Tag Archives: EPA

Government Accountability, Politics, US

Trump Continues Practice of Nominating Industry Insiders

Leave a comment

In early March, President Donald Trump nominated Peter C. Wright to be the assistant administrator for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Land and Emergency Management (OLEM). The nomination of Wright is another indication that the Trump administration will continue the practice of nominating industry insiders and corporate lawyers to positions of power. The White House stated that Wright would help develop “legal strategies regarding Superfund sites and other federal and state-led remediation matters.”

The EPA released a statement detailing the nomination and Wright’s employment history:

Since 1999, Mr. Wright has worked at The Dow Chemical Company where he serves as managing counsel for environmental health and safety and principle counsel for all significant mergers and acquisitions. Throughout his career, Mr. Wright has provided legal support for Superfund and other remediation sites. In 2017, he was recognized with a special award for the oversight and reorganization efforts of the remediation portfolio.

Scott Pruitt, administrator of the EPA, applauded the decision, stating that Wright has “the expertise and experience necessary to implement our ambitious goals for cleaning up the nation’s contaminated lands quickly and thoroughly.” Interestingly, Pruitt himself is currently under fire for his recently-exposed connections to lobbyists.

In addition to his work with Dow, Wright’s LinkedIn page lists him as an Environmental Attorney for Monsanto from 1989 to 1996. Wright’s association with The Dow Chemical Company and Monsanto— corporations known for producing hazardous chemicals and pesticides along with genetically engineered seeds— could be an indication that the Trump Administration may have a sympathetic ear for these industries. If so, it would be the continuation of a trend that has extended through the last few American presidencies.

[RELATED: EPA Reverses Approval of Controversial Herbicide]

As far back as the Reagan Administration, the U.S. presidency has been bending to the will of biotechnology giants like Monsanto, Dow, and Syngenta. Former President George H.W. Bush appointed Monsanto attorney Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court. Former President George W. Bush was also friendly to the pharmaceutical and biotech industry, appointing individuals like Donald Rumsfeld, a former president of Searle Pharmaceuticals, to Secretary of Defense. The younger Bush also appointed Linda J. Fisher, a Monsanto representative from 1995 to 2000, to second-in-command at the EPA.

One of the most well known examples of this revolving door between chemical companies and the U.S. government is Michael Taylor, a former lawyer for Monsanto. Taylor worked in the Food and Drug Administration during the Nixon and Reagan administrations before serving as a lawyer for Monsanto. In 1991, President George H. W. Bush appointed Taylor as the FDA’s Deputy Commissioner for Policy. Taylor was also reappointed to the FDA by the Obama administration.

Editor’s Pick, US

Navajo Prez Says Suicides Spiked After EPA’s Gold King Mine Disaster

Leave a comment

By Ethan Barton – Navajo suicides have allegedly spiked since the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) caused three million gallons of toxic waste from the Gold King Mine to spill into the native American’s main water supply last August.

At least 15 Navajo have committed suicide since the spill, which contaminated the San Juan River – a crucial water source for the nation — according to Navajo President Russell Begaye, who noted that number doesn’t include unsuccessful attempts.

“Our suicides started like three weeks after the spill occurred,” Begaye told The Daily Caller News Foundation. He couldn’t say “whether they’re directly related,” but said he believes the visibly polluted river “aggravated urges” of those who were already “vulnerable.”

That many suicides over just seven months is “unusual,” Begaye said, though he couldn’t provide figures for the same period in 2015. The Navajo Nation already sees a disproportionate number of suicides compared to the rest of the U.S., The Daily Beast reported in January, when the suicide count was only six.

The EPA declined to comment on the suicides.

No EPA employee or contractor has been disciplined or otherwise punished for the Gold King Mine incident, and there is currently no criminal investigation into the spill. Conversely, the Flint, Mich., water crisis led to several resignations and terminations, and a multi-agency investigation.

Begaye has been highly critical of how the EPA handled the disaster that resulted from seriously mistaken actions taken by agency employees and contractors.

“The Gold King Mine spill culturally and economically devastated the Navajo Nation, and the federal government’s failed response to this crisis has only added insult to injury,” Begaye said in a recent statement.

The EPA response created an “environment of distrust,” which, when coupled with a polluted physical environment, fueled preexisting suicidal urges, Begaye told TheDCNF. The spill harmed farmers’ crops and forced the Navajo Nation to haul water from other sources, he said.

The Navajo are awaiting an estimated $1 million in compensation from the EPA.

“I know we’ll only get a fraction of it,” Begaye told TheDCNF. “They’ll fight us for every penny. That’s how they operate. It’s an injustice to the Navajo nation, to the farmers and to the people who have been hurt, and it’s just wrong to treat our people in this manner.”

Begaye claimed EPA officials waited for the intense media attention prompted by the disaster to die down before playing hard ball. “We predicted this was going to happen,” he said.

The Navajo aren’t alone in their fight. New Mexico recently requested $1.5 million from the EPA, and 51 individuals requested $5 million, reported The Durango Herald.

The Navajo Nation and the states of New Mexico and Utah threatened to sue the agency if they aren’t compensated. Colorado Democrats killed a state legislative bill that would have allowed the state to sue the EPA, making it the only affected territory to forgo legal action, TheDCNF previously reported.

“On March 10, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency provided $157,756 to Navajo Nation government agencies for costs incurred during the response to the August 2015 Gold King Mine release,” an EPA spokesman told TheDCNF. “EPA is continuing to review other response costs submitted by Navajo Nation.

“Through a separate process, EPA is continuing to review individual claims asserted pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act,” she said. “EPA is making $2 million available for State and Tribal grant application to perform monitoring to address both early warning and seasonal monitoring.”

But the spill impacted the Navajo most, according to Begaye.

Even though Gold King Mine is located in Colorado, the elevated terrain kept contaminants flowing until the river flattened out in Navajo territory. “When it gets to Navajo land, the flow really slows down so the flow isn’t strong enough to move contaminants down the river,” he told TheDCNF.

The river still isn’t safe for humans, contrary to EPA claims.

“All metals, at all sampling sites, were below these risk-based recreational screening levels,” the EPA spokeswoman said.

Follow Ethan on Twitter

 

 

 

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Featured, Government Accountability, US

Shocking New Details Revealed In EPA’s Failure To Stop Flint From Drinking Lead Water

Leave a comment

By Michael Bastasch – Environmental Protection Agency officials apparently weren’t willing to “go out on a limb” for Flint, Mich., as it became apparent the city’s water supply had been contaminated with high levels of lead, according to an internal agency memo revealed at a Tuesday congressional hearing.

Utah Republican Rep. Jason Chaffetz, chairman of the House oversight committee, revealed an internal EPA memo during a hearing Tuesday between agency officials responsible for overseeing clean water operations in Michigan. The September 2015 memo said, “I’m not so sure Flint is the community we want to go out on a limb for.”

The EPA administrator says that Susan Hedman was courageous for resigning,” Chaffetz said in the heearing. “It didn’t take us but a couple hours once we got these memos to find the problem here. you can take down that. Why isn’t flint the community they go to?”

“You know, of all the communities out there, the one that’s having the toughest time is the one that needs the most protection,” Chaffetz said. “You can shake your head and say, oh, yeah, but the EPA had every opportunity to make — make the right move here, and they didn’t… because one of the things that is fundamentally and totally wrong here is they had the information and they would not release it to the public.”

