Interpreting Ambiguous Laws Reconsidered

Good News: Supreme Court Overturns ‘Chevron Deference’ In Massive Blow To ‘Administrative State’

The Supreme Court’s conservative majority ruled 6-3 to upend the 40-year administrative law precedent that gave agencies across the federal government leeway to interpret ambiguous laws through rulemaking. Many conservatives blamed this law for the dramatic overgrowth of government and for excessive power given to unelected regulators. Now, judges will substitute their own best interpretation of the law, instead of deferring to the agencies – effectively making it easier to overturn regulations that govern wide-ranging aspects of American life. This includes rules governing climate change, energy policies, toxic chemicals, drugs and medicine, artificial intelligence, cryptocurrency and much more.

.The Supreme Court has ruled to overturn the so-called ‘Chevron Deference’ dealing a huge blow to the so-called ‘administrative state’ that have enjoyed

In an 6-3 decision along ideological lines, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority upended the 40-year administrative law precedent that gave agencies across the federal government leeway to interpret ambiguous laws through rulemaking.

Conservatives and Republican policymakers have long been critical of the doctrine, saying it has contributed to the dramatic growth of government and gives unelected regulators far too much power to make policy by going beyond what Congress intended when it approved various laws. The authority of regulatory agencies has been increasingly questioned by the Supreme Court in recent years.

Those on the other side say the Chevron doctrine empowers an activist federal government to serve the public interest in an increasingly complicated world without having to seek specific congressional authorization for everything that needs to be done.

As The Hill report, judges previously had to defer to agencies in cases where the law is ambiguous.

Now, judges will substitute their own best interpretation of the law, instead of deferring to the agencies – effectively making it easier to overturn regulations that govern wide-ranging aspects of American life.

This includes rules governing toxic chemicals, drugs and medicine, climate change, artificial intelligence, cryptocurrency and more.

The move hands a major victory to conservative and anti-regulatory interests that have looked to eliminate the precedent as part of a broader attack on the growing size of the “administrative state.”

The Biden administration defended the precedent before the high court.

As Mark Joseph Stern writes on X:

“Today’s ruling is a massive blow to the ‘administrative state’, the collection of federal agencies that enforce laws involving the environment, food and drug safety, workers’ rights, education, civil liberties, energy policy—the list is nearly endless.”

“The Supreme Court’s reversal of Chevron constitutes a major transfer of power from the executive branch to the judiciary, stripping federal agencies of significant discretion to interpret and enforce ambiguous regulations.

Chief Justice Roberts, writing the opinion of the court, argued Chevron “defies the command of” the Administrative Procedure Act, which governs federal administrative agencies.

He said it “requires a court to ignore, not follow, ‘the reading the court would have reached had it exercised its independent judgment as required by the APA.’”

Further, he said it “is misguided” because “agencies have no special competence in resolving statutory ambiguities. Courts do.”

The liberals on the court are not happy:

“In dissent, Justice Kagan says the conservative supermajority “disdains restraint, and grasps for power,” making “a laughingstock” of stare decisis and producing “large-scale disruption” throughout the entire government. She is both furious and terrified.”

As Stern concludes:

“Hard to overstate the impact of this seismic shift.”

Simply put, a massive win for the constitution…

Read full article here…

From an account on X by LudwigNeverMises:

https://x.com/ludwignvermises/status/1807062441135608138

Maybe now people will understand why I’ve been criticizing RFK for complaining about Sackett vs EPA, the case that set up the overturning of Chevron.

“Kennedy was complaining loudly about a 2023 Supreme Court decision blocking the EPA from extending enforcement of the Clean Water Act to marshlands.

This was the biggest constitutionally based pushback on a regulatory agency in over a century and RFK called it horrible.”

The Chevron doctrine required courts to defer to an agency’s “reasonable” interpretation of an ambiguous statute, effectively giving regulators full lawmaking ability.

In the Sackett case, the Supreme Court made a historic ruling challenging the EPA’s interpretation that the Clean Water Act included marshlands as being “not reasonable” thereby removing the agencies authority to regulate the Sackett’s property.

This opened up the rest of the regulatory agencies “reasonable” interpretations up to question, leading to the reversal of the Chevron decision which gave them broad power to interpret law.

The Chevron doctrine in 1984 was merely codifying agency overreach which had already been happening for a century.

