But Dow Chemical is being allowed to do both, as it puts pressure on farmers to continue using a pesticide that scientists and researchers have tied to childhood ADHD and autism.

As reported by The Intercept, no comprehensive studies were done prior to 2014 into the link between autism and the chemical chlorpyrifos, which Dow manufactures as one of its principle pesticide ingredients.

The CHARGE study, conducted by the University of California-Davis, examined the environmental causes of autism and developmental delay. It found that nearby applications of agricultural pesticides dramatically boost the risk of autism.

Researchers found that mothers who lived less than a mile from fields being sprayed with chlorpyrifos during their second trimester of pregnancy increased their chances of having their child develop autism more than threefold.

Since then, dozens of other studies have linked even small amounts of fetal exposure to the chemical with other neurodevelopmental problems, including ADHD, lower IQ and intelligence, and difficulties in learning.

Finally, in November, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency issued a groundbreaking report that made clear the serious health dangers posed by chlorpyrifos. The report, titled, Chlorpyrifos Revised Human Health Risk Assessment, detailed evidence that the pesticide produces intelligence deficits as well as motor, attention and memory problems in children. The report states that children under the age of 2 risk exposure to the chemical just in their food alone, at levels that are 14,000 percent higher than the level the EPA now considers to be safe. (RELATED: What else is the EPA up to? Stay informed at EPAWatch.org)

Dow, which still makes most of the products that contain chlorpyrifos, has consistently disputed the steadily mounting evidence that its bread-and-butter chemical harms kids. However, the government report makes it clear that the EPA now believes and accepts scientific research conducted independently that the chemical which is used to grow so much of our food is dangerous.

A pre-publication copy of the report, The Intercept noted, said that “residues of chlorpyrifos on most individual food crops exceed the ‘reasonable certainty of no harm’ safety standard under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act.” In layman’s terms, that simply means that any particular sample of food may contain unacceptably high levels of chlorpyrifos.

But that’s not all. Officials believe that drinking water and non-drinking water exposures to chlorpyrifos also exceed what is safe. So the only remaining reasonable step is to ban the chemical altogether.

Advocates for public health have been pressuring the EPA to ban the pesticide for a number of years. Also, The Intercept reported, four months prior to the release of the report, 47 scientists and doctors who have expertise in childhood neurological development, to include the director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, warned that toxic chemicals in the environment are boosting children’s risk of developing cognitive, behavioral and social disorders, as well as contributing to the rise of ADHD and instances of autism.

Called the TENDR statement, it included a list of the most dangerous neurotoxins, and was akin to a plea for immediate action from government regulators to take them off the market. Organophosphate pesticides, the group to which chlorpyrifos belongs, sat atop the list.

However, when the EPA’s report was published indicating that the agency appeared ready to finally take action against chlorpyrifos, there was not much joy among scientists and environmental activists because, just a few days earlier, GOP nominee Donald J. Trump was elected president.

The fear among scientists is that Trump will ignore the rule or try to change it. His inauguration Jan. 20 was three days after the mandatory 60-day commentary period for the rule/ban ended. The final rule would then take effect March 31. (RELATED: What’s the latest on the science front? Find out at Scientific.news)

Trump has not indicated that he would block this ban, and The Intercept offered no evidence that it would happen. The fear revolves around Trump’s pledge to cut red tape and bureaucracy. However, if there is solid evidence that this chemical is harming children and causing autism, Trump may prove to be the environmentalists’ best friend on this one, given his belief that too many vaccines, too quickly, can lead to autism.

J.D. Heyes is a senior writer for Natural News and News Target, as well as editor of The National Sentinel.

Sources:

TheIntercept.com

BeInCharge.UCDavis.edu

Science.NaturalNews.com

A research team from King’s College London have uncovered a grim truth about the ever-popular Roundup herbicide: it causes non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD).

What is NAFLD?

The liver, as you may know, is the second largest organ in the body. It performs a variety of important bodily functions, including removing harmful substances from your blood. It is normal for the liver to contain some fat cells, but when more than 5 to 10 percent of the organ’s mass is made up of fat, it is diagnosed as a fatty liver.

Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease refers to an overabundance of fat cells that have accumulated in the liver, due to causes not related to alcohol. NAFLD most commonly develops in people who are overweight or obese, diabetic, or have poor blood lipid profiles. Poor eating habits and abrupt weight loss can also contribute to the disease. It has been seen in people who do not meet any of these risk factors, like marathon runner Nick Giordano.

NAFLD may lead to inflammation of the liver, tissue scarring that contributes to the onset of cirrhosis, and may also lead to liver cancer or liver failure.

Glyphosate causes NAFLD

To conduct their two-year study, the research team from London exposed rats to levels of glyphosate on par with doses that are currently approved by regulators. Their results were the first to show a direct causal link between glyphosate consumption at an extremely low dose and the onset of a disease. (Keep up with the latest headlines about Roundup at Glyphosate.news)

In their conclusion, the study authors,  who were led by Dr. Michael Antoniou, declared, “Overall, metabolome and proteome disturbances showed a substantial overlap with biomarkers of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease and its progression to steatohepatosis and thus confirm liver functional dysfunction resulting from chronic ultra-low dose glyphosate-based herbicide (GBH) exposure.”

Toxicity studies in rats are generally accepted by regulators as good indicators of what ill effects a substance may have on human health — so it is clear that this study demonstrates the very real threat that glyphosate poses for humans. (RELATED: See more news about chemical pesticides at Pesticides.news)

Roundup is presently the most ubiquitous herbicide used across the country; it has permeated our food supply indefinitely. Traces of this toxic substance have even been been found in rainwater and air samples. It’s in our food, our tap water, and glyphosate residues have even been seen in breast milk and baby food.  The FDA has admitted to finding shocking amounts of glyphosate in popular foods. (Related: Learn more about contaminates in our food and water here.

“New testing conducted by an FDA-registered food safety lab found alarming levels of the chemical glyphosate (known as Monsanto’s Roundup weed-killer) in several very common foods. This independent research reveals that many popular foods have over 1000 times the glyphosate levels that have been established to be harmful,” reports the Waking Times. (Related: Stay current on FDA issues, policies and research at FDA.news)

And yet, this study shows that doses of glyphosate that are far below the currently approved amount here in the United States can cause NAFLD. The researchers exposed the rats to amounts of glyphosate equivalent to 4 nanograms per kilogram of body weight per day — an amount well below the EU’s mandated 0.3mg per kilogram of body weight per day — and it still caused major health problems. Imagine what kind of damage the US’s allotted 1.75 mg per kilogram of body weight can do!

The research team noted, “The results showed that Roundup caused an increased incidence in signs of anatomical pathologies, as well as changes in urine and blood biochemical parameters suggestive of liver and kidney functional insufficiency.”

Dr. Antoniou added, “Our results also suggest that regulators should reconsider the safety evaluation of glyphosate-based herbicides.”

Sources:

WakingTimes.com

Nature.com

LiverFoundation.org

The EPA, which was essentially weaponized against American businesses, corporations and industries during the Obama administration, has been handed orders by President Donald J. Trump to stop using social media and to end any attempts to sign new contracts.

As reported by Zero Hedge, the administration placed a media blackout on the agency, prohibiting the use of social media or having any contact with the media. Presumably, this means that any EPA official who leaks information to the media – which you know is going to happen – will run foul of the new order. It’s not clear what will happen to violators if they are identified.

Emails that agency chiefs sent to staff since Trump’s inauguration on Friday, which were reviewed by The Associated Press, provided details on specific behaviors that are no longer allowed: The issuing of press releases, blog updates and posts to the EPA’s social media accounts.

On Monday, meanwhile, The Hill, citing multiple reports, said the agency’s grants have been frozen, with agency employees barred even from discussing the matter (which means that the order has already been violated).

The grants fund a number of things including clean-up of toxic sites, the monitoring of air quality, water testing and other functions of the agency that are generally too few and far between to really be of much value. Even when the EPA knew about poor water quality, as was the case in Flint, Michigan, recently, it did nothing to intervene, claiming that the state agency should have done so.

