EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
US Farmers May Face Crackdown on Pesticide Use
WASHINGTON - The nation's farmers could face severe restrictions on the use of pesticides as environmentalists, spurred by a favorable ruling from a judge in Washington state, want the courts to force federal regulators to protect endangered species from the ill effects of agricultural chemicals.
Workers survey orchards irrigated by the Yakima River in Washington. (Steve Ringman/Seattle Times/MCT)
The eight-year-old ruling by a federal judge in
Seattle required the National Marine Fisheries Service and the
Environmental Protection Agency to review whether 54 pesticides,
herbicides and fungicides were jeopardizing troubled West Coast salmon
runs.
The agencies moved recently to restrict the use of three of the chemicals, including a widely used one with the trade name Sevin, near bodies of water that flow into salmon-bearing streams, and they're considering restrictions on 12 additional chemicals. The Washington State Department of Agriculture says such restrictions would prevent pesticide use on 75 percent of the state's farmland.
A federal judge in California has issued a similar ruling that involves 11 endangered and threatened species and 75 pesticides in the San Francisco Bay area.
Rather than continuing to file piecemeal lawsuits, the Center for Biological Diversity says it will file a broader suit this summer that involves nearly 400 pesticides and almost 900 species that are protected under the Endangered Species Act.
Washington state officials said the restrictions that could result from that lawsuit could affect agricultural production significantly in at least 48 states.
Dan Newhouse, the director of the Washington State Department of Agriculture, who farms hops, apples, cherries and other row crops on 600 irrigated acres in the Yakima Valley, said that if the courts ordered far-reaching restrictions, "farmers across the country will have significantly fewer tools at their disposal to manage plant pests and disease."
The U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization has estimated that 20 to 40 percent of global crop production is lost annually because of weeds, pests and disease.
Manufacturers of agriculture chemicals have threatened to sue the EPA, alleging that the agency's method of crafting restrictions is riddled with "major flaws" and the industry wasn't asked to participate.
Newhouse said there was so much uncertainty that it was impossible to tell how widespread or dramatic the effects of tighter restrictions might be. In Washington state, however, he said, "I am coming to believe every farmer would be impacted one way or another."
The Endangered Species Act, which was signed into law in 1973, requires federal agencies that are contemplating any action that could "jeopardize" listed species to consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service and come up with a plan to alleviate or lessen the effects. The National Marine Fisheries Service has jurisdiction over some fish species, such as salmon, and the Fish and Wildlife Service covers everything else.
The EPA has jurisdiction over pesticides, but environmentalists said it had largely ignored the endangered species requirements.
That began to change in 2002, when U.S. District Judge John Coughenour in Seattle ruled that the EPA had violated provisions of the Endangered Species Act by not consulting with the National Marine Fisheries Services about how the use of pesticides and other chemicals could affect the more than two dozen salmon runs that are protected under the act in Washington state, Oregon, California and Idaho.
"Such consultation is mandatory and not subject to unbridled agency discretion," Coughenour wrote.
After years of study, the fisheries service concluded in 2009 that three pesticides - carbaryl (Sevin), carbofuran (sold as Furadan, Curater and other brand names) and methomyl (sold under a variety of names) - were jeopardizing salmon runs and suggested that the EPA ban their use within 1,000 feet of salmon habitats and impose other restrictions that involved aerial spraying, wind speed and weather.
The EPA essentially agreed, but the manufacturers of the three chemicals say they won't adopt new labeling requirements for their products voluntarily, and they've threatened their own lawsuit.
The EPA has a 2012 deadline to finish studying the other chemicals and adopt restrictions on those that threaten salmon.
"For years and years and years, EPA didn't do these consultations on pesticides," said Steve Mashuda of the Seattle office of Earthjustice, the law firm that brought the 2002 suit on behalf of the Washington Toxics Coalition. "Those days are over."
Jeff Miller, a spokesman for the Center for Biological Diversity, said that until now, his group and others had approached the issue species by species and region by region.
"We are trying to get EPA to do it nationally," Miller said.
He said that even now, the EPA continued to drag its feet.
"I know Obama has a lot on his plate right now, but the EPA is still not aggressively taking on this issue," he said.
Newhouse of the Washington State Department of Agriculture said that state agriculture directors across the country were worried.
The consultation process between the EPA and the National Marine Fisheries Service and Fish and Wildlife Service needs to be overhauled, and that could entail changes in the Endangered Species Act and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, Newhouse said.
In addition, he said, the EPA needs to examine recent studies such as one Washington state conducted that found only low levels of pesticides in five of the state's watersheds. The study said the pesticide levels weren't expected to affect salmon, though concentrations at some sites could harm aquatic species that salmon eat.
