The EPA is supposed to perform so-called biological evaluations for each and every pesticide registered under FIFRA. Practically speaking, the EPA would assess how each of the 16,000 registered pesticides affect 1,672 species designated as endangered. In reality, the EPA has mostly ignored this mandate.

Why? Because the FIFRA evaluations are so comprehensive, and include a consideration about real-world applications, it isn’t necessary. In other words, if a pesticide won’t be applied where a protected fish lives, there’s no need to study that.

But some radical activist organizations have weaponized the ESA against the EPA’s FIFRA registrations. It goes like this. Activists file a lawsuit against the EPA for not performing a biological evaluation for a registered pesticide. The EPA concedes, because technically they haven’t done that. Activists and the EPA settle (or the court orders it) with the EPA agreeing to follow the ESA’s requirements.

Unfortunately, the lawsuits have forced the EPA to quickly crank out a biological evaluation every time it gets sued. Sometimes that means sacrificing precision and specific data. That was fully on display when the agency evaluated glyphosate and atrazine. Based on old data and imprecise models, the EPA concluded the two herbicides were likely to adversely affect nearly all species and critical habitats in the continental United States.

The result was a heyday for environmental groups using the headlines to solicit donations.

…

The truth is that these biological evaluations aren’t going away anytime soon. As soon as the EPA settles one lawsuit, another one pops up. We can expect that to continue.

Despite the pressure, it’s absolutely imperative that the EPA has the time and resources available to make scientifically sound conclusions. Because all of those registrations are important crop-protection tools without which farmers will see lower yields and, as a result, a smaller food supply.

This is an excerpt. Read the original post here