Federal Appeals Court Slams Environmental Protection Agency
For those living outside the United States, the “Founding Fathers,” i.e., the men who declared independence from England and wrote the seminal documents that form the underpinnings of our laws, are extremely well respected for their wisdom, not to mention their bravery. Perhaps the single wisest decision they made in establishing the country was the balance of powers between the three branches of the federal government: the legislative (makes the laws), the executive (implements and enforces the laws), and the judicial (interprets and tests the laws for validity), so as to eliminate the possibility of our country’s returning to the tyranny from which it had come.
This all played out nicely yesterday, and served as a civics lesson for us all. Scott Pruitt (pictured), administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (executive branch) until he was forced to resign amid ethics scandals, had made a decision to keep the widely used pesticide chlorpyrifos on the market despite extensive scientific evidence that even tiny levels of exposure can harm babies’ brains. But a federal appeals court (judicial branch) ruled that the Trump administration endangered public health, thus violating a federal law (legislative branch), and ordered a ban on the chemical.
Of course, if the EPA had had the interests of the nation’s babies in mind in the first place, none of this drama would have been required. But then, of course, we wouldn’t have had this fabulous example of our Founding Fathers’ great wisdom.
Craig,
All EPA and health officials have a very difficult duty when it comes to pesticides.
On the one hand it’s all too easy to take an emotive, organic approach, and forbid anything with the tiniest risk to health.
The problem is almost everything in human endeavor contains some element of risk. Ir would be a very brave scientist indeed who declared anything 100% safe !
Likewise, it’s easy to employ irrelevant emotional phrase such as a pesticide was developed by Nazi Germany, immoral greedy chemical corporations etc. In reality, without pesticides the US couldn’t sustain proper nutritional levels for a population of more than 313 million.
On the other hand, the average American consumer would also be very angry to discover fresh food prices have quadrupled and expensive food purchases quickly perished, or were laden with parasites etc.
The road toll could be completely extinguished if all cars could travel only 20 mph, and were equipped with $100,000 of safety equipment. Trains could be made safe from derailments, but only at great cost etc making train travel prohibitive etc.
EPA and health officials world wide must accept some level of risk as inherent within the human dynamic. It would be possible to provide every child with a physically risk free environment, but only at the cost of their mental,emotional and social development.
The decision handed down by Judge Jed S. Rakoff was a narrow majority opinion. The minority took the view that the court was not the proper arbitrator for which group of scientific opinion to accept. The minority argued the EPA is the properly qualified administrative agency and a court should not interfere.
The matter will now probably be appealed to US Supreme Court.
These decisions are always difficult as there’s no black and white, just possibilities. No empirical forensic evidence exists that chlorpyrifos has ever harmed anyone, including infants. The laboratory tests results are very debatable with new tests displacing old risk calculations.
In an emotionally charged atmosphere, it’s very difficult to discuss the practicalities of what constitutes ” acceptable risk”.
I completely agree people would not be happy to find that the price of foods has skyrocketed and is filled with parasites! Is that really worth harming ourselves and our loved ones simply because of wanting to save money! Although there are huge debates about the effects of things like these, including vaccines, is it really worth such a huge risk? It depends is the simple answer. Vaccines may contain toxic elements like mercury, but ever since we introduced them there have been much fewer deaths from the diseases we vaccinate against! I am not trying to tell you that you are wrong or that you are right, I am just saying that these matters are extremely complicated and that no matter what, there will be people on either side.
Susan,
Thank you for your comment. You are quite right, these sort of issues are extremely difficult to judge. In the case of pesticides it’s not just money and higher costs, but availability. Without pesticides, America, and much of the world simply can’t produce enough food to sustain our populations.
In everything there is risk. If we fail to take advantage of the huge benefits of products simply because a tiny percentage of risk, other problems could become enormous.
Malnutrition, is a far more serious health concern than theoretical unsubstantiated risk from pesticide use. On the other hand no one wants to use dagerous substances needlessly.