For months, Flint has been grappling with a lead crisis in the city’s water stemming from state regulators failure to apply the correct chemical treatment after the city switched water supplies form Lake Huron to the Flint River. State regulators finally admitted in October 2015 that it had applied the wrong chemical treatment to Flint’s water, resulting in corrosive water leaching lead off old pipes and into people’s drinking water.

[dcquiz] EPA officials, however, knew of the lead leaching for months before the news went public. EPA spent months quietly warning state regulators of the lack of corrosion controls for Flint’s water supplies. The EPA told the state it needed to use chemical treatments to prevent lead lines and plumbing from getting into Flint’s drinking water, but the agency did nothing to publicize its concerns over the city’s water despite the state’s refusal to control against lead poisoning.

The Detroit News reported that EPA Region 5 Administrator Susan Hedman said “she sought a legal opinion on whether the EPA could force action, but it wasn’t completed until November.”

Hedman resigned in January 2016 after she was implicated in Flint’s water crisis.

Follow Michael on Facebook and Twitter

 

 

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Featured, Health, International, Opinion

UN Report Warns of Low Numbers of Bees and Pollinators

Leave a comment

Last Friday, a new examination of several studies on the decline of pollinators was approved by a congress of 124 nations meeting in Kuala Lumpur. The report was conducted by a team of scientists from around the world who worked with the United Nations for more than two years to assess the Earth’s biodiversity.

The study will help provide world leaders with an idea of what is happening to the Earth’s biodiversity and what can be done to prevent a loss of diversity. The researchers found that many species of wild bees, butterflies and other pollinators are quickly moving towards extinction.

“We are in a period of decline and there are going to be increasing consequences,” said report lead author Simon Potts, the director of the Centre for Agri-Environmental Research at the University of Reading in England.

One of the consequences would be a loss of food that is dependent on pollinators including fruits, vegetables, coffee, and chocolate. The report states that 2 out of 5 species of invertebrate pollinators, such as bees and butterflies, are on the path toward extinction. Vertebrate pollinators, such as hummingbirds and bats, are facing extinction at a rate of 1 out of 6 species.

The report pointed out a handful of sources for the decline in biodiversity, including pesticide use, habitat loss to cities, disease, parasites and pathogens, and global warming.

“The variety and multiplicity of threats to pollinators and pollination generate risks to people and livelihoods,” the report stated. “These risks are largely driven by changes in land cover and agricultural management systems, including pesticide use. Pesticides, particularly insecticides, have been demonstrated to have a broad range of lethal and sub-lethal effects on pollinators in controlled experimental conditions.”

One of the more controversial class of pesticides are known as neonicotinoids. The “neonics” are a class of pesticide that has previously been linked to declines in bee populations. Neonics were developed in 1991 and commercial use began in the mid-1990s. Several studies have indicated that neonics may cause harm to local pollinators.

Commercial beekeepers began reporting around 2006 what is now known as colony collapse disorder, where entire colonies of bees die off with no obvious cause. The disorder has been reported in commercial colonies all over the world.

Potts did state that the number of managed hives has risen slightly from 2.5 million in 2012 to 2.7 million in 2016. Between 1961 and 2012, the United States saw an estimated loss of 3 millions hives due to colony collapse disorder.

Although pesticides are only one of several possible sources responsible for the threat to pollinators, it should be noted that the United States has experienced controversy over neonicotinoid research.

In May 2015, Truth In Media reported that 25 organizations representing farm workers, food safety organizations, and the environment sent a letter to officials with the USDA and Environmental Protection Agency. They called for an investigation into claims that scientists are facing pressure and retaliation for research that presents the controversial neonicotinoid insecticide in a negative light.

The groups said they were concerned about a report from Reuters that detailed threats to scientists who spoke out about the dangers of the pesticide. These threats included suspension without pay and threats of damage to careers. The scientists filed a petition in March 2015 seeking more protection.

Will the United Nations report affect the United States’ use of pesticides? What steps can individuals take to remedy the situation? These are important questions for each of us to ponder. The loss of biodiversity and subsequent loss of food diversity is a reality that all humanity will soon have to face. The more prepared and educated we are the more likely we will be able to care for and protect our families well into the future.

Featured, Government Accountability, US

Congress: Top EPA Official Racked Up Huge CO2 Footprint Pushing Global Warming Rules

Leave a comment

By Michael Bastasch – House investigators want to know how much carbon dioxide a top Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) official spewed into the atmosphere while traveling the country promoting agency rules aimed at curbing global warming.

Texas Republican Rep. Lamar Smith ’s office wants to know how much CO2 Janet McCabe, the head of EPA’s air and radiation office, emitted while flying and driving across the country to promote the so-called Clean Power Plan — a regulatory plan to cut CO2 emissions from power plants.

“Last year, President Obama issued an Executive Order, calling for the heads of Executive Branch departments and agencies to ‘consider the development of policies to promote sustainable commuting,” Smith’s office wrote in a letter to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy obtained by The Daily Caller News Foundation.

“McCabe’s routine travel raises significant questions as to her commitment toward furthering the reduction of carbon emissions that she promotes in her official capacity on the taxpayer’s dime,” the letter reads.

As head of EPA’s air office, McCabe has been described as the “public face” of the EPA’s global warming effort, traveling the country to promote the agency’s agenda. But travel means CO2 emissions, and lots of travel would seem to contradict Obama’s order to limit emissions from travel.

“McCabe routinely enjoys weekends away from Washington where she maintains where she maintains her permanent home in Indianapolis,” Smith’s office wrote, going on to quote McCabe saying she goes home every weekend — it’s a long commute from D.C. to Indiana.

Smith has been critical of EPA’s Clean Power Plan, and joined Republican lawmakers in voting to repeal the rule last year. Smith has also led an investigation into the agency’s use of non-public science to justify regulations. Now, the Texas lawmaker wants to know how genuine EPA officials are who want everyone else to cut CO2 emissions associated with daily activities.

McCabe, however, isn’t the only EPA official who travels across the country literally every weekend. McCarthy’s weekly trips home likely resulted in tons of CO2 being emitted into the atmosphere.

In 2014, the EPA released a photo album titled “A Day In The Life of the EPA Administrator” that shows what McCarthy does on a typical day, including the fact that she flies home nearly every weekend to spend time with her family.

“Yes, Administrator McCarthy flies home regularly to see her family. And yes she is a leader in fighting to protect our environment and improve public health,” the EPA told TheDCNF in 2014.

TheDCNF calculated that, assuming she flew home every weekend, McCarthy’s carbon footprint from airline travel alone was around 37.5 tons over four years — more than 3.5 times the average American’s yearly carbon footprint.

Of course, this footprint is likely larger now, and all while she’s been telling the public of the dangers of global warming — warming the agency blames on CO2.

“Addressing the threat from a changing climate is one of the greatest challenges of this and future generations,” McCarthy told Congress in April 2014. “The agency will focus resources on the development of common sense and achievable greenhouse gas standards for power plants — the single largest source of carbon pollution.”

“Although you have pledged your support for the President’s measure, examples such as the case of McCabe’s — EPA’s chief advocate for reducing carbon emissions — raise significant questions about the example EPA is setting,”

Follow Michael on Facebook and Twitter

 

 

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contactlicensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

 

Government Accountability, US

Is the EPA Stacking Its Science Panels With Friendly Faces?

