Dear Colleague:
I am writing to ask you to join me on a letter to the leadership of the House and Senate Agricultural Committees, urging them to support the Senate Agricultural Committee’s action in not including a provision passed in the House that would jeopardize the ability of conservation managers to choose the safest, least toxic, and most environmentally friendly pesticides in carrying out activities under integrated pest management and other Farm Bill programs.
The provision, Section 11305 of the House-passed Farm Bill, was entitled “No Discrimination Against Use of Registered Pesticide Products or Classes of Pesticide Products,” and it read:
“In establishing priorities and evaluation criteria for the approval of plans, contracts, and agreements under title II, the Secretary of Agriculture shall not discriminate against the use of specific registered pesticide products or classes of pesticide products.”
The provision, inserted at the behest of pesticide manufacturers, was met with outrage by more than 50 environmental, conservation, heath and nutrition, organic, wildