When the non-elected (NON-ANSWERABLE) get to make the rules

General Fruit Growing
1

The Environmental Protection Agency is using a lawsuit by environmentalists to justify banning the commonly used pesticide chlorpyrifos — that the EPA itself has declared safe.

EPA wants to ban chlorpyrifos over concerns that it contaminates drinking water and food. Chlorpyrifos are used on citrus fruits, apples, broccoli and various other crops. U.S. farms used more than 6 million pounds of chlorpyrifos last year.

If nothing changes legally, the EPA will no longer allow incredibly small trace amounts of chlorpyrifos in food, effectively banning the pesticide in the US as soon as 2017. Incidentally, EPA’s own analysis found “there do not appear to be risks from exposure to chlorpyrifos in food.” The pesticide has been used by American farmers since 1965, and EPA’s own website says chlorpyrifos is safe for humans in “standard” amounts.

“There’s not a lot of evidence of people getting sick from these pesticides from trace exposures found on food, and these environmental groups forget that these products are necessary to produce an affordable food supply. They demand a zero risk, nothing in life is zero risk. They don’t understand just how difficult it is for farmers to feed the world,” said Doctor Angela Logomasini, a Senior Fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, in a phone interview with The Daily Caller News Foundation.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2015/11/03/the-epa-literally-this-pesticide-is-harmless-but-lets-ban-it-anyhow/#ixzz3sMAaZjwj

1 Like
2

Its the most effective chemical available to kill peach tree borers. I wonder how the large peach growers will respond if the chemical is banned?

3

COMMON SENSE HAS LEFT THE ROOM!!!

2 Likes
4

Thats true for just about everything government does these days. Im convinced that we are seeing the last days of a formerly great nation that is committing self-suicide.

1 Like
5

when they say ‘safe for humans’, they probably pertain to zero correlation to clinical findings or outright diseases.

so possible that the environmentalists are pertaining to ‘sub-clinical’ findings, such as higher rates of developmental delays(low IQ’s)/hyperactivity disorders among children whose blood and whose parents’ blood, have higher levels of chlorpyrifos. Children may be fine health-wise, and could live to 92, but have lower than average mental capacities. There was also mention of chlorpyrifos being highly toxic to fish, certain birds, and last but not least, honeybees. Honeybees being another contentious topic(forget about the native fish and birds), as beekeepers in america blame their losses on pesticides.
a paradox of sorts, since beekeepers need the flowers of the fruit/nut farmers, and the fruit or nut farmers rely on bees to pollinate their trees.

http://npic.orst.edu/factsheets/chlorpgen.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/11/business/energy-environment/big-win-for-beekeepers-as-court-voids-insecticide.html?_r=0

6

in one of the recent threads here, the apparent consensus among posters was that ziram used on apricots and plums should be considered safe, if the same pesticide was permitted by epa as ‘safe to use on other pomes and drupes’.
i emailed bayer, and they told me that ziram is in fact, unsafe to use on apricots due to lingering residues(they didn’t elaborate why it lingers in apricots). Even more strange, is that they say in australia, it is only considered unsafe for apricots but not plums, whereas in usa(per OP), epa says it is unlawful to use ziram on both plums and apricots.

there seem to be many experts, but the experts have vague findings and don’t make sense.

7

Stock up. Common name dursban/lorsban.

8

The head of the EPA is appointed by the president: elected and answerable.

Also there are many studies concluding it leads to developmental disorders in children. It has been banned from residential use because studies of exposure in pregnant women made this clear. The main question is how damaging very small doses are.

3 Likes
9

@scottfsmith

"the head of the EPA is appointed by the president: elected and answerable".
Scott,

Sorry but I just don’t agree when you say that.

He may have been “appointed” by the President who took the advise of whomever it was that was taxed with making the final selection to be presented to the President for his “appointment”, but there is no one who is accountable.

I am not blaming the president because, truth be told, the President (any President) cannot be an expert in every aspect of every department of the government. He just sets out his general view of the direction things should go, and those are generally laid out as lofty goals (“a chicken in every pot”, “apple pie is good cancer is bad”, “hard work needs to be rewarded”[ but what about hard but stupid work :smile: ]) …

… and then the nameless, faceless un-accoutable are set loose on us to carry out those goals and those are the ones who are un-elected and unaccoutable. So the president gets the accolades for the lofty goals and we have to live with the results. It is time that we judged by results and not intentions.

Since, in a bureaucracy there is always someone else that you can lay it off on, there is no one that you can put on the spot and get a straight answer.

Our problem is that our legislators have “delegated” their obligation to pass the laws under which we are forced to live. This way the un-elected pass “regulations”, which have the force of law, and the legislators, who are the only ones who are ultimately answerable to us at election time(joke), have cover to say “I did not vote for that” .

In my utopia, our congressmen/women and senators, and local legislators, should be forced to either take or decline ownership of each and every regulation that their “appointed ones” have promulgated. JUST GET THEM ON THE RECORD AGREEING OR DIS-AGREEING WITH EACH REGULATION.

Sorry for the rant but sometimes, sweet apples and peaches are just not enough and I just …
Mike

1 Like
10

Then shouldn’t the President who appointed him in your view, just like a congressman or senator be guilty of who he or she appoints?

11

Dear Friends all,

Please do not let this degenerate into a politically charged discussion. It can happen quickly and get out of hand in a hurry, because we are not dispassionate, careless nor uncaring people. So not to quell civilized argument, but to ensure clarity and adherence to good scientific method, mebbe we should all bite our tongues a bit if we feel the heat rising …

An old friend (at my age that’s just about the only kind you have) once quipped that “There’s more things on heaven and earth than any where else” and I sometimes remember that -useful when I think I have certainty on my side.