Leave a comment

By Michael Bastasch – Republican lawmakers are worried the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is compromising the integrity of its science advisory panels by appointing people who benefit from millions in federal research grants and peer-review their own work.

“I have observed EPA, under the Obama Administration, cherry-picking the same allies to serve on this advisory committee and its subcommittees at the expense of having an open and robust process for selecting external advisors,” Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe wrote to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy, regarding how the agency chooses experts to sit on its Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC).

“The majority of CASAC members have also received considerable financial support from EPA, which calls into question their independence and therefore the integrity of the overall panel,” Inhofe added in his letter sent Tuesday.

CASAC is a panel of experts EPA uses to provide advice for agency clean air rules called National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The EPA is periodically required to update NAAQS for various pollutants, like ozone and particulate matter, and uses CASAC to evaluate its proposed rules.

In recent years, however, Republicans and EPA critics have pointed out the agency is appointing scientists to the panel who have gotten millions of dollars in federal research grants. Critics also claim EPA is appointing people who fully support increasing the agency’s regulatory authority.

“For the newly appointed panel this conflict is on full display—six of the seven members have received a total of $119,217,008 in EPA research grants,” Inhofe claimed in his letter. “As evidenced by EPA’s newly appointed CASAC members, this misguided and opaque process calls for renewed congressional oversight.”

It’s not just federal grants Republicans are worried about, lawmakers have found CASAC panel members often end up peer-reviewing regulations based on their own research — something which corrodes the integrity of the peer-review process.

Texas Republican Rep. Lamar Smith pointed out in 2014 that 16 of the 20 members on CASAC’s Ozone Review Panel were cited by EPA in key regulatory science documents the panel was asked to peer-review.

In 2013, EPA’s inspector general (IG) found the agency “has adequate procedures for identifying potential ethics concerns, including financial conflicts of interest, independence issues and appearances of lack of impartiality.”

The IG, however, noted EPA could have better documented decisions on CASAC panel members who got agency funding.

As EPA increasingly promulgates costly regulations shutting down power plants, there’s been increased scrutiny on who advises the agency. EPA’s efforts to lower ozone standards, for example, sparked backlash from Republicans.

EPA’s lower ozone standard is likely one of the costliest regulations ever promulgated by the agency. It was finalized late last year despite criticisms EPA may have fudged the numbers to make its ozone rule look more attractive.

The EPA did not respond to The Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment before publication.

Follow Michael on Facebook and Twitter

 

 

 

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contactlicensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Featured, Government Accountability, US

Regional EPA Chief Resigns Over Flint Water Crisis

Leave a comment

By Andrew Follett – Susan Hedman, the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) regional administrator responsible for Michigan, resigned Thursday night amid charges she suppressed information showing there were serious issues with Flint’s drinking water.

“EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy has accepted given Susan’s strong interest in ensuring that EPA [R]egion 5’s focus remains solely on the restoration of Flint’s drinking water,” an EPA spokeswoman told reporters late Thursday.

“EPA is rife with incompetence and Region 5 is no exception,” Republican Rep. Jason Chaffetz, chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, wrote in a statement. “Mismanagement has plagued the region for far too long and Ms. Hedman’s resignation is way overdue. The lack of accountability throughout the EPA has allowed problems to fester and crises to explode. ”

EPA water expert Miguel Del Toral identified contamination problems with Flint’s drinking water last February and confirmed the suspicions in April. He authored an internal memo about the problem in June, according to documents obtained by Virginia Tech. The memo was also sent to Flint’s former mayor, Dwayne Walling, but Hedman downplayed Del Toral’s report and brushed aside concerns about high levels of lead in the city’s water.

“The preliminary draft report should not have been released outside the agency,” Hedman wrote to Walling in a July 1st email. “When the report has been revised and fully vetted by EPA management, the findings and recommendations will be shared with the city and DEQ will be responsible for following up with the city.”

The American Civil Liberties Union accused the EPA in October of attempting to suppress information about the crisis. Emails released last Wednesday show that the environmental agency spent months pointing fingers at local and state officials for the lead problem and downplaying concerns.

The corrosive nature of Flint’s drinking water is causing lead from pipes and pathogens to get into the town’s water supply, according to a study by Virginia Tech. Flint is currently dealing with an outbreak of Legionnaires’ disease, a dangerous infection that usually spreads through a tainted water source.

Nearly two years ago, the state of Michigan decided to save money by switching Flint’s water supply from Lake Huron to a local river. The city of Flint, however, applied the wrong standards for governing drinking water, resulting in a system that did not properly control corrosion. Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder activated the National Guard last Tuesday to help distribute bottled water and filters to the 100,000 residents of Flint.

Follow Andrew on Twitter

Send tips to andrew@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

 

 

 

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contac licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Editor’s Pick, Featured, Government Accountability

EPA Pays Disruptive Employee To Stay Home For Nearly 2 Years

Leave a comment

By Luke Rosiak – Federal managers are using illegal secret settlements that pay disruptive, incompetent or dangerous employees not to work for months on end before quitting on an agreed-upon date as an alternative to endless termination paperwork, legal appeals and costly battles with civil service unions.

Government employees accused of wrongdoing often spend months on paid leave, while publicly agencies cryptically speak of lengthy “investigations,” even when establishing misconduct can be as simple as talking to a few people or reviewing some documents. Eventually, the agencies will say, just as vaguely, that the person is “no longer employed.”

Evidence obtained by The Daily Caller News Foundation suggests some of these investigations are a sham in which agency officials and the employees have agreed in advance to use paid “administrative leave” as the basis of a hidden settlement.

The U.S. Office of Personnel Management says administrative leave is supposed to be used only for short periods of time, normally when an employee is a specific danger. Even so, the federal government spends $1 billion annually paying people to stay away from the office.

A November 2015 inspector general report said, however, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) used administrative leave to give bad employees, who managers wanted to fire, massive payouts in exchange for resignations instead.

One of the employees who was charged with possession of marijuana was paid for no work as an inducement to quit and waive appeals, saving managers the hassle of going through discipline proceedings.

“The settlement for a 6-month administrative leave period was negotiated between counsel and the employee’s attorney, and many factors, including litigation risks, were considered. Counsel said she was ‘told’ to grant 9 months to a year of administrative leave as part of the settlement but only agreed to allow 6 months as a compromise,” the IG wrote.

Rules limit administrative leave to no more than 10 days to sort out a plan of action after an employee has been charged with a crime, the IG said — even then, only if “circumstances require immediate action,” presumably meaning if the crime posed a risk to government property or safety of employees.

In another case, EPA managers paid an employee not to work for 20 months in a concerted effort to ensure he could qualify for a disability retirement pension.

The employee had sent “a hostile email and made inappropriate statements that caused anxiety and disruption in the workplace … The agreement allowed the employee to take disability retirement by July 8, 2014, and maintain his administrative leave status until” then, the IG wrote. “This was a significant and costly offer, but there was no documentation in the file as to how the settlement agreement terms were arrived at.”

At least the final 6.5 months of leave were specifically worked out with the employee as part of a deal. The employee signed a separation agreement in February 2014, and remained on the payroll until July. The other 13 months were punctuated by two attempts to fire the employee. Both failed because the employee union successfully blocked them.

