Swiss To Vote On Whether To Become First European Nation To Ban Synthetic Pesticides

John Revill

June 8, 2021

Summary

• Switzerland holds two votes on June 13

• One referendum seeks to outlaw synthetic pesticides

• Other vote aims to improve Switzerland's drinking water

• Opinion polls show both are likely to be close

ZURICH, June 7 (Reuters) - Switzerland could become the first European country to ban artificial pesticides in a June 13 referendum which backers of the initiative hope will trigger similar prohibitions elsewhere.

Globally, only Bhutan has a complete ban on synthetic pesticides, according to supporters aiming to outlaw the use of products made by agro-chemical giants such as Switzerland's Syngenta and Germany's Bayer (BAYGn.DE) and BASF (BASFn.DE).

Supporters of the ban say the artificial products cause serious health problems and reduce biodiversity. Manufacturers say their pesticides are rigorously tested and regulated, can be used safely and crop yields would slump without them.

Another initiative to be voted on the same day aims to improve the quality of Switzerland's drinking water and food by stopping direct subsidies to farmers who use artificial pesticides and antibiotics in livestock.

Switzerland has been starkly divided by an unusually bitter debate over the initiatives and the votes look set to be close. A recent Tamedia poll showed 48% of voters favoured the drinking water initiative and 49% supported the pesticide ban.

If adopted, the proposals give farmers up to 10 years to make the transition, which would allow Switzerland to become a pioneer in organic food as well as an example to the rest of the world, Swiss wine maker Roland Lenz said.

"Clean water, one of the foundations of life, is endangered," said Lenz, a 51-year-old organic farmer, whose vineyard is surrounded by farmers opposing the initiative.

Syngenta, which is headquartered in Switzerland and owned by China National Chemical Corporation, opposes both initiatives, saying a ban would reduce agricultural yields by up to 40%.

"The consequences of not using them are clear: fewer regional products, higher prices, and more imports. This is not in the interest of consumers, nor is it in the interest of the environment," a Syngenta spokesman said.

A poster stands in front of a field before a vote on agrarian initiatives to curb the use of pesticides, near Ellikon an der Thur, Switzerland. May 27, 2021. Picture taken May 27, 2021. REUTERS/Arnd Wiegmann/File photo

LIFE UNDER SIEGE

The clean water initiative also wants farmers to stop using imported animal feed, to restrict the numbers of cows, pigs and chickens in Switzerland along with the manure they produce that can pollute drinking water.

"People have been sold a romantic image of farming in Switzerland, which is far removed from reality," said Pascal Scheiwiller, a backer of the clean water campaign, which estimates 1 million Swiss people drink contaminated water.

The Swiss Farmers Union said many of its members feel their way of life is under siege.

"A lot of people in cities think if they have two tomatoes growing on the balcony of their apartment they understand farming," said Martin Haab, president of the Zurich Farmers Association.

"I look back 200 years ago when we couldn't protect our plants and animals, and we had hunger in Switzerland and all over Europe," said Haab.

Martin's son Dominic, who runs a dairy farm outside Zurich, said the consequences for the rural economy would be brutal, with local businesses also being hit by a fall in animal numbers to comply with the fodder restrictions.

Wine maker Lenz, however, said to continue using pesticides was "sheer lunacy", especially when it was possible to use methods such as growing fruit with thicker skins to make them fungus resistant.

“With a ‘Yes’ vote on both initiatives, we will finally move from the chemical age back to the organic age,” he said.

Lead photo: A sign to vote "no" is pictured ahead of a Swiss vote on June 13 on two popular initiatives to curb the use of pesticides in agriculture, in Penthaz, Switzerland, May 31, 2021. REUTERS/Denis Balibouse/File photo

Read More

Reporting by John Revill; Editing by David Clarke

PODCAST: Charlie McKenzie - CropWalk

Joe Swartz & Nick Greens | 12/18/2020

Charlie is a father of two, husband, horticulturist, biocontrol advisor, friend, and Georgia Bulldawg. 

He is the Director of Partnership and Co-founder of CropWalk, a pest, disease, and production insights provider. 

Support the show (https://www.patreon.com/nickgreens)

Study Shows More Than Half of Vegetables Tainted With Pesticides Residue

28 April 2020

Local study shows 70 percent of vegetables are tainted with pesticide residue, with two samples of organic vegetables breaching legal limits.

