|
EPA 
Wed May 06, 2009 at 06:00:00 AM PDT
|
|
Yesterday we had 2 big pieces of news. First, the announcement of $50 million to help farmers transition their land or livestock to organic (through the EQIP program at the USDA). Yay! The downside? Farmers have only 3 weeks to apply for the cash. So, let's call that one step forward. It's certainly not much more than that if some of the money might go un-used.
The two steps back came with the announcement of a major government push for ethanol. Step one is the creation of a new Biofuels Interagency Working Group that includes the cabinet secretaries for Energy, EPA, and USDA. Step two is the potential increase in the amount of ethanol allowed in our fuel - the "blend wall." It is currently set at 10% and may go to 15%.
|
|
There's More...
:: (5
Comments, 467 words in story)
|
|
Tue Apr 21, 2009 at 12:00:00 PM PDT
|
|
Big Ag wants their cake and wants to eat it too. They want to be compensated for sequestering carbon but they don't want their emissions regulated AT ALL. And to my knowledge, the Waxman Markey bill totally exempts ag... but with the new EPA ruling that global warming & CO2 emissions harm human health, they are getting very very afraid.
Sen. Johanns (R-NE) (the former USDA secretary under Bush) is sponsoring a bill to exempt ag from the new EPA decision. That's bad. The Senate needs to hear from us LOUD AND CLEAR. One-third of greenhouse gas emissions come from ag. About 18% comes from meat production. WE DON'T WANT AG EXEMPTED. What's the point of a regulation if you exempt some of the worst offenders? The Senate must oppose Johanns' bill.
When the EPA announced Friday it had determined that greenhouse gases may endanger public health or welfare, a collective shiver went down the back of animal agriculture. The ruling now faces a 60-day public comment period. If its decision is upheld, the EPA must then act to regulate emissions. If the EPA's definition of greenhouse gases includes methane emitted by livestock, animal ag operations could be affected. - Meatingplace
|
|
Discuss
:: (1
Comments)
|
|
Sat Apr 18, 2009 at 10:00:00 AM PDT
|
When talking about food safety in the U.S. versus Europe, we often mention how Europe uses the "Precautionary Principle" - an idea that basically means "let's make sure something's safe before we use it." Seems sensible, right? In fact, you'd HOPE we're doing something rather similar to that here. But we're not. In a rather EXTREME sort of way. Check THIS out:
The Environmental Protection Agency said it would order the manufacturers of 67 pesticides to test whether their products disrupt the hormonal system of humans or animals. Congress passed a bill mandating such tests in 1996, but the agency took years to develop them and ensure their validity, officials said. The agency said that the 67 pesticides were chosen because humans and animals are widely exposed to them, not because they are necessarily the most likely disruptors of endocrinal functions. About 1,000 substances will eventually be tested, said James J. Jones, acting assistant administrator for prevention, pesticides and toxic substances. The results are due back from manufacturers around the end of next year.
Really? This stuff's never been tested? Yet we've been using it anyway? Let me tell you a little secret. The pesticide industry was born out of the chemical weapons industry. They used to test war gases on bugs to see if they would be effective on humans. After WWI, when the U.S. wanted to get rid of its Chemical Warfare Service, those who researched war gasses advertised "peaceful" uses of gas as a means of keeping themselves employed. One such peaceful use was making pesticides. In other words, if a chemical is deadly to bugs, there's a REALLY GOOD CHANCE it's not good for people. And we didn't even TEST to see if perhaps that was the case???
And now we are testing, but we're letting the manufacturers do it? I don't mind making them pay for it, but - would I be crazy to suggest that perhaps they might not be very independent and that the results might be skewed in their favors?
|
|
Discuss
:: (3
Comments)
|
|
Sat Apr 18, 2009 at 08:00:00 AM PDT
|
- Bill & Nicolette Hahn Niman argue that pasture raised meat should be seasonal. Okay. I agree. But they don't tell you which season.