An agency isn’t necessarily allowed to keep staff members at home just because disciplinary proceedings are underway, but EPA failed to document its justification for doing so in the second EPA case.

Congressional oversight panels have often asked why so many employees are on paid leave, and received evasive answers from executive branch officials. This suggests that settlements based on specific periods of administrative leave in exchange for resignation may not be rare.

Meanwhile, unions and other special interest advocates claim administrative leave is no reward, as the employee is supposed to be in limbo, living in fear of how the situation will be resolved.

The Government Accountability Office and the Merit Systems Protection Board have said since 1990 that using predetermined administrative leave to get an employee to quit is not allowed.

Sen. Chuck Grassley wrote to EPA and other agencies in December 2015 pressing them on the issue and noting that in some cases managers used lengthy leave on bad employees after they could only get disciplinary boards to approve a suspension, not a firing.

“This is astounding given that an employee for whom an agency proposes a ten-day suspension is necessarily one who the agency has determined is not a threat to safety… as that employee will be returning to work after 10 days,” the Iowa Republican wrote in the December 2015 letter.

The EPA has not responded to Grassley’s request for information on the cases, despite a Jan. 6 deadline.

An EPA spokesman told TheDCNF that the agency “has been working with first-line supervisors to provide tools and resources to enable them to address poor performance early, swiftly, and professionally.”

The agency also said it has a new policy on administrative leave that became effective Christmas Eve 2015 and requires approval by a high-level official for more than 10 days of paid leave. But at least for now, the requirement only applies to non-union employees.

It’s not clear how that would make any difference, as union-backed resistance to disciplinary action is what causes bosses to resort to perverse incentives in the first place.

The EPA spokesman said the agency would try to apply the new policy to its unionized workforce “after any required negotiations with our unions.”

Grassley told TheDCNF that “case law and common sense tell you that agencies shouldn’t use leave and writing checks to get rid of bad employees.  The EPA needs to explain its questionable actions.”

Another mechanism for secretly paying off bad employees is by them filing a complaint — however frivolous — alleging discrimination or other wrongful treatment. The agency is then permitted to pay the employee, supposedly to settle the complaint, in exchange for resignation.

Earlier this week, TheDCNF reported that the Department of Veterans Affairs had paid $86,000 in such a settlement with a hospital director after he had sex with a colleague’s mom, then harassed her about it. The director also threatened to fire a human resources director who said he never did any work, thus violating laws intended to protect federal whistleblowers.

RELATED: Unions Say No Discipline For Feds Who Won’t Work

RELATED: VA Nurse Still On Payroll Despite Charge He Beat 70-Year-Old Vet To Death

Follow Luke on Twitter

 

 

 

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Featured, Government Accountability, US

EPA Assessment Finds Mixed Results on Neonicotinoid Pesticides

Leave a comment

The Environmental Protection Agency has found that the controversial class of pesticides known as neonicotinoids harm honeybees when used on cotton and citrus, but not on other crops like corn, berries and tobacco.

The “neonics” are a class of pesticide that has previously been linked to declines in bee populations. Neonics were developed in 1991 and commercial use began in the mid-1990s. Around 2006, commercial beekeepers began reporting what is now known as colony collapse disorder— where entire colonies of bees die off with no obvious cause. The disorder has been reported in commercial colonies all over the world. Several studies have implicated neonics, which are used to kill insects harmful to crops.

Due to the controversy around these studies, the EPA decided to conduct four scientific risk assessments to examine the neonics and how they affect bees on a chronic long-term basis. The first report, released on Wednesday, was conducted by the EPA and California’s environmental agency and only studied the effects on the honeybee population. Nearly one-third of the human diet depends on insect-pollinated plants, with honeybees pollinating 80% of those crops.

The EPA analysis found a “clear line of harm or no harm” when examining the effects of the pesticide imidacloprid, the most popular neonicotinoid. When bees bring nectar back to the hive with levels of concentration of imidacloprid that are above 5 parts per billion there are fewer bees, less honey, and according to Jim Jones, EPA’s assistant administrator for chemical safety and pollution prevention, “a less robust hive.” However, if the nectar concentration level was under 25 parts per billion there were no negative effects.

Jones told the AP that the levels of harm depended on the crop. While cotton and citrus fruits were found to be above the harmful concentrations, the levels were not harmful for corn and other vegetables, berries, and tobacco plants. Jones also said the first assessment found that treating seeds with the pesticides did not seem to harm the honeybees.

“I am not convinced that neonics are a major driver of colony loss,” Dennis vanEngelsdorp, University of Maryland entomologist, told the AP.  vanEngelsdorp did tell the AP he believes farmers are relying too heavily on the pesticides “against pests that are simply very scarce or not found in the landscape. There are studies (including EPA’s) that show no benefit to production when these products are used.”

However, Lori Ann Burd, environmental health director of the advocacy group Center for Biological Diversity, called the report “weak” and said the EPA ignored wild bees, such as bumblebees, which studies have indicated are more sensitive to neonicotinoids.

Once the EPA conducts the four assessments and accepts public comment, the agency may decide to act on the findings.

Neonicotinoids have also been the subject of a recent whistleblower complaint filed by a researcher with the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

United States Department of Agriculture researcher Dr. Jonathan Lundgren filed an internal complaint in September 2014 accusing the USDA of retaliating against him in response to his neonicotinoids research. The complaint was dismissed by the USDA and Lundgren was suspended in October 2014. The West Field Times reports that the USDA said Lungren was suspended for three days after USDA investigators found emails among his research staff that included indecent jokes.

On October 28 2015, Lundgren filed a complaint with the federal Merit Systems Protection Board after his supervisors allegedly began to “impede or deter his research and resultant publications.” Lundgren’s complaint alleges that his supervisors suspended him in retaliation for his research on neonicotinoid pesticides and also calls for an investigation of both the USDA and the EPA.

This is the not the first time the USDA has been called out for putting politics before science. In early May of this year, Truth In Media reported that 25 organizations representing farm workers, food safety organizations, and the environment sent a letter to officials with the USDA and Environmental Protection Agency. They called for an investigation into claims that scientists are facing pressure and retaliation for research that presents the controversial neonicotinoid insecticide in a negative light.

The groups said they were concerned about a report from Reuters that detailed threats to scientists who speak out about the dangers of the pesticide. These threats included suspension without pay and threats of damage to careers. The scientists filed a petition in March asking for more protection.

PEER executive director Jeff Ruch told Common Dreams the petition was “based on the experiences of 10 USDA scientists.” The scientists allegedly faced backlash for research on neonicotinoid insecticides and glyphosate — an ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup Herbicide — as well as their investigation of other topics, including genetically modified crops.

Featured, Government Accountability, US

Audit: EPA Engaged in ‘Covert Propaganda’ with Social Media Push for Water Rule

Leave a comment

An investigation by the Government Accountability Office found that the Environmental Protection Agency violated federal law by engaging in “covert propaganda” when it used social media to encourage the public to support a water rule backed by the Obama administration.

The audit was conducted after the New York Times released a report in May which alleged that in order to promote a rule claiming to “protect the nation’s drinking water,” the EPA “orchestrated a drive to counter political opposition from Republicans and enlist public support in concert with liberal environmental groups and a grass-roots organization aligned with President Obama.”

As a result of the March 2014 campaign, when the agency produced data at a Senate committee in March 2015, it claimed to have received more than one million comments with nearly 90 percent favoring the proposal.