Hong Kong Organic Resource Centre from the Hong Kong Baptist University found a high percentage of conventional and self-proclaimed organic vegetables were found containing pesticide residue.

The study has collected a total of 58 organic and non-organic vegetable samples, including Choi sum, pak choi, amaranthus, and spinach.

The samples were purchased from 149 venues including wet markets, shops, and organic farms across all 18 districts to test the presence of heavy metal and 352 types of pesticide residues.

Seventy percent of the vegetable samples collected, 41 out of 58, contain pesticide residues regulated under European Union standards.

More than half of them, 34 out of 58, contain pesticide residues exceeding the EU’s Maximum Residue Limit.

Those containing pesticide residue beyond the EU standard includes 3 mainland certified organic vegetables, 21 local self-proclaimed organic vegetables, 2 mainland self-proclaimed organic vegetables, and eight non-organic vegetables from the mainland and Hong Kong.

The study also found two self-proclaimed organic vegetables containing pesticide residues beyond the Hong Kong standard’s legally tolerated limit.

One of them was purchased from Chuk Yuen Market in Wong Tai Sin, containing 1.42 milligrams per kilogram of Acetamiprid, higher than the government’s MRL of 1.2.mg/kg.

Another was brought from Tin Shing Market in Yuen Long containing 0.34mg/kg of Cyhalothrin, exceeding the stipulated MRL of 0.20mg/kg.

“The health risk caused by consuming the most tainted Choi sum sample remains low under normal consuming patterns,” said professor Jonathan Wong Woon-Chung, Director of HKORC.

The study also found that less than one-third of the self-claimed or certified organic vegetable stalls, 16 out of the 52, sells certified organic vegetables.

Sai Kung had the highest percentage of retail stalls selling self-claimed organic produce, followed by Wan Chai, Tsuen Wan, Kwai Tsing, and Southern District.

“Compared to last year, there’s a slight increase in the number of organic produce stores in Hong Kong, so there’s a slightly increasing trend of selling fake organic produce in the market,” said Wong.

He suggested that consumers should look for stalls with certified organic produce with certificates displayed in the shop or organic labels when purchasing organic vegetables.

“When going to a wet market you need to be careful with stores that only label organic vegetables by handwriting, and ask them where they produce it, where the farm is and how they produce it,” Wong added.

HKORC urged the government to legislate and regulate the organic product industry and Hong Kong Customs should not ignore the center's request on investigating stalls that sell counterfeit organic goods.

Six US States Sue EPA Over Pesticide

Health Concerns Not Addressed

Several states sued the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on Wednesday over the agency's decision to allow further use of a pesticide linked to brain damage. California, New York, Massachusetts, Washington, Maryland and Vermont argued in court documents that chlorpyrifos, a common pesticide, should be banned due to the dangers associated with it.

Earthjustice filed a similar lawsuit in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on behalf of groups advocating for environmentalists, farmworkers and people with learning disabilities.

“A chlorpyrifos ban is long overdue given the overwhelming evidence that says this pesticide harms brain development in children,” Tracy Gregoire, a project coordinator at the Learning Disabilities Association of America, said in a statement. “We are hopeful the courts will side with children who are now being exposed to irreparable, yet preventable harm.”

Chlorpyrifos, known on the market as Lorsban, is used on a wide variety of crops, including corn and cranberries. Farmers have called it the last line of defense against certain insects. But it has also been linked to learning and memory issues and prolonged nerve and muscle stimulation.

View fullsize

The EPA banned chlorpyrifos for household use in 2001 over concerns it would cause brain damage in children. EPA’s decision to allow continued use of chlorpyrifos came last month, the result of a court-ordered deadline to regulate the pesticide prompted by a lawsuit previously filed by Earthjustice.

EPA would not comment on the lawsuit but said those challenging the use of chlorpyrifos did not have enough data to demonstrate the product is not safe. The EPA said it would continue to review the safety of chlorpyrifos through 2022.

A month after former EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt began leading the department, the agency rejected an Obama-era recommendation from agency scientists to ban the pesticide. In the absence of EPA action, some states have moved to regulate chlorpyrifos on their own. Hawaii last year banned its use, and California and New York are considering a similar move.