Myron Ebell, who was in charge of the EPA transition for Trump, confirmed the “basics of the freeze” to Pro Publica Monday evening.

“They’re trying to freeze things to make sure nothing happens they don’t want to have happen, so any regulations going forward, contracts, grants, hires, they want to make sure to look at them first,” Ebell said.

It is not clear whether the freeze is indefinite or if it is only a temporary way to sort of slow things down at the agency until Scott Pruitt, Trump’s nominee to run the EPA, is confirmed by the Senate – a process which is taking far longer, thanks to Democratic delays, than it did for President Obama in 2009.

Ebell said that while the current order may be “a little wider” than previous ones, earlier administrations have issued similar instructions.

“Right now we are in a holding pattern. The new EPA administration has asked that all contract and grant awards be temporarily suspended, effective immediately. Until we receive further clarification, this includes task orders and work assignments,” one EPA contracting officer wrote in a message to a storm water management employee, Pro Publica reported.

Whatever the scope of the order, it is consistent with other executive actions that Trump has taken since he was sworn in. He’s also implemented a federal hiring freeze, and has instructed agencies tied to Obamacare to grant wide and generous waivers.

Also, Trump has silenced the EPA’s bogus proclamations on the climate change hoax. The agency was one of the primary tools used by Obama to push through a radical Left-wing environmental agenda that had nothing to do with sound “settled” science, but was really aimed at stifling American businesses and destroying jobs. (RELATED: What has Trump done to dismantle the bureaucracy today? Find out at BigGovernment.news)

“The EPA has been a constant purveyor of quack science propaganda pretending to be rooted in facts. It’s not only a great idea to muzzle this out-of-control corrupt agency; I think it’s time America shuttered the entire EPA and sent its employees packing,” said Natural News founder/editor Mike Adams, the Health Ranger. “The EPA has done absolutely nothing to protect the American people in recent memory, and exists solely to serve the interests of corporate chemical pushers (such as pesticide companies), while pushing Al Gore’s wholly discredited climate change bunk.”

Follow more news about the EPA’s fake science at FakeScience.news.

J.D. Heyes is a senior writer for Natural News and News Target, as well as editor of The National Sentinel.

Sources:

ZeroHedge.com

NaturalNews.com

ProPublica.org

As of right now, the non-profit Consumer Wellness Center (ConsumerWellness.org) will sponsor the lab testing costs of Native American water samples to be tested at CWC Labs, where I serve as the lab science director. CWC Labs is an internationally accredited (ISO 17025) laboratory specializing in forensic analysis of food, water and environmental samples, and it will offer testing to the CWC using “at cost” pricing so there is zero profit earned in the testing services. As the lab science director at CWC Labs, I oversee mass spec analysis, liquid chromatography, time-of-flight and other instrumentation that can accurately detect and quantify heavy metals, pesticides and even fracking chemicals.

Until the era of oil is over, we have to monitor our lands and water supplies for possible contamination using the best tools of modern science

As a Native American myself, I share the concern about the contamination of land and water by oil pipelines. At the same time, I recognize the importance of energy independence for America as a crucial strategic resource. The unavoidable truth is that America’s economy still largely runs on oil, and the more oil we can acquire in North America, the less oil we have to purchase from foreign nations that abuse human rights, abuse women, abuse gays and are run by dictatorial tyrants. (Saudi Arabia, anyone?)

In terms of aggregate impact on human rights, the environment and military expenditures, any oil we can acquire in North America is far less costly than oil from the Middle East.

That means until we can develop the vastly improved energy storage technology to move beyond oil, we need to rely on the “least offensive” transport method available… and that happens to be pipelines, which are significantly safer than transporting oil by rail. Yet we must also hold the pipeline companies accountable by monitoring the quality of the water and land that might be impacted by pipeline leaks.

Since the completely useless EPA has no interest in protecting America’s environment — it’s a useless agency that should be gutted and closed — the job of real environmental protection falls to concerned citizens like you and I. That’s why I’m stepping forward with the promise of using good, solid science to monitor the water quality of Native American communities.