- The outrage spawned by the hit piece on free range pork in the NYT has become a back and forth. The author James McWilliams answered his critics (which includes this blog) in The Atlantic. Paula Crossfield on Civil Eats says, "McWilliams didn't start a conversation, but instead just threw a rotten tomato."
- This title says it all: 30 Unexpected and Unusual Things You Can Compost." Like condoms. Who knew?
- Alternet says that choosing between factory farmed red meat and chicken is like choosing between an SUV and a Hummer. Agreed.
- Hallelujah! Tom Laskawy says schools don't need vending machines, they just need money. Yes!!!!
- Natasha Chart talks about biochar. And about the fact that the ag industry wants credit for sequestering carbon without being charged for their emissions. Yeah, and I want a pony.
- Civil Eats suggests getting a farmer tan during your spring break.
- The EPA finally decided that global warming is a problem. I'll put that in my "duh" pile along with the news that the sky is blue and chocolate is tasty.
- More proof that we humans can be easily manipulated. When there's a salad on the menu, you're more likely to order fries.
- Brilliant point made by Mark Bittman:
You can't trust the supermarket companies to sell you only good, wholesome food. Yet they'll try to convince you that everything they sell is exactly that. So: skip the labels, watch what you buy, and strive for goodness, no matter where you find it.
- Yay! Wolves are thriving in Oregon! I'm such a huge fan of having top predators in the food chain - sooo much good comes from it, even if we humans don't appreciate it much when the wolves kill our livestock (as in the article). Can someone please send a few wolves to Illinois? They are freaking OVERRUN with deer.
- Toronto's considering mandatory green roofs. I hope they go for it.
|
|
Discuss
:: (10
Comments)
|
|
Sun Apr 12, 2009 at 10:00:00 AM PDT
|
|
Under the Clean Water Act, farmers are required to seek permits to apply pesticides near waterways. Bush overturned that, saying that permits are NOT necessary. The case went to court and in January the Sixth Court of Appeals overturned Bush's decision (which means we're right back where we started, with farmers being required to seek permits to apply pesticides near waterways). The Farm Bureau and Tom Vilsack both opposed the court's decision.
The latest part of the saga happened last week. Obama's Justice Dept is going to let the 6th court of appeals' ruling stand. In other words: No change. Sort of. Because the EPA wants to let the Bush rule stand for 2 years. Nobody knows yet whether that will be allowed or not.
|
|
Discuss
:: (0
Comments)
|
|
Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 18:09:32 PM PDT
|
This article caught Jay's attenton: Iowans say pig odor study passes the smell test.
On Capitol Hill, a $1.7 million earmark for pig odor research in Iowa has become a big, fat joke among Republicans, a Grade A example of pork. But the people who live cheek by jowl with hog farms in the No. 1 pig-producing state aren't laughing.
They're gagging.
"You hold your breath and when it's really bad you get the taste in your mouth," said Carroll Harless, a 70-year-old retired corn-and-soybean farmer from Iowa Falls.
|
|
There's More...
:: (10
Comments, 362 words in story)
|
|
Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 21:41:45 PM PST
|
Great report by Chemical & Engineering News: Greening The Farm: Safer and environmentally friendlier pesticides and agricultural practices gain traction on U.S. farms (hat tip to Cookie Jill). Check this out!
AD HOC efforts by an impressive array of federal and state agencies, farmer alliances, chemical companies, and nonprofit advocacy groups are dramatically shifting the way pesticides are made and used. As a result, pesticide use in the U.S. has dropped. Data from the Environmental Protection Agency show that conventional pesticide use, which includes agricultural and home and garden applications, peaked at 1.46 billion lb in 1979 and fell to 1.23 billion lb in 2001, the last year for which comprehensive data are available. Since then, pesticide use in the U.S. appears to have remained flat, according to limited government data and market research reports. [emphasis mine]
|
|
There's More...
