BEE-L Archives

Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology

BEE-L@COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Charles Linder <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 24 Sep 2015 11:33:23 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (47 lines)
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."

That statement is the key,  modified circumstances.   Well within its
authority to do so.   Per its own guidelines.

You obviously have never worked on a large product with a group.  Anytime
there are several people involved,  there is always at least one naysayer/
disagreeing person.   You see them on the news all the time.  From 911 guys
who saw it coming,  to your other half saying  "I told you so"

Tort reform,  may or may not have changed this.   I believe the suit would
have never been brought,  why?  Simple argument.  No one here EXCEPT the
lawyers won.  Not monetary damages,  no real change in the rules.  Just as I
see it,  one pesticide removed.  So what was the point of the suit?  Really?
In my opinion,  most of these are nothing but test cases.  Lawyers trying to
find a back door.  There is always someone without the sane argument to make
it in the front,  trying to sneak in the back.   If the cost of these test
cases was actually born by someone other than taxpayers,  most of them would
drop away.  I seriously doubt many Law firms would have taken this case as a
pro bono,  and the group that brought it would have thought twice if there
were consequences.

Some have argued  this stops the poor from justice,  not true at all.  Look
at Erin Brockovich (just a high profile case of little against big)  If you
can convince your attorney that it's a real case,  with a good chance,  they
take them on contingency.


In this case as already mentioned,  a great many bright minds disagree,
from the bringing of the case to begin with,  to the outcome of what I would
refer to as another case of judicial overreach.   That's the ability to have
polite,  but impassioned discourse.  In this case everyone but the lawyers
lost,  as you pointed out,  sufluxor is off the grid,  Remaining stocks to
be misused with no repercussions, and taxpayers footing the legal bill.  One
could argue the  EPA has been put on notice,  but we all know that's
nonsense.


Charles

             ***********************************************
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

ATOM RSS1 RSS2