Source: thehill.com

View fullsize

Publication date: 8/8/2019 

Grocery Giant Kroger Updates Pesticide Policy

View fullsize

Jacqui Fatka | Jul 01, 2019

In Effort to Protect Pollinators, Kroger Will Stop Sourcing Plants

Treated With Neonicotinoids by 2020.

Kroger released an update to its pollinator policy encouraging suppliers to move away from pesticides and adopt alternative pest management.

View fullsize

“We recognize the global honeybee population is vulnerable, with research indicating that causes may include the use of certain pesticides, including neonicotinoids. Due to the potential risk to the honeybee population, we support and encourage efforts to protect these pollinator species,” Kroger said in its updated policy.

Related: California bans pesticide chlorpyrifos

As part of the policy, Kroger said it is committed to eliminating the sourcing of live outdoor plants that have been treated with pesticides containing neonicotinoids in its stores and garden centers by 2020. This commitment is inclusive of outdoor plants known to be pollinated by honeybees or known to attract honeybees.

Today, the majority of live plant sales in Kroger’s garden center and outdoor floral selection are not treated with neonicotinoids during the growing process. “Our suppliers are actively seeking alternative options for the remaining products, and we are committed to working with them to ensure proper alternatives have been identified by 2020. We will also track, measure and report on our progress against this commitment,” Kroger said.

Related: EPA has 90 days to decide on chlorpyrifos ban

The grocer added that it supports the expansion of the organic food industry and will continue to offer its customers organic products.

Kroger also said it will keep informed of new science. “Kroger will rely on the expertise of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, other scientific experts and our stakeholders to evaluate further updates to this policy,” it said.

Friends of the Earth and other environmental, consumer, beekeeper and farmworker groups have pressured Kroger for more than three years to eliminate the use of the pesticides, and they called the announcement a “small but robust victory.”

“This is a step in the right direction to protect people and pollinators from toxic pesticides in Kroger’s supply chain,” said Tiffany Finck-Haynes, pesticides and pollinators program manager at Friends of the Earth. “However, this policy is non-binding and vague. We urge Kroger and other top food retailers to do their part in addressing the pollinator crisis by making clear, time-bound commitments to phase out chlorpyrifos, neonicotinoids, glyphosate and other toxic pesticides throughout their entire food supply chains.”

Costco similarly updated its pesticide policy to encourage suppliers of fruits, vegetables and garden plants to phase out the use of chlorpyrifos and neonicotinoids.

A New Study Claims Eating Organic Reduces Pesticide Intake. It’s Totally Misleading

View fullsize

The study doesn't test for the kinds of pesticides permitted on organic foods. And that suggests it's more about selling a worldview than good science.

February 13th, 2019
by Patrick Clinton

Flash! A new study published Tuesday in the journal Environmental Research reveals that people who switched from a conventional to an organic diet reduced their intake of pesticides by 60 percent in just one week.

Well, that’s it. Game over. The evidence is all in, and organic wins.

Yeah, right.

If you’ve been reading about the study (I have, in a mini-explosion of coverage that hews remarkably close to the press release sent out by Friends of the Earth, which sponsored the research and employs one of the authors of the study), you may have formed the opinion that it’s kind of a big deal. Take the word of someone who reads press releases every day and has even written a few: Never trust them. RTFD. Read the document.

So I read the study. (You can, too, here.) Here’s what I got out of it. The researchers wanted to prove that going organic reduces pesticide exposure. That’s something that’s been proven before for certain pesticides, but they wanted to expand the list. So they got together four “racially and geographically diverse” families comprising 16 people and had them eat their regular diet for five days before switching to organic food (which the researchers provided) for six days. They collected lots of urine samples and tested them for the metabolites produced when the body is exposed to 40 of the most commonly used pesticides. The metabolites themselves aren’t toxic. They just tell you how much of the pesticide the subject has been exposed to over the preceding few days.

It’s kind of like taking a bunch of people who’ve been drinking, wresting away their booze, then testing to see if their blood alcohol drops.

Now, roughly half of the food supply contains traces of pesticides, though virtually always at levels the U.S. government deems acceptable. Organic food is permitted to have small traces of conventional pesticides (typically from unintentional cross-contamination), and organic farmers are permitted to use a small number of pesticides, mostly naturally derived. They aren’t allowed to use any of the pesticides tested for in the study. (Organic food, in general, has lower levels of pesticide residue than conventional produce.)