But its overturning makes that agency overreach explicitly unlawful, which undermines the entire unaccountable regulatory bureaucracy. And makes it the most significant case against the administrative state since it began to take root during the progressive era, over a century ago.

from:    https://needtoknow.news/2024/07/good-news-supreme-court-overturns-chevron-deference-in-massive-blow-to-administrative-state/

Challenging Biosolids in Farming

EPA  Sued for Allowing Sewage that Contains ‘Forever Chemicals’ to be Used as Fertilizer

‘Biosolids’ is sewage sludge that has been flushed down toilets and includes waste, chemicals, microplastics, heavy metals and more, and it is being used as fertilizer on American farmlands. The EPA estimates more than 2.4 million tons of biosolids are applied to land annually as fertilizer on farms, pastures, parks, home gardens, and other lands. A group of farmers and ranchers whose livelihoods and health were decimated after PFAS-laden biosolids from neighboring properties leached onto their land have filed a lawsuit against the US Environmental Protection Agency. PFAS are known as “forever chemicals” because they do not readily break down in the environment and they bioaccumulate in our bodies and biomagnify in the food chain.  Under the Clean Water Act, the EPA is required to identify toxic pollutants in biosolids and adopt regulations to prevent harm to human health or the environment, but it has failed to do so.

Dr. Kaufman has a video about how you can avoid biosolid pollution. Dr. Kaufman will be a speaker at G. Edward Griffin’s Red Pill Expo this weekend, June 15 and 16 in Rapid City, South Dakota. You can watch all of the Red Pill Expo speakers from the comfort of your home online by clicking on this link: https://redpilluniversity.org/expo-homepage/

In the video, Dr. Kaufman discusses how biosolids are poisoning our food supply (and ruining your health); How farmers have been tricked into using a “cost-effective,” yet toxic, fertilizer without knowing it; And how you can evade this synthetic pollutant and its dangerous effects once and for all.

Link for video:        https://rumble.com/v4hkt4u-healthy-living-livestream-biosolids-a-toxic-trick-played-on-farmers.html

.Washington, DC — Today, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) faces a federal lawsuit over its failure to prevent toxic per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in biosolid fertilizers from contaminating farmlands, livestock, crops, and water supplies. Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) filed the lawsuit on behalf of a group of farmers and ranchers whose livelihoods and health were decimated after PFAS-laden biosolids from neighboring properties leached onto their land.

Biosolids is a term used to refer to sewage sludge. EPA estimates more than 2.4 million tons are applied to land annually as fertilizer on farms, pastures, parks, home gardens, and other lands. Biosolids are made from both municipal and industrial waste, and although they are treated to remove pathogens and some other materials, PFAS are not removed during treatment and EPA does not currently limit the amount of PFAS they can contain.

PFAS are known as “forever chemicals” because they do not readily break down in the environment and they bioaccumulate in our bodies and biomagnify in the food chain. When biosolids containing PFAS are land-applied, these dangerous chemicals leach into soil and ground water, and are then taken up by plants, which are then consumed by humans, livestock, and wildlife.

Under the Clean Water Act, EPA is required to identify toxic pollutants in biosolids and adopt regulations to prevent harm to human health or the environment. However, in the more than 35 years this law has been on the books, EPA has only promulgated nine sewage sludge regulations for land application despite having identified more than 350 pollutants, including at least 10 PFAS in biosolids for which, in PEER’s view, there is sufficient scientific evidence to regulate.

“EPA is avoiding its longstanding legal responsibility to protect our health and environment from PFAS in biosolids,” stated PEER Science Policy Director Kyla Bennett, a scientist and attorney formerly with EPA. “It is unconscionable that EPA has allowed these toxic chemicals to threaten our nation’s food and water supply.”

The plaintiffs in this case are just a few of the many farmers across the country grappling with agricultural contamination calamities linked to biosolids. Moreover, each subsequent application of biosolids increases the PFAS levels in soils and waters, thereby exacerbating existing problems.

In PEER’s discussions with EPA staff following the filing of its Notice of Intent to Sue this February, it became clear that the agency has no definitive timeline for regulatory action and that the scope of its current efforts would be inadequate. PEER believes that litigation is the only avenue for establishing a concrete and expeditious timeline for stemming what is becoming a threat to America’s food security.

“PFAS poisoning of farmlands is fast becoming a national agricultural emergency,” added PEER Staff Counsel Laura Dumais. “Farmers whose lands have been decimated by biosolids consistently ask, ‘why does EPA allow this?’ And they’re absolutely right. EPA needs to act immediately to protect farmers and our food supply from this toxic mess.”

Since the plaintiffs filed their notice of intent to sue EPA, several other groups have submitted their own notices of intent and are preparing to join the suit.

Read the lawsuit

See criminal investigation of PFAS biosolid contamination on Texas farms

View recent product liability suit on PFAS-biosolids

Look at public health risks to PFAS in biosolid fertilizers

Read full article here…

from:    https://needtoknow.news/2024/06/epa-sued-for-allowing-sewage-that-contains-forever-chemicals-to-be-used-as-fertilizer/

Stand Up for Berkey!

How the EPA Is Attempting to Kill the Berkey Water Filter

By Derrick Broze

The U.S. EPA is attempting to label the popular Berkey Water Filters a pesticide in order to regulate the product under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act.

Over the last year, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been pursuing a case against the owner of the Berkey Water Systems which produces the popular Berkey filters. The EPA is attempting to classify the Berkey filters as pesticides because they incorporate silver in their design, a feature which the EPA claims qualifies the filters as a pesticide under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). The move has already lead to one authorized dealer of the Berkey Water Systems being forced to shut down.