Help support our science donations by purchasing CHIEF Organics

Funds for the testing of Native American water supplies come from a portion of sales of our new CHIEF Organics product line. The entire product line, which currently features lab-tested ultra-clean whey protein and premium-grade magnesium products, raises money for the environmental testing of Native American lands and water sources. If you’d like to help support our mission of offering free lab testing to Native American communities, you can purchase CHIEF Organics products at the Health Ranger Store.

Importantly, note that we do not use taxpayer funds to conduct science in the public interest. Nor do we wish to receive any taxpayer funds. In truth — and this is a huge topic deserving another story altogether — every time Big Government gets involved in “science,” it ends up producing FAKE SCIENCE for political purposes, not genuine science based in truth. We cannot trust the government to produce any legitimate science. The EPA, FDA, CDC, USDA and other agencies exists as nothing more than front groups for corporate interests.

If you represent a Native American community and would like us to start testing your water, contact us via CWCLabs.com and we’ll give you instructions on how to submit samples.

Click here to listen to my full podcast at the Health Ranger Report website, or listen below.

In a meeting with business leaders in the White House on Monday, Trump’s first official full-day in office, the billionaire real estate mogul-turned politician said he thinks it is possible to cut three-quarters of all federal regulations, and “maybe more”—while still ensuring that Americans are safe and protected.

Seated with 10 executives from various industries and corporations, Trump was repeating a campaign pledge to roll back corporate mandates and rules that cost the economy trillions of dollars per year and an incalculable number of jobs and opportunities.

“We’re going to be cutting regulation massively,” Trump told reporters, while pledging to be “just as protective of the people.” Included in the meeting with CEOs were Elon Musk, head of Tesla Motors, and Kevin Plank, chief of Under Armor. (RELATED: Stay current with all of the Trump administration’s latest executive actions at Whitehouse.news)

Democrats and the angry Left they represent have been irrationally opposed to any of Trump’s plans to roll back the massive number of regulations on the books—so many and so complex that corporations have to hire teams of lawyers and experts to decipher them and ensure that their companies are not running afoul of some federal agency.

In a wide-ranging statement issued on Monday, the president also repeated a campaign promise to cut taxes on businesses by reducing corporate rates from some of the highest in the industrialized world—35 percent—to a more competitive 15-20 percent. He also said he wants to reward companies that make their products in the United States and impose a border levy on products that U.S. companies manufacture abroad.

As he said on the campaign trail, Trump reiterated his intention to push for U.S.-based manufacturing while renegotiating trade deals like the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), while adding that he is not against “free trade.” Also on Monday, Trump signed an executive action pulling the U.S. out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a multi-national trade agreement he heavily criticized as more of the same kind of globalism that has disadvantaged U.S. companies and off-shored American jobs.

“What we want to do is bring manufacturing back to our country,” said Trump. “That doesn’t mean we don’t trade because we do trade. We want to make our products here.”

Following the meeting, Dow Chemical CEO Andrew Liveris told reporters that the executives will return in 30 days with suggestions about how to boost American manufacturing. But so far, Trump’s already scored some wins for Americans hoping to keep their jobs. As reported by CNBC:

Trump’s administration has already negotiated a deal with United Technologies for its Carrier unit to keep some jobs in Indiana rather than move them to Mexico, in exchange for $7 million in incentives over several years. Still, the company plans to shut down another Indiana facility and move hundreds of jobs to Mexico.

As reported by BigGovernment.news following the Nov. 8 elections, Americans voted for Trump’s agenda to roll back government and bolster American jobs and manufacturing.

“Americans rejected Obamacare. They rejected Left-wing radicalism in the federal courts. They rejected higher costs for business. They rejected job-killing regulations that targeted entire industries. They rejected the one-size-fits-all approach of an overreaching federal bureaucracy,” the site reported. (RELATED: The Trump administration is putting liberty back in style, as noted at Freedom.news)

It’s obvious the companies that have decided to keep jobs and operations in the U.S. that they had previously planned to move off-shore believe that Trump, a billionaire businessman himself, and the GOP-controlled Congress will deliver on the kinds of regulatory relief most of them have long sought.