So basically, the Environmental Research study took people who had been eating food that was likely to contain traces of certain common pesticides, then fed them food that by law was supposed to be grown without the use of those particular pesticides. And they discovered that their test subjects were indeed consuming less of those particular pesticides. It’s kind of like taking a bunch of people who’ve been drinking, wresting away their booze, then testing to see if their blood alcohol drops. It might be scientifically useful, but it doesn’t merit the kind of press campaign that Friends of the Earth has been waging for it, complete with 20-page brochure, FAQ, and website. And it certainly doesn’t merit the kind of slavish (and occasionally plagiaristic) coverage I’ve been watching pop up all day online.

You might in fact be persuaded by the study results. That’s fine. But let’s be clear about some of the things the study may seem to prove but doesn’t.

First, it doesn’t prove that organic food is lower in pesticide residues than conventional food. (In any case, we already knew that.) It just shows organic eaters take in fewer of the 40 pesticides measured by the researchers. That’s 40 out of something like 900 pesticides on the market, and includes none of the pesticides that are permissible in organic farming.

Pesticides are not the point. What we want to look at is risk.

And it doesn’t show that organic food is safer, though that is certainly what Friends of the Earth wants you to come away believing. The fact is that there’s no way you can reduce your exposure to toxins to zero. The world’s a messy place. Chemicals drift from field to field, equipment and storage facilities get contaminated, and some people inevitably cheat and use products they’re not supposed to use. And plants themselves produce toxins. The trick is to keep your exposure to a safe level. The conventional food supply overwhelmingly meets the safety standards set by the U.S. government.

And what if the standards are wrong? I have no doubt that some of them are wrong. And there have been and will be battles over how the standards need to change. We’ll never see an end to re-evaluating the evidence and rewriting the regs. But the errors aren’t all going to be on the side of products favored by big agribusiness. Take the case of rotenone, a natural plant derivative that is used for things like controlling (that is, killing) invasive fish populations and as an insecticide. Because it is natural, it was acceptable for use in organic farming.

Take the word of someone who reads press releases every day: Never trust them.

It’s pretty toxic stuff, however, and in 2004 it was banned for use in the U.S. except for killing fish. But it continued to be used abroad, and it remained on the list of acceptable substances for use in organic farming for several more years, which meant that a foreign organic farmer could legally export produce that had been treated with rotenone to the U.S. and still have it meet the standard for certified organic. Several other pesticides that are permitted in organic farming are currently under fire in the EU—notably methyl eugenol in Canada and copper sulfate in Europe.

It may sound like I’m trying to argue that organic food presents just as many dangers as conventionally produced food. I’m not. I don’t know one way or another, and, after experiencing the hype and questionable intellectual honesty of the Friends of the Earth press kit, I’m persuaded they don’t know either, or they wouldn’t have had to oversell their work so much.

But pesticides are not the point. What we want to look at is risk—not just the risk of a specific class of chemicals, but total risk. That necessarily includes more factors than toxins. Some studies suggest that organic produce is more likely to be contaminated with E. coli than conventional produce. How much weight should that carry when we’re choosing between organic and conventional food? How much should access to food or environmental protection weigh compared to incremental individual risk?

Here’s a pretty basic question: What if a relatively poor person becomes persuaded that only organic food will do, but then drops a lot of fresh fruits and vegetables from their diet because organic food is so expensive? What happens to that family’s risk profile? I’m betting that in this circumstance, organic is the worse choice, but I could certainly be wrong.

It would make a great experiment, wouldn’t it? I wonder if Friends of the Earth would like to sponsor it. Do it, guys. I’ll even help write the press release.

US Federal Court Urged To Order Pesticide Ban

Chlorpyrifos

US Federal Court Urged To Order Pesticide Ban

A federal court will determine if the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) should be ordered to ban a pesticide linked to brain damage in children. Seven states and a coalition of environmental and labor groups made final arguments before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals this Monday. They are challenging the EPA's refusal to ban chlorpyrifos, an organophosphate related to sarin nerve gas. 

According to Hector Sanchez, executive director of the Labor Council for Latin American Advancement, a ban on the agricultural use of the chemical is long overdue. "These pesticides are very toxic for farm workers. They have been proven to lower the IQ of children, they have loss of working memory and attention deficit disorders; something that is totally unacceptable."

