such unfair and abusive practices, but only if USDA issues a final rule,” said Callicrate.
Callicrate’s feedlot is the perfect example. In late 1998, the nation’s largest beef packers blackballed Callicrate because he called attention to the unfair buying practices of the corporate meatpackers. Callicrate was forced to cease his feedlot operations until 2000 when he opened Ranch Foods Direct, a meat processing and distribution company in Colorado Springs, Colorado, and began marketing his own beef more directly to consumers.
NOTE: In rural areas everybody has a few animals, cows, sheep, goats, horses, llamas, pigs and everyone uses hay. Bales always break, not a big deal, the seeds go back into the ground or act as mulch. Hay is a nutrient rich food and could never be considered a pollutant. It would be the same as calling any food a pollutant.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)