Nydia Ywalmoriel
10-07-2007, 07:29 PM
Once upon a time, the Environmental Protection Agency, you know... actually attempted to protect both the environment and the people and creatures that live in it from environmental pollution, degredation, and health risks to the public. This, of course, made it a primary target of many industries who weren't particularly interested in paying the *actual* cost of producing/applying/extracting their product, and the corporate lobbyists have been gunning for them for the last two decades, and, more recently, the politicians who feel beholden to all that sweet, sweet cash.
The net result: as we have seen repeatedly of late (with the FDA, FEMA, and other agencies), when you put foxes in charge of the henhouse... all those high and mighty ideals about the 'public welfare' quickly get tossed out the window in favor of maximizing shareholder value, at least until the bodies start showing up (and even then depending on how well you can intimidate/settle/cover/distract the public).
That bit about the bodies showing up, in this case, is likely not to be hyperbole, either: On Friday, the EPA, over protests from over 50 leading chemists including five Nobel Laureates in Chemistry and the former head of Monsanto(!), approved the use of a new pesticide, methyl iodide, for use on strawberry fields, despite the fact that this is a known potent mutagen, carcinogen, and neurotoxin, is pumped into fields as a *gas*, not a liquid, and is at serious risk of entering the water table.
In case you are wondering *why* the EPA would be willing to authorize such a noxious chemical, it's not all *their* fault: after all, those mean nasty Europeans and other flower sniffers pushed through an international agreement banning the use of the former fumigant used for this application, methyl bromide, because it does significant damage to the ozone layer, and they had to approve *something* to replace it, because god forbid people have to accept blemished strawberries...
Or perhaps the more salient bit of reasoning can be found here:
Methyl iodide will be manufactured by Tokyo-based Arysta LifeScience Corp. and marketed under the name Midas. (bold mine). Its use will be allowed on fields growing strawberries, tomatoes, peppers, ornamentals, turf, trees and vines.
Arysta's former chief executive, Elin Miller, is now a top official at the EPA and was appointed administrator of its northwest region last year.
Granted, it's a one year permit, and they *did* collect data from a *one year* study on a test plot, and they're requiring the use of 'buffer zones' around fields where the fumigant is going to be used, but considering that fumigants tend to travel, and cancer and mutagenic effects tend to take years to decades to show up in long-lived species such as humans, it's not terribly reassuring.
Much as with the Nutrasweet issue, this is a case of someone who stood to *directly* benefit from the approval of a dangerous and suspect substance being instrumental in its approval. For Pete's sake, what will it take to get conflict-of-interest (fox/henhouse) laws in place with regard to our governmental regulatory agencies? Perhaps the next generation of flipper babies or something equally spectacular... but those most affected by these types of decisions (especially involving pesticides) tend to be poor farm laborers and the usually equally poor or rural communities that surround them.
I have to say however, that product name is a stroke of chutzpah-laden genius, and takes the cake for both intentional and unintentional irony... ;)
Article here:
http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-me-pesticide6oct06,1,4750992.story?page=2&ctrack=1&cset=true
Regards,
Nydia
The net result: as we have seen repeatedly of late (with the FDA, FEMA, and other agencies), when you put foxes in charge of the henhouse... all those high and mighty ideals about the 'public welfare' quickly get tossed out the window in favor of maximizing shareholder value, at least until the bodies start showing up (and even then depending on how well you can intimidate/settle/cover/distract the public).
That bit about the bodies showing up, in this case, is likely not to be hyperbole, either: On Friday, the EPA, over protests from over 50 leading chemists including five Nobel Laureates in Chemistry and the former head of Monsanto(!), approved the use of a new pesticide, methyl iodide, for use on strawberry fields, despite the fact that this is a known potent mutagen, carcinogen, and neurotoxin, is pumped into fields as a *gas*, not a liquid, and is at serious risk of entering the water table.
In case you are wondering *why* the EPA would be willing to authorize such a noxious chemical, it's not all *their* fault: after all, those mean nasty Europeans and other flower sniffers pushed through an international agreement banning the use of the former fumigant used for this application, methyl bromide, because it does significant damage to the ozone layer, and they had to approve *something* to replace it, because god forbid people have to accept blemished strawberries...
Or perhaps the more salient bit of reasoning can be found here:
Methyl iodide will be manufactured by Tokyo-based Arysta LifeScience Corp. and marketed under the name Midas. (bold mine). Its use will be allowed on fields growing strawberries, tomatoes, peppers, ornamentals, turf, trees and vines.
Arysta's former chief executive, Elin Miller, is now a top official at the EPA and was appointed administrator of its northwest region last year.
Granted, it's a one year permit, and they *did* collect data from a *one year* study on a test plot, and they're requiring the use of 'buffer zones' around fields where the fumigant is going to be used, but considering that fumigants tend to travel, and cancer and mutagenic effects tend to take years to decades to show up in long-lived species such as humans, it's not terribly reassuring.
Much as with the Nutrasweet issue, this is a case of someone who stood to *directly* benefit from the approval of a dangerous and suspect substance being instrumental in its approval. For Pete's sake, what will it take to get conflict-of-interest (fox/henhouse) laws in place with regard to our governmental regulatory agencies? Perhaps the next generation of flipper babies or something equally spectacular... but those most affected by these types of decisions (especially involving pesticides) tend to be poor farm laborers and the usually equally poor or rural communities that surround them.
I have to say however, that product name is a stroke of chutzpah-laden genius, and takes the cake for both intentional and unintentional irony... ;)
Article here:
http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-me-pesticide6oct06,1,4750992.story?page=2&ctrack=1&cset=true
Regards,
Nydia