House Plan Would Gut States' Powers To Limit Pesticides, Toxins - SF Chron

[hatrack]

07-13) 04:00 PDT Washington -- House Republicans are pushing new legislation that could wipe out the ability of California and other states to ban or strictly limit the use of pesticides and toxic industrial chemicals that can jeopardize human health. The measure, approved by a House committee Wednesday on a mostly party line vote, is the latest effort by the Republican-led Congress to block states from enacting environmental, public health or consumer protections that are more stringent than federal standards.

The bill could override a new California law to ban the use of brominated fire retardants, which are believed to have some of the same neurotoxic effects as PCBs and have been found in high concentrations in fish in the San Francisco Bay. The measure could also thwart new restrictions passed last month by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors to restrict the use of certain chemicals in plastic baby bottles, pacifiers and toys, after studies showed they could pose a health risk.

California officials say the bill is part of a broader push by Republicans to aid their allies in industry with weaker national standards on issues from food labeling to fuel efficiency to consumer financial privacy -- although some of the efforts have been blocked in the Senate.

EDIT

The legislation would require the Environmental Protection Agency to use a cost-benefit standard when determining whether to ban chemicals in pesticides or industrial products. Critics claim the provision could delay the phasing out of toxins by forcing the agency to conduct economic analysis on whether new regulations are too onerous on the industry. "These new criteria will expand the number of analyses required, delay regulatory action and provide many new opportunities to judicially challenge any EPA regulation of a future listed (toxic) chemical," said Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., the ranking member on the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

EDIT

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/07/13/MNG20JU7DK1.DTL

[rwenos]

1. There are None So Blind . . .

"The legislation would require the Environmental Protection Agency to use a cost-benefit standard"when determining whether to ban chemicals in pesticides or industrial products"

I cannot imagine a more-efficient way to deregulate the use of toxic pesticides and industrial chemicals. The Republicans so clearly hold two oppposing thoughts in their heads. (It's the same as their take on tort reform.) They profess belief in "states' rights," and the several States' inherent power to regulate under a general police power -- i.e., matters of "health, safety, welfare and morals."

Yet, once they have their hands on the federal government, they try every way they can to pre-empt state safety regulations, state tort law, state environmental regulations, and even state medicinal drug laws.

Yet when one points this contradiction out, one is accused of "supporting the terrorists," or some similar change in subject.

Simple logic this is not.

[Dover]

2. Wonder how much Monsanto, Dow and others paid for this one?

[redqueen]

3. so in the debate over whether health is more important than money

money wins.

of course. how could i be so stupid as to think that anything could possibly be more important than money?

can someone do a CBA on corporatists and their effect on the planet? i'm betting that their existence doesn't benefit the wealth/well-being of the commons one whit. not one whit.

[no_hypocrisy]

4. It's like DeLay never left . . . n/t

[ramapo]

5. So much for States' rights

Funny how the Republicans' allegiance to certain 'core' values flip-flop depending upon the issue.