On August 9, New Millennium Concepts, Ltd. (NMCL) and the James B. Shepherd Trust, the owners of the Berkey Water Systems, filed a lawsuit against EPA, suing for violations of the Administrative Procedures Act and due process for their attempts to regulate the water filters. The NMCL said the EPA is labeling the filters a pesticide because of the use of silver to prevent biological growth inside the filters, a feature shared by many water filtration systems. NMCL says the silver does not leach into the water itself and thus the filters should not be regulated as a pesticide. Silver is currently a registered pesticide with the EPA.

NMCL notes that the EPA has not utilized this new re-interpretation to stop the sale of any other outdoor water filter. They go on to state that the “real issue” is that the EPA does not like that Berkey filters have been advertised as capable of removing the COVID-19 virus from your water.

In November, the case was dismissed after the judge claimed that the company doesn’t have standing in their claims. This means that Berkey Water Systems will likely face regulation as a pesticide unless appeals are successful.

“We are now in appeal because, amazingly, the district court ruled that New Millennium had not been harmed by the EPA issuing Stop-Sale orders to its dealers, its manufacturing facility and other vendors, and therefore had no standing in that court,” they wrote in a blog response.

In October, U.S. Congressman Matt Gaetz (FL-01) sent a letter to EPA Administrator Michael Regan regarding the agency’s new ruling classifying the Berkey Water Systems as pesticides. Gaetz’s letter highlights the EPA’s unprecedented attempt to put Berkey out of business. Gaetz requested the EPA provide specific documents to his office showing the process the EPA used to determine its actions.

“At a time when Americans are increasingly unhealthy and their water filled with contaminants, such as endocrine disrupters, heavy metals, and ‘forever’ chemicals, such as PFAS, the EPA should be pursuing policies within its regulatory authority that incentivize increased use of water-filtration systems, not less,” the letter states.

“The EPA must end its attack on Berkey Water Systems immediately and focus on the job it was created to do – keep Americans safe – a job Berkey Water Systems has arguably done more effectively.”

Berkey Dealer Forced to Shut Down

In mid-December, BerkeyFilters.com, an official distributor of the Berkey water filter, announced that they would be going out of business as a result of the lawsuit against the EPA. BerkeyFilters.com is owned by James Enterprise Inc. (JEI). The company said they were the first Berkey dealer to receive a Stop-Sale Order from the EPA.

In a now deleted blog post on BerkeyFilters.com, the company explained their side of the story. They say the whole fiasco began in November 2022 with an “unannounced, unscheduled inspection of JEI facilities.” The blog notes that an EPA inspector also told JEI that the EPA is “cracking down” on virus claims because of COVID-19, and that “the EPA had stepped up its enforcement efforts, particularly in regard to anti-microbial devices.”

In January 2023, JEI says they removed all references and statements relating to the filters removing waterborne pathogens, or pests. The company spent “hundreds of hours” deleting content on websites, social media accounts, and packaging. However, the Stop-Sale Order has not been lifted and, according to JEI, their business has been negatively impacted. They say have been forced to fire employees, cease certain services, and pause third-party parternships.

In the end, JEI was forced to close their doors as an official dealer of the Berkey Water Systems.

The official Berkey Water Systems posted a blog making it clear that although BerkeyFilters.com is no longer an official dealer of the Berkey Filter, the company is still producing the filters and not closing down.

They acknowledge that BerkeyFilters.com was the first dealer to receive the Stop-Sale Order and that both parties attempted to work with the EPA. Berkey Filters said they worked with the EPA for eight months but could not reach a resolution.

“It became apparent that the EPA would accept nothing less than the bankruptcy of New Millennium, its dealers, and more importantly preventing you the public from being self sufficient in terms of cleaning difficult to remove contaminants from your drinking water,” Berkey Water wrote.

“Unfortunately, over the course of the past year the folks at BerkeyFilters.com have fallen victim to this overreach by the EPA. We wish them the best.”

NMCL says they are committed to “fighting the EPA’s overreach” and its attempts to “control and prevent the public from purifying their drinking water.”

While Americans are exposed to water filled with fluoridePFASendocrine disrupting chemicals, and other toxins, the federal government is doing their best to destroy, or at the least weaken, a company which has been providing clean water to millions of people in America. If the EPA had done their job and kept the water supply clean, Americans would not need to seek out filters like the Berkey Water System.

Source: The Last American Vagabond

Visit TheLastAmericanVagabond.com. Subscribe to TLAV’s independent news broadcast on iTunes. Follow on Facebook and Minds. Support with Bitcoin.