The report released by the Government Accountability Office on Monday claimed that the EPA “obligated and expended appropriated funds in violations of statutory prohibitions.”

[pull_quote_center]We conclude that EPA violated the described provisions through its use of social media in association with its rule making efforts to define ‘Waters of the United States’ under the Clean Water Act during [fiscal years] 2014 and 2015.[/pull_quote_center]

The report concluded that while the EPA’s use of hashtags such as #DitchtheMyth and #CleanWaterRules on social media did not break any federal laws, its use of Thunderclap “constituted covert propaganda” which was “in violation of the publicity of propaganda prohibition.”

The EPA describes the Thunderclap tool as one that helps the agency “get the word out about events, special alerts, tips or other special messages.” When users sign up for the Thunderclap, they give it access to “post our message” to the users’ Twitter, Facebook or Tumblr accounts which the agency described as a “virtual flash mob” where messages “will go out on everyone’s walls and feeds at the same time.” 

The New York Times noted that while the opinion is “unlikely to lead to civil or criminal penalties,” it emerged “just as Republican leaders moved to block the so-called Waters of the United States clean-water rule through an amendment to the enormous spending bill expected to pass in Congress this week.” 

Featured, Government Accountability, Health

EPA Reverses Approval of Controversial Herbicide

Leave a comment

Last week, the Environmental Protection Agency decided to reverse their approval of Dow Chemical’s Enlist Duo which contains the herbicides 2,4-D and glyphosate.

The EPA told the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco that they had discovered new information which suggests 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid, known as 2,4-D, could be more toxic than the agency previously believed. The agency claimed it initially did not recognize that glyphosate and 2,4-D were possibly a toxic combination.

“E.P.A. can no longer be confident that Enlist Duo will not cause risks of concern to nontarget organisms, including those listed as endangered, when used according to the approved label,” the agency said in a court filing. The EPA also said they realized they “did not have all relevant information at the time it made its registration decision.”

The EPA’s decision is related to a lawsuit filed by a coalition of U.S. farmer and environmental groups represented by Earthjustice and Center for Food Safety who are seeking to overturn the approval of Enlist Duo.

Enlist Duo is part of a partnership between Monsanto and Dow known as the Enlist Weed Control system. The weed controls system is the latest effort to combat the growing problem of so-called “super weeds” that have resulted from the abundant use of glyphosate-based herbicides. In order to fight off the tougher weeds, Dow and Monsanto partnered together to produce Enlist Duo.

 “Glyphosate is a probable carcinogen and is wiping out the monarch butterfly, 2,4-D also causes serious human health effects, and the combination also threatens endangered wildlife,” said Earthjustice’s Managing Attorney Paul Achitoff. “This must not, and will not, be how we grow our food.”

The Natural Resources Defense Council reports that more than 200,000 people signed a petition they circulated which asked Dow to cancel its plans to sell Enlist Duo. Sylvia Fallon, Senior Scientist at the NRDC, said her organization was “delighted” by the news but also called on regulators do a proper job the first time. “EPA needs to do better in protecting human health and the health of the plants and animals in the ecosystem,” she said.

Dow has until December 7 to respond to the EPA’s decision and then the court will decide if 2,4-D should be removed from commercial products. If the court agrees with the EPA, it will likely delay the introduction of genetically engineered foods that were created to be resistant to 2,4-D.

The New York Times reports that in September the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacated the E.P.A.’s approval of another Dow pesticide known as sulfoxaflor because of concerns the chemical was insufficiently studied and possibly harmful to bee populations.

Earlier this year, Truth In Media reported that both 2,4-D and glyphosate had been linked to cancer in studies conducted by the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). The IARC found that Glyphosate “probably” causes cancer and found 2,4-D to be “possibly carcinogenic to humans,” a step below “probably carcinogenic”.

Stay tuned to Truth In Media for more details on this developing story.

Featured, Government Accountability, Health

EPA Proposes Ban on Common Pesticide

Leave a comment

Last Friday, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced new proposal which would ban the use of chlorpyrifos on citrus fruits, almonds and other crops. Chlorpyrifos is a common insecticide which is used on a number of crops that also includes oranges, apples, cherries, grapes, broccoli and asparagus.

The Associated Press reports:

“The pesticide, in use since 1965, has sickened dozens of farmworkers in recent years. Traces have been found in waterways, threatening fish, and regulators say overuse could make targeted insects immune to the pesticide. U.S. farms use more than 6 million pounds of the chemical each year – about 25 percent of it in California.”

The EPA stated that a recent analysis did not show risks from exposure to chlorpyrifos in food, but combined with estimates for exposure from drinking water, the “EPA cannot conclude that the risk from aggregate exposure meets the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act safety standard.”

The agency will take public comments on the proposed ban for at least two months. A final ruling is expected in December 2016 with the rule going into effect in 2017.

In the early 2000’s the EPA banned home use of chlorpyrifos and in 2012 placed “no-spray” buffer zones around schools and other sensitive areas.

The AP reported the Natural Resources Defense Council filed a federal lawsuit asking for a national ban on chlorpyrifos, citing evidence the chemical interferes with brain development of fetuses, infants and children.

Veena Singla, a scientist with NRDC’s health and environment program, said that the proposal “is a huge step in the right direction, but we think there’s enough evidence to ban all its uses now.”

The proposal from the EPA came just days after a researcher with the United States Department of Agriculture filed a whistleblower complaint alleging his supervisors suspended him in retaliation for his research on pesticides. The complaint follows calls for investigation of both the USDA and the EPA.

The Anti Media reported that Jonathan Lundgren, an entomologist and 11-year veteran of the USDA’s Agricultural Research Service, filed the complaint with the federal Merit Systems Protection Board after his supervisors allegedly began to “impede or deter his research and resultant publications.” Lundgren is well-known in the scientific community for previously alleging that the USDA attempted to prevent him from speaking about his research for political reasons.

Lundgren previously published a study that found soybean seeds pre-treated with neonicotinoid pesticides “offer little benefit to soybean producers.” He also served as a peer reviewer in a report published by the Center for Food Safety. That study found further evidence that neonicotinoids adversely affect bees.

Although Lundgren’s work is examining a different class of pesticides, his story highlights a dangerous trend around the science of pesticides: the suppression of research and retaliation against those who challenge the safety of pesticides.

In early May of this year, Truth In Media reported that 25 organizations representing farm workers, food safety organizations, and the environment issued a letter to officials with the USDA and EPA. They called for an investigation into claims that scientists are facing pressure and retaliation for research that presents the controversial neonicotinoid insecticide in a negative light.

A number of pesticides, insecticides, and herbicides have now been linked to health problems in animals and humans, as well as environmental degradation.

In March of this year it was reported that the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) published a report on the herbicide glyphosate which concluded that there was “limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans for non-Hodgkin lymphoma.”  The researchers found “convincing evidence that glyphosate can also cause cancer in laboratory animals.” The report points out that the EPA had originally classified glyphosate as possibly carcinogenic to humans in 1985.

The IARC Working Group evaluated the original EPA findings and more recent reports before concluding “there is sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals.” Despite the WHO’s findings, the EPA approved Monsanto’s use of glyphosate as recently as 2013.

Since the IARC’s rulings, Monsanto has faced a wave of lawsuits as personal injury lawyers are now looking for plaintiffs who have been harmed by the corporations products. 