Against the recommendation of its own scientists, last year the EPA claimed the science on chlorpyrifos is "unresolved" and allowed its use to continue until it revisits the issue in 2022.

Chlorpyrifos is used extensively on apples, a major crop in New York, and a variety of other fruits and vegetables. It was banned for residential use almost 20 years ago. Sanchez says the EPA's refusal to ban agricultural use puts everyone at risk.

According to publicnewsservice.org, the state of Hawaii banned the agricultural use of chlorpyrifos last month.

Publication date: 7/12/2018

Switzerland To Vote On Country-Wide Pesticide Ban

Switzerland To Vote On Country-Wide Pesticide Ban

(Beyond Pesticides, June 5, 2018) After more than 100,000 Swiss citizens signed a petition calling for a ban on pesticides, Switzerland will soon have to vote on a complete ban on the use of synthetic pesticides. The ban would apply to farmers, industries, and imported goods, and advocates hope this measure would cause other EU nations to follow.

Switzerland, home of the world’s largest pesticide manufacturer, Syngenta, has been engaged in the debate raging across the European Union (EU) about the future use of pesticides. Recently, the EU reapproved glyphosate (Roundup) after months of deadlock, while certain countries like France have indicated that it will ban the chemical within three years. Now, the Swiss initiative, according to the BBC, will make it the first country in Europe to ban all synthetic pesticides, and the second in the world after Bhutan imposed a ban in 2013.

Swiss group, Future3, advocated for a ban and began collecting signatures in a crowd-funded initiative. More than 100,000 signatures have been collected, and on May 25, the details of the signatures will be checked and transferred to the Federal Council – the Swiss federal cabinet – which has one year to give recommendations to parliament. The legislators then have two further years to accept the initiative and schedule a vote or to come up with a counter-initiative that could also feature on the ballot. If passed, all synthetic pesticides would be phased out over a period of 10 years.

“To not use any pesticides will trigger a complete change in agricultural practices,” said Antoinette Gilson who is with the Swiss citizens’ group Future3 that are pushing for the ban. “It might be difficult to go through, but in Switzerland already around 13% of farmers are organic. I talk to a lot of them and I have not met one who has regretted giving up pesticides.”

The ban would also apply to imports which could have significant impacts on neighboring countries as Switzerland imports almost 500kg of food per head of population, according to figures from the Federal Customs Administration. Supporters of the initiative think that if the Switzerland vote is eventually carried, it will have reverberated effect on other countries. Unsurprisingly, farmers and industry representatives are dismissive of the idea of the referendum, saying that it is too extreme and will not gain popular support.

With tensions high over the review of Monsanto’s controversial glyphosate, other harmful pesticides, and industry’s influence in decision-making processes, the European Parliament decided to set up a special committee to look into the EU’s authorization procedure for pesticides. The special committee is to assess the authorization procedure for pesticides in the EU and potential failures in how substances are scientifically evaluated and approved.

In April, EU member states backed a proposal to further restrict uses of bee-toxic neonicotinoids finding the pesticides’ outdoor uses harm bees. These restrictions go beyond those already put in place in 2013, and now all outdoor uses of clothianidin, imidacloprid, and thiamethoxam will be banned. The European Commission, the protection of bees is an important issue since it concerns biodiversity, food production, and the environment. The new restrictions agreed to on April 27 go beyond the 2013 ban. All outdoor use of the three substances will be banned and the neonicotinoids in question will only be allowed in permanent greenhouses where no contact with bees is expected. French scientists say parts of their country’s forests, streams, and bucolic landscapes could be completely devoid of birdsong this year, as the results of two recent studies show staggering declines in bird populations throughout the nation linked to the intensification of agricultural practices and pesticide use.

While the U.S. continues to languish in regulatory inertia, the best way to avoid harmful pesticides is to support organic practices in landscapes and agriculture and purchase organic food. Beyond Pesticides has long advocated for organic management practices as a means to foster biodiversity, and research shows that organic land management does a better job of protecting biodiversity than its chemical-intensive counterparts. Instead of the prophylactic use of pesticides and crops bioengineered with insecticides, responsible organic practices focus on fostering habitat for pest predators and ecological balance and only resort to the judicious use of least-toxic pesticides when other cultural, structural, mechanical, and biological controls have been attempted and proven ineffective.

