Re: Wash. Post/EPA termed soft on Pesticide Risks
- To: Herve LE MEUR <Herve.LEMEUR@math.u-psud.fr>, email@example.com
- Subject: Re: Wash. Post/EPA termed soft on Pesticide Risks
- From: Wendy Kyle <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 08:34:57 -0600
- Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------81E7DC775307259BCE5A3802"
- References: <199905180810.KAA11631@lan43.math.u-psud.fr>
- Resent-From: email@example.com
You've taken my quote out of context. I was writing
about FQPA, the Food Quality Protection Act, which directs EPA to reassess
pesticide tolerances allowed on food, starting with the most dangerous
(health or environmentally) chemicals first and then working their way
down the list from there. This has nothing to do with biotechnology. By
withdrawing themselves from the committee, the environmental/consumer groups
are essentially shutting themselves off from having any influence in the
EPA process. These groups may file a lawsuit, and they may win, but in
the meantime, whatever is done in the committee will be done without their
voice. The remaining stakeholders in the committee are primarily EPA and
industry people now. Furthermore, Congress is considering taking up a bill,
actually an amendment to FQPA, which will essentially provide the EPA with
more time to get there work done. Several EPA and Congressional officials
have been noted as saying that this issue was much more complex than
they had originally thought it would be. One of the issues they are considering
changing is allowing EPA to use a risk/benefit analysis when reassessing
the pesticides. FIFRA allows for a risk/benefit analysis of chemicals,
but FQPA does not, thus leaving farmers, public health officials, and exterminators
with no alternative chemicals if EPA is forced to remove the one chemical
that works for a particular pest. Consider, for a moment, that farmers
are not the only ones who use pesticides. Pesticides are very important
in the control of certain disease-spreading insects and mammals.
Maintaining a balance on such government committees
is important. All stakeholders need to have a voice, because they all have
important messages. EPA does not always invite public participation in
its decision making process, so, for the environmental/consumer groups
to turn their backs on the opportunity seems a waste and a shame. The answer
to most conflicts comes through better communication, not cutting off communication.
Herve LE MEUR wrote:
Wendy Kyle writes :
Herve Le Meur writes:
>Even if they were upset with the slowness
>of the panel, the answer is not to quit, but to push harder from within
Not necessarily true.
Assume (i will try not to get too much paranoiac !) that biotech
want not to
be annoyed :
It suffices to slow down the ONLY way you propsoe : official regulations.
And it's not so difficult.
No, some times, strong action and not consensus must be done. But
the same political way...
I do not think what they did is right. I only defend that what they
not necessarily wrong. But I guess you do not disagree.
For the remaining of your post, I agree by and large.
If you give a fish to a peasan, he will eat for one day. If you learn
catch (?) fishes , he will sit in a bark and drink beer all day
The address for any administrative command like unsubscribe,
subscribe or help is:
The searchable WWW list archive is available at