The companies that manufacture the three pesticides at the heart of the controversy argue that if the chemicals are used properly they won't jeopardize endangered or threatened species.
The industry also has argued that pesticides help maintain habitat for endangered species by controlling the spread of noxious and harmful weeds, pointing to endangered orchids that have thrived in various rights-of-ways that have been sprayed with herbicides.
EPA officials didn't respond to e-mail and telephone requests for comment, but they've notified the manufacturers that if they don't agree to the new labeling restrictions voluntarily, the agency will pursue "administrative procedures" against them.
On Capitol Hill, lawmakers are tracking the controversy, but no legislative fix has been introduced.
ON THE WEB
More information about methomyl
More information about carbofuran
More information about carbaryl
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
16 Comments so far
Show AllWe must assume that the EPA is as corrupt as any government agency and will continue allowing massive use of pesticides as the regulators get wined, dined and bribed.
ASSUME nothing.... OF COURSE they're corrupt - because they believe their job is to "regulate" and not to "protect". Since they believe they must 'regulate' they believe that they MUST ALLOW any and all activity, so long as it is conducted under certain guidelines, which they ask the industry what such guidelines should be.
Congress would do well to insert into each and every agencies mandate, that first and foremost, all agencies are there to 'protect the people', irrespective of the effect upon corporate profits.
http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?an=Cocannouer%2C+Joseph
It's just me I suspect, but I found the similarity in the names of U.S. District Judge John Coughenour and Joseph A Cocannouer interesting.
Cocannouer would probably indicate that the "cotton heads" will either have to learn how to farm or go out of business if the toxic arsenal is removed from the repertoire.
Maybe it is time to go back to school to learn about high brix, re-mineralization, biological indigenous microorganisms, Terra Preta do Indio, Effective Microorganisms, and the like.
Terran
Let's hope this is not just rumor. Excessive use of dangerous pesticides walks hand in hand with genetically modified crops. These crops are bred to resist pesticides not to resist pests.
It's a public health hazard of the first order and it is destroying US agriculture as Monsanto et al put their profits ahead of a safe food supply, diversity and the well being of America's farmers.
wrong. Some gm crops are bred to resist pesticide use. Some to resist pests. Some do both. Gm crops will be used more and more for amazingly wonderful results. Hopefully bad things will not also occur. One of the benefits of some gm crops is their vastly reduced need for applications of the most dangerous chemicals. This is one of many reasons why farmers the world over are using these products. I use them. I like them.
I live in a county that is in the midst of transition to GMO cultivation.
To the contrary, forage land that once required little or no chemical amendment is now subjected to a bombardment of herbicidal, fungicidal, and pesticide treatment. Additionally, to assure high germination rates, the GMO seeds planted into the ground are themselves coated with fungicide and pesticide--frequently pesticides of the neonicotinoid class. For those unaware, neonicotinoid pesticides have been implicated in Colony Collapse Disorder of honey bees.
Our property once teemed with pollinators. That is no longer the case after a thousand acres within a half mile of our property came under GMO cultivation. I've counted about ten honey bees all season. Numbers of other varieties of bee and wasp have dropped significantly, as well.
Though we employ organic techniques on our property, we still are subjected to contamination from chemical drift upon winds.
Herbicide damage occurs often.
There is no telling what damage is being down to our aquifer.
We may never know since no one of influence wants to find out.
Too much money is immediately at hand, and Cargill, among others, is at the till.
and on it continues...
The only way we can at this time feed the 'starving' people of this Earth, is to pollute further Earth's water, air and soil.
The more we manage to feed and so bring those who would have died long before being able to pro-create - thus adding countless millions to those who are starving and need more food, requiring ever increasing pollution - is perhaps to either let the people starve or to steralise those alive today. Perhaps by way of the water they drink. The former we prefer not to contemplate, as most would feel that letting people already alive 'starve', to stop the need of polluting Earth for all, would be a far worse abomination (in my view) than stopping - certain - people from being able to breed.....
We are 'created' ('built by design or chance') like all other animals and plants to 'continue the species'. We 'must' obey the natural instinct of behaving in the way we do, concerning continuing the species. The behaviour can see our demise, given the destruction of water air and soil that would have to be done. EARTH'S RESOURCES are not infinite.
Who will be the survivors, who will be those 'MOST FIT' to pro-create? Guess.
~
The only way we can at this time feed the 'starving' people of this Earth, is to pollute further Earth's water, air and soil....
WRONG!
