Pesticide Hypocrisy on Capitol Hill
Attack of the Killer Weeds: Congressional hypocrites
Is Your Congressperson a "Sound Science" Hypocrite?
Fifty-three supporters of HR1592 or S1464, bills to expand Section 18 loopholes and delay children's health protections, have directly pressured the EPA to grant Section 18 exemptions. They say their support for the bills is based on a concern for "sound science" -- but Section 18 exemptions by definition are for pesticides do not have a complete, thoroughly reviewed set of health and safety data, the most rudimentary requirements of sound science.
These 53 members of congress are "sound science" hypocrites. They are for "sound science" when it can be used to delay action against dangerous pesticides to protect kids' health. They ignore sound science when it comes to granting pesticide companies permission to use poorly tested pesticides on children's foods.
Not surprisingly, most of these "sound science" hypocrites have taken significant amounts of re-election money from pesticide and agribusiness lobbyists. The average "sound science" hypocrite received $10,486 in reelection money from the pesticide industry in from November 1996 through October 1999, whereas the average member of congress who didn't pressure the EPA for Section 18 exemptions, and didn't cosponsor the industry-backed bills, received just $2,693 over the same period.