Eleven states petitioned the EPA to set a rule to stop states (looking at you, California) from slapping on chemical warning labels that don’t match up with the agency’s potential hazard findings.
California’s claim: California has sights set on adding warning labels to glyphosate-based products. According to the state, the ingredient is known to cause cancer. But the EPA and other worldwide regulators have granted it regulatory approval.
EPA’s stomping grounds: The EPA is the regulatory body for chemicals, and sets the requirements for labels that include usage instructions and precautions. The petitioning states’ Attorneys General worry that if the Golden State is allowed to go rogue, then national regulations could be driven by states, rather than the federal government.
Soundbite: “There’s no way that a state like California should tell a farmer in Nebraska or Iowa how to farm.” — Brenna Bird, Iowa Attorney General
Pesticide petition: The states’ petition notes that any state can restrict a pesticide’s use or sale. But they note that packaging or labeling requirements can’t go beyond those set in place by the EPA’s Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act.
Short Corn Packs a Punch
Dynamite comes in small packages—which can be true with new seed technology. What’s...
Congress to EPA: What’s Your BEEF with Meat Packers?
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is considering new regulations that take aim at meat and poultry processors.
And some members of Congress have a BEEF with the EPA’s proposals.
The proposed rules: In late January, the EPA released the details of its proposed “Clean Water Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Meat and Poultry Products Point source category.”
Huh?
Basically, the EPA formally published its proposals to combat wastewater contaminants that come from slaughterhouses.
Okay… that makes more sense.
At the heart of the rules proposal is a concern from environmental groups about nitrogen and phosphorus pollutants that originate from slaughterhouses. In some cases, the wastewater goes directly into waterways. In other cases, the water goes to municipal wastewater treatment facilities.
But not everyone is on board with the EPA’s suggestions…
Congress responds: Last week, two U.S. representatives—Eric Burlison (MO) and Ron Estes (KS)—pushed back against the EPA and introduced the “Banning EPA’s Encroachment of Facilities (BEEF) Act.” If passed and signed by President Biden, the law would prohibit the EPA from finalizing, implementing, or enforcing the rule.
According to the lawmakers, the proposed rules place undue burden on small processors—costs that can be absorbed by larger companies.
Soundbite: “The… proposed regulation isn’t just an attack on family-run small businesses, it’s an attack on rural communities,” said Burlison. “These meat and poultry processors are the lifeblood of our communities. The BEEF Act… lets these hardworking Americans do what they do best, produce safe, affordable food for our families.”
University of Illinois Makes Big Mooves in Milk Production
Pump it up: Scientists led by Matt Wheeler at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign are...