As noted by the former WaPo reporter, Ed Bruske, the USDA is no longer keeping track of pesticide use. Formerly, the USDA published an annual report a chemical usage in agriculture. It was the only comprehensive, reliable source of information regarding national agricultural use of pesticides. Bruske elaborates on his blog, The Slow Cook:
...Now it emerges that the Bushites also plan to discontinue the federal government's database on agricultural pesticide use.
Anyone--scientists, researchers, public interest groups--wanting to know how much of a certain pesticide is being spewed into the atmosphere could in the past turn to the annual Agriculture Chemical Research Reports. The reports, while hardly the stuff of headline news, have helped show that genetically modified crops that are supposed to help farmers achieve weed-free croplands have actually spawned new types of herbicide-resistant weeds, resulting in more and more chemicals being sprayed onto the land
I suspect that many of these chemicals are fairly innocuous, and that for others, the benefits outweigh the risks. Bu there is no way to know that, without data.
Elanor, writing at The Ethicurean, has more:
Last year, ostensibly because of budget cuts, the USDA scaled back the surveys to cover only a few crops. Then early this year, in a cryptic notice published deep in the Federal Register, the agency announced that all chemical-use surveys would be suspended until at least 2010. In other words, the government will no longer be keeping track of what kinds of pesticides are used on U.S. crops, nor how much.
Elanor (it really is spelled like that) also links to a very informative letter signed by an ad-hoc collective of environmental advocates. The letter is posted by the Natural Resources Defense Council; they have a lot more here, which you can read if you don't mind getting depressed for the rest of the day.
Knowledge is power; if the people have no knowledge, then they don't have any power. The elitists in the White House think that they are the ones who should make all the decisions. By keeping everyone in the dark, they ensure that there won't be another center of power coalescing to challenge them.
What worries me here? Even more than the potential hazards from pesticides, I'm concerned about how easily the Administration gets away with this.
I suppose that one could see the counter-argument. Access to this information will only empower perky tree-huggers and even peskier trial lawyers, and annoying ivory-tower types, such as epidemiologists and occupational health folks. They'll get their hands on the information and engage in all kinds of anti-growth, anti-business activities.
Libertarian-type folks might think it makes sense for the government to stop enabling this kind of activism, since activists really ought to just mind their own business.
But the issue is far larger than that. Secrecy is a way for the government to have more power. Selective secrecy is a way for the government to empower some, while disempowering others. Or, for those who are able to sway government, to empower themselves at the expense of others. It is hard to imagine that anyone really thinks that this is a good idea.
Environment
Comments
Hm. Do you think the association with Parkinson's has scared the manufacturers enough that they want all the information suppressed? Or is there some other connection that's gotten them scared about public health?
This was a very early study (2001); anyone interested should search generally with Google Scholar, read the actual work, read the footnotes, and follow the "cited by" and "related" links forward in time.
It popped up as interesting on a quick search:
Combination of Two Widely Used Pesticides Linked to Parkinson's ...
A combination of two widely used agricultural pesticides - but neither one alone - creates in mice the exact pattern of brain damage that doctors see ...
http://www.urmc.rochester.edu/pr/news/archive/park.html
Posted by: Hank Roberts | May 26, 2008 10:06 AM
The sick-fuck Bush regime is intentionally destroying the federal bureaucracy. Huge numbers of competent experts have been shitcanned, and replaced by ignorant fucking douchehounds trained at wackaloon right-wing theocratic brainwashing facilities like “Regent University” and “Liberty University”.
All the experts who knew how to get shit done, to obey the Constitution, Federal laws, and Federal regulations while doing things like protecting us from crime, dangerous food, dangerous products, keeping us from being blown to smithereens by terrorists, keeping us healthy, safe, and prosperous, have been eliminated. They have been replaced by people who can’t even tie their own motherfucking shoes, but who have drank the “government can’t do shit” right-wing sick-fuck Kool-Aid, and are deadset on proving it!
http://physioprof.wordpress.com/2008/03/16/more-important-shit-the-bush-regime-has-totally-fucked-all-to-hell
Posted by: PhysioProf | May 26, 2008 11:43 AM
And we wonder why cancer has just surpassed heart disease as the main killer of people in their 40s and 50s. This is criminal. I planted a bigger garden this year to make organic produce more affordable.
Posted by: betsy | May 26, 2008 1:49 PM
Pollution is great! It is the symbol of progress! It shows that America rules the world. Pollution allows companies to maximize profit without regard to pesky, useelss, needless costs like safety, and (god, need I say it - eyes roll-) the frickin' environment!
Hey you Gumby-loving, birkenstock wearing, granola eating vegan hippies, pollution is here to stay! Itr's good for you! Learn to love it! Roll in it! Breathe it! Eat it!
YES, Big Brother says: "Learn to LOVE pollution, just as you love Me."
Posted by: yogi-one | May 27, 2008 5:22 AM