Derrick Broze, a staff writer for The Last American Vagabond, is a journalist, author, public speaker, and activist. He is the co-host of Free Thinker Radio on 90.1 Houston, as well as the founder of The Conscious Resistance Network & The Houston Free Thinkers.

https://www.thelastamericanvagabond.com/category/derrick-broze/

from:    https://www.activistpost.com/2023/12/how-the-epa-is-attempting-to-kill-the-berkey-water-filter.html

Clean energy & Population Reduction — Our Goals, says Kamala

‘Reduce Population’: Kamala Harris Verbal Slip-Up Corrected By White House

BY TYLER DURDEN
SATURDAY, JUL 15, 2023 – 07:55 PM
Vice President Kamala Harris speaks during the conclusion of the Investing in America tour at Coppin State University in Baltimore, Md., on July 14, 2023. (Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty Images)

Vice President Kamala Harris mistakenly (?) suggested that one of the goals of investing in clean energy is population reduction.

When President [Joe] Biden and I took office, we set an ambitious goal … to cut our greenhouse gas emissions in half by 2030 and to reach net-zero emissions by 2050,” Harris told an audience at Coppin State University in Baltimore on Friday.

When we invest in clean energy and electric vehicles and reduce population, more of our children can breathe clean air and drink clean water,” she continued.

According to the official transcript, the 58-year-old Vice President meant to say ‘pollution,’ not ‘population.’

More via the Epoch Times;

Ms. Harris spoke at the event to address the Environmental Protection Agency’s $20 billion investment program across two grant competitions under the Biden administration’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund that aims to spark clean energy investments across the country.

After clips of Ms. Harris’s verbal miscue emerged online, social media users and a number of Republican figures seized on the error to suggest the Biden administration was publicly calling to reduce the population in the United States.

Responding to Ms. Harris’ verbal slip-up in a Twitter post, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) asked the vice president what exactly she meant by reducing the population.

Abortion? Assisted suicide? Or what means are you suggesting to reduce population in order to help public health?” Ms. Greene wrote.

Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), meanwhile, warned his followers on Twitter, asking: “Are you the population she wants to reduce?”

“Kamala Harris admits she wants to reduce the population for environmental reasons,” Ohio state Sen. Michael Rull said in a post on Twitter. “That’s not just anti-American. That’s anti-human.

Tesla CEO Elon Musk also commented on the vice president’s mix-up of the phrase, tweeting: “We need to increase population.”

And once again, Kamala screws the pooch.

from:  https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/reduce-population-kamala-harriss-verbal-slip-sparks-outragec

What Is That Stuff On My Car in WV and MD?

Mysterious White Dust Blankets Parts Of West Virginia

Tyler Durden's Photo

BY TYLER DURDEN
FRIDAY, FEB 24, 2023 – 10:43 AM

A Facebook page that tracks emergencies across the Panhandle of West Virginia posted multiple reports late Thursday of mysterious white dust falling from the sky and accumulating on cars and other surfaces outside.

Eastern Panhandle Working Fires said the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection “requested anybody experiencing these issues call 911 immediately and have their local fire department respond. They also advise to shut doors and windows and avoid outdoors at this time as a common sense approach until it can be identified.”

Another post by the group that has more than 100,000 followers showed Hampshire County 911 Center in Romney, West Virginia, said:

“We are aware of recent reports of an unknown dust-like substance accumulating on cars and surfaces outside. This is reportedly occurring across the tri-state region. We are aware of another social media site that has advised you to contact 911 if you witness this situation.” 

Many folks from the region tweeted images and videos of the mysterious white dust, blanketing everything in sight.

Last night, temperatures in Morgantown, West Virginia, hovered around 50 degrees Fahrenheit, putting to rest any claims of snow.

There’s no word from the county, state, or federal authorities on the origin of the white dust. However, local media outlet WHSV’s Chief Meteorologist Aubrey Urbanowicz pointed out it could be from a dust storm in the Midwest.

… and another meteorologist agrees with Urbanowicz.

The reports of white dust are located about 100 miles south of the East Palestine, Ohio, train derailment.

from:    https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/mysterious-white-dust-blankets-parts-west-virginia?utm_source=&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=1269

It Seems Clean Trucks = No Trucks

The EPA’s Latest Regulation Could Devastate The Trucking Industry

JACK MCEVOYENERGY & ENVIRONMENT REPORTER

  • The Environmental Protection Agency finalized a rule Tuesday that will impose stricter emissions standards on new heavy-duty vehicles, a regulation that will significantly raise operating costs for truckers, experts and industry representatives told the Daily Caller News Foundation.
  •  “The costs associated with this are also a concern because these are costs that not only the industry will bear … prices will go up for everybody,” Texas Trucking Association President John Esparza told the DCNF.
  • “It’s an overreach that is indicative of this administration’s tendency to set aside balance to achieve the goals of activists that they are politically aligned with,” Mandy Gunasekara, a senior policy analyst for the Independent Women’s Forum and former EPA Chief of Staff during the Trump administration, told the DCNF.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalized a rule Tuesday that will impose stricter nitrogen dioxide emissions standards on new heavy-duty trucks, a move that will substantially hike operating costs for truckers, experts and industry representatives told the Daily Caller News Foundation.

