EPA to Place $100 Billion Regulations on Farms for Natural Chemical with No Observable Effect on Human Health

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

by Armstrong Williams (excerpted)

Farmers are practical people. They understand that uncertainty in the capital markets is tied to the economy as a whole. Their concerns about the weather are typically conveyed to a higher power, not Washington bureaucrats. But when a seemingly endless stream of burdensome, costly and scientifically unfounded regulations threatens their livelihood, they expect the government to stop and consider their plight. And when the President visits rural America, as he did this month, and dismisses these concerns out of hand, it sends a clear message to them that now is not the time for new investments in the American farm.

There are regulations being developed by EPA that could quite literally be the economic equivalent of Hurricane Katrina. Take, for example, the EPA’s proposed regulation of the chemical perchlorate. Perchlorate is salt that is manufactured and used primarily by the military and aerospace industry. Perchlorate also happens to occur naturally at low levels. Because it also occurs naturally, it is found in water supplies, soil, agricultural crops, and dairy cattle. It is even found in the fertilizers that farmers use to grow their crops.

Environmentalists, however, have convinced this administration to regulate perchlorate to save us from rocket fuel in our water. The complication is that perchlorate is ubiquitous at low levels in the environment precisely because of its natural occurrence, not man’s activities. These low levels are not harmful at all, which is why, until now, the EPA never deemed it necessary to regulate. Also, unlike many other chemicals, the financial costs and the science associated with this regulation are not hotly disputed.

In 2005, the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences conducted an extensive peer-reviewed examination of the scientific literature associated with perchlorate. Among their conclusions was that there was no observable effect on the human body from the perchlorate levels commonly found in the environment–not that there was no adverse effect, but that there was no observable effect at all. It should go without mentioning that without an observable effect, there can be no adverse effect–the starting point of most regulatory actions.

In 2010, the EPA’s Office of Inspector General conducted a scientific review of the agency’s risk assessment process related to perchlorate. In it, the President’s own Inspector General concluded that the EPA’s proposed regulation provides no meaningful opportunity to protect human health. The inspector general went on to say that:

The potential regulation of perchlorate is a critical environmental decision that has significant social and economic consequences. The regulation of perchlorate could adversely affect $70 billion dollars worth of U.S. agricultural exports…when one considers both the agricultural and environmental clean-up costs, the potential regulation of perchlorate represents at least a $70–110+ billion dollar decision.

Can we afford forcing farmers to bear unnecessary $100 billion dollar regulations at this particular moment? Hurricane Katrina was a $94 billion economic disaster for which no man bears the burden of blame. The EPA’s perchlorate regulation, however, would be a deliberate decision to declare American agricultural products unfit for consumption. Black farmers represent only a small part of the total agricultural economy, but they are by and large far less resilient than their larger commercial counterparts. We know that for every $1 billion in agricultural goods exported, 8,000 jobs are created. The prospect of our products rotting on foreign docks is a real one. For an administration that has made such a point of emphasizing science over politics, given what the science tells us about perchlorate, it hardly seems worth the risk.

http://biggovernment.com/armwilliams/2011/10/10/epa-to-place-100-billion-regulations-on-farms-for-natural-chemical-with-no-observable-effect-on-human-health/#more-347476

[TBoneTX 46,015]

Perhaps we should bring back carbon tetrachloride, si man -- best solvent ever. Maybe it could be used by some brave politician to dissolve the EPA.

[Ban Hammer 13,501]

and the price of food goes up and up and up..thanks, epa!

[The_Dude 1,142]

and the price of food goes up and up and up..thanks, epa!

Misleading title of the article. Perchlorate has been linked to thyroid and cancer at elevated levels. Yes, it does occur naturally in the ground, but it is also used in rocket fuel. I'm not comfortable with it being used in farming where through irrigation can contaminate the ground water and food supply. Sorry, but the EPA is not some gestappo organization, it is protecting your food and water supply, even if you don't give a sh!t about it.

[visapetition 2]

Misleading title of the article. Perchlorate has been linked to thyroid and cancer at elevated levels. Yes, it does occur naturally in the ground, but it is also used in rocket fuel. I'm not comfortable with it being used in farming where through irrigation can contaminate the ground water and food supply. Sorry, but the EPA is not some gestappo organization, it is protecting your food and water supply, even if you don't give a sh!t about it.

Mr. Lebowski?

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

[Misha & Ira 113]

точно (exactly)

[The_Dude 1,142]

So you're cool with commercial farmers and corporations poisoning your water and food because you have an irrational fear of the government?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Misleading title of the article. Perchlorate has been linked to thyroid and cancer at elevated levels. Yes, it does occur naturally in the ground, but it is also used in rocket fuel. I'm not comfortable with it being used in farming where through irrigation can contaminate the ground water and food supply. Sorry, but the EPA is not some gestappo organization, it is protecting your food and water supply, even if you don't give a sh!t about it.

The OP cites a study. What do you base your observations on?

In 2005, the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences conducted an extensive peer-reviewed examination of the scientific literature associated with perchlorate. Among their conclusions was that there was no observable effect on the human body from the perchlorate levels commonly found in the environment–not that there was no adverse effect, but that there was no observable effect at all. It should go without mentioning that without an observable effect, there can be no adverse effect–the starting point of most regulatory actions.

[The_Dude 1,142]

The OP cites a study. What do you base your observations on?

Where do you think Bill? Did a google search. Perchlorate effects the thyroid, more specifically it's ability to to take in iodide, and regulate hormones. In small doses, as what the EPA has set at 2.2 or 2.3 ppb, it will leave the body after a period of time without harm. But if you are using it in commercial farming, the risk of that exposure is greatly increased. While small doses of it are not necessarily harmful, large doses are.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Where do you think Bill? Did a google search. Perchlorate effects the thyroid, more specifically it's ability to to take in iodide, and regulate hormones. In small doses, as what the EPA has set at 2.2 or 2.3 ppb, it will leave the body after a period of time without harm. But if you are using it in commercial farming, the risk of that exposure is greatly increased. While small doses of it are not necessarily harmful, large doses are.

When did farmers begin using rocket fuel as fertilizer?

Study in Chile Confirms NAS Findings

This study confirms the National Academy of Sciences perchlorate committee findings "that an RfD of 0.0007 mg/kg per day should protect the health of even the most sensitive populations." (0.0007 mg/kg per day is roughly 24.5 ppb).

According to the U.S. FDA, perchlorate-induced changes in thyroid function have not demonstrated in studies of humans exposed to perchlorate even at doses as high as 500 micrograms (0.5 milligrams) per kilogram body weight per day.

Edited October 11, 2011 by Crusty Old Perv

[Misha & Ira 113]

Oxygen is also used as rocket fuel.....it is highly flammable and corrosive....should we maybe ban that too?

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

So you're cool with commercial farmers and corporations poisoning your water and food because you have an irrational fear of the government?

Let me guess...your from Southern California.