Who knew EPA stood for “Ensuring Profits for Agribiz”?
An EPA spokesman told reporters that the agency's mission is "to protect the environment and human health". Then why are its decisions dictated by the Safety Is Too Expensive Business Model?
It looks like the agency's decisions undermine its purported mission. Advocates for farm workers and the environment are challenging EPA decisions in 2006, allowing continued use of 4 pesticides in California fruit/veggie fields, even though the agency knew the toxic chemicals posed signifant threats to the health of human beings and animals. The EPA's justification? The benefit$ to grower$ outweighed the costs to individuals working in the fields, and their children, pets, and neighbors. The Bush Administration now faces a lawsuit related to these EPA decisions. Jo Hartley writes for NaturalNews.Com:
The suit challenged the Environmental Protection Agency's 2006 decision to reauthorize the four pesticides used on fruit and vegetable fields in California.
A 1996 federal law required the EPA to reassess the safety of all pesticides used on foods. Based on this reassessment, the EPA was to decide whether to approve their use. The EPA found that four substances posed substantial risks to human health but they concluded that the cost savings to growers outweighed the dangers to humans.
These four pesticides reportedly put thousands of farm workers and their families at risk of serious illness.
EPA spokesman Tim Lyons stated that the agency would review the lawsuit and respond in court. However, they did say: "Our mission is to protect the environment and human health."
California officials have officially classified one of the pesticides (ethoprop) as a carcinogen.
On the other side of the U.S., the EPA is AWOL in its NYC lead clean-up duties.