Gimme some of that ole time "crop protection product"

So, Michelle Obama decides to grow a vegetable garden. On almost any plane one views it from, it makes sense, not the least of which is that it sets a good example, particularly since every effort is going to be made to grow the produce without the aid of unnecessary chemical crap.

But as Sabina points out, there ain't no tyranny like that of a good example, and now Michelle Obama has come into the sights of the pesticide and agro-chemical lobby.

In fact, the idea of the US First Lady engaging in organic gardening has the US big-agro lobby in a flat spin. The idea of encouraging people to grow their own food is abhorrent enough, (it will chew through their bottom line like a slug on a lettuce leaf), but to suggest that they do it without a bottle of domesticated agent orange?! Well, they're just not going to stand for it.

So... the Mid America CropLife Association sent Michelle Obama a letter. (Actually they sent it to Mrs. Barack Obama, as though she had somehow surrendered her first name in a convention which died in the latter half of the last century.) Amazingly, the contents of one of the most condescending letters you may ever read made it into the hands of Jill Richardson at La Vida Locavore. You have to read the whole thing, but here's a sample:

As you go about planning and planting the White House garden, we respectfully encourage you to recognize the role conventional agriculture plays in the U.S in feeding the ever-increasing population, contributing to the U.S. economy and providing a safe and economical food supply. America's farmers understand crop protection technologies are supported by sound scientific research and innovation.

Conventional agriculture?! Safe and economical?! Sound scientific research and innovation?! Who are these clowns trying to have on? Not even to mention the newest set of buzzwords designed to camouflage known carcinogens - "crop protection products".

After reading Jill's post, do check out the first comment where one of MACA's obfuscations is thoroughly dispatched.

After that, take the time to check out the officers and board of directors of Mid America CropLife Association. Chemicals anyone?

Dow Agrosciences' NAFTA Chapter 11 agro

Dow Chemical - excuse me, Dow Agrosciences - doesn't much care for Ontario and Quebec's ban on cosmetic use of their weed-killer 2,4-D on lawns and they'd like $2-million compensation, plus legal costs and yet-to-be specified damages under NAFTA's Chapter 11, to help them feel better about it.
Dow filed their lawsuit against Canada in August but it only just appeared on the Dept of Foreign Affairs website yesterday. Do you think maybe someone in the PMO didn't want a contentious NAFTA sovereignty issue muddying up their nice election?

The company points to a "2007 risk assessment by Canada's own Pest Management Regulatory Agency which said the product could continue to be used safely on lawns".
Oh gosh, Dow, don't bring them up.

When it was explained to us in 2006 that the SPP meant Canada would have to "harmonize" its pesticide regulations with those in the U.S so as not to prove "a trade irritant" to U.S. corps, there was a huge fuss up here about it.

Kathleen Cooper, researcher with the Canadian Environmental Law Association, is "troubled that chemical producers can invoke NAFTA in an effort to "undermine the decisions of democratically-elected governments."
But that's the whole point of it, my dear. Chapter 11 allows U.S. investors to legally ensure we don't pass laws for public health or the environment that might interfere with their profits.

Besides, $2-million is chump change compared to the $1oo-million lawsuit that U.S.-based Chemtura Corp. has already filed against us for banning their carcinogenic neurotoxin pesticide, lindane.
Which is a bit mean of them, really, as lindane is due to be phased out in the U.S. soon anyway.

SPP and the EPA : Pesticides and jelly beans

Remember that whole business about Canada lowering standards on pesticide use on fruits and vegetables to match U.S. regs because the U.S. found Canada's 40% more stringent pesticide regs to be "a trade irritant"?
Sure you do :

"Richard Aucoin, chief registrar of the Pest Management Regulatory Agency, which sets Canada's pesticide rules said "It's just common sense for Canada to work most closely with its largest and nearest trading partner".
Besides, in practice, the question of official residue limits is moot in most cases because farmers are using fewer and fewer pesticides, he said."

LA Times :

"Despite the protests of more than 50 scientists, including five Nobel laureates in chemistry, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on Friday approved use of a new, highly toxic fumigant, mainly for strawberry fields.
Methyl iodide is a neurotoxin and carcinogen that has caused thyroid tumors, neurological damage and miscarriages in lab animals.
Methyl iodide will be manufactured by Tokyo-based Arysta LifeScience Corp. and marketed under the name Midas. Its use will be allowed on fields growing strawberries, tomatoes, peppers, ornamentals, turf, trees and vines."

EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson is a Bush appointee.
Arysta's former chief executive, Elin Miller, is now a top official at the EPA.

I repeat : Why is it still called the Environmental Protection Agency?
Scientists have been quitting in droves over its cosy ties with industry.

And about that research on "lab animals".
Several years ago progressive US blogs were up in arms about a jointly-funded project by the EPA and a pesticide lobby group which offered poor families in Florida $970 and a camcorder to spray the inside of their homes, including childrens' bedrooms, with a pesticide once a day for two years and monitor the results with the free camcorder.
In 2000, Lockheed Martin paid volunteers in California $1000 to ingest toxic chemicals and pesticides under observation.
Shagya now has a vid up of Senator Barbara Boxer detailing these experiments. She points out they do not meet the Nuremburg Code forbidding the testing of "non-therapeutics" or poisons on human beings.

EPA : "Experiments on People just like at Auschwitz!"

One of the objectives of Montebello was to enhance the so-called 'smart regulation' : "undertaking trilateral cooperation to accelerate and strengthen our national and regional risk-based chemical assessment and management efforts."

From the U.S. government's SPP website : "Regulatory Cooperation in the Area of Chemicals." Objective :"enhanced coordination of chemical assessment and management programs across North America."

Stephen Harper, responding to critics of regulatory harmonization following Montebello :
"Is the sovereignty of Canada going to fall apart if we standardize the jellybean. I don’t think so."

A very good article from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives detailing how harmonizing with the EPA would allow US chemical industries to target Canadian safety regulations :
More Than Jellybeans: The SPP Regulatory Framework Agreement and Its Impact on Chemicals Regulation

Cross-posted at Creekside