The EPA’s Dubious Dinner Menu: How Industry Influence Taints Regulation

The recent release of internal documents from the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has shed light on a disturbing trend in pesticide regulation. The agency allowed Bayer to select its preferred mitigation measures for the destructive weedkiller dicamba, essentially allowing the company to choose its own rules.

Regulation is about protecting the public and environment from harm caused by industrial activities. The EPA plays an essential role in this process, ensuring companies like Bayer adhere to safety standards that safeguard both people and ecosystems. However, when the agency acts as a facilitator for industry requests, it’s clear that something is amiss.

The documents show that the EPA presented Bayer with options for addressing dicamba’s volatility and runoff issues. The company then chose the least protective measures for one regulation and the middle option for another. This “à la carte” approach to regulation allows companies to pick and choose their preferred protections, rather than adhering to strict safety standards.

This isn’t just a matter of industry influence; it’s about the essence of regulatory policy. By allowing Bayer to dictate its own rules, the EPA is saying that the company knows better than the agency itself what measures are necessary to mitigate dicamba’s damage. This erodes trust in the regulatory system and undermines public confidence in government agencies.

The implications of this trend extend far beyond the dicamba controversy. If industry can dictate its own rules, it sets a precedent for other companies to follow suit. This could lead to regulations being tailored to benefit corporate profits rather than public health and environmental protection. The consequences would be catastrophic: increased exposure to toxic chemicals, more devastating environmental damage, and a further eroding of trust in government institutions.

The EPA’s actions also raise questions about the agency’s leadership structure. With industry veterans holding key positions, it’s clear that the agency is not equipped to navigate complex webs of interests. The appointment of Kyle Kunkler, a former pesticide industry lobbyist, as deputy assistant administrator and overseer of the pesticides program, is particularly troubling.

The dicamba controversy has been raging for years, with devastating consequences for farmers, orchards, and wildlife refuges. Despite repeated assurances from the EPA that it has put effective protections in place, evidence suggests otherwise. The current approval provides even fewer safeguards against dicamba drift and damage than past approvals, according to a lawsuit.

The EPA’s response to these revelations is telling: “Make no mistake, this is not a compliance failure; it is the regulatory system working exactly as intended.” This statement highlights the agency’s fundamental misunderstanding of its role in regulation. The EPA is not a facilitator for industry requests; it’s a guardian of public health and environmental protection.

The dicamba saga continues to unfold, with one thing clear: the regulatory system needs a radical overhaul. The EPA must return to its core mission of protecting the public and environment from harm. Industry influence must be kept in check, and regulations should be based on scientific evidence rather than corporate interests. Anything less would be a betrayal of the public trust.

Kelly Ryerson, an advocate for “make America healthy again,” notes that it’s now undeniable that the EPA remains fully captured by industry players who ignore substantial losses to farmers and federal courts. The time has come to take action: demand transparency, accountability, and a regulatory system that truly serves the public interest.