Win! EPA Denies Farmers’ Request to Use Dangerous Herbicide

| Naturalsociety | 29th July 2014

rejected cottonNatural Society reported just weeks ago that Texas farmers wanted to pour an unlicensed herbicide all over 3 million acres of genetically modified cotton in an ‘emergency’ attempt to stop the forward advance of superweeds taking over the farmer’s fields. In a surprising turn of events, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has denied an emergency request to use toxic propazine to kill the resistant superweeds, for once supporting sustainable farming practices, and not biotech genocide.

GM manufacturers clearly promote the use of their products, but they are increasingly finding it difficult to continue lying to farmers and consumers about the efficacy of their toxic chemicals and GM seed. Farmers around the world have already been warned that the GM-biotech model was causing superweeds – this news has been around for years – so there is no way that an ‘emergency’ situation to use yet another poison should be allowed.


It is indeed a pleasant surprise that the EPA refused the emergency request from the Texas Department of Agriculture to use propazine – since it is possibly even more toxic than glyphosate.

Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides stated:

“This is not an emergency because the weed resistance is predictable since it has been known for many years that GMO cotton sprayed with glyphosate would create resistant superweeds. . .It is an abuse of the law to prop up failed GMO cropping systems with toxic chemicals when viable alternatives, like organic growing methods, exist.”

The EPA was urged by public health advocates, environmental groups, and organic farmers alike to deny this ‘emergency’ request. GMO cotton grows all over the huge state of Texas. If they had been allowed to use yet another toxic herbicide, it could have dramatically affected organic farms nearby, destabilized the water and soil, and caused a general mess of the already ailing agricultural system in the state.

Jack Housenger, EPA director of the office of pesticide programs, wrote in the agency’s response to the request, according to the Wall Street Journal:

“Based on an assessment consistent with EPA’s legal responsibilities, drinking water estimates suggest that risks from drinking water alone may lead to unacceptable risks in some cases.”

The EPA still made the decision to refuse the request even though it met urgent and non-routine emergency criteria. Groups like Beyond Pesticides and thousands of organic farmers are taking a huge sigh of relief knowing that GM cotton farmers won’t get to spray more toxic chemicals indiscriminately.

“While we disagree with the EPA that this meets any of the criteria for emergency exemption, we applaud the EPA for putting the health of people and the environment first and upholding the health and environmental standards under the law,” Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides, said in a statement.

Texas Department of Agriculture officials lamented the news of not being able to tell farmers they could use carcinogenic propazine, but perhaps they should be looking into more sustainable farming practices. Multiple universities in Texas and elsewhere have plans for better farming in the state – perhaps they should listen.

More from Naturalsociety


Tags: , , , , , , ,

Subscribe

If you enjoyed this article, subscribe now to receive more just like it.

Subscribe via RSS Feed Connect on YouTube

New Title

NOTE: Email is optional. Do NOT enter it if you do NOT want it displayed.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

FAIR USE NOTICE. Many of the articles on this site contain copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making this material available in an effort to advance the understanding of environmental issues, human rights, economic and political democracy, and issues of social justice. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in Section 107 of the US Copyright Law which contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. If you wish to use such copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use'...you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. And, if you are a copyright owner who wishes to have your content removed, let us know via the "Contact Us" link at the top of the site, and we will promptly remove it.

The information on this site is provided for educational and entertainment purposes only. It is not intended as a substitute for professional advice of any kind. Conscious Life News assumes no responsibility for the use or misuse of this material. Your use of this website indicates your agreement to these terms.

Paid advertising on Conscious Life News may not represent the views and opinions of this website and its contributors. No endorsement of products and services advertised is either expressed or implied.
Top
Send this to a friend