Important Notice About the EPA and some Pesticides

A few days ago I was reading through my local paper and a story struck me as very huge. Unfortunately the article was just a small blurb on an inside page. I wished it had been bigger so it seemed right to share the story here on Green Leaf Reviewer.

I cut the piece out and inadvertantly forgot to note the date it ran in my paper so I apologize for not being able to provide that information. It first ran in USA Today on March 28, 2013. The story is quoted from USA Today but I originally clipped it out of the Arizona Republic.

Study: Two thirds of pesticides got flawed EPA approval

Many pesticides used in consumer products and agriculture received federal approval through a loophole that doesn't require thorough testing, according to a study released Wednesday by an environmental group.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency used a regulatory loophole to approve 65% of 16,000 pesticides that pose a potential threat to public health, according to the two-year investigation by the Natural Resources Defense Council. The authors say the EPA's database makes it unclear how many of those pesticides received adequate, if any, testing.

"People should be concerned, because we have examples of at least two pesticides on the market that shouldn't have been approved," says NRDC attorney Mae Wu, who co-authored the study with Jennifer Sass, a senior health scientist. Wu points to nanosilver, which was approved as an anti-microbial agent in clothing but may damage brain and liver cells, and clothianidin, which was designed to be absorbed into plant tissue but is passed on fatally to bees and other pollinators.

"EPA has not yet had a chance to carefully review the issue brief," the agency said in a statement. It cites its own internal review, posted on its website, that said subsequent pesticide information submitted to the EPA "confirms that products initially registered on a conditional basis are not posing unacceptable risks to human health or the environment."

In that review, however, the EPA said it had widely (98% of the time) misused its "conditional registration" of pesticides from 2004 to 2010...

READ THE FULL ARTICLE

What would you like to see done to clean up this issue?

Amazing News and a Huge Eco Step Forward

Although we do not generally like to reprint news stories around these parts, this one is just too perfect not to. Not to mention I am too busy doing the happy dance to rewrite it; the EPA just gained a few coolness points in my book. The original article location is linked to the title. How do you feel about this?

EPA review of mining permits signals policy shift

By DINA CAPPIELLO, Associated Press Writer Dina Cappiello, Associated Press Writer – Wed Mar 25, 4:07 am ET

WASHINGTON – Breaking with the policies of the Bush administration, the Environmental Protection Agency is sharpening its oversight of mountaintop coal mining to ensure projects do not harm streams and wetlands.

EPA administrator Lisa Jackson on Tuesday directed the agency staff to review 150 to 200 applications for new or expanded surface coal mines, many mountaintop removal operations, pending before the federal government.

The agency also objected to two permits slated for approval by the Army Corps of Engineers because the companies had not done enough to avoid and minimize damage to water quality and stream channels.

The permits authorize mining companies that blast away mountaintops to access coal to dump the waste into streams and wetlands.

The actions "reflect EPA's considerable concern regarding the environmental impact these projects would have on fragile habitats and streams," Jackson said in a statement.

Environmentalists hailed the decision as a sea change in policy. The EPA has always had the authority to review and veto permits issued by the Corps of Engineers, but it rarely did so during the Bush administration.

The Corps has long been criticized by environmental and community groups and has been sued for failing to thoroughly evaluate the environmental impact of mountaintop removal.

Under the Clean Water Act, companies cannot discharge rock, dirt and other debris into streams unless they can show they will not cause permanent damage to waterways or the fish and other wildlife that live in them.

Last month, a three-judge appeals panel in Richmond, VA, overturned a lower court's ruling that would have required the Corps to conduct more extensive reviews. The appeals court decision cleared the way for a backlog of permits that had been delayed until the lawsuit was resolved.

The EPA's action on Tuesday could leave those permit requests in limbo a little longer.

Ginger Mullins, regulatory branch chief for the Corps' Huntington District, which covers portions of Kentucky, Ohio, West Virginia, Virginia and North Carolina, said the EPA reviews will delay approval of projects.

"It will take more time," said Mullins.