> This [suing the EPA] is like suing the police for enforcing a traffic
rule.  

This is an unfair and completely inaccurate characterization.
The conclusions made by the EPA about a specific chemical were challenged,
by the only process available. First in the EPA's own administrative
process, and then by challenging the EPA decision in federal district court.
In doing this, the rules for challenging the EPA's approval of the use of
the chemical were strictly followed.

> If you don't like the rule,  then okay,  but these 
> lawsuits are chasing the enforcers.

Again, an unfair characterization. The enforcers were not sued for enforcing
the law, the enforcers were sued for NOT enforcing the law, and NOT
following the rules on the books.

> Simple tort reform

This phrase seems to indicate that neither the complaint nor the ruling have
been read, nor any of the press coverage.  This suit was not a "tort" at
all, and no possible "tort reform" would have changed this lawsuit at all.

Quoting the court's ruling:
"After the EPA announced its final decision to unconditionally register
sulfoxaflor, petitioners filed a petition for review with this court,
claiming that the EPA's decision was not supported by substantial evidence
in the record as a whole."

http://earthjustice.org/sites/default/files/files/sulfoxaflor-opinion.pdf
or
http://tinyurl.com/qxeagx7

> Suing the EPA  is Asinine.

No, challenging the decision is the CORRECT AND PROPER approach, as there is
no need for new regulations, there is only a need to insist that the EPA
follow the existing regulations already in place.  

This is what the court ruled (see link above):

"Because of the gaps in data, the EPA declined to give unconditional
approval to sulfoxaflor. It proposed instead to conditionally register
sulfoxaflor while it collected additional data."

" III. The Final Unconditional Registration
Although the EPA announced its decision to propose conditional registration
of sulfoxaflor in January 2013, pending receipt of additional data, less
than seven months later, on May 6, the EPA decided, to "unconditionally"
register sulfoxaflor. It did so even though the record reveals that Dow
never completed the requested additional studies. The EPA acknowledged the
insufficiency of the data to support unconditional registration at the
maximum rate Dow had sought, but gave its approval to usage under modified
circumstances."

"...After the EPA announced its final decision to unconditionally register
sulfoxaflor, petitioners filed a petition for review with this court,
claiming that the EPA's decision was not supported by substantial evidence
in the record as a whole."

So, what happened here?  The EPA went ahead without the "additional data",
and just pulled some "modified usage wording" out of some damp, dark orifice
to address what they DIDN'T know about bee toxicity.  But if they don't know
something, how can they know that their "modifications" will be sufficient
protection for bees?  

Clearly, the proper course would have been to issue a conditional
registration, or to refuse registration without the additional data demanded
in January 2013.

So, the EPA was sued for not even following its own rules and overtly-stated
requirements by not holding Dow Chemical to the standards the EPA itself
imposed in Jan 2013.

Why would anyone defend the EPA's actions here, given that they reversed
themselves after demanding additional data?  Who lobbied who to get this
inexplicable reversal and clear contravention of stated policy?

Earlier, Randy claimed that lawsuits pulled money away from "EPA Scientists"
and their work.  The lawsuit was necessary to merely get EPA to heed the
technical advice of those same "EPA Scientists"!

The EPA scientists in this case were clearly overruled by some Dilbertesque
"pointy-headed-boss" administrator or another.  In time, we will know who it
was, we only need to wait a bit and see who leaves the EPA for a much better
paying job with Dow Chemical.

Really, you guys need to read the material before presuming to wax
philosophical on the case. 

On DDT, allow me to offer some first-hand perspective.  I visit African
often. The Joanne and Jim Fischer World Domination Fund finances projects in
Africa, and I still "manage by wandering around".  Some African countries
still want to use DDT, even over the objections of (western) donor nations
who are partly funding the malaria fight.  That said, a recent Thai study
says the cost per malaria case prevented of DDT spraying of $1.87 vs $1.54
for lambda-cyhalothrin-treated bed nets. DDT is NOT the most cost-effective
approach in all cases. Mexico finds it 25% cheaper to spray synthetic
pyrethroids than DDT, and they get the same effectiveness.

In areas where DDT is used, it is used heavily, and there are grave concerns
about human health risks from such high levels.  But malaria is the bigger
threat, by a long shot.  If a local health minister wants to use DDT, it is
because it provides a well-known level of protection.

But you have to be willing to go to the hinterlands to see and understand
the constraints of doing anything in Africa.  Water is so scarce is Sudan,
that mud structures and roofs are no longer practical, as the water required
to make mud would have to be trucked in, and that's too expensive.  Yep,
they can't even afford mud.  That's poverty.

             ***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software.  For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html