:: (8
Comments, 499 words in story)
|
|
Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 18:17:11 PM PST
|
|
Bring up mercury on a listserv of foodies and you'll receive a wide range of opinions in response. That's exactly what I did this morning, with a question prompted by Curtis Abbey, who asked whether the amount of mercury found in the high fructose corn syrup was really a big deal.
After all, canned albacore tuna has an average of .353 ppm (parts per million) mercury, whereas foods containing HFCS tested only as high as 350 ppt (parts per trillion). The tuna has over 1000 times more mercury than the HFCS.
The discussion continues below.
|
|
There's More...
:: (1
Comments, 907 words in story)
|
|
Tue Jan 20, 2009 at 11:22:29 AM PST
|
|
Perhaps Bush didn't pardon Scooter Libby, but he sure did leave us a number of F-you's on his way out of the White House. For example: a rule that exempts factory farms from federal laws that require them to alert the government when they pollute their communities with unsafe levels of toxic emissions. Thanks, Bush! Fortunately, a coalition of environmental groups have sued the EPA to try and overturn this. The groups doing the suing include Waterkeeper Alliance, Sierra Club, Environmental Integrity Project, The Humane Society of the United States, Citizens for Pennsylvania's Future and Center for Food Safety.
(UPDATE: I'm having trouble understanding this... it looks like the factory hog farm industry filed a counter-suit... what's going on?)
More below...
|
|
There's More...
:: (4
Comments, 665 words in story)
|
|
Tue Nov 11, 2008 at 15:51:44 PM PST
|
|
Today I am beginning an occasional series on what George W. Bush will do for corporate interests and major Republican donors during the final weeks of his presidency.
This comes from the Sustainable Agriculture Coalition's e-mail newsletter:
EPA Administrator Signs Off on Final CAFO Rule: Last Friday, as a "Halloween trick" for the environment and public health, EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson signed a revised Clean Water Act final regulation for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO) permits and effluent limitations. EPA revised the CAFO regulations in response to legal challenges to a 2003 CAFO final regulation, brought in the case Waterkeeper Alliance Inc. v. EPA by both environmental organizations and the CAFO sector.
The revision opens a gaping hole in the 2003 regulation by allowing a CAFO, no matter how large, to self-certify that the CAFO does not "intend" to discharge to the waters of the U.S. EPA ignored the recommendation of the federal Second Circuit Court of Appeals to establish a regulatory presumption that large-scale CAFOs discharge pollutants. The presumption would have required that a large-scale CAFO demonstrate to regulatory authorities that it is designed and can be operated to avoid all discharges of regulated pollutants.
EPA also rejected making improvements in technology that reduce harmful bacteria and other pathogens that threaten public health, a problem aggravated by the development of antibiotic resistant pathogens in CAFOs. The revised rule does include one improvement required in Waterkeeper -- that a CAFO nutrient management plan must be included in a Clean Water Act permit for the CAFO and made available for public review and comment.
EPA is expected publish the revised final regulation in the Federal Register before the end of November. In the meantime, a copy of the unofficial version of the revised regulation is posted on the EPA website. You can also register on the website for a November 19 EPA webcast about the revised CAFO regulation.
SAC will be urging the new Administration to revisit this rulemaking on an expedited basis.
Why am I not surprised that industrial ag profits are a higher priority than the environment and public health?
I hope that the Obama administration will put this on the list of actions to be overturned.
|
|
Discuss
:: (0
Comments)
|
|
Tue Nov 11, 2008 at 15:51:44 PM PST
|
|
Today I am beginning an occasional series on what George W. Bush will do for corporate interests and major Republican donors during the final weeks of his presidency.
This comes from the Sustainable Agriculture Coalition's e-mail newsletter:
EPA Administrator Signs Off on Final CAFO Rule: Last Friday, as a "Halloween trick" for the environment and public health, EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson signed a revised Clean Water Act final regulation for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO) permits and effluent limitations. EPA revised the CAFO regulations in response to legal challenges to a 2003 CAFO final regulation, brought in the case Waterkeeper Alliance Inc. v. EPA by both environmental organizations and the CAFO sector.
