Don’t let California override the EPA and hijack national farm policy

 Imagine showing up for work only to learn you can no longer use one of the most important tools to do your job well. For a chef, it might be spices; for a barber, it could be scissors; and for a farmer, one of those tools is pesticides.

Farmers use pesticides to protect their crops against the weeds, insects and plant diseases that threaten the safety and sustainability of our crops. As a former Iowa farm kid, I have grown to understand how a changing climate will bring new pests and diseases that will threaten our chance of a successful harvest each year. Farmers need to have all their tools available to adapt to our dynamic environment, and pesticides are just one of those tools.

Pesticides undergo a rigorous evaluation by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). It takes an average of more than 11 years to go from laboratory concept through research and regulatory review before they can be applied to farms. Driven by the EPA’s career scientists with the necessary expertise, this process helps ensure that pesticides on the market meet strict safety standards to keep farmers, consumers and the environment safe...MORE

***************************************************************************

And if that doesn't work, here come their scare tactics:

So, what would it look like if California got its way? What if the federal label didn’t hold the power of law? What if each state could contradict the more than a decade of work that goes into registering new pesticide products and creating the labels?

The result would be disastrous for our farms, our food, our environment and our health. Politics would trump science in determining which pesticides could be used in which states. Farmers living in certain states might be deprived of the tools they need to control weeds, insects and fungal diseases that threaten the health and safety of their crops.

Farmers living in certain states might be deprived of the tools they need to control weeds, insects and fungal diseases that threaten the health and safety of their crops. 

That is the exact description of what is imposed on them now, so no change there.

So, what would it look like if California got its way? What if the federal label didn’t hold the power of law? What if each state could contradict the more than a decade of work that goes into registering new pesticide 

What if each state could contradict the more than a decade of work that goes into registering new pesticide products and creating the labels? 

That's part of the problem right there. 10 years to get a pesticide registered, and who knows at what cost? Go to the web and you will see there are 885 tests or studies they are authorized to require. 

As far as 50 states, that gives us the potential of 50 labs, each competing to have the most effective and efficient pesticide program. If the feds commit an error, it affects everyone in the U.S. If NJ makes an error, it only affects the one state.

Politics would trump science in determining which pesticides could be used in which states.

All pesticide laws are written by politicians. They are administered by agencies created by politicians, and managed by individuals appointed by politicians. So both are politicized through and through.

One final observation: This appears to be the only government function where diversity is bad, rather than good.