The EPA’s rule, which is more than 80% stricter than the previous regulation, will require large trucks, delivery vans and buses manufactured after 2027 to cut nitrogen dioxide emissions by nearly 50% by 2045, according to an agency press release. The agency’s rule is intended to push truckers to phase out diesel-powered vehicles and use electric vehicles (EV) instead; however, the compliance costs associated with such rules could suffocate an industry that is not ready to transition to EVs, experts told the DCNF

“It’s an overreach that is indicative of this administration’s tendency to set aside balance to achieve the goals of activists that they are politically aligned with,” Mandy Gunasekara, a senior policy analyst for the Independent Women’s Forum and former EPA Chief of Staff during the Trump administration, told the DCNF. “It’s going to squeeze out the mid-sized and smaller trucking companies because they’re not going to be able to afford to purchase the new, extremely expensive equipment required to continue to do what they do.”

The new rules are intended to phase out older trucks that emit more nitrogen dioxide and will push drivers to purchase electric trucks or newer models of diesel trucks that do not produce as much nitrogen dioxide when they burn fuel, according to the EPA.

“If small business truckers can’t afford the new, compliant trucks, they’re going to stay with older, less efficient trucks or leave the industry entirely,” Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association President Todd Spencer told trade publication Freight Waves. “Once again, EPA has largely ignored the warnings and concerns raised by truckers in this latest rule.”

EPA Administrator Michael Regan said that the rule would protect “historically overburdened communities,” that are disproportionately affected by trucking emissions as truck freight routes are often located near “vulnerable populations,” according to the press release. Nitrogen dioxide gas can exacerbate respiratory diseases like asthma and form acid rain in the atmosphere which can damage lakes and forests, according to the EPA.

“The EPA is happy to go easy on big trucking since they support regulations that will harm their smaller competitors far more,” Steve Milloy, Energy and Environmental Legal Institute senior legal fellow and former Trump administration EPA transition team member, told the Daily Caller News Foundation.

Regan announced the new rule in front of an electric garbage truck produced by Mack Trucks and following his remarks, Mack spokesman John Mies stated that his company supports the administration’s zero emissions targets for trucks and is working to cut “dangerous” emissions produced by diesel trucks, according to CNN.

“Companies have taken the initiative to electrify a certain percentage of their fleet by a certain year and have made plans to build the necessary infrastructure, but they are then told that there isn’t enough power to achieve what they’re seeking,” Texas Trucking Association President John Esparza told the DCNF. “The costs associated with this are also a concern because these are costs that not only the industry will bear … prices will go up for everybody.”

The EPA’s final rule is the first step in its “Clean Trucks Plan” which seeks to heavily regulate trucks’ emissions to push drivers to adopt electric trucks.

Gunesakara echoed Esparza’s comments and said that such targets were a “technological fantasy” that could cost truckers their jobs due to the high price of electric trucks. Gunesakara added that the EPA’s rules would force truck drivers to drive older, more polluting and less efficient vehicles for longer as diesel trucks will be rapidly phased out long before EVs can become a more viable alternative.

The EPA touted its new rule and said that it will result in up to 2,900 fewer premature deaths, 18,000 fewer cases of childhood asthma and 6,700 fewer hospital admissions as well as an overall annual net economic benefit of $29 billion due to fewer missed work days. The agency’s trucking rules are less strict than California’s regulations as heavy vehicles in the state must cut nitrogen oxide emissions by 75% starting in 2024, and 90% starting in 2027, according to a California Air Resource Board rule.

The EPA did not immediately respond to the DCNF’s request for comment.

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

from:    https://dailycaller.com/2022/12/25/epas-regulation-imperil-trucking-industry/

 

Long Term Effects on Sperm Count, Fertility from Pesticides

Sounding the Alarm on Connection Between Fertility and Pesticide Exposure

A systematic review of scientific studies on pesticides and fertility finds exposure associated with lower semen quality, DNA fragmentation and chromosomal abnormalities.

A systematic review of scientific studies on pesticides and fertility finds exposure associated with lower semen quality, DNA fragmentation and chromosomal abnormalities.

Published in the journal Andrology, the review is yet another warning from a long string of researchers sounding the alarm over the connection between global fertility and toxic chemical exposure.

With data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) indicating roughly one in five couples are unable to conceive after a year of trying, and trends continuing to slope downwards, it is critical that contributing factors be identified so that protective changes can be made.

After screening more than 1,300 studies, researchers narrowed their review down to 64 papers assessing semen parameters and DNA integrity after pesticide exposure. Each study is analyzed for its design, the pesticide investigated, the population studied, controls and reproductive effects determined.

Pesticides are evaluated for their impacts to sperm quality and DNA integrity based on their chemical class. Organochlorine insecticides, which are all banned but still persistent in soil, air, water and food in the United States, include a range of impacts to sperm quality.