What’s also obvious is that a majority of Americans in a majority of states also believe that Trump was the best candidate—and Republicans the best party—to provide them with better opportunities in the years ahead.

J.D. Heyes is a senior writer for Natural News and News Target, as well as editor of The National Sentinel.

Sources:

BigGovernment.news

NewsTarget.com

CNBC.com

On January 12, the EPA admitted for the first time that three commonly used neonicotinoid pesticides – clothianidin, thiamethoxam and dinetofuran – pose a significant risk to bee populations. The agency’s updated analysis also acknowledged the threat posed by a fourth neonicotinoid compound – imidacloprid – which can harm both pollinators and aquatic insect species.

But on the very same day that the analysis was released, the EPA also announced that it had withdrawn its support for a proposal to introduce limited restrictions on the use of neonicotinoids in fields where honey bees are present. In place of the proposed restrictions, the agency announced a set of voluntary guidelines that do not impose mandatory compliance. (RELATED: Read more news about pesticides at Pesticide.news)

Director of the Center for Biological Diversity’s Environmental Health program, Lori Ann Burd, said:

“It’s outrageous that on the same day the EPA acknowledged these dangerous pesticides are killing bees it also reversed course on mandating restrictions on their use. This is like a doctor diagnosing your illness but then deciding to withhold the medicine you need to cure it.”

The fact that the EPA has confirmed the threat to pollinators posed by neonicotinoids, while refusing to restrict their use, speaks volumes about the influence the pesticide industry wields over the agency’s policies regarding their use.

So what exactly are neonicotinoids, and why are they so dangerous to bees and other pollinator species?

From Eco Watch:

“Neonicotinoids are a class of pesticides known to have both acute and chronic effects on honey bees, birds, butterflies and other pollinator species, and they are a major factor in overall pollinator declines. These systemic insecticides cause entire plants, including their pollen and nectar, to become toxic to pollinators. These chemicals are also slow to break down and they build up in soil, where they pose an especially grave threat to thousands of species of ground-nesting native bees.”

In 2016, a United Nations committee published a new study on the subject of pollinators and the danger they face as a result of human activities. The committee found that 40 percent of all invertebrate pollinators, such as bees and butterflies, are threatened with extinction – a prospect that has grave implications for humanity.

Ninety percent of the world’s flowering plants depend on bees and other pollinators. Around 75 percent of all crops depend on pollinators (mainly bees). This represents about 1.4 billion jobs and nearly $600 billion worth of crops. (RELATED: Read more news about the environment at Enviro.news)

It’s becoming clear that neonicotinoids are more of a threat to pollinators than previously believed. In response, the EU has banned neonicotinoids altogether, and in 2016, the pesticides were banned from use in United States national wildlife refuges.

But in spite of all the evidence, the EPA has created a policy that does no more than ask the agricultural industry to consider not spraying neonicotinoids in fields where commercial honeybees are present. In other words, the EPA is doing nothing to address the problem.

“This is a rejection of science that should be deeply troubling to all Americans,” said Burd.

Indeed, it is troubling when an agency charged with protecting the environment refuses to take into account its own findings, but rather rules in favor of an industry that poses one of the most significant threats to the environment – along with the humans and animals who depend on it.

The big question now is: How will the incoming administration handle this and other urgent environmental issues while simultaneously creating a climate favorable to business interests, as it has promised?

The outcome should be interesting, to say the least. …

Sources:

EcoWatch.com

Phys.org

OneGreenPlanet.org

For the last decade, factory farming endeavors have basically been given a pass when it comes to emissions. Thanks to the failure of the EPA to properly regulate the industry and adequately measure toxic air pollution, livestock farms have been polluting the air indiscriminately and without any kind of government supervision. One can only imagine the amount of toxins that can be excreted over the course of ten years.

Emissions from livestock operations can fall under three different federal laws, if the pollution they create reaches certain thresholds. Larger farms known as concentrated animal feeding operations, or CAFOs, also fall under this umbrella. But, because the government and livestock industry have failed to agree on accurate ways of measuring those emissions,  factory farming facilities have somehow managed to escape government scrutiny.