The rise in the use of pesticides and herbicides comes with the increased use of genetically engineered or genetically modified crops. In September 2014, I wrote about the USDA’s decision to approve GE corn and soy and how this decision would lead to an increase in pesticide use.

This happens because the food products being approved by the government are engineered to resist widely-used chemicals such as glyphosate. This has led to an increase in “super-weeds” which are immune to the effects of glyphosate. This leads to an increase in spraying of these chemicals, as well as newer, stronger chemicals to fight the super weeds.

This cycle of spraying, and nature responding and adapting, will likely continue as the USDA recently approved another GE corn from Monsanto. Fellow bio-tech giant Syngenta is also applying for approval of a glyphosate-resistant GE corn. The USDA’s preliminary findings stated the risk of herbicide-resistant weeds will be an ongoing problem as long as herbicides are used.

The EPA’s latest proposal to ban the use of chlorpyrifos may indicate a shift towards more nuanced policies on herbicides, pesticides, and insecticides.

Government Accountability, Health

USDA Approves New Monsanto Corn

Video Leave a comment

Last Friday, the U.S. Department of Agriculture approved a new genetically modified type of corn produced by Monsanto Company. The announcement comes from the USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS).

Reuters reports that APHIS conducted a review and concluded the product posed no significant threat to agricultural crops, other plants or the environment. Monsanto’s MON 87411 maize is designed to protect plants against corn rootworms and have a tolerance to the herbicide glyphosate. Glyphosate is not only recognized as the most widely-used herbicide, it is a key ingredient in Monsanto’s popular RoundUp products.

Before officially being allowed on the market, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) must conduct their own reviews. According to Reuters, the EPA’s scientific advisory panel has criticized the guidelines as “weak”. The panel is attempting to understand the potential impact on pollinators, such as the dwindling bee population.

APHIS also said it was extending the comment period for genetically-engineered corn developed by Syngenta Seeds Inc. Syngenta’s MZHG0JG corn is also resistant to glyphosate. Critics have long said that perpetual reliance on herbicides like glyphosate is leading to an increase in herbicide-resistant plants which itself leads to an increased use of the chemicals.

The USDA’s preliminary findings of Syngenta’s petition found 14 different glyphosate-resistant weed species as of 2014. The agency also stated the risk of herbicide-resistant weeds will be an ongoing problem as long as herbicides are used.

Fighting herbicide resistance is only one of Monsanto’s current problems, however. In March of this year, Truth In Media reported that the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) published a report in The Lancet Oncology detailing evaluations of organophosphate pesticides and herbicides.

The report concluded that there was “limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans for non-Hodgkin lymphoma.” The evidence for this conclusion was pulled from studies of exposure to the chemical in the US, Canada and Sweden published since 2001.

The researchers found “convincing evidence that glyphosate can also cause cancer in laboratory animals.” The report points out that the EPA had originally classified glyphosate as possibly carcinogenic to humans in 1985.
The IARC Working Group evaluated the original EPA findings and more recent reports before concluding “there is sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals.” Despite the WHO’s findings, the EPA approved Monsanto’s use of glyphosate as recently as 2013.
Glyphosate is not the only one of Monsanto’s products that have been recently connected to cancer. In June the IARC also found that the weed killer 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid, known as 2,4-D, “possibly” causes cancer in humans. 

Since the IARC’s rulings, Monsanto has faced a wave of lawsuits as personal injury lawyers are now looking for plaintiffs who have been harmed by the corporations products. 

Monsanto continues to deny the charges against its products. Company spokewoman Charla Lord told Reuters, “Glyphosate is not a carcinogen. The most extensive worldwide human health databases ever compiled on an agricultural product contradict the claims in the suits.”

In 2013, Ben Swann examined several controversies surrounding Monsanto in a Truth in Media episode, seen below.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YC7M6j-dGs

Health, US

Monsanto Facing Wave of Lawsuits After WHO Cancer Study

Video Leave a comment

Monsanto Company, one of the world’s leading Agri-chemical companies, has had a difficult year regarding public relations. Not only has Monsanto been the focus of two studies by the World Health Organization which found its products are “possibly” and “probably” carcinogenic, but the company has been forced to cut 12% of its employees due to declining stock value. Monsanto’s problems only seem to be increasing as personal injury lawyers are now looking for plaintiffs who have been harmed by the corporations products.

Reuters reported:

“The latest lawsuit was filed Wednesday in Delaware Superior Court by three law firms representing three plaintiffs.

The lawsuit is similar to others filed last month in New York and California accusing Monsanto of long knowing that the main ingredient in Roundup, glyphosate, was hazardous to human health. Monsanto “led a prolonged campaign of misinformation to convince government agencies, farmers and the general population that Roundup was safe,” the lawsuit states.”

Monsanto continues to deny the charges against its products. Company spokewoman Charla Lord told Reuters, “Glyphosate is not a carcinogen. The most extensive worldwide human health databases ever compiled on an agricultural product contradict the claims in the suits.”

The California lawsuit was filed by 58-year-old Enrique Rubio, a former farm worker in California, Texas, and Oregon. The Anti Media reported on his case:

“One of his main duties included spraying fields with RoundUp and other herbicides. Mr. Rubio maintained these tasks until he was diagnosed with bone cancer in 1995, the lawsuit states.

Attorney Robin Greenwald, a representative in the Enrique Rubio case, says she believes additional lawsuits will emerge because RoundUp is the most widely-used herbicide and the WHO statements support ongoing concerns surrounding glyphosate.”

Another lawsuit filed against Monsanto comes from 63-year-old New Yorker Judy Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald claims that her cancer was caused by exposure to RoundUp when she worked in a horticulture company during the 1990s. Judy Fitzgerald was diagnosed with leukemia in 2012.

In March of this year Truth In Media reported that the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) published a report in The Lancet Oncology detailing evaluations of organophosphate pesticides and herbicides. The report concluded that there was “limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans for non-Hodgkin lymphoma.” The evidence for this conclusion was pulled from studies of exposure to the chemical in the US, Canada and Sweden published since 2001.

The researchers found “convincing evidence that glyphosate can also cause cancer in laboratory animals.” The report points out that the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) had originally classified glyphosate as possibly carcinogenic to humans in 1985.
The IARC Working Group evaluated the original EPA findings and more recent reports before concluding “there is sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals.” Despite the WHO’s findings, the EPA approved Monsanto’s use of glyphosate as recently as 2013.

Glyphosate is not only the most widely-used herbicide, it is a key ingredient in biotech giant Monsanto’s popular RoundUp products. Glyphosate is only one of Monsanto’s products that have been recently connected to cancer, however. In June the IARC also found that the weed killer 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid, known as 2,4-D, “possibly” causes cancer in humans.

The IARC reviewed the latest scientific research before deciding to classify 2,4-D as “possibly carcinogenic to humans,” a step below “probably carcinogenic.” The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has been receiving pressure to restrict or prohibit the use of 2,4-D, while some farm group and pesticide industry groups say the chemical does not need any more restriction.

Of particular interest with the recent findings is the fact that in April the EPA approved the use of Dow AgroScience’s Enlist Duo herbicide which contains 2,4-D and glyphosate. Enlist Duo is part of a partnership between Monsanto and Dow known as the Enlist Weed Control system.

