The federal government paints with a very wide brush, one size fits all solutions. Another issue with those efforts stemming from the federal level is that most of the federal government is not, in fact, elected by the general population. Is there a single position within the EPA that is placed for a public vote? No, they are open to application on (hopefully) merit and experience, with top offices for appointees. Most federal agencies are like this. Once the federal government becomes involved, the wasteful spending and lack of efficiency and expediency in dealing with environmental issues becomes all too apparent. Upon even closer look, the regulatory agencies often have widespread conflicts of interest with the industries they are charged with regulating.
Under pressure from the chemical industry, the Environmental Protection Agency has dismissed an outspoken scientist who chaired a federal panel responsible for helping the agency determine the dangers of a flame retardant widely used in electronic equipment.
Toxicologist Deborah Rice was appointed chair of an EPA scientific panel reviewing the chemical a year ago. Federal records show she was removed from the panel in August after the American Chemistry Council, the lobbying group for chemical manufacturers, complained to a top-ranking EPA official that she was biased.
EPA's Topsy-Turvy Definition of Conflict-of-Interest | OMB Watch
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is under fire from a watchdog group for accepting US$2 million from a chemical-industry lobby organization to study the effects of pesticides and household chemicals on children.The Environmental Working Group, a Washington-based non-profit body, says the funding represents a clear conflict of interest for the EPA.
EPA accused of conflict of interest over chemicals study : Article ...
The hearing focused on the job, health, and economic repercussions of federal regulations that restrict the use of crop protection and pest control products registered with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Federal agencies, such as the National Marine Fisheries Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service, have concluded in biological opinions (BiOps) that salmon populations could be jeopardized by the use of these products and therefore issued requirements of a quarter mile no-spray buffer around water bodies. Members at the hearing heard testimony about how these regulations will impact jobs in rural America, encourage litigation, and whether the best available science was used when developing the BiOps.
“Farmers, forest managers and other resource industries that provide food, water, fiber and energy are caught in the middle of federal bureaucratic dysfunction. This situation discourages economic growth and jobs, and encourages lawsuits. ... Implementation of these measures as written would literally force farmers out of business, devastate rural communities and cripple the food production capacity of the Northwest and potentially the rest of the nation,” said Natural Resources Chairman Doc Hastings (WA-04).
“Today's hearing offered a clear message: National Academies of Science's review of the Services' scientific models must be comprehensive and must analyze the economic impact of any suggested alternatives. And, until that review is completed, EPA should not be asked to implement the recently finalized biological opinions. Additionally, given the admission of fundamental flaws in the Services' model, they should consider seeking re-initiation of consultation when scientific models have been developed, validated, and agreed upon,” said Agriculture Committee Chairman Frank Lucas (OK-3).
American Farmers, Foresters Express Concern Over Federal ...
No comments:
Post a Comment