:- )m

5 Likes
12

John,

It’s not a question of finding someone “guilty” of anything. It’s about incentivizing better and more careful decision making by insuring full disclosure and and thereby accountability.

MIke

13

Dear friends, everything is political. We vote with our dollars.

2 Likes
14

When this topic was brought up juju (in the other thread) I wondered about lingering spray residue. I almost posted that as a theory or possibility, but in the end did not. I can maybe see issues with apricots, but plums…ehh…not so much.

I just did a little reading and it seems spray residue is a special matter of concern with apricots. Of course, it is with all fruit, but apricots seem to garner far more attention. I think that speaks volumes, since it’s a somewhat marginal player is the US fruit industry.
Not sure what the issue is, maybe it’s surface is just more conducive to holding residue, or maybe it has higher porosity or something. I dunno.

15

is there any other kind of suicide?

just joking!

2 Likes
16

When the EPA does this, it improves the position of the importers, which in the end, forces Americans out of work. As part of a ban, how about testing imported product for whatever you ban, and ban it also? Yeah, sure.

1 Like
17

Which imported product are you referring to Patrick? Although I have not looked at the language, I feel reasonably certain Lorsban would be banned from use regardless of it’s origin of manufacture.

18

Mike we have had many threads concerning the dangers of organophosphates both here and at the old GW. I personally have read and studied a great deal on the subject.
Your quote is misleading. It IS NOT stating that there is NO APPARENT RISKS to it’s use, it seems to be indicating that residues have not been shown to be a problem. I say “seems to be”, because a simple snippet or quote tells us very little. There is A LOT more to this than just that simple aspect of lingering residue, if in fact, that was the context here.
The EPA’s position is now, and has been for some time that they have dangers and risks associated with them. I use them and I know you do as well, but let’s not pretend that there is no evidence of potential dangers associated with them. There absolutely are and I think you are aware of that.

This seems more motivated from a dislike of governmental control as opposed to anything involving “common sense”. I’m not saying I agree or disagree with any ban, I’m just saying it most definitely is not unfounded as you are proclaiming. I seem to remember you (perhaps I’m mistaken) being concerned with Imidan use at your place. Didn’t you have a pond you were a bit concerned with? Imidan (as I’m sure you are aware) is just another organophosphate, but a monumentally less persistent one. Why, in the shadow of a ban is Lorsban all of a sudden harmless? Again, I may be remembering incorrectly, if so I apologize.

Here is a quick snippet of mine, though there are zillions to draw from, both from agencies here and abroad.

The United States Environmental Protection Agency lists organophosphates as very highly acutely toxic to bees, wildlife, and humans.[1] Recent studies suggest a possible link to adverse effects in the neurobehavioral development of fetuses and children, even at very low levels of exposure. Organophosphates are widely used as solvents, plasticizers, and EP additives.

If you care to do a little study, you’ll find these suggested “links” to be quite compelling.

PS: Lorsban is still currently available from KPS…$195 for 6.65 lbs.

19

Jeff,

You are parially correct. I realized that I was having an emtional reaction in my response to Scott. (last sentence).

However, I am NOT the raving anti-government zealot nor am I a wanton despoiler of the environment.

But I suspect that you might not have have had an opportunity to read the rest of the Daily Caller article linked at the end of my post.

Below I will paste the portion that particularly “annoys” me; and it has not as much to do with government control as with the dishonesty in wielding the power or control we are carelessly giving up by default.

SEE STARTING HERE.
"The whole initiative could be connected to a common criticism of the EPA, that of “legal collusion” between itself and various environmental groups through a process called “sue and settle.” The EPA gets sued by environmental groups for failing to meet regulatory deadlines, then the EPA agrees to settle the dispute with these groups out-of-court. These settlements are written behind closed doors with no input from affected parties while still having the full force of law, effectively allowing the EPA to write its own rules with only environmental groups having input.

Between 2009 and 2012, the EPA chose not to defend itself in over 60 lawsuits from special interest groups, resulting in settlement agreements and more than 100 new EPA regulations. These includes the recent Clean Power Plan, which has resulted in legal action by 26 states against it."

So you see…
it is not that I necessarily think that this chemical should not be better controlled or maybe even banned but rather the way that someones apparent agenda is being “selected” for success.

What this does is to allow the loudest and most persistent voices to have disproportionate influence. We know that loudest is not usually the most well reasoned.

There is absolutely NO human endeavor that does not adversely impact some people.

Peanut or gluten allergy probably damage more people than that insecticide, maybe we should ban, rather than just control, peanuts and gluten or the internal combustion engine, or processed foods, or alcohol or red meat… or… or… or… see what I am getting at?

Why BAN it. Regulate it so that it is
used properly.

The concept of “zero tolerance” leads to a six year old being suspended because he drew a gun or hugged his classmate or a third time offender stole a quart of milk and is sentenced to life in prison.

People have to be allowed to evaluate and make decisions and then deal with the reasonable consequences of their actions.

This is not an emotional reaction but a calm concern about our individuality being subsumed.

Mike

20

MIke, I don’t think anyones individuality is being subsumed quite yet. What is happening is there are large red and blue industries trying to fan flames as much as possible, such as your Daily Caller on the right and Huff Post on the left. Check out the following graphic.

813×481 67 KB

Whats really going to destroy our country is if this gap keeps widening.

1 Like