Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Environment

From Watchdog to Lapdog: An Insider's History of the EPA

By Evaggelos Vallianatos, AlterNet. Posted May 30, 2009.


A former EPA analyst explains how the governmental body set up to protect the environment has been undermined by political pressure and industry.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

The EPA came into being in December 1970. President Richard Nixon created this new agency because of the massive failure of the government to protect nature and humans from the unkind touch of toxic chemicals and radiation. But Nixon's first priority was fighting the war in Vietnam, not environmental protection.

So the EPA was put together in a hurry from the failed pieces of larger government organizations, especially the pesticides office of the discredited U.S. Department of Agriculture, which made agribusiness and its lubricants, pesticides, possible.

Nevertheless, the EPA made a serious effort to fulfill its mission, protecting man and the environment from all "unreasonable" risks -- a tall order that lasted no more than four years.

The EPA warned the country it was a mistake to be addicted to pesticides. It banned DDT in 1972, the granddaddy of all agrotoxins, the insect poison that was the metaphor for silent spring: nearly wiping out the golden eagle and several other birds.

The EPA cited serious health effects from sprays and reported, in 1974, that weed killers would do much more than desiccate unwanted vegetation. They would also make the crops appetizing to insects while promoting larger insect populations.

What the EPA did not know was that protecting nature and public health from DDT had been a kiss of death. Chemical companies, agribusiness, and polluters took notice. They started lobbying the White House and Congress to teach the EPA who was the boss.

The White House and Congress unleashed the budget dogs of war, teaching the EPA a cost-benefit analysis it would never forget.

By the late 1970s, the EPA knew that some of the farmers' nerve-poison sprays were causing immediate and long-term neurological harm, decline of intellectual abilities and brain damage, especially to farmworkers. One did not have to have more than one accidental exposure to farm nerve toxins for suffering these unforgiving effects.

The EPA also had evidence that the dioxin-laced 2,4,5-T, the defoliant used in the Vietnam War, was causing miscarriages to women living in the woods of Alsea, Ore.

Those women sent a letter to the EPA describing their miscarriages; they complained that the U.S. Forest Service sprayed the woods next to their homes with 2,4,5-T. The EPA sent investigators to Alsea, where they found the feared dioxin in the creek near the neighborhood of the women. It was that discovery that forced the hand of EPA to ban 2,4,5-T.

The reaction of the industry and its White House friends to this news was fierce. They forced the EPA to "reorganize" out of existence its own science group responsible for its national research projects. The chief of the health effects branch responsible for the discovery of dioxin in Alsea had to report to a laboratory at the University of Miami, and a senior scientist was sent to the U.S. Agency for International Development, which promptly sent him to a project in Egypt.

The EPA also created a "farmworker protection" program to hide and diffuse its terrible secret that, in fact, farmworkers, and, by extension the rest of us, suffer from coming in touch with toxic sprays.

The "farmworker protection program" became a propaganda machine funding conferences, proposing unreliable "health standards" for farmworkers and issuing reports of cosmetic regulatory activities on the part of state governments, the EPA and the USDA.

As if these unsavory practices were not enough, the EPA was shaken to its core by another crisis. In 1976, a government pathologist caught the chemical and pharmaceutical industries using criminal schemes in order to deceive the government.

This scientist unraveled a massive fraud whereby the country's largest companies were "testing" their chemical products and drugs at the Industrial Bio-Test Laboratory near Chicago because they knew IBT cut corners and, otherwise, gave them results that would guarantee government approval of their pesticides and drugs.

Faced with the IBT fraud, the EPA ought to have banned all pesticides approved on the basis of faked studies. But the Carter administration decided in 1980 not to punish the chemical industry for its crimes but to put IBT out of business. Even that was too much for the Reagan men and women who took over the EPA in 1981.

Ronald Reagan put Anne Gorsuch, a right-wing lawyer from Colorado, in charge of dismantling the EPA. Gorsuch started her reign by firing many of the lawyers responsible for enforcing the law. Gorsuch's deputy, a Hispanic academic by the name of John Hernandez, became the censor of EPA science, sending confidential EPA reports on Dow Chemical's dioxin contamination of large swaths of Michigan to Dow Chemical officials for approval.

Another close associate of Gorsuch's, Rita Lavelle, who administered the country's toxic-waste kingdom, resolved the horror and politics of abandoned waste dumps over sumptuous lunches with polluters.

The Reagan administration disrupted the work EPA labs were doing on dioxin with a study that it hoped would buy the allegiance of Hispanics. The EPA spent $ 6 million, 50 man-years of lab work and seven years during which time its labs analyzed blood from the Hispanic population of America.

