 |
| Temple of Artemis, Attica, near Athens, Greece. Artemis was the goddess of the natural world. (Photo: Evaggelos Vallianatos) |
The Environmental
Protection Agency was America’s best-conceived idea. By the time EPA became a
reality in late 20th century, the country had been extracting natural "resources"for more than a century. The prizes included metals, petroleum,
coal, natural gas, wood, gold, silver, water, fish and factory food.
Birth of the Environmental Protection Agency
EPA came into being on December 2, 1970. It was the product of a culture
in deep crises. America was a giant polluter. In 1952, the Cuyahoga River slicing neighborhoods near downtown
Cleveland, Ohio, burst into flames. In 1953 and 1966, about 200 people in New
York City died from smog. On January 28, 1969, approximately 3 million gallons of petroleum
spilled into the Santa Barbara coast of California, polluting an area of about
400 square miles. The destruction was equally vast.
America has been
mythic in its appetite. It simply uses too much stuff like steel, machinery, metals, wood and petroleum. In the EPA year of 1970,
ecology was burning and bleeding.
In the summer of
1970, the Club of Rome, an informal group of international scholars, expressed
grave concerns about the world threaten by arms race, population explosion, and
environmental deterioration. They concluded time had come for the leaders of
states to embrace limits to economic growth.
Some Americans
calling themselves environmentalists also concluded there should be limits to exploitation
and pollution.
Rachel Carson
inspired and energized the environmentalists with the power of her words. In 1962,
she published “Silent Spring”: a book that summarized the evidence of ecocide from
the use of pesticides. Birds suffered the most from the deadly sprays of the
farmers.
President Richard Nixon
recognized the damage of the industry and pollution. In his State of the Union
address on January 22, 1970, he said:
“The great
question of the seventies is, shall we surrender to our surroundings, or shall
we make our peace with nature and begin to make reparations for the damage we
have done to our air, to our land, and to our water?
“Restoring
nature to its natural state is a cause beyond party and beyond factions. It has
become a common cause of all the people of this country. It is a cause of
particular concern to young Americans, because they more than we will reap the
grim consequences of our failure to act on programs which are needed now if we
are to prevent disaster later.
“Clean air,
clean water, open spaces-these should once again be the birthright of every
American. If we act now, they can be.
“We still
think of air as free. But clean air is not free, and neither is clean water. The
price tag on pollution control is high. Through our years of past carelessness
we incurred a debt to nature, and now that debt is being called.”
Richard Nixon’s
words of wisdom are as profoundly true today as they were in 1970. They found
expression at the EPA. He signed the executive order that created EPA out of parts
of other giant departments like Interior, Agriculture, and Health, Education
and Welfare.
Nixon was
preoccupied with the war in Vietnam but, to his credit, he started EPA, an
experiment of how you could have industries without killing Americans and the
natural world.
Lobbyists and yes-saying bureaucrats
I joined EPA in
May 1979 during the Jimmy Carter administration. I learned quickly the industry
did not like the idea of environmental protection. Its lobbyists were moving in
the corridors of EPA too often for my comfort. I attended enough of the
meetings between lobbyists and senior EPA officials that confirmed my initial
hunch about the questionable intend and ethics of the “regulated” industry.
The lobbyists
appeared at EPA as teachers, big brothers and sisters on a mission to teach EPA
scientists advanced science. But, in reality, the purpose of the lobbyists was, and
continues to be, convincing EPA scientists to say Yes to all of their proposals. They were propagandists. I resented
their half-truths and lies. I stayed away from the trips my colleagues were
taking at industry’s expense. I
criticized the industry openly.
Once, a colleague who
worked in the Economic Analysis Branch of the Pesticides Office of EPA warned
me I was going nowhere with my criticism of the industry and its influence on
EPA. “Your EPA career is over,” he said.
This economist was
probably right. But I never thought of my employment at EPA as a career. I
simply could not tolerate dishonesty. So my “career” practically ended a few
months after I started.
My colleagues and
I were at the EPA not to protect the profits of the industry at the expense of
our moral and legal obligation to defend human and environmental health. The
most charitable description of my works and days at the EPA was an extended
research fellowship.
Sid Yates: Stop chemical warfare at the farm
I continued my
investigation of alternatives to toxic pesticides. This led me to David
Pimentel, professor of entomology at Cornell. This was a prolific scholar with
extensive knowledge of agriculture, government regulation, including the ecological
costs society and the natural world pay for licensing farmers to spray their
crops – the food we eat -- with a tremendous variety of very toxic chemicals.
In November 1981,
I invited Pimentel to come to EPA and talk to my colleagues. He did. I asked
him to tell us what he would do if he were the EPA administrator. He said two
things could be done that would immediately reduce the threat of pesticides by
at least 50 percent. First, pesticides ought to be given only to farmers who
had a prescription from their county agent detailing precisely why those
chemicals were necessary to treat the farmer’s land. Second, the EPA should ban
toxaphene, a DDT-like chemical that for several decades had left a heavy
footprint of poisoning and death in the natural world.
EPA had taken DDT off the market in 1972 and in one way or another had heavily
restricted some twelve other major pesticides in the first ten years of the
agency’s existence. Now, Pimentel said, the time to ban toxaphene had come.
Like DDT,
toxaphene accumulates at high levels in animals and moves on the back of soil
particles, running water, winds and rain. This means toxaphene was a global
pollutant. In addition, toxaphene caused leukemia and genetic disease. It harms
the nerves and brain of all animals, sterilizing water animals, and having a
multitude of deleterious effects on fish and wildlife.
According to an
EPA report about toxaphene dated December 12, 1980: “There is clear and
compelling evidence that toxaphene is acutely and chronically toxic to a wide
variety of important fish and wildlife species at concentrations to which these
species are likely to be exposed when the pesticide is used in several crops at
historical or legally permitted levels…. Continued toxaphene use fatally
threatens members of endangered species.”
In soil, according
to the EPA regulatory report, toxaphene kills life for several years. In lakes,
it keeps poisoning fish and other water animals from two years to two centuries.
The harm is long-lasting because toxaphene accumulates in the bodies of water
animals at staggering rates. Yearling brook trout, for instance, absorb
toxaphene at 4,000 to 16,000 times the water concentration. Oysters collect
toxaphene at nearly 3,000 times the amount of toxaphene found in the water.
Even with Reagan
in power, the toxaphene fallout overwhelmed the timid scientists of EPA, who in
early 1982 decided to disclose what they knew about toxaphene: that the stuff
was in the water, food, soil, and air of the entire country, and that the fresh
fish and shellfish of entire regions were so contaminated they were unfit for
people to eat.
EPA scientists David
Severn and Joseph Reinert tracked toxaphene in the environment. They talked to BFC,
the chemical company manufacturing toxaphene. They were so disappointed with
BFC’s do nothing recommendations that they decided to act. They sent a note (detailed
memorandum) to their boss, Edwin Johnson, in which they said: BFC’s proposals
about toxaphene “would make no useful contribution to our state of knowledge,”
Severn wrote.
“Our concern about
the environmental transport of toxaphene is dramatically illustrated by the
recently recognized buildup of toxaphene residues in fish in the Great Lakes,
even though little or no toxaphene is used in that region,” Severn continued.
“In fact, recent data from an isolated landlocked lake on Isle Royale, an
island in Lake Superior near the Canadian border whose only known input of
water is from the atmosphere, show 3.2 ppm [parts per million] toxaphene in
adult lake trout. The toxaphene residues in the Great Lakes almost certainly
result from atmospheric transport from the southern states. Toxaphene has been
consistently found in rainwater collected along the eastern seaboard, and at
levels 10–100 times greater than DDT or PCBs [polychlorinated biphenyls].”
(PCBs are DDT-like organochlorine chemicals.)
Severn warned
Johnson that merely tinkering with toxaphene regulation—which BFC urged—would
do nothing to reduce the risk to people and wildlife. “Given the nature of our
concern about its atmospheric dispersal throughout the environment, normal risk
reduction methods would not be effective,” Severn wrote. “Label restrictions
such as requiring application lay-off distances or any type of limiting
monitoring effort could not reduce the levels of environmental exposure for
this pesticide. Environmental exposure can only be reduced effectively by
reducing the amount of toxaphene used.”
Severn and Reinert
were brave, and they were right. They probably suspected nothing would be done.
I talked about
toxaphene with Stanley Weissman, the legal adviser to Edwin Johnson. He agreed
with me that toxaphene had to go. There was no way we could have talked to
Johnson. We knew toxaphene was a political problem that could probably be resolved
only in a political context.
We passed the
information about toxaphene to Illinois Congressman Sid Yates who acted quickly. Yates was the chairman of
the appropriations subcommittee for the Department of the Interior. He was also
well informed about environmental issues. As a Congressman from Chicago, Yates was
concerned about the quality of the water in Lake Michigan. He was also very concerned
about his wife who had cancer. And once he learned that toxaphene was a cancer-causing
chemical raining over Chicago and Lake Michigan, he made up his mind to do
something about it.
In August 11, 1982,
Sid Yates took his anger with him to the floor of the House of Representatives.
He insisted that the time for toxaphene was up. He offered an amendment to ban it
(Congressional Record, August 11, 1982,
p. H5670):
“I am very
emotional about this amendment,” Yates said. “The reason I feel emotional is
that I have just taken my wife home from the National Cancer Institute where
she has been found to have a malignancy. She and I played golf together up to
about three weeks ago. We played on a Sunday afternoon, and the next day she
did not feel well. We went into a doctor’s office, and we found that she had
this condition.”
“How does this
happen?” Yates asked his colleagues in Congress. “How can it happen? Where does
cancer come from? It seems to come out of the blue—but we know better than
that. We are being subjected to so many cancer-producing influences in our
society today—like toxaphene.”
“Toxaphene is used
widely in the South as insecticide sprayed on cotton crops,” Yates said. “That
in itself sounds entirely harmless, but it does not stay in place.” Like DDT,
toxaphene has “a very strong life,” Yates said.
Then he explained
that toxaphene is sprayed on crops in the Southern States, only to be blown by
the winds over a thousand miles north to the city of Chicago and the Great
Lakes. Rains do the rest, bringing the chemical down on the lakes, land, homes,
lawns, and people. He continued:
“In Lake Michigan,
in Lake Superior, whitefish and lake trout have been found to have toxaphene in
quantities, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under official
surveys, of 10 parts per million. The accepted maximum level of FDA for this
kind of a carcinogenic material is 5 parts per million. So that in the fish
that swim in the Great Lakes, a thousand miles away from where this chemical is
used, we find this cancer-producing material in the fish. It is in the food
chain that is being used by people all over the country.
“This is the
reason that I offer this amendment, to stop this chemical warfare. The House
took a position against chemical warfare some time ago. This is a chemical that
can harm men, women, and children.”
Yates’ emotional
appeal was successful. The House banned toxaphene. But the Reagan EPA also rushed to ban most uses of the chemical.
I never thanked
Sid Yates for his courage, but I knew that what Yates did was one of those rare
political moments unlikely to happen again in my lifetime. He was right that
cancer is not a curse of the gods, but a variety of different diseases that are
triggered by toxic substances in the environment, notably those employed in the
chemical warfare of agribusiness. And he correctly characterized the sprays of
the farmers as agents of chemical warfare.
Perpetuating pesticides is a massive crime
I relate the full story
of toxaphene in my book, “Poison Spring.” I mention it here as an unforgettable
example of deep corruption and collusion between the EPA and the industry. Like
the EPA of our times in 2018, the EPA of the 1980s was under bad and corrupt leadership.
The Reagan administration, exactly like the Trump administration, was selling
“deregulation” as a fake panacea for boosting the profits of the industry. But
Reagan and Trump were not the only presidents pushing deregulation. Without
exception, all presidents did to some degree. The industry has money that oils
the machinery of American politics.