It is really rather offputting that the industry gets to have so much say in federal testing protocol that they can actually impede the administration of such efforts all together, isn’t it? Nearly twelve years ago, the EPA announced that it would be developing a way to accurately measure air emissions from factory farms. But, the agency has yet to complete the process. This failing has finally prompted the EPA’s Office of Inspector General — the agency’s own internal watchdog — to investigate the matter.

Brent Newell, an attorney with the Center for Race, Poverty and the Environment – which has sued the agency to regulate livestock facilities — commented, “The agency is reluctant to regulate agriculture and it’s a big problem in the eyes of the inspector general.”

“They’re not exempt from these laws,” he added.

So, what exactly prompted the Inspector General to finally step in? A 2005 deal known as the Air Compliance Agreement between the EPA and factory farms has reached something of an impasse. Under this deal, livestock operations were not subject to air emissions violations, but in exchange, the farms were required to allow the EPA to measure their emissions, so the agency could gather data that would allow it to eventually create standards for air pollution.

However, it became rather apparent that there was a small hitch in these so-called plans: the government never collected any data.

Michael Formica, an attorney with the National Pork Producers Council, says, “The government had no data. That’s when we said: ‘Let’s do a study.'” A report on the investigation is expected next spring. One can only hope that some kind of action will be taken, and that those who appear to have deliberately delayed the regulation of factory farming emissions will be held accountable.

In the last thirty years, the number of CAFOs has skyrocketed from about 3,600 in the 1980s, to about 19,000 today. Environmental groups have doubled down on their calls for emissions regulations as the number of industrial livestock operations have continued to increase. Many other industries are subject to pollution regulation, why should livestock be any different? A substantial amount of data has shown that factory farms are major producers of pollution.

Jonathan Lovvorn, an attorney with the Humane Society of the United States, which has petitioned the agency to regulate CAFOs under the Clean Air Act, points out that the laissez-faire attitude towards factory farming is not doing anyone any favors. Lovvorn says, “The EPA has put in regulation on oil and gas, and proposed regulations on landfills, but they’ve done nothing on CAFOs.”

While it is true that it can be harder to monitor and strictly regulate the exact amount of air emissions being  created by a factory farm, that kernel of truth should not be used as a means to escape regulation. The EPA has proven itself to be a thumb-twiddling bureaucracy time and time again.  In 2008, under the Superfund law, the EPA exempted poultry and livestock industries from having to report leaks of ammonia, hydrogen sulfides and other hazardous substances.

In 2011, the EPA did release a report on emissions, but it only utilized data from a mere 25 farms. This was after the agency made exemption agreements with roughly 14,000 farms. The agency’s own Science Advisory Board dismissed their “study” as being useless beyond the farms involved.

Isn’t it time we all stopped kidding ourselves and asked the EPA what they are really trying to protect?

Sources:

InsideClimateNews.org

HumaneSociety.org [PDF]

FoodIsPower.org

EPA administrator Gina McCarthy was sued in 2014 by Murray Energy Corporation and its affiliates, alleging that the agency was in violation of sections of the Clean Air Act. The EPA was required to conduct continuous evaluations monitoring the potential loss of employment, resulting from enforced provisions of the Clean Air Act.  The EPA also failed to applicably implement investigations on threatening plant closures, or employment reductions allegedly resulting from EPA enforcement efforts.

Both parties filed cross motions for summary judgement in 2016. But, on October 17, 2016, US District Judge John Preston Bailey denied the governments motion, and granted the motion of Murray Energy Corporation. The EPA lost the case and was ordered by Judge Baily to comply with the Clean Air Act.

The EPA was ordered to file a plan and schedule to comply with its effects on coal industry regulations within fourteen days of the order. The EPA responded with a filing stating that the agency doesn’t perform the economic assessments specified, and would need two years to devise and implement a methodical strategy to do so. Judge bailey was not impressed with the filing.