The revision opens a gaping hole in the 2003 regulation by allowing a CAFO, no matter how large, to self-certify that the CAFO does not "intend" to discharge to the waters of the U.S. EPA ignored the recommendation of the federal Second Circuit Court of Appeals to establish a regulatory presumption that large-scale CAFOs discharge pollutants. The presumption would have required that a large-scale CAFO demonstrate to regulatory authorities that it is designed and can be operated to avoid all discharges of regulated pollutants.
EPA also rejected making improvements in technology that reduce harmful bacteria and other pathogens that threaten public health, a problem aggravated by the development of antibiotic resistant pathogens in CAFOs. The revised rule does include one improvement required in Waterkeeper -- that a CAFO nutrient management plan must be included in a Clean Water Act permit for the CAFO and made available for public review and comment.
EPA is expected publish the revised final regulation in the Federal Register before the end of November. In the meantime, a copy of the unofficial version of the revised regulation is posted on the EPA website. You can also register on the website for a November 19 EPA webcast about the revised CAFO regulation.
SAC will be urging the new Administration to revisit this rulemaking on an expedited basis.
Why am I not surprised that industrial ag profits are a higher priority than the environment and public health?
I hope that the Obama administration will put this on the list of actions to be overturned.
|
|
Discuss
:: (0
Comments)
|
|
Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 11:35:41 AM PDT
|
The "debate" over ethanol continues - if you can call an argument in which enormous, polluting corporations with stakes in either side of the issue fight using astroturf groups as proxies a debate. Texas obviously took the pro-factory farm/junk food side of the fight, asking the EPA to let them out of using the required amount of ethanol as fuel. The EPA said no.
(Washington, DC - August 7, 2008) Following extensive analysis, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Stephen L. Johnson today announced his decision to deny a request submitted by the State of Texas to reduce the nationwide Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS). As a result, the required total volume of renewable fuels, such as ethanol and biodiesel, mandated by law to be blended into the fuel supply will remain at 9 billion gallons in 2008 and 11.1 billion gallons in 2009.
"After reviewing the facts, it was clear this request did not meet the criteria in the law," said EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson. "The RFS remains an important tool in our ongoing efforts to reduce America's greenhouse gas emissions and lessen our dependence on foreign oil, in aggressive yet practical ways."
Current law authorizes EPA to waive the national RFS if the agency determines that the mandated biofuel volumes would cause "severe harm" to the economy or the environment.
Monsanto and companies like ADM that make money from selling farmers seeds and fertilizers and then processing corn into ethanol are pro-ethanol. Those who suffer from higher commodity prices oppose ethanol. I'm not even sure which side to take in this. I oppose ethanol, but I'm not thrilled about oil either. And I certainly don't have a dog in the Monsanto vs. Grocery Manufacturers fight. Why aren't we pursuing solar and wind more aggressively?
|
|
Discuss
:: (1
Comments)
|
|
Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 08:49:29 AM PDT
|
|
Yeah, I know, saying "toxic pesticide" is rather redundant, but that's how it is. Anyhow, I would have posted this in a Pot Luck thread, but there haven't been any in three days, so excuse the brevity (ha!) of this diary.
A major story in today's Washington Post alerted me to this "surprise" move by the Environmental Protection Agency to ban the pesticide carbofuran (2,3-dihydro-2,2-dimethyl-7-benzofuranyl methylcarbamate; marketed under the names Furadan and Curater). Carbofuran is already banned in Europe -- no surprise there -- "but it is used more heavily in developing countries on crops including rice, bananas, coffee and sugar cane. The EPA had indicated earlier this year that it would not apply the ban to imported food, but yesterday it said it will." The chemical is also used domestically for potatoes, corn and soybeans.
|
|
There's More...
:: (5
Comments, 506 words in story)
|
|
|
|
|
|