As evidence of the hazardous effects of glyphosate continues to mount, environmental groups, including Beyond Pesticides, are urging localities to ban or restrict the use of the chemical and other toxic synthetic pesticides.

Source: BBC News

Trump’s EPA Chief is Reshaping Food and Farming: What You Need to Know

Trump’s EPA Chief is Reshaping Food and Farming: What You Need to Know

The legendarily anti-EPA Scott Pruitt is trying to undo the agency’s work through rollbacks, inaction, and decimating its workforce.

BY LEAH DOUGLAS  |  ENVIRONMENT, Food Policy, Pesticides
 

02.05.18

Since assuming leadership of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) last February, Scott Pruitt has found himself at odds with environmental organizations, community advocates, farmers, and increasingly lawmakers.

Just last week, Cory Booker (D-NJ) confronted Pruitt in a Senate hearing about his recent efforts to roll back regulations that set a minimum age for farmworkers who handle pesticides. The rules include requirements for a minimum age of 18 for applying pesticides and for buffer zones around pesticide-spraying equipment. Booker said he feared that the rollback would have a “disproportionate impact on low-income folks and minorities.”

Booker’s concerns mirror many aired by others invested in the country’s environmental policies. Pruitt has made wholesale changes to the EPA over the last year, and his impact on food and farming have been no less sparing. His rollbacks of Obama-era regulations on pesticides, water safety, and farm runoff and close alignment with the seed and chemical industry has caused deep concern for both advocates and scientists. And as Pruitt’s EPA marches forward in rolling back or delaying environmental protections, many longtime staffers are opting to leave the agency they’ve supported for decades rather than supporting his agenda.

“This EPA is not interested in protecting people from harmful pesticides,” says Karen Perry Stillerman, a senior analyst at the advocacy group Union of Concerned Scientists. “It’s more interested in bowing to the wishes of Dow [Agrochemical].”

Before his tenure at the EPA, Pruitt infamously sued the agency 14 times. While most of those lawsuits were focused on preventing new regulations to limit carbon and mercury pollution from power plants, his approach to ending regulation has remained constant throughout.

In November 2016, he signed on to a lawsuit against the Waters of the United States rule (WOTUS), which details which bodies of water are regulated under the federal Clean Water Act, and was updated and expanded with the 2015 Clean Water Rule.

As EPA chief, Pruitt has worked quickly to stop implementation of the rule, which many conventional farm and industry groups have opposed, arguing that it is an example of the agency’s overreach. In June, the EPA began its efforts to rescind the rule, and last month the Supreme Court ruled that challenges to WOTUS would be sent back to federal district courts, several of which have issued stays against implementing the rule. Then, Pruitt responded last week by announcing a two-year delay in implementing WOTUS while his EPA works to repeal and replace it.

Pruitt rejected the EPA’s own scientists’ recommendation to ban the insecticide chlorpyrifos after years of internal and external research on the pesticide’s potentially harmful health effects. The chemical was banned in 2000 for household use, but is still used in some commercial farming. A New York Times investigation found that new EPA staff appointed by Trump had pushed career employees to shift the agency’s position on the chemical, and in early February Pruitt noted he would also urge the federal Marine Fisheries Service to also reconsider its findings that chlorpyrifos threatens fish species. A number of states have sued the agency in an effort to force it to implement the ban; California has also moved to ban the chemical’s use in the state in hopes of skirting the EPA’s inaction.

Pruitt has defended his deregulatory efforts, saying they’re in the interest of “cooperative federalism.” In his view, this type of deregulation empowers the states to take on more regulatory responsibility, while preventing the overreach of federal agencies.

Among Advocates, Anger at Changes and the Status Quo

Many agriculture and environment advocates don’t think Pruitt’s deregulatory efforts will improve the working relationship between the federal government and the states. John O’Grady, president of the American Federation of Government Employees National Council #238, which represents over 1,000 EPA employees, says “we’ve been doing cooperative federalism for years.” But “this administration is kind of twisting it” to justify incorporating direct input from more corporations, and to defund environmental regulatory work that has been happening in the states, he says.

Pruitt has supported Trump’s budget proposals, which would cut 20 percent of the funding states rely on for staffing and environmental program work, such as one program established in 2009 to restore and clean up contamination—from agriculture and other sources—in the Chesapeake Bay. More environmental regulations have been targeted for rollback than in any other sector.