Monsanto has not released a statement on whether or not they will also convene a panel to study the IARC’s claims about 2,4-D.

In 2013, Ben Swann examined several controversies surrounding Monsanto in a Truth in Media episode, seen below.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YC7M6j-dGs

Featured, Politics, States Rights, US

Federal Court Blocks Obama’s EPA Rule Nationwide

Leave a comment

WASHINGTON, October 9, 2015–  On Friday, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit based in Cincinnati issued a nationwide stay blocking the Obama administration’s highly controversial Waters of the United States (WOTUS) Rule set forth by the Environmental Protection Agency.

State legislators from across the country believe the rule violates the Tenth Amendment and sets a dangerous precedent for federal intrusion. In total, more than 30 states have sought legal action against the rule.

“A stay temporarily silences the whirlwind of confusion that springs from uncertainty about the requirements of the new rule and whether they will survive legal testing,” the court said.

In July, Tennessee State Representative Sheila Butt (R-Columbia) led a successful campaign to join Tennessee to the case presented to the Sixth Circuit.

[pull_quote_center]”It’s important to realize that this rule would give the federal government unprecedented powers over property owners, farmers and businesses. Even a puddle of water in your driveway could be subject to federal investigation. In addition, this rule presents a massive negative impact to our states’ economy and sovereignty,” said Butt. “I’m thankful for the Court’s ruling, but the fight isn’t over just yet.”[/pull_quote_center]

This isn’t the first federal ruling against the EPA’s new rule. In August, U.S. District Judge Ralph Erickson issued an injunction against the rule one day before it was set to begin. However, the EPA largely ignored the ruling and charged ahead with implementation regardless of the Court’s ruling. The EPA claimed the ruling didn’t apply nationwide, even though legal scholars and legislators around the country disagreed. Thursday’s ruling sought to make clear to the EPA that the WOTUS rule could no longer be implemented until further legal ruling had settled the petitioners’ concerns.

FOLLOW MICHAEL LOTFI ON Facebook, Twitter & LinkedIn.

Featured, US

Congressman: EPA Sexual Predator ‘Fed A Steady Diet Of Interns’

Video 5 Comments

By Michael Bastasch

Utah Republican Rep. Jason Chaffetz had some harsh words for EPA Chief Administrator Gina McCarthy during a hearing Wednesday regarding the agency’s handling of an employee who repeatedly sexually harassed interns.

For the past couple of years, Republican lawmakers have been investigating reports of misconduct at the EPA from employees watching porn everyday while on the job to an agency employee who sexually harassed interns and was not reported to the authorities and continued to work at the agency for years.

“This is a predator who was fed a steady diet of interns,” Chaffetz told McCarthy during the hearing. “The first time this happened he should have been fired and he should have probably been referred to the authorities for criminal prosecution.”

“It happened 10 times, and you never did that,” he said. “You still haven’t done that on this person.”

Chaffetz remarks come after the EPA inspector general Arthur Elkins told Congress that Peter Jutro, an EPA employee, “engaged in offensive and inappropriate behavior toward at least 16 women, most of whom were EPA co-workers.” Elkins also said very senior EPA officials “were made aware of many of these actions and yet did nothing.”

The IG also noted that Jutro was even promoted to be Assistant Administrator for the EPA’s Office of Homeland Security where he again “engaged in such behavior toward an additional six women.”

Chaffetz went off on McCarthy over the agency’s failure to fire Jutro despite repeated allegations that he was sexually harassing women. Here is the exchange starting with McCarthy’s response to Chaffetz’s first remarks about a “predator who was fed a steady diet of interns”:

[quote_box_center]

McCarthy: I am aware that eleven years ago there was an issue raised and it was handle appropriately is my understanding.

Chaffetz: Appropriately?! He got a promotion, he continued to work there.

M: No, he was carefully watched. The very minute we had any indication of impropriety, which was the recent issue, we took prompt action and in less than two months…

C: You moved his cubicle four spaces away. You think that’s appropriate? What do you say to the mother and father who sent their twenty-four year old to the EPA — she’s starting her career, and she’s harassed. Look at her statement. And you did the right thing by moving her four cubicles away?

M: Sir, we are doing everything we can to reinforce the policy and the law. We are developing procedures so there’s never a question about this, and we are doing everything…

C: That isn’t good enough! When someone is sexually harassed you send them to the authorities, you fire them.

M: I did send them to the authorities…

C: You sent them to human resources, who wanted to reprimand him, you never did send them to the criminal referral.

M: Human resources recommended the same thing as every manager, which was to proceed to removal, the man is no longer in federal…

C: That’s not what actually happened. It was in his record that they had had ten complaints — ten sexual harassment complaints against this gentleman and he was allowed to continue to be there. And as we heard testimony, a predator who was a fed a steady diet of interns.

M: I am aware of one complaint, eleven years ago, and the complaint that was just processed under my watch which resulted in his removal from public service within five or six weeks.

C: Did you fire him, or was he allowed to retire?

M: He was allowed to retire because that is his right. Even if he were fired, he’d be allowed to retire.

C: Do you believe this intern who said there was sexual harassment? Do that her statement is true?

M: Oh, I absolutely do…

C: Then why didn’t you refer it for a criminal referral? If you believe that her statement is true, and it was sexual harassment, and that is a violation of the law, and you allowed him to just retire, why didn’t you send that to the proper authorities?

M: We took the appropriate action.

C: Do you think it’s appropriate, do you think it’s against the law to sexually harass somebody at work?

M: I think it’s not only against the law, but it’s also against our policies, and we acted under the policies and the law when it led to the removal of him from public [office].

C: Did you let any of the law enforcement officer know?

M: Mr. Chaffetz, I’ve got two young daughters just about this woman’s age…

C: I’ve got two young daughters too! And I would never send them to the EPA, it’s the most toxic place to work I’ve ever heard of. This person, this twenty-four year old girl, she’s starting her career, she’s harassed over a three-year period and you admit that is a violation of the law. Why didn’t you do the criminal referral?

[/quote_box_center]

 

Follow Michael on Twitter

 

 

 

 

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contactlicensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Government Accountability, Health

EPA Will Study Effect of Glyphosate on Endangered Species

2 Comments

As part of a settlement with the Center for Biological Diversity, the Environmental Protection Agency will be forced to study the impacts of the two most commonly used herbicides on endangered plants and animals within the United States.

The Center for Biological Diversity, a nonprofit conservation organization dedicated to the protection of endangered species and wild places, filed a lawsuit with the EPA for not studying the effects of pesticides and herbicides on endangered species. The nonprofit also agreed to a settlement with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service requiring the agency to analyze impacts on endangered species across the country from five pesticides.

The EPA will now analyze the impacts of atrazine and glyphosate. The agency will complete the assessments by June 2020. Atrazine has been linked to an increased risk of birth defects. Glyphosate, the key ingredient in Monsanto’s RoundUp, has also been called “probably carcinogenic” by the World Health Organization.

Brett Hartl, endangered species policy director at the Center for Biological Diversity, said the settlement was “the first step to reining in the widespread use of dangerous pesticides that are harming both wildlife and people.”

“This settlement will finally force the EPA to consider the impacts of glyphosate — widely known as Roundup — which is the most commonly used pesticide in the United States, on endangered species nationwide,” said Hartl.

The EPA has not studied the ecological impacts of glyphosate since 1993.

