Bush’s EPA loses rat poison case

The bad news is the Bush administration frequently tries outrageous stunts that undermine public health. The good news is, once in a while, they don’t get away with it. The issue this time is rat poison.

The pesticide industry started lobbing hard in the late 1990s against regulations designed to protect children and wildlife from becoming unintended victims of rat poisons. Clinton’s EPA described the poisons as posing “a significant risk of accidental exposure to humans, particularly children, household pets, and non-target animals,” but approved their use because the poisons helped contain diseases carried by rats and mice.

In 1998, Clinton, however, called for two new safeguards: adding an agent to make the poison taste more bitter and a dye that would make it more obvious if a child had ingested the poison. Then Bush took office.

In 2001, Bush’s EPA reversed course and announced a “mutual agreement” with rodenticide makers that killed the regulations. How offensive was the administration’s work? The Natural Resources Defense Council obtained documents showing that Bush’s EPA not only worked hand-in-hand with the industry in rewriting the rules, but also complied when manufacturers wanted the risks associated with rat poison downplayed in EPA assessments.

At the behest of the industry, the EPA made broad changes to play down the dangers posed by rat poison, including rewriting a section describing the fatal poisoning of seven deer.

While refusing to meet with consumer and environmental groups, the agency held five closed-door meetings with members of the Rodenticide Registrants Task Force, whose members include Syngenta Crop Protection, Bell Laboratories Inc. and LiphaTech Inc.

EPA deleted language the industry objected to: At one point a staffer wrote in an e-mail that there would be “no references to mitigation and no words/phrases etc. that could evoke emotion on the part of” the industry task force. The document initially said that seven deer in New York state “have been poisoned by anticoagulants. . . . The incidents depict how toxic rodenticide baits can be even to large animals”; at the industry’s suggestion this was amended to “Seven deer in New York state tested positive for anticoagulants,” with the second phrase dropped altogether.

Yesterday, a federal judge smacked Bush’s EPA around for their irresponsible recklessness.

The Environmental Protection Agency has failed to protect children from rat poison exposure, a federal judge ruled yesterday, suggesting chemical manufacturers should add a bittering agent to keep children from ingesting their products.

Ruling in favor of two advocacy groups — West Harlem Environmental Action and the Natural Resources Defense Council — U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff wrote that the agency failed to justify its 2001 agreement with pest control companies, which dropped two provisions from a 1998 rule requiring them to include a bittering agent and an indicator dye.

“In short, the EPA lacked even the proverbial ‘scintilla of evidence’ justifying its reversal of the requirement it had imposed, after extensive study, only a few years before,” Rakoff wrote.

Bush loses, kids win. An occasional victory is good for morale, isn’t it?

Typical of Bush’s EPA, they tried to pay families to poision their kids last year before scientists with a conscience stopped them.

  • You’re being unfair to Bush. He was just being compassionate to the rats:

    Bush administration officials rescinded the requirements, on the grounds that they would make the poison less attractive to rats

  • Nice victory but it won’t trig any prosecution for corruption or fraud against the rodenticide producers or EPA agents who bowed to their demands (and polico appointees who pushed/intimidated them). And yet, it would more than deserved and it’s probably the only thing that could put a clamp on corrupt lobbying.

    Until some K-street weasels end in the slammer for a long time, it’s just “see ya folks, we’ll try again next week.”

  • The rat pellet dispute is a little more complicated than this post makes it seem. The industry claims, and this doesn’t seem entirely unreasonable, that the bittering agents made the pellets less attractive to the rats as well and therefore less effective. I am not an apologist for the Bush (mis)administration, but this issue probably isn’t the best one to bash him on.

  • So because it will be less attractive to the rats we should just poison all the little children. Of course it won’t be any rich kids will it. It will just be the poor. Who cares …right. Certainly not the Bush people!! We also all know Bush could care less about any animal’s that are accidentally poisoned.
    This administration lets business right it’s own laws!

    They suck!

  • It would have been nice to see a comparison that said something like that, that rat poison companies stand to gain $_____ by killing ____ kids. I don’t think that’s being unfair. That’s literally the issue.