And despite his stated interest in diffuse governance, Pruitt is reportedly keeping a tight rein on the EPA’s ongoing work. Michele Merkel, co-director of Food & Water Watch’s Food & Water Justice program and Tarah Heinzen, a staff attorney of the program, note that since many top positions at EPA remain unfilled, much of the agency’s business is flowing through Pruitt himself. Heinzen says that, consequently, there is “far less autonomy at the regional level,” and that state agencies are finding it challenging “to even gather information.”

Conventional agriculture groups, however, are mostly in agreement with the newly defined priorities of Pruitt’s EPA. When Pruitt addressed meetings of the American Farm Bureau Federation and the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association in early 2017, he was reportedly given standing ovations. Others say it is still too early to tell whether the changing priorities of this EPA will dramatically affect the relationship between the EPA and farmers.

On the one hand, the biggest players in the “[agriculture] industry have always had the EPA pretty captured,” says Merkel. Indeed, EPA’s regulatory trends have shown a shift toward more self-regulation in the agribusiness sector. There has also been a decline in the number of inspections and enforcement actions by the agency against concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) since the final years of the Obama administration.

And while many farmers have traditionally had an antagonistic relationship with the agency, Tom Driscoll of the National Farmers Union says the idea that farmers have a “knee-jerk distrust of EPA is a bit overstated.” He adds that the farmers he works with are “invested in a clean and healthy environment” and many farmers are still hoping to work with the EPA toward better conservation practices.

Plummeting Morale Inside the Agency

Between April and December, 770 employees left the EPA, many taking buyouts and early retirements. O’Grady says that some of these departures could be unrelated to the political environment. But, he says, some could be “related to people being disgusted with the program that this [administration] is putting in place.” Regardless of their reasons for leaving, many are not being replaced—barely one-third of the 624 EPA positions that require Congressional confirmation have been filled, with another third sitting vacant with no nominees.

Other EPA employees have gone to the media or other forums to speak out against the current administration—but not without consequence. Several employees who’ve spoken out publicly against the recent actions of the EPA have had their emails scrutinized. Many reports suggest that the internal staff morale is low. While the administration fears information leaks, many employees fear the agency will retaliate without proof if they are suspected of leaking information.

Pruitt has repeatedly condemned the EPA under Obama for treating states and industry as “adversaries,” preferring to see them as “partners.” That philosophy has translated into bringing many former industry representatives in to fill major EPA roles.

A November 2017 Center for Public Integrity investigation into 46 political appointees at the EPA found that the majority had worked for an either an organization with a history of climate change denial or an industry commonly regulated by the agency. The appointees include a former senior director of the American Chemistry Council (whose members include Dow, Monsanto, and Bayer), former senior counsel at the American Petroleum Institute, and former legislative affairs director for the National Association of Chemical Distributors.

And the appointees go beyond the agriculture and energy industries. In May, Pruitt appointed his friend and personal banker Albert Kelly, to lead the new Superfund Task Force. Just two weeks prior, Kelly had been fined by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation for financial misdeeds that resulted in his being banned from rejoining the banking industry by the FDIC.

Pruitt has also reportedly spent much more of his time in meetings with industry reps than environmental organizations or citizen groups. A trove of documents detailing his schedule during his first three months at the helm of the agency show dozens of meetings with or travel to events sponsored by General Motors, Shell Oil executives, CropLife America, the National Association of Manufacturers, the Cement Association, and the National Mining Association. Meanwhile, between March and September, Pruitt met with just five environmental groups.

Some of Pruitt’s deregulatory actions, particularly those targeted at Obama-era executive orders, could only last for a short while if they were soon overturned by a new administration. But others, like unwinding WOTUS, would take years of litigation and rulemaking to get back to where the Obama administration left off.

And staff at EPA could also prove hard to replace. John O’Grady points out that the agency has shrunk from 18,000 employees in 1999 to around 14,500 today, and he predicts the Trump administration will cut several thousand more jobs. After all the cuts, “there’s still the same amount of work,” he says. The staff that remain at EPA “are dedicated, they’re trying to get the work done.” But as morale falls, many are burning out. And those who stay must face an agency that seeks to unwind decades of its own efforts to fight climate change, regulate harmful chemicals, and protect the country’s waterways.

Top photo CC-licensed by Gage Skidmore.