In other herbicide news, the EPA also rejected a petition from the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), that was seeking a review of glyphosate “to prevent unreasonable adverse effects” to the monarch butterfly.

“The agency at this time has not determined that glyphosate causes unreasonable adverse effects to the monarch butterfly,” noted EPA in its response. The EPA highlighted the fact that President Obama recently launched the White House Pollinator Task Force Plan.

Agri-Pulse reports that the NRDC also sued the EPA in October in an attempt to block the approval of Monsanto and DOW’s Enlist Duo herbicide, which they say is also responsible for the loss of monarch butterflies. The product is a combination of glyphosate and another herbicide known as 2,4-D.

NRDC said in a statement that since 1993 use of glyphosate “has increased 10-fold, yet the agency has never considered the herbicide’s impact on monarchs.”

 

Health, Politics

Obama Administration Launches New Strategy to Combat Declining Bee Population

12 Comments

On May 19th, the federal Pollinator Health Task Force released a new plan to reverse the rapidly declining honeybee and monarch butterfly populations. The “National Strategy to Promote the Health of Honey Bees and Other Pollinators” calls for making millions of acres of federal land more suitable for bee colonies, as well as spending millions on research and possibly using fewer pesticides which have been linked to cancer.

Around 2006, commercial beekeepers began reporting what has become known as colony collapse disorder— entire colonies of bees died off with no obvious cause. The disorder has been reported in commercial colonies all over the world.

The Associated Press reports:

“While putting different type of landscapes along highways, federal housing projects and elsewhere may not sound like much in terms of action, several bee scientists told The Associated Press that this a huge move. They say it may help pollinators that are starving because so much of the American landscape has been converted to lawns and corn that don’t provide foraging areas for bees.

“This is the first time I’ve seen addressed the issue that there’s nothing for pollinators to eat,” said University of Illinois entomologist May Berenbaum, who buttonholed President Barack Obama about bees when she received her National Medal of Science award last November. “I think it’s brilliant.”‘

White House science adviser John Holdren discussed declining bee populations and monarch butterflies, stating that “pollinators are struggling.”

Under the plan 7 million acres of bee habitats would be restored over the next five years. This will require a move from monocropping (growing a single crop at a time) to more diverse planting for the pollinators. The changes will affect the Department of Interior, Housing and Urban Development, and the Department of Transportation.

Meanwhile, the Environmental Protection Agency will increase studies into the safety of controversial neonicotinoid pesticides. The “Neonics” are a class of pesticides which have previously been linked to declines in bee populations. They were developed in 1991 and commercial use began in the mid-1990s. Several studies have implicated Neonics, which are used to kill insects harmful to crops, as a possible cause for colony collapse disorder.

Recently researchers with Lund University in Sweden found that wild bee populations exposed to the nicotine-based systemic insecticides had a reduction in density, less reproduction and colonies that did not experience growth.

The Swedish scientists conducted the study in the wild, the first of its kind. They examined 16 patches of land with canola seeds, half of which were sprayed with the pesticide and the other half which were not sprayed. The researchers found that wild bees displayed negative health effects while honeybee populations, which pollinate crops with assistance from humans, did not display the illness.

A second study found that in laboratory tests bees are not deterred by the pesticide but may in fact prefer crops sprayed with the chemicals. This could indicate an addiction to the nicotine in the pesticides. Both studies were published in the journal Nature.

 Lori Ann Burd, environmental health director for the advocacy group Center for Biological Diversity, told the AP that the plan was still not enough. Friends of the Earth food program director Lisa Archer expressed similar sentiments, stating, “Failure to address this growing crisis with a unified and meaningful federal plan will put these essential pollinators and our food supply in jeopardy.”

Health, US

New EPA rules could be ‘most expensive’ set of regulations

7 Comments

President Obama has unveiled a series of new regulations for the EPA aimed at cutting levels of smog, especially the types of pollution which have been linked to inducing lung damage, asthma, and other health problems in humans.

The new regulations would mostly affect the power plants and factories in the Midwest which contribute large amounts of air pollution.

Currently, the EPA allows up to 75 parts per billion of air pollution to be emitted, a standard set by former President George Bush in 2008.  The EPA’s scientists have said, according to the Press Telegram, they would prefer a lower standard of air pollution of 60 parts per billion.  New regulations are thought to put the pollution emitted between 65 and 70 parts per billion however.

The new rules, which would not go into affect until after 2020, are estimated to cost the EPA about $3.9 billion to meet the 70 parts per billion level, but the cost is estimated to jump to $15 billion in order for companies to meet the lower level of 65 parts per billion.

The administration says the cost is worth the health benefits which would include, according to Politico, fewer deaths and hospitalizations as well as fewer missed days of school and work because of issues related to asthma and bronchitis.

Paul Billings, a senior vice president of the American Lung Association said, according to the New York Times, “Ozone is the most pervasive and widespread pollutant in the country… Ozone is not killing people, but causing tens of millions of people to get sick every day.

While environmentalists and health advocates have lauded these new regulations, some Republicans, as well as fossil fuel industry promoters, have criticized this plan, calling it another instance of government overreach.

The director of regulatory affairs for the American Petroleum Institute, Howard Feldman, said, “Air quality has improved dramatically over the past decades, and air quality will continue to improve under the existing standards.”  It is important to note though the American Petroleum Institute is an oil industry lobby group which spent $78 million to support the oil industry.

Harold Wimmer, the president of the American Lung Association said 60 parts per billion would be the most beneficial to the health of citizens, and he called these new regulations “long overdue.”

The proposed regulations can be found here.

Politics, US

EPA’s New Property Grab, Private Water

3 Comments

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is requesting a redefinition of the bodies of water that are under their jurisdiction for regulating pollution.

The Clean Water Act, originally passed in 1972, is the primary federal law in the United States concerning water pollution. Any area covered by this act requires a special federal permit for certain activities. Some U.S. lawmakers are worried that an expansion of the Clean Water Act would give federal officials a new world of power over private properties.

The EPA’s proposed regulation has been nicknamed, “Waters of the United States,” and has been in the works for the last eight years. Bob Perciasepe, EPA Deputy Administrator, told the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee that the new ruling wouldn’t reduce the scope of waters covered under the Clean Water Act, and that it “would not assert jurisdiction over any type of waters not previously protected over the past 40 years.”

The EPA’s attempt to extend its power is drawing attention from lawmakers in both parties, who are referring to the proposed ruling as a land grab. A request to withdraw the regulation was sent to the EPA by a group of 231 members from the House of Representatives. “Although your agencies have maintained that the rule is narrow and clarifies CWA jurisdiction, it in face aggressively expands federal authority under the CWA while bypassing Congress and creating unnecessary ambiguity,” the group wrote.

The House lawmakers in opposition to the regulation criticized it for being too broad. They wrote, “The rule would place features such as ditches, ephemeral drainages, ponds, prairie potholes, seeps, flood plains, and other occasionally or seasonally wet areas under federal control.”

Along with the House, the Senate also has a group of lawmakers who are opposed to the EPA’s proposition. Last week, thirty Republican senators signed a bill to prevent the EPA from moving forward. The bill’s main sponsor, Senator Pat Roberts, explained that after already calling on the EPA to withdraw the proposed rule, he wanted “to make sure that the expansion of regulatory jurisdiction over ‘Waters of the United States’ is shelved for good.”