Vegetarians use a fraction of earth resources. If we stop or even reduce the amount of meat consumed it would increase the amount of food available to feed our citizens and the word.
This is the truth. Check it out.
Yes, you are correct, but even vegetable gardeners use pesticides, fungicide, herbacides and just down-right poison the planet. By reducing the amount of meat, first we get healthier, and we reduce the amount of water used exponentially. Eating lower on the food chain is a great idea, but it may not reduce by much the amount we poison the waters, the air, the land.
'The only way we can at this time feed the 'starving' people of this Earth, is to pollute further Earth's water, air and soil....
WRONG!
Vegetarians use a fraction of earth resources. If we stop or even reduce the amount of meat consumed it would increase the amount of food available to feed our citizens and the word."
...........................................................
With respect, I think you missed the point, badly.
1) we are not all vegetarians. And those who are not have no intention of becoming so. We are hunters, as well as gatherers.
2)Plants need water, air and soil. To grow enough to feed the starving millions (ever increasing in number, if brought to where they can reproduce - which is the idea?) pesticides are a must. Pollution of air (sprays e.g.) water and soil would continue apace.
3) Eventually, even if countless millions say they will rarely eat meat or, eat no meat (neither being plausible to suppose) the population of Earth would still grow and grow and grow and as I think you must, must, realise... Earth's resources are FINITE.
I'd like to think there was hope here, but if the courts rule in a way that impedes corporate agriculture, our lily-livered Congress will simply pass an amendment to the Endangered Species Act, gutting it.
I hate agreeing with this concept but you are probably right. Trying to do something now is like the proverbial "closing the barn door after the horse is gone"
Better to just stop subsidizing oil and ag and let the system reverse itself. There are so many young people these days who are revitalizing the family farm that another priority should be protecting them. Watch out for the Food Safety Bill. The propaganda mill is churning about the need for safe food. As you know, being safe is the priority for most people and most people neither know nor want to know the truth.
We absolutely do not need manmade pesticides and genetically altered corn, soy, et al. I'm an organic farmer, and I grow many diverse crops, interplanting which crops do well with other crops, rotating crops so the soil doesn't get used up, letting fields lie fallow some years, and - actually walking the fields on foot to check what's happening with the crops.
Manmade pesticides are not needed as all organic growers can tell you, although they do use certain amendments that might not be naturally found in that region's soil. I don't because I use composted food and yard wastes, as well as composted barn waste as my soil amendments.
Roundup, Monsanto's signature pesticides, is not "safe," and it's illegal to ever say it is.
Monsanto's g-e crops are not "safe," either, as can be seen by studies done on animals fed g-e crops (sows aborting their litters), and people who eat a lot of them getting various health problems as time goes on.
Too much to go into here, but just one fact should suffice:
To ensure that their pesticide (Roundup) resistance stays in every cell of every plant that comes from a g-e seed, Monsanto uses the tumor-causing bacteria Agrobacterium Tumefaciens in the mix.
So every time you eat "food" from Monsanto's g-e seeds, you are ingesting this tumor-causing bacteria. Some scientists (look it up on web) now think this is causing some human health problems............well, what would one expect?
It's been shown over and over for decades that small farms growing diversified crops organically will exceed the production of the huge monocultures growing one crop, e.g., corn.
The vegetarians are right on this issue because about 75 percent of all corn grown in the USA is for animals, not people, and lots of pesticides and fertilizers are used on corn because it's a heavy feeder and soil destroyer.
Most of that corn is now genetically-engineered, so that the bacteria, antibiotics, other materials which are part of Monsanto's mix, go into the cow's cells. Then we drink milk, eat yogurt and cheese, and (some people) eat the flesh of these creatures.
Which puts whatever was in that cow's body into our bodies' cells, as well. No thank you. I'll keep growing organically and buying what I can't grow but only organic.
If this means I can't have every single food in the world at my fingertips, so be it. Who needs everything, anyway?
Grow your own garden. Easiest way is to build a bottomless, topless wooden box about 4 feet wide, 2 or more feet high {prevents stoop labor), by 8 or 10 feet long, fill it with composted food and yard waste or your own yard's soil, pull out weeds that sprout, plant seeds, weed, harvest, eat.
Consider becoming an organic farmer. Doesn't take that much land or labor when one farms intensively, as in the raised-bed method above. The demand is huge for clean, organically-grown food.
Thanks, Cleanearth. I look forward to the day when we're all following your example.
Clean Earth excellant comment thanks.I am an organic gardener who is licensed to handle pesticides."Conventional" farmers wil find the loss of Sevin and the other compound a small inconvenience as they will just switch to some other pesticide.Organic IPM is all you need.
peace