I was very close
to the wars fought over public health and the environment – for twenty-seven
years. I tried to make sense of what I saw and did for my own sanity. I kept
reading, researching the literature, talking to my colleagues, talking to
outsiders and, sporadically, teaching at several universities. I even had extensive
conversations with Congressional Democratic staff. These guys took detailed
notes but, in the end, did nothing.
Sid Yates was
alone.
Unfortunately,
things have gotten from bad to worse since 1979. Now we threaten insects and birds as
never before. In fact, biological annihilation of species is the driver of the sixth mass extinction, which is unraveling entire ecosystems – in our tme.
Scientists keep
studying this situation and keep publishing their findings in obscure journals
few people read. We learn, for example, that salmon face “a double whammy” from swimming in storm water runoff of urban
roads. Then another study informs us that the more herbicides farmers
use, the tougher weeds become, resulting in higher control costs and lower crop yields.
The industry,
however, ignores science. Agribusiness in particular does not seem to care about
human health, much less about the extinction of insects and wildlife. It is
acting as if it owns EPA and the rest of the government.
In 2018, we have a
president, Donald Trump, and a Republican Party that are reinstating the gilded
age of plutocracy. That’s their sole mission.
They are also
hell-bend in privatizing the government and wrecking all programs of public
lands and parks and forests. Moreover, Trump appointed Scott Pruitt at EPA. Both Trump and
Pruitt deny climate change, in fact, they deny environmental protection. This
reminds me of the thoughtless and dangerous deregulation policies of the Reagan
administration almost forty years ago.
Making it easier
for polluters to dump their toxic wastes into lakes, rivers, seas and oceans
should be punishable as crimes against humanity and the Earth. Perpetuating the
spaying of our forests, crops and lawns by deleterious chemicals is another
massive crime.
It does not matter
what the experts say about the “safety” of pesticides -- political chemicals of
the highest order. They were born in chemical warfare. They have never been
tested honestly because of the fear tests would reveal their deadly effects. No
government has regulated them with an eye of keeping them out of the air, water
and food. It cannot be done. They are created to kill life in all its forms.
They are biocides. No lobbyist or propaganda can change that chemistry. Our
responsibility is to ban them. Stop chemical warfare. Sid Yates was right.
In addition, in
2018, we know so much more about the bad science and collusion between
government and industry underpinning the infrastructure of pesticides in
America – and the world. In 2017, thousands of digitized government and
industry documents were released and are now available for inspection.
Wake up, America
On February 13, 2018, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse urged his colleagues to wake up. The threat,
he said, is all over the country and its name is the National Association of
Manufacturers representing corporate America. These manufacturers have been on
a war footing against the idea and reality of global warming – exactly like
Trump and Pruitt.
With the National
Association of Manufacturers against climate change, the road to a safer and
healthier future becomes a narrow path. Rejecting climate change means the
rejection of science and science-based decisions and policies. Without science
for the discovery of truth, one person or society falls into falsehoods,
deceptions and, in the end, oppressions, wars and barbarism.
Despite the power
NAM represents, it must be defeated. There’s simply no other choice. The
anti-climate change agenda of NAM, Trump, and Pruitt is a recipe for domestic
and international calamity. Climate to these politicians and corporations is
more than rains, no rains, draught, snow, cold and heat. It is business as
usual: boosting pesticides, industrialized farming, drilling for petroleum, and
more plunder of the natural world. It would also freeze all environmental
improvements: just a straightforward dive into filth, disease and death.
So resist the preaching
on the benefits of another dark age. Eat organic food. Convert your towns to
pesticide-free zones. Learn from those who have done it. For example, the small
Italian town / village of Mals has successfully become a pesticides-free zone.
Organize your
friends for taking the power away from the Republican oligarchs and Trump. And
dream of another EPA: one that would defend and protect human and environmental
health. EPA could be the peacemaker between us and nature.
Comments
Post a Comment