Higher levels of DDT or its breakdown metabolite DDE are associated with lower semen count, and motility and morphology below normal threshold values established by the World Health Organization (WHO). (Under WHO threshold values, a sub-fertile condition is defined by values lower than the fifth percentile of the general population.)

Several studies find that as organochlorine concentrations increase in individual males, sperm parameters also fall.

In addition to sperm quality, organochlorines are associated with chromosomal aberrations in several studies, including effects such as sperm disomy, where sperm have extra or missing chromosomes. This can result in viable offspring, but those offspring are at greater risk of abnormalities.

Organophosphate, the class of insecticides that replaced the organochlorines as they were phased out, also present a range of deleterious impacts. These chemicals include pesticides like malathion, still widely used, and chlorpyrifos, which is only now being phased out of agricultural use.

Effects on sperm parameters are particularly pronounced for individuals in farming regions or with a history of occupational pesticide work.

However, studies on the general population also show cause for concern, finding total sperm count and concentrations inversely related to urinary metabolites of organophosphate insecticides.

Apart from sperm quality, the literature reveals several studies showing organophosphate exposure resulting in missing or extra chromosomes in sperm, with particular attention paid to diethyl phosphate, a non-specific organophosphate metabolite.

Synthetic pyrethroids are also singled out in the scientific literature for their links to sperm damage. These are the insecticides that are replacing the organophosphates, as they are being phased out for their myriad health hazards.

Unfortunately, the game of whack-a-mole played by the pesticide industry with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s allowance has not resulted in chemicals that are safer for long-term human fertility.

Like organophosphates, occupationally exposed individuals are particularly affected, with pyrethroid factory workers showing higher rates of sperm abnormalities and lower motility than non-exposed individuals. Factory workers are also more likely to exhibit DNA fragmentation in their sperm.

Another concentration-dependent relationship is found, with individuals reporting higher levels of urinary 3-phenoxybenzoic acid (3-PBA), a non-specific pyrethroid metabolite, having a lower sperm counts, disomy and a greater chance of exhibiting sperm morphology below WHO thresholds.

Beyond these three classes, scientists did find evidence of negative associations with carbamate class insecticides, fungicides and herbicides, but the low number of studies does not allow for extensive analysis. Mixtures of various pesticides are cited as having similar effects to the three main pesticide classes investigated though firm results were difficult to specify due to lack of complete information.

In general, occupationally exposed workers are most at risk, with chronic exposure being associated with greater sperm defects.

The results of the study are concerning in light of steadily declining sperm counts. A 2017 study found that sperm counts since 1973 have fallen by nearly 60%.

One author of that study, Shanna Swan, Ph.D., captured public attention regarding sperm declines through her book “Countdown,” which goes into great depth regarding the impact of environmental chemicals on human fertility.

Watch Dr. Swan’s talk, “Modern Life and the Threat to the Future,” at Beyond Pesticides’ 2021 National Forum, Cultivating Healthy Communities.

Researchers have been sounding the alarm on the impact of pesticides on fertility for decades. In 2013, a previous literature review evaluating pesticide impacts on fertility found pesticides strongly associated with declines in sperm count. 

As she recounted in a presentation at Beyond Pesticides’ 2021 National Pesticide Forum Dr. Swan’s own work is borne out of efforts to try to disprove a paper published in 1992 by Carlsen et al., which highlights significant declines in sperm quality since the late 1930s.

As the human civilization grapples with a range of cascading crises, from climate change to the insect apocalypse and global biodiversity crisis, we may be missing the chance to address one of the most critical aspects to the continuation of humanity as we now know it.

Originally published by Beyond Pesticides

from:    https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/male-fertility-toxic-pesticide-chemical-exposure/

Download for Free: Robert F. Kennedy’s New Book — ‘A Letter to Liberals’

Time to Honor the Soil

Toxic Corporations Are Destroying the Planet’s Soil

Colin Todhunter

Anewly published analysis in the journal Frontiers in Environmental Science argues that a toxic soup of insecticides, herbicides and fungicides is causing havoc beneath fields covered in corn, soybeans, wheat and other monoculture crops. The research is the most comprehensive review ever conducted on how pesticides affect soil health.

The study is discussed by two of the report’s authors, Nathan Donley and Tari Gunstone, in a recent article appearing on the Scientific American website.

The authors state that the findings should bring about immediate changes in how regulatory agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) assess the risks posed by the nearly 850 pesticide ingredients approved for use in the USA.

Conducted by the Center for Biological Diversity, Friends of the Earth and the University of Maryland, the research looked at almost 400 published studies that together had carried out more than 2800 experiments on how pesticides affect soil organisms. The review encompassed 275 unique species or types of soil organisms and 284 different pesticides or pesticide mixtures.

Pesticides were found to harm organisms that are critical to maintaining healthy soils in over 70 per cent of cases. But Donley and Gunstone say this type of harm is not considered in the EPA’s safety reviews, which ignore pesticide harm to earthworms, springtails, beetles and thousands of other subterranean species.

