Bush seeks to screw environment -- again

[Timber Loftis]

June 26 BNA Toxics Law reporter.

Reversing a position staked out in the Clinton era (ah, the good old days), the feds filed an amicus ("friend of the court") brief with the US Supreme Court arguing that FIFRA (the Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act) preempts state law claims that impose labeling and packaging requirements different from those mandated by FIFRA. American Cyanamid Co. v. Geye. The administration files the brief in a case where a pesticide manufacturer is asking the justices to review a Texas Supreme Court decision which held that the federal esticide labeling law does not bar labeling-related claims involving crop damage.

"The United States has reexamined the position it urged in [the past] and has concluded that its arguments that FIFRA categorically does not preempt common law actions are incorrect. That position no longer represents the view of the United States."

Texas farmers sued alleging their peanut crop was damaged by the combination of two herbicides manufactured by the same company. The farmers said the combination was phytotoxic and stunted the roots of young peanut plants, causing a substantially smaller yield. In their suit, they relied on company magazine adverts and brochures, which indicated that the two herbicides (Pursuit and Prowl) can be mixed for use on peanut crops. They argued breach of warranties, strict liability, and violation of the TX deceptive trade practices law.

The company sought summary judgment on preemption grounds, arguing that FIFRA expressly prohibits states from imposing "any requirements for labeling... in addition to or different from" those imposed by FIFRA.

PROBLEMS YOU CONSERVATIVES SHOULD HAVE WITH THIS BUSH POSITION:
1. States rights. Those of you (ATTALUS!) who said the recent gay sodomy case usurped states rights to rule themselves should line up right behind me on opposing this. In most enviro situations, states are free to pass MORE RESTRICTIVE rules than the federal law provides. In this case, prohibiting the warranty and TX decepting trade practices claims is especially troubling: it replaces state Contract-based claims (which make sense in a buyer-seller relationship) with federal environmental oversight.

2. Big government: this position relies on the EPA to be wise enough to see every such possibility as this, and write rules addressing those issues before they come up. Do we really trust the EPA to be THAT smart?? I don't, but perhaps that's because I work with them daily.

[ 07-09-2003, 06:07 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

[antryg]

I agree with you on this issue TL. It angers me when I see such obvious favortism towards big business. Friend of the Court my gluteous maximus! They may be a friend of Cyanamid but they sure aren't a friend of the people, in this specific case, farmers.

I know from experience working with the Texas Agricultural Experiment & Research Service, that all checmicals are very rigoursly tested in field trials made by (1) the manufacturer (2)multiple university studies funded by the company (3) state agencies (in Texas that would be TAERS). These studies cost millions of dollars and take years to perform. It is against state and Federal law to state, much less advertise, anything which a product is not labeled and proven to perform. If I make an erroneous statement about what a chemical can or will do, then I am punishable to a fine of up to $15,000. This case is so open and shut that the only thing that has led it to this high a court is reckless spending by a guilty chemical company. If this passes then don't be suprised if food prices increase dramatically. (Lower yields mean higher prices. No yield means exhorbitant prices.) Not only that but idiot advice can lead to your lawn and landscaping dying, contamination from runoff resulting in reduced duck and fish populations, or family member health damage or death. (Misapplications of dursban under houses resulted in confirmed deaths of 192 persons and health problems directly related to exposure to hundreds of others. That is why dursban was outlawed by the Federal Government.)

As regards your comments concerning the EPA, I'll relate a personal experience. Upon completing a degree in Soil Science I interviewed with the EPA back in '76. I was told that the EPA didn't do any studies or research and that they only hired lawyers. This was the same year that the EPA outlawed aerial application of fire ant baits and recommended that farmers use DDT instead. (I guess they forgot that DDT had been illegal to use in the USA since 1956.)

[Chewbacca]

The enviroment must be getting pretty sore, considering how much it has been screwed since Bush took office.

I would love to see a nice tidy list of all the ways Bush has screwed or tried to screw the enviroment, just to see it all in one place. Any leads?

[john]

Read "Stupid White Men" by Michael Moore

[WillowIX]

Originally posted by antryg: As regards your comments concerning the EPA, I'll relate a personal experience. Upon completing a degree in Soil Science I interviewed with the EPA back in '76. I was told that the EPA didn't do any studies or research and that they only hired lawyers. This was the same year that the EPA outlawed aerial application of fire ant baits and recommended that farmers use DDT instead. (I guess they forgot that DDT had been illegal to use in the USA since 1956.)

Now if onlt that was common knowledge. I hate to see the terms "EPA" and "science" in the same sentence. They wouldn't know science if it was 2 miles tall and lodged through their stomach!


But you forget one important fact in this topic. Nature doesn't hand out hefty campaign contributions.

[Timber Loftis]

Nice sig, Willow.

Antryg, you better quit posting so much thoughtful stuff, lest your whimsical reputation get blemished.

Oh, and Chewie: for a good enviro report which will include Bush info, check out the EPA Summary Report released last month (June 03). Whitman lauded it as a baseline report of "where we are, and how far we've come" on environmental issues in the past 2 decades.

[ 07-10-2003, 09:56 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

Originally posted by john: Read "Stupid White Men" by Michael Moore

I sure hope Mike Included hiself in the book [img]smile.gif[/img]


[ 07-10-2003, 10:05 AM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

Originally posted by antryg: As regards your comments concerning the EPA, I'll relate a personal experience. Upon completing a degree in Soil Science I interviewed with the EPA back in '76. I was told that the EPA didn't do any studies or research and that they only hired lawyers. This was the same year that the EPA outlawed aerial application of fire ant baits and recommended that farmers use DDT instead. (I guess they forgot that DDT had been illegal to use in the USA since 1956.)

I don't know who you talked to Antryg, but it was obviously no one at the EPA.

If you go to look at their website (www.epa.gov) they have positions for scientists from a wide variety of fields. On the first page of positions alone I found openings for Mechanical, Nuclear, Electrical, Computer, Electronic, Biomedical, Petroleum, and Chemical Engineers. The EPA does in fact conduct testing and has experts in many many fields employed. The lawyer thing must have been a Joke, because they also employ Lawyers to take companies who don't measure up to court.

I don't mind you being skeptical but lets be at least a little realistic about it.

[antryg]

Originally posted by MagiK: quote: Originally posted by antryg: As regards your comments concerning the EPA, I'll relate a personal experience. Upon completing a degree in Soil Science I interviewed with the EPA back in '76. I was told that the EPA didn't do any studies or research and that they only hired lawyers. This was the same year that the EPA outlawed aerial application of fire ant baits and recommended that farmers use DDT instead. (I guess they forgot that DDT had been illegal to use in the USA since 1956.)

I don't know who you talked to Antryg, but it was obviously no one at the EPA.

If you go to look at their website (www.epa.gov) they have positions for scientists from a wide variety of fields. On the first page of positions alone I found openings for Mechanical, Nuclear, Electrical, Computer, Electronic, Biomedical, Petroleum, and Chemical Engineers. The EPA does in fact conduct testing and has experts in many many fields employed. The lawyer thing must have been a Joke, because they also employ Lawyers to take companies who don't measure up to court.

I don't mind you being skeptical but lets be at least a little realistic about it.
[/QUOTE]All I can tell you is that this was stated to me by a person identifying himself as a recruiter for the Enviromental Protection Agency who was recruiting with the approval of Texas A&M University, on campus, in April of 1976. Perhaps the person just lied to me. Perhaps he was not from the EPA at all but wasted people's time by impersonating a recruiter. It might even be that the EPA has changed in the last 27 years. I have looked at the EPA website. However it didn't exist in 1976.