Skip to main content

Shooting Non-targets



I spent twenty-five years working for America’s Environmental Protection Agency. I found myself in an inferno of corruption -- right in the belly of the government.

Corruption came to EPA directly from the industry and through the White House and Congress. But my experience at EPA had its pleasures as well. Those included learning from my constant readings, observations, and my discussions with some exceptional colleagues. Yet I lived through the daily uncertainty of survival in a bureaucracy increasingly becoming the other face of the “regulated” industry. I agonized in vain how to stop corruption and pollution. 

The EPA came into being in December 1970. Despite the war politics of the 1970s, EPA tried to live up to its mission: protecting human health and the natural world from factory and agricultural poisons, especially keeping water, air, and food relatively safe.

However, industry intervened and crippled the agency. For example, the owners of farm sprays have their fingerprints all over EPA.

Agricultural sprays are biocides, chemicals designed to kill all life. These poisons also contaminate our food, drinking water and air. In fact, they are so pervasive in the environment, that they poison mothers’ breast milk.

I observed EPA “regulating” these toxins. I concluded early on that the machinery of exterminating insects and wildlife with synthetic poisons is a concrete expression of ruthless economic and political power. It follows that the panoply of pesticide companies, science, scientists, government regulators and money serve only to legitimize that immoral power.

And since the result of “pest control” practices is impoverishing the natural world and is causing disease and death among humans, we are witnessing and tolerating violence in the management of agriculture, the chemical industry, government regulation, and politics.

I am not the first to connect pesticides to violence. As early as 1978, an outstanding professor of biology at the University of California-Berkeley, Robert van den Bosch, equated the pest control industry to “a pro-pesticide mafia.” In his book, “The Pesticide Conspiracy,” he says this pro-pesticide mafia “owns politicians, bureaucrats, researchers, county agents, administrators, and elements of the media, and it can break those who don’t conform.”

Van den Bosch was right. The global pest control industry makes quite a killing: more than $ 40 billion per year. Some of this money lubricates the politicians and academics; they, in turn, bring the government to their team.

The pesticides establishment (chemical manufacturers, pesticide merchants, large farmers, timber companies, academics and government regulators) labels the victims of pesticides “non-targets.”

The “non-target” costs of spraying lethal poisons in the environment are often high. In a cotton field, everything but the bugs feeding on cotton is non-target: that includes farmers, farm workers, children, birds, beneficial insects, other crops and wildlife.

David Coppage and Clayton Bushong, senior EPA ecologists, studied the ecological damage of pesticides in the United States. In their December 1983 draft report, “On the Value of Wild Biotic Resources of the United States Affected by Pesticides,” they calculated the harm of farm poisons to a limited number of land and water wild animals cost the people of this country more than 1.25 trillion dollars per year in lost recreational, commercial, personal food, and aesthetic values.

For example, in the 1950s and 1960s, spraying DDT to marshes and tidelands killed billions of fish and aquatic invertebrates, including fish eating birds. DDT-like sprays like dieldrin and heptachlor killed about 80 percent of songbirds, wiping out some game birds while decimating wild mammals. Just the runoff of cotton insecticides, said Coppage and Bushong, “caused staggering losses of fish.” It boggles the mind to think of so massive a “potential” loss we put up with yearly in complete indifference. 

This ecological damage is a consequence of a political culture that, increasingly, looks and sounds like organized crime.

Some of my EPA colleagues got as angry as I was. They were better diplomats than me, however.

For example, a few of them working out of Dallas, Texas, reported on the ecological and human impacts of policies in Region 6 – a huge area in South Central United States covering Texas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Arkansas. In their November 1990 “Region 6 Comparative Risk Project: Overview Report,” they reached these conclusions:

“All ecological threats are ultimately threats to human health. Man depends upon a predictable global ecology for air quality, water, food, shelter, and medicines…. Although humans are one species among thousands, they are the only species that can chemically and biologically alter the planet. Human activity has changed the course of evolution through agricultural and industrial technology; we must begin to understand that, ecologically, humans have a responsibility to preserve the earth’s life if but to protect human life. We have not demonstrated the knowledge, wisdom, or compassion to accept this role.”

These gems of courage and wisdom inspired me to speak out as well. Rather than being a “team player” and earn a high salary and awards, I took the road rarely taken. I paid a high price for that decision.

I kept saying the environmental conditions in America are deleterious to all life, including human life. EPA failed us but only because our politicians are in bed with the industry. The medicine for EPA’s failure is to demolish the corrupting power of the industry. Then let EPA scientists do their work.

We need a new EPA designed to be immune to political corruption.

Young American moms (and other young women all over the world) should never have to discover poisons in their breast milk. But they do. That alone is dangerous to the health of the mothers and newborn. Poisons in mothers’ milk are also so offensive to human dignity that young women -- and the rest of us -- ought to overthrow everything that makes their poisoning possible.



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Pesticides Are Making Children Aggressive

Pesticides cause a multitude of adverse effects on humans. However, they are especially harmful to children. They may have something to do with the mass-shootings in schools all over America because some of them are neurotoxins. This means they affect and damage the central nervous system and the brain – of all animals, including humans.
Warren Porter, professor emeritus of zoology at the University of Wisconsin, conducted experiments with ground water – water drawn from the ground of farms with typical levels of pesticides and fertilizers. He chose farm water contaminated with the insecticide aldicarb, the herbicide atrazine, and nitrogen fertilizer. He tested that mixture on white mice and deer mice.
The concentrations of the fertilizer with each of the pesticides (aldicarb and atrazine) in the ground water were of the order of magnitude the Environmental Protection Agency says the chemicals cause “no unreasonable harm to man and the environment.” In other words, Porter put to the u…

The US Environmental Protection Agency at a Crossroad

The election of Donald Trump to the White House shows the extreme vulnerability of the idea of environmental protection in America. Trump appointed Scott Pruitt to EPA. Pruitt has been undermining the tenuous foundations of our relations with nature.
We struggled for several decades to secure the right to clean air, water and food – and give some protection to hundreds of endangered and threatened species. We have a long way for achieving these goals, but, at least, we now have a vision of where we are going.
This is important because the greatest crisis at the dawn of the twenty-first century is the steady deterioration of the natural world. The toxification of nature by chemicals, the extinction of species, and the epidemics of cancer and other diseases are serious manifestations of an industry out of control and a broken regulatory system.
For example, even infants are no longer safe. Monsanto’s weed killer glyphosate shortens the pregnancy of women. But this biocide does additiona…

Agrichemical Political Power in America and Europe

In November 2014, an open letter signed by about 57 million Americans reached European politicians urging them not to follow America’s genetic engineering path in food and agriculture. Don’t use genetic engineering to modify your crops, the letter said, because GM crops have served us pretty badly here in America. We are convinced the genetic modification of crops is a hazardous and failing technology.
Genetic engineering for the hegemony of the world
Studies show that animals fed GM foods and / or the weed killer glyphosate become ill from damaged liver, kidneys, gut tissues and gut flora. These animals also suffer from immune system disruption, reproductive abnormalities and tumors. Do we want to eat this kind of food?
With this unsettling evidence from scientific studies, you would think, the letter said, the regulators of genetic engineering in America (Environmental Protection Agency, Food and Drug Administration, and the Department of Agriculture) would be alarmed and ban any furt…