The EPA uses a single test species to estimate risk to all soil organisms, the European honeybee, which spends its entire life above ground in artificial boxes. But 50-100 per cent of all pesticides end up in soil.

The researchers conclude that the ongoing escalation of pesticide-intensive agriculture and pollution are major driving factors in the decline of soil organisms. By carrying out wholly inadequate reviews, the regulatory system serves to protect the pesticide industry.

The study comes in the wake of other recent findings that indicate high levels of the weedkiller chemical glyphosate and its toxic breakdown product AMPA have been found in topsoil samples from no-till fields in Brazil.

Writing on the GMWatch website, Claire Robinson and Jonathan Matthews note that, despite this, the agrochemical companies seeking the renewal of the authorisation of glyphosate by the European Union in 2022 are saying that one of the greatest benefits of glyphosate is its ability to foster healthier soils by reducing the need for tillage (or ploughing).

This in itself is misleading because farmers are resorting to ploughing given increasing weed resistance to glyphosate and organic agriculture also incorporates no till methods. At the same time, proponents of glyphosate conveniently ignore or deny its toxicity to soils, water, humans and wildlife.

With that in mind, it is noteworthy that GMWatch also refers to another recent study which says that glyphosate is responsible for a five per cent increase in infant mortality in Brazil.

The new study, ‘Pesticides in a case study on no-tillage farming systems and surrounding forest patches in Brazil’ in the journal Scientific Reports, leads the researchers to conclude that glyphosate-contaminated soil can adversely impact food quality and human health and ecological processes for ecosystem services maintenance. They argue that glyphosate and AMPA presence in soil may promote toxicity to key species for biodiversity conservation, which are fundamental for maintaining functioning ecological systems.

These studies reiterate the need to shift away from increasingly discredited ‘green revolution’ ideology and practices. This chemical-intensive model has helped the drive towards greater monocropping and has resulted in less diverse diets and less nutritious foods. Its long-term impact has led to soil degradation and mineral imbalances, which in turn have adversely affected human health.

If we turn to India, for instance, that country is losing 5334 million tonnes of soil every year due to soil erosion and degradation, much of which is attributed to the indiscreet and excessive use of synthetic agrochemicals. The Indian Council of Agricultural Research reports that soil is becoming deficient in nutrients and fertility.

India is not unique in this respect. Maria-Helena Semedo of the Food and Agriculture Organization stated back in 2014 that if current rates of degradation continue all of the world’s topsoil could be gone within 60 years. She noted that about a third of the world’s soil had already been degraded. There is general agreement that chemical-heavy farming techniques are a major cause.

It can take 500 years to generate an inch of soil yet just a few generations to destroy. When you drench soil with proprietary synthetic agrochemicals as part of a model of chemical-dependent farming, you harm essential micro-organisms and end up feeding soil a limited doughnut diet of toxic inputs.

Armed with their multi-billion-dollar money-spinning synthetic biocides, this is what the agrochemical companies have been doing for decades. In their arrogance, these companies claim to have knowledge that they do not possess and then attempt to get the public and co-opted agencies and politicians to bow before the altar of corporate ‘science’ and its bought-and-paid-for scientific priesthood.

The damaging impacts of their products on health and the environment have been widely reported for decades, starting with Rachel Carson’s ground-breaking 1962 book Silent Spring.

These latest studies underscore the need to shift towards organic farming and agroecology and invest in indigenous models of agriculture – as has been consistently advocated by various high-level international agencies, not least the United Nations, and numerous official reports.

from:   https://off-guardian.org/2021/06/23/toxic-corporations-are-destroying-the-planets-soil/

TO End Water Fluoridation…

Media Blackout: The Federal Court Case To End Water Fluoridation!

By Spiro Skouras

As we are inundated with headlines about violent riots and looting being passed off as mostly peaceful protests, or how the dreaded virus continues to spread in communities around the world, there is another story taking place which directly affects hundreds of millions of people globally that is being blacked out by the mainstream corporate media.

Unlike the aforementioned crises which are being cited as the justification for the World Economic Forum’s Great Reset, this public health crisis actually has a rather simple solution: to end water fluoridation by no longer adding the toxic substance to the nation’s water supply.

You would think this would be a straightforward process, considering the mountains of studies which conclude fluoride is a harmful neurotoxin attributed to lower IQs and ADHD. Unfortunately, government regulatory agencies have been not only defending this practice for generations, they champion the forced medication as a great achievement in medical history.

Right now, in perhaps one of the most important trials of our time, the Fluoride Action Network is taking the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) head on in an unprecedented court case that could lead to the end of water fluoridation in the US and possibly worldwide as other nations would likely follow suit.

In this interview, Spiro is joined by Dr. Paul Connett of the Fluoride Action Network to discuss the current court case against the EPA and water fluoridation as the first week of the trial has come to an end and the second, possibly final week is about to begin.