The results of the study were astonishing. More than 90 percent of the Hispanics had pentachlorophenol on their urine. Pentachlorophenol is an acutely toxic insecticide and fungicide and wood preservative. Some 50 to 80 percent of the Hispanics of San Antonio and Houston, Texas, had residues in their urine of the nerve poison Dursban or chlorpyrifos. About 27 percent of the rest of the Hispanics had Dursban in their urine.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: epa

Evaggelos Vallianatos, a former EPA analyst, is the author of This Land is Their Land and The Passion of the Greeks.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Environment! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
What a bunch of communist rubbish
Posted by: dale0k on May 30, 2009 5:48 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ha.

Just kidding folks. This tale of woe ought to have been exposed and shouted from the treetops, for the mountains, to the prairies, from sea to "shining" sea.

Alas, our "liberal" media does not see fit to get their hands dirty, and really tell us the truth.

An informed society is a healthy society, and apparently, vice-versa.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Object Lesson
Posted by: NoPCZone on May 30, 2009 10:43 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The EPA is a prime example of how our democracy cannot work without serious reform. Until lobbying by trade associations, industry councils, PACS and corporations is outright banned this will continue...

As a stopgap, the EPA should be made an independent agency of government with a commission head comprised of staggered appointments that can to some degree mitigate the ability of any one party to wholesale gut the agency.

The commissioners should also be required to be subjected to the following requirements:
1- Must have never lobbied for, received compensation from, or been employed by any company, partnership, individual or corporation that has has business before the EPA for 10 years prior to their appointment to EPA.
2- Cannot lobby, be contracted to, or be employed by any person or entity that has business before the EPA for 10 years after leaving the agency.
3- Have an educational or employment background in the natural sciences, medicine, public health, or environmental science. Lawyers without environmental background need not apply. Needless to say, political hacks need not apply.
4-When public health and corporate considerations collide on unfinished/inconclusive areas of research or knowledge, the EPA MUST rule in favor of public health and safety. This will prevent the old lawyer's dodge of disputed or incomplete science (or bought and paid for biostitute pseudo-science) being used to delay a finding or rule.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Good suggestions Posted by: Word Mix
De-politicise the EPA?
Posted by: willymack on May 30, 2009 5:41 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Not nearly enough. We've got names, dates, places, and crimes committed. Plenty of stuff for a federal prosecutor. We're known as the most incarcerated nation on Earth. Let's live up to that appelation by putting some REAL crooks in jail. Not enough room there? No problem; just turn loose all the harmless, hapless potheads presently rotting there.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Independence is no solution
Posted by: leafsong1 on May 31, 2009 7:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Look how well that worked at the Fed. It will only make the corruption more hoplessly intractible. The problem is political corruption; start the solution there.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

corporations and regulators?
Posted by: cshearer19 on Jun 1, 2009 12:47 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
could someone answer a question of mine:

why can corporations and lobbyists petition government agencies about regulations to begin with? Where does such a "right" come from? Is it linked to corporate personhood - that corps have the same rights as an individual, and thus the right to petition (lobby?) the very agency regulating them?

I am genuinely curious, so if anyone can answer my question I'd be very grateful.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

honeyman
Posted by: honeyman on Jun 6, 2009 4:21 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It was apparent early on after reports of the death and decline of tens of thousands of bee colonies that the EPA was simply a symbolic organization with no real interest in addressing some of the most egregious violations toward environmental safety.

The approval of the synthetic nicotines[imidacloprid] was based on industry testing. Rather simple , straightforward investigations by independent scientists have shown that the use of this systemic poison for seed treatment results in toxicity to both plant and soil which is transferable to ALL organisms living on or in the soil or eating the plants growing there.

The EPA has erected administrative roadblocks which will result in years of delay in tackling this issue. One reason might be that by the time they get around to taking action a new universe of insecticides will be ready to be marketed making the withdrawal of imidacloprid meaningless.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

lhopwood@roadrunner.com
Posted by: lhopwood on Jun 6, 2009 5:21 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sierra Club urged the EPA to suspend the use of the neonicotinoid pesticides, which are linked with the demise of the honey bee, a major pollinator.
Of grave concern is that EPA is rubber stamping registrations of Bayer, Monsanto and Syngenta's propriety crops - conventional and genetically manipulated - which are now "coating" their seeds with the neonics.
The EPA finally called for comments. Our comments can be read by visiting www.moraybeekeepers.co.uk/N&Views/sierra1.htm.
Yet by the time the EPA does its job - to protect the environment - honey bees may be history.
Laurel Hopwood, Chair, Sierra Club Genetic Engineering Action Team
http://www.sierraclub.org/biotech/

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement