Dust regulation is debatable

Agriculture-industry members and supporters throughout the nation are up-in-arms, or should I say, up-in-dust about the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) recent proposal to further regulate farm dust.

Particulate matter, such as dust, was first regulated in 1971 as part of the Clean Air Act to safeguard human health.

According to the Second Draft Policy Assessment for Particulate Matter within the Clean Air Act released July 8, the EPA could retain current levels of 150 micrograms per cubic meter of air for regulating coarse particulate matter or revise it as low as 65 to 85 micrograms per cubic meter of air.

Agricultural dust occurs when weather, machinery or humans disrupt topsoil. These natural causes, coupled with the difficulty of establishing clear regulatory guidelines for enforcement, are issues for many who’ve learned about the proposal.

Twenty-one senators signed a letter directed to EPA Director Lisa Jackson, urging the EPA to reconsider its dust-regulation stance.

“[The regulation] would establish the most stringent and unparalleled regulation of dust in our nation’s history,” states the letter. “We respect efforts for a clean and healthy environment, but not at the expense of common sense. These identified levels [of dust] will be extremely burdensome for farmers and livestock producers to attain. Whether its livestock kicking up dust, soybeans being combined on a dry day in the fall, or driving a car down the gravel road, dust is a naturally occurring event.”

Dust can somewhat be controlled with chemical dust suppressants and decreased speed limits on gravel roads.

Many others also deem the regulation unnecessary.

"This proposal to apply much stricter limits on particulate matter would make it very difficult for our growers to comply, and could expose them to fines and hours-of-operation restrictions for everyday farming operations," said Lola Raska, executive vice president of the Montana Grain Growers Association.

According to a story at ArgusLeader.com, “EPA officials say that dust can be a potent pollutant and that rules to restrict it serve the public good. Officials estimate that meeting the current standards would prevent 2,500 premature deaths among people with heart or lung disease, 2,600 cases of chronic bronchitis, 5,000 heart attacks and 350,000 days when people miss work or school every year.”

A YouTube video gives viewers additional insight about the proposal: http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4989443/farmers_call_possible_epa_crack_down_on_farm_dust_ridiculous/.

"We are early in the process and are far from making any decisions about whether the standards should be changed," said EPA spokesperson Brendan Gilfillan. "This will be an open and transparent process that will provide Americans with many opportunities to offer their comments and thoughts."

Does the EPA have a valid concern? If not, is there a better method to monitor dust? Should farmers be concerned?

*Photo obtained from: antzinpantz.com

Regulation delays agricultural advancements

When asked about the state of the U.S. crop-protection industry, President and CEO of CropLife America, Jay Vroom, used words such as, “healthy, robust, forward-looking and extremely competitive.”

But in the next breath, Vroom expressed his concern about federal oversight hindering the industry’s continued progress in a recent podcasted Agri-Pulse interview.

According to CropLife America, “The overall goal of crop protection is to enable farmers to produce the best quality, highest-yield crops possible, in turn providing consumers with a safe, affordable and dependable food supply.”

Crop protection encompasses the research, development and application of pesticides and chemicals to accomplish four ultimate goals:

1. Increased food production
2. Decreased food-production costs
3. Safeguard human health
4. Cosmetic benefits

The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) established pesticide regulation in the U.S. It has been updated and modernized since its institution in 1947.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted proposals to Congress that would eliminate spray-drift applications and regulate pesticide applications within FIFRA. The EPA’s intent is to mandate permits for the use of pesticide products that are applied directly to water such as aquatic weed control and mosquito control. The EPA suggests a “zero tolerance” for spray drift that Vroom states is unrealistic.

Vroom thinks the EPA tactics put a “chokehold on modern agriculture.”

According to its site, CropLife America supports innovative technologies that promote spray-drift reduction and advocates for scientific research about spray drift effects, but opposes “zero-drift” policies that have already been acknowledged by EPA to set an impossible standard.

“The new label statements will help reduce problems from pesticide drift,” said Steve Owens, the assistant administrator for EPA’s Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances. “The new labels will carry more uniform and specific directions about restricting spray drift while giving pesticide applicators clear and workable instructions.”

The new instructions will prohibit drift that could cause adverse health or environmental effects, stated an EPA news release.

Vroom believes that increasing federal regulation is impacting crop-protection research and development costs, as well as the end-users of those products. He also believes many people “glamorize agriculture of the 50s and 60s” without regard to the benefits of modern advancements.

In a joint global study with the European Crop Protection Association, research revealed that the cost of “staying at the table,” in regards to crop-protection development, has increased as much as 40 percent within the past five years because of severe oversight and evaluation expenses.

According to data compiled in the CropLife 100 retailer survey, crop protection product sales fell $100 million to $6.4 billion in 2009.

“Every farmer out there has got to be engaged,” said Vroom, who said that it’s important for farmers to confront urban elites and environmental activists who are attempting to change the structure of the crop-protection industry, thereby threatening its progression at the expense of agriculture.

He described a state-management system as most effective for industry oversight, using adjectives such as “most steady,” “realistic” and “articulate” in comparison to federal control. He believes that everyone harnesses the power to influence the industry when making voting decisions, noting that society supports a logical regulatory system via state and federal elections.

He also believes that the U.S. Department of Agriculture has a responsibility to disseminate the significance of crop protection to society.

Vroom is hopeful for a management structure that is free of expensive, complex regulatory hurdles and allows the industry to be competitive and viable.

“We ignore the defense of modern agriculture at our own peril.”

Individuals interested in giving opinion can do so at http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#submitComment?R=0900006480a66c8d

*Photo obtained from: cdmsadvisor.net






EPA Deregulations: Good or bad for the environment, farmers?

The Bush Administration is pushing to pass a set of rules that could relax EPA restrictions on several industries including agriculture and environmental groups, and industry leaders are adamantly expressing their thoughts on this issue.

Environmental advocates say passage of this proposal could eliminate important safeguards that protect the environment from harmful pollution of several industries including agriculture.

Industry leaders say that the proposals would free business from unnecessary government involvement.

There are more than 170 livestock farms in Ohio, and the Ohio Department of Agriculture is reviewing applications from companies that want to build 18 more livestock farms.

Currently, farms are required to apply for permits with the EPA if they’re going to release anything into nearby steams. If the proposal passes, farms will no longer need a permit as long as they file plans that indicate what they’re doing. They also won’t need to report hazardous air pollutants released from animal waste. However, according to environmental groups this can actually cause more pollution and problems for the farms itself as well as the environment.

“Many farms store millions of gallons of liquefied manure in lagoons, which can leak or overflow into streams.” said Eric Schaeffer, director of Washington D.C.-based Environmental Integrity Project. “If the farms don’t have to obtain permits and tell the state how they are doing, officials will have a difficult time punishing farms that do pollute streams.”

The proposal would also require power companies to install scrubbers and pollution filters on coal-fired power plants that are being renovated or repaired based on a plant’s hourly pollution rate instead of its annual production. These coal-fueled generators provide 89 percent of Ohio’s electricity.

“The plan would allow a refurbished plant to increase its pollution without adding scrubbers,” said Frank O’Donnell, president of Clean Air Watch. “A plant operating more hours at the old hourly rate could increase emissions of pollutants, including sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide, by hundreds if not thousands of tons a year.”

Others believe these deregulations will help.

“Repairs that help a plant burn coal more efficiently could actually help lower its annual and hourly pollution emissions,” said John McManus, vice president of environmental services for American Electric Power. “The number of hours a plant operates doesn’t automatically increase after repairs.”

An EPA spokesperson said that the farm-rule changes would protect the environment and public health.

Do you think the passage of these proposals will hurt the environment? Or do you think they will minimize unnecessary government involvement? Please comment below.