Fluoride Action Network
http://fluoridealert.org

Link & Times To Watch The Trial Live
http://fluoridealert.org/issues/tsca-fluoride-trial/

Spiro’s Interview with Dr. Paul Connett & his Son, Attorney Michael Connett
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQAjWu0hBnw&feature=emb_logo

Follow Spiro on BitChute bitchute.com/channel/spiro/ Follow on Twitter https://twitter.com/o_rips

from:    https://www.activistpost.com/2020/06/media-blackout-the-federal-court-case-to-end-water-fluoridation.html

Who Knew???

EPA suspends enforcement of environmental laws amid coronavirus

The temporary policy, for which the EPA has set no end date, would allow any number of industries to skirt environmental laws, with the agency saying it will not “seek penalties for noncompliance with routine monitoring and reporting obligations.”

Cynthia Giles, who headed the EPA’s Office of Enforcement during the Obama administration, called it a moratorium on enforcing the nation’s environmental laws and an abdication of the agency’s duty.

“This EPA statement is essentially a nationwide waiver of environmental rules for the indefinite future. It tells companies across the country that they will not face enforcement even if they emit unlawful air and water pollution in violation of environmental laws, so long as they claim that those failures are in some way ’caused’ by the virus pandemic. And it allows them an out on monitoring too, so we may never know how bad the violating pollution was,” she wrote in a statement to The Hill.

The EPA has been under pressure from a number of industries, including the oil industry, to suspend enforcement of a number of environmental regulations due to the pandemic.

“EPA is committed to protecting human health and the environment, but recognizes challenges resulting from efforts to protect workers and the public from COVID-19 may directly impact the ability of regulated facilities to meet all federal regulatory requirements,” EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler said in a statement. 

In a 10-page letter to the EPA earlier this week, the American Petroleum Institute (API) asked for a suspension of rules that require repairing leaky equipment as well as monitoring to make sure pollution doesn’t seep into nearby water.

Other industries had also asked to ignite the “force majeure” clauses of any legal settlements they had signed with the EPA, allowing for an extension on deadlines to meet various environmental goals in the face of unforeseen circumstances.

But Giles and others say the memo signed Thursday goes beyond that request, giving industries board authority to pollute with little oversight from the agency.

“Incredibly, the EPA statement does not even reserve EPA’s right to act in the event of an imminent threat to public health,” Giles said.

“Instead, EPA says it will defer to states, and ‘work with the facility’ to minimize or prevent the threat. EPA should never relinquish its right and its obligation to act immediately and decisively when there is threat to public health, no matter what the reason is. I am not aware of any instance when EPA ever relinquished this fundamental authority as it does in this memo.”

The memo says companies should try to minimize “the effects and duration of any noncompliance” with environmental laws and should also keep records of their own noncompliance, along with identifying how the coronavirus was a factor.

The EPA on Friday pushed back against characterization of the memo as a waiver of environmental rules.
“During this extraordinary time, EPA believes that it is more important for facilities to ensure that their pollution control equipment remains up and running and the facilities are operating safely, than to carry out routine sampling and reporting,” agency spokeswoman Andrea Woods told The Hill by email.
“If a facility has exceedances of limits on pollution the policy does not offer any no action assurance. We retain all our authorities and will exercise them appropriately. It is a temporary policy and will be terminated when this crisis is past.”

Critics say it’s not unreasonable to refrain from environmental enforcement on a case-by-case basis when companies are unable to comply with the letter of the law, but many were alarmed by the breadth of Thursdays memo.

“It is not clear why refineries, chemical plants, and other facilities that continue to operate and keep their employees on the production line will no longer have the staff or time they need to comply with environmental laws,” Eric Schaeffer, a former director of civil enforcement at the EPA who is now with the Environmental Integrity Project, wrote in a letter signed by a number of environmental groups in anticipation of the memo.

The letter writers also criticized the requests from the API, arguing nearby communities would face prolonged exposure to a number of air and water pollutants that might be expelled through oil production — something they say would have “a very specific impact on public health and safety.”

The diminished compliance requirements for industry comes at a time when the EPA has refused to budge on deadlines for comments as they proceed with a number of deregulatory actions.

Environmental and public health groups had argued that those with science and health backgrounds who would normally weigh in on such regulations have been pulled into the coronavirus fight, leaving them unable to divert their attention.

“The Environmental Protection Agency has not shown the same concern for the impact the coronavirus has had on the ability of community and public interest groups to respond to various proposals to weaken environmental standards,” Schaeffer wrote in the letter.But the EPA has argued exceptions were not needed.

“We’re open and continuing our regulatory work business as usual,” an EPA spokesperson told The Hill in a statement. “As regulations.gov is fully functioning, there is no barrier to the public providing comment during the established periods.”

from:   https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/489753-epa-suspends-enforcement-of-environmental-laws-amid-coronavirus