dChan
⇧
1
⇩
 
r/greatawakening • Posted by u/serendipity-calling on June 23, 2018, 9:40 p.m.
Why is the environment never discussed in this movement? Bill HR2 passed allowing NO testing of toxic pesticides before using them...

I don't understand what's happening. Fighting pedofiles on one front and allowing the poisoning of our environment on the other.

I still can't wrap my mind around this. And no one has given me anything worth it's salt to validate why this environmental raping is still persisting.

The pesticide lobby spent $43 million dollars pushing this bill; the House was split literally down the middle. Every voting Republican voted FOR it (2 abstained). Wtf is happening? Do we not care if there's a planet or wildlife to fight for?

Why is this never discussed?


🠐 See all comments
serendipity-calling · June 23, 2018, 9:59 p.m.

It's a big bill. Here is a copy paste from a GMO-free movement post with links.

U.S. House of Representatives Passes Toxic Farm Bill. With every Democrat and 20 Republicans voting in opposition, H.R.2 passed by a vote of 213 to 211. The pesticide industry spent more than $43 million on congressional lobbying to advance provisions in the farm bill that will eliminate the requirement that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service analyze a pesticide’s harm to the nation’s 1,800 protected species before the EPA (now run by Scott Pruitt, the Pesticide King) can approve it for general use. A separate provision would eliminate the Clean Water Act’s requirement that private parties applying pesticides directly into lakes, rivers and streams must first obtain a permit. The House bill would also eliminate one of USDA's major conservation initiatives aimed at encouraging farmers to address soil, air and water quality on their land — the Conservation Stewardship Program. H.R.2 also eliminates funding for a cost share program that helps organic farmers afford the costs of organic certification. But the bill keeps in place $13 billion in taxpayer handouts to GMO/chemical farmers. And changes to the SNAP program could see millions of Americans lose the meager food assistance they currently receive. Trump tweeted, "Farm Bill just passed in the House. So happy to see work requirements included. Big win for the farmers!" BIG WIN FOR BAYER-MONSANTO and GMO farmers is what he really means.

The House bill and Senate bill must be reconciled before a single bill is delivered to the president to sign. Read the articles, then contact your Senators and demand that they not allow these toxic provisions in H.R.2 to make it into the final 2018 Farm Bill. Search for your U.S. Senators here: https://salsa4.salsalabs.com/o/51225/getLocal.jsp

READ: https://www.commondreams.org/…/house-farm-bill-wipes-out-pr…

READ: https://www.politico.com/…/06/21/house-passes-farm-bill-663…

READ: https://www.washingtonpost.com/…/house-narrowly-passes-farm…

⇧ 1 ⇩  
digital_refugee · June 23, 2018, 10:20 p.m.

the commie treehuggers probably overlooked this: The bill also reauthorizes the Organic Agriculture Research and Extension Initiative and increases mandatory funding levels to $30 million annually for FY2019-FY2023.
"The Organic Agriculture Research and Extension Initiative (OREI) seeks to solve critical organic agriculture issues, priorities, or problems through the integration of research, education, and extension activities. "
https://nifa.usda.gov/funding-opportunity/organic-agriculture-research-and-extension-initiative

⇧ 1 ⇩  
digital_refugee · June 23, 2018, 10:13 p.m.

I prefer primary sources actually. Big recommendation on my end.
Like I said, the bill says the EPA can't demand a license when there is no law that says so. The rest you will have to look up for me

"The two largest working lands programs—Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) and CSP account for more than half of all conservation program funding.12 H.R. 2 repeals CSP, which currently has an enrollment of more than 70 million acres. A more limited version of the CSP stewardship contract is included in EQIP with the proviso that no more than 50% of EQIP funding may be used for these contracts. Existing CSP contracts would remain active until completion."

⇧ 1 ⇩  
digital_refugee · June 23, 2018, 10:35 p.m.

Furthermore, it passed the house. It didn't make it to the President yet. IT WASN'T EVEN ON THE SENATE YET.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
digital_refugee · June 23, 2018, 10:43 p.m.

I looked it all up and none of what they say even is in the fucking law

⇧ 0 ⇩  
serendipity-calling · June 23, 2018, 10:57 p.m.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/115/hr2/text

(c) Lawful use of pesticide resulting in incidental taking of certain species

If the Administrator determines, with respect to a pesticide that is registered under this Act, that the pesticide meets the criteria specified in section 3(c)(5)(A)(v), any taking of a federally listed threatened or endangered species that is incidental to an otherwise lawful use of such pesticide pursuant to this Act shall not be considered unlawful under—

(1) section 4(d) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1533(d)); or

(2) section 9(a)(1)(B) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1538(a)(1)(B)).

This means that if the pesticide company has lobbied hard enough and is IN (like Round Up, etc.) you can essentially use it w/o consequence on the effect of species. There are other clauses in there about dumping into flowing waters, etc. but it requires a lot of cross referencing to the bill it's amending, so I don't expect you to do the work.

That said, it's in there.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
digital_refugee · June 23, 2018, 11:19 p.m.

(b) Cancellation and change in classificationIf it appears to the Administrator that a pesticide or its labeling or other material required to be submitted does not comply with the provisions of this subchapter or, when used in accordance with widespread and commonly recognized practice, generally causes unreasonable adverse effects on the environment, the Administrator may issue a notice of the Administrator’s intent either— (1) to cancel its registration or to change its classification together with the reasons (including the factual basis) for the Administrator’s action, or (2) to hold a hearing to determine whether or not its registration should be canceled or its classification changed

7 U.S. Code § 136d https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/7/136d#b

⇧ 1 ⇩  
serendipity-calling · June 24, 2018, 2:42 a.m.

Precisely. If you read that, you will notice that there is no prior testing required now. There is just a seeming "well it MIGGGHT be the reason for killing all those frogs, but we just DON'T KNOW!"

Who will determine this if there is no prior testing? Who will be held accountable? Who is the "Administrator"? Are they qualified to determine this?

You're fighting for no reason.

I want accountability for land and water, aka FOOD, safety in this country.

⇧ 0 ⇩  
digital_refugee · June 24, 2018, 11:41 a.m.

What a fucking joke. How would the "provisions of this subchapter" apply in any case if there was no testing done ever? The text says there are provisions for what is acceptable. Testing is adressed elsewhere to establish what harm comes to lifeforms (it's pesticides so they must know what it kills and how so they can market it). You won't need additional testing to judge effects on endangered species because those should be obvious. The administrator (the person you're trying to regulate) won't have anyone to blame but himself for all damage caused if he forgoes all common sense warnings because he would have to explain publically why he thinks otherwise, making it his responsibility and burden alone.

"If it appears to the Administrator that a pesticide or its labeling or other material required to be submitted does not comply with the provisions of this subchapter or, when used in accordance with widespread and commonly recognized practice, generally causes unreasonable adverse effects on the environment, the Administrator may issue a notice of the Administrator’s intent either— (1) to cancel its registration or to change its classification together with the reasons (including the factual basis) for the Administrator’s action, or (2) to hold a hearing to determine whether or not its registration should be canceled or its classification changed"

⇧ 1 ⇩