Federal regulators have now been ordered to assess how many power plant and coal mining jobs are being lost to air pollution regulations. Judge Bailey made the ruling in response to Gina McCarthy’s filing that the EPA hasn’t performed such analysis in decades. The outgoing EPA administrator, McCarthy, had no means to comply with the ruling in a timely manner. Jude Bailey found her response to be insufficient, unacceptable, and unnecessary. (RELATED: Discover more news about the environment at Enviro.news)

The EPA, like many federal agencies, is swift to bring criminal charges against unintentional violations of pollution laws, but it views its own compliance with the law as optional. The EPA is required by law to continuously analyze the economic impact where enforcing the Clean Air Act. McCarthy showed evidence that the EPA is hostile toward accepting the mission that Congress had established for the agency.

The EPA owes its powers exclusively to Congress, but shows contempt to their roots by acting as an independent power. The EPA operates as if it’s entitled to enforce the legal provisions they wish, and ignore the ones they feel are inconvenient for them. Agencies who operate in such a manner are a threat to American freedom.

Judge Bailey has ordered the EPA to identify facilities which were harmed by regulations under the Obama administration by July 1, including facilities at risk of closing or cutting staff members. The EPA doesn’t feel that analyzing job loss will change global energy trends. This kind of arrogance is typical from the agency, which is responsible for carrying out its duties in accordance with the statutory mandate from Congress, and not for analyzing global energy trends.

Judge Bailey reminded McCarthy that the EPA doesn’t get to decide which governing provisions they can ignore, and that the EPA had the ability to recommend amendments to Congress. “It is time for the EPA to recognize that Congress makes the law, and EPA must not only enforce the law, it must obey it,” said Judge Bailey.

It will be important for the Trump administration to round up all rogue agencies in the US and ensure they are in compliance with the law. It won’t be an easy battle considering entrenched Democratic bureaucrats will be fighting every step of the way to maintain dictatorial supremacy over everyone. Judges like John Bailey, who are willing to stand up for the laws and resist liberal bureaucratic dictatorship, help make the difference.

Learn more about the EPA’s climate science fraud at ClimateScienceNews.com.

Sources:

PowerlineBlog.com

WashingtonTimes.com

Even China has phased out the use of paraquat. In 2012, the Chinese government announced that the pesticide would no longer be used in order to “safeguard people’s lives.” China is not a nation that is recognized for its environmental protection policies. If they’re concerned about this pesticide, it stands to reason we should be too.

And yet, for some reason, paraquat is still available in the United States — even in spite of the growing body of research that suggests it is an extremely harmful chemical that likely causes Parkinson’s disease.

You’d think that as Europe and China ceased to use paraquat, the US would follow suit. But instead, use of this pesticide has only begun to increase. Last year, some 7 million pounds of paraquat were used on 15 million acres of land. To make matters worse, more weeds are becoming resistant to more popular pesticides like Roundup, and paraquat is being marketed as a substitute.

(Related: Learn more about glyphosate at Glyphosate.news)

The Paraquat Controversy

Paraquat first became heavily scrutinized for its use in suicide attempts; just a single sip of this stuff can be lethal. But now, a wave of research on this contentious product has shown that there are less-immediate effects of exposure to paraquat — like Parkinson’s disease.

The New York Times has even reported that the Environmental Protection Agency made note of paraquat’s toxicity in a recent regulatory filing. The EPA itself said, “There is a large body of epidemiology data on paraquat dichloride and Parkinson’s disease.” The Times writer Danny Hakim writes that the EPA is currently debating on whether or not the pesticide should still be allowed to be sprayed on our country’s farmland. A decision is not expected to be reached until sometime in 2018.

Europe is known for their cautious approach to pesticides; several bans and moratoriums on a number of different products have taken place over the years. While often criticized by industry officials, paraquat shows that caution is truly necessary when dealing with toxic chemicals — even if they are supposedly not intended to be toxic to humans.

Research on paraquat and Parkinson’s disease

Perhaps what is most disturbing about paraquat is that science has indicated that the pesticide was possibly linked to Parkinson’s disease for more than twenty years. Over the last five years, however, research on the matter has grown more extensive.