    How is this in any way part of the “culture of life” that Bush talks so much about?

  • I hate Bush more than rats, but I’m with Clif on this one. If the reformulated pellets taste so bad that kids won’t eat it, will the rats eat it? And if there’s more rats, that undoubtedly will affect the health of some kids, so it’s not like making the poison bitter won’t cost anything.

    I don’t think it’s a clear-cut case of Bush being evil, But I do think it’s another case of an industry punching its own ticket.

  • Clif, the idea that rats won’t eat the pellets because they “taste bad” doesn’t sound right to me. I, for one, wouldn’t take the recommendations of rat when it comes to epicurean pleasures. Rats are not known as particlularly picky eaters; there are many thing which rats would eat, carrion for example, which I wouldn’t find all that yummy. This is not to say you are wrong, but a reference would be nice, in order that we may judge the claim’s credibility.

    Fifi’s comment suggest the following headline. “K Street Weasels in Bed with Exterminators; Conflict of Interest Seen” or not.

  • I think, actually, that everyone is right. But
    let’s put two ideas together that have
    been expressed by Clif and Rege: rats
    might not like the bitter taste, and rats will
    eat a lot of stuff that tastes pretty ghastly
    to humans. And kids are a lot pickier
    than us adults.

    Wouldn’t you think the industry, if it
    really had safety on their minds, could
    concoct a poison that tastes good to
    rats, and horrible to kids? Or at least,
    if the Bush administration gave one
    damn about safety, would require them
    to do so? Don’t we artificially flavor
    everything today? Can’t we pretty
    much make any substance taste like
    any other substance?

    So I say, down with industry and Bush.
    The problem is easily solved, but they
    don’t want to bother. Hell, they could
    make the poison taste like spinach or
    something. And they could make it smell
    bad too, couldn’t they?

  • Was this the EPA of Christie Whitman, Environmental Goddess?

    Some rats don’t have any taste at all.

  • I think you guys are missing something here. I thought about this and I think the key is, they lump TWO items together. If it was really the case that “if they make it taste bad, rats won’t eat it” (which just means they would have to do research, surely with a government grant, and find something that worked, right?) was THE issue then they still would have been okay with the coloring thing to more quickly identify people or pets that ingested it.

    So THINK a little about that. WHY would they be against quickly identifying people poisoned with their product?

    Could it be that they know there are many unreported cases of rat poisoning of kids and animals…cases where it is assumed something else killed them? If kids, or pets, or other animals started turning up dead with purple tongues, suddenly maybe we all find out about just how dangerous this is, and of course lawsuits.

    I have the idea they bundle the two items together so no one focuses too much on the ONE they really don’t want to happen.

    Because otherwise it makes no sense. If ALL companies had to do both, and that made it cost more, it costs more for all rat poison companies, so the cost is passed on, and no edge is given to competitors since they all must do it. If they are afraid the cost will lose international sales, because they will compete with the lower cost non-tagged ratfood…then they can make two kinds, one for domestic one for international.

    No, it is almost certainly one of the two items that is the real case here. And I bet it is the coloring.

  • Perhaps Bush and company were doing a favor for their kindred
    spirits in the rodent world- one group of rats coming to the aid of another group of rats.
    Nothing in this story is really all that surprising. Bush and his minions
    have been feeding us the equivelent of rat poison for 5 years now,
    haven’t they?

  • I have to say that even a jaded observer like myself was amazed by this.

    My professional life has led me in and around the chemical industry and its lobbying/PR efforts quite a bit. One of the things the industry is very proud of is the ability to create agents that make household toxins so bitter and awful tasting that toddlers won’t poison themselves.

    I never worked around the rodenticide sector much, but I don’t ever recall this being a big issue.

    For EPA to roll over on this minor issue shows just how in the bag for the polluters they are. Pathetic.

    Shame this story came out in August when no one is paying attention.

    “Discombobulation is Sweeping the Nation.” This week’s commentary by the Eyewitness Muse: http://www.eyewitnessmuse.com/commentary.php

  • Comments are closed.