In 2011, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) led a study that found two pesticides — rotenone and paraquat — were linked to a substantially higher risk of Parkinson’s disease. The study found that the use of either pesticide was linked a 2.5-time increase in risk of developing the condition. The research was a collaborative effort that included National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), which is part of the National Institutes of Health, and the Parkinson’s Institute and Clinical Center in Sunnyvale, CA.

Freya Kamel, Ph.D. is a researcher in the intramural program at NIEHS and co-author of the paper appearing online in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives. She stated that “Paraquat increases production of certain oxygen derivatives that may harm cellular structures. People who used these pesticides or others with a similar mechanism of action were more likely to develop Parkinson’s disease.”

A meta-analysis that was published in 2013 by the journal Neurology also found that exposure to paraquat and other similar pesticides could increase Parkinson’s disease risk. In their conclusion, the team states that current literature supports the theory that pesticide exposure increases Parkinson’s disease risk.

In 2000, which was almost 2 decades ago, research confirmed a potential link between pesticide exposure and Parkinson’s. Later, a 2006 study would show that exposure to paraquat resulted in a 70 percent higher chance of developing Parkinson’s disease. Research has been indicative of paraquat’s dangers for the last 20 years or so, and more recent research has only confirmed these suspicions.

The call to ban paraquat in the US has been a long time coming, but will the EPA listen?

Sources:

NYTimes.com

Neurology.org

NIH.gov

Known as the Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act, or REINS, the bill requires Congress to review any executive orders passed outside the normal bounds of the legislative process, when such orders are estimated to cost Americans exorbitant amounts of money. Its aim is to stop the executive branch from acting as dictator, and instead restore power back to the people.

A recent report by the Competitive Enterprise Institute revealed that federal regulations currently cost Americans roughly $1.885 trillion, or the equivalent of more than $15,000 per household. At the time when the report was released in 2016, there were 60 federal departments, agencies and commissions facing 3,297 regulations at various stages of the regulatory pipeline. Under the REINS Act, Congress will now have 70 legislative days to review each of these regulations and decide whether or not they should move forward.

“The House has just passed a groundbreaking piece of legislation that remains consistent with my view in the rebalancing of power in the federal government,” says Congressman Jeff Duncan, a Republican from South Carolina who helped co-sponsor the bill.

“The outgoing administration broke constitutional restraints time and time again. By flaunting the immense power of executive rulemaking, the outgoing administration shamefully turned the pen and the phone into a political weapon against the American people. Without passing the REINS Act, the boundaries for administrative rulemaking are endless.”

Opponents worry REINS Act could undermine consumer protections

Because the REINS Act affects all areas of federal regulatory policy, including environmental issues, supporters say it will help make the scientific process more accountable to the people rather than corporations pushing a special interest agenda. Instead of corporations having the ability to work directly with the office of the presidency to force an agenda, the representatives of the voters – Congress – will instead have to review each and every proposal. (RELATED: Read more news on environmental protection at Enviro.news)

“This legislation is historic,” Rep. Duncan adds. “Legislators … will now be forced to focus more on their craft, while the executive is restrained from the current practice. The people now have a say against these rules. It’s a win for all Americans. I call on the Senate to pass this major upgrade in American governance, where the people finally gain back a defense against the costly attacks on their ways of life by out of touch bureaucrats.”

However, opponents of the REINS Act say the bill could have a detrimental effect by undermining existing safety and environmental standards that protect both people and planet. While it might sound like a good thing that Congress now has the ability to veto regulations that are shadily enacted via executive order or that serve some other purpose besides benefiting the nation and its people, some see it as a major roadblock to positive reform.

Some also have concerns about what the REINS Act might do to over 40 years of “progress in environmental protection, civil rights, labor standards, health and safety and consumer protection,” to quote one source. While offered up as a measure to increase accountability, the REINS Act may end up being used for quite the opposite purpose, skeptics worry.

While almost nobody would argue that increasing accountability in government and stopping a runaway executive branch from dictating from the Oval Office is a bad thing, it is vitally important that any bill claiming to accomplish this is properly scrutinized and vetted. (Note: Read more news about liberty and the dangers of big government at Liberty.news)

Sources for this article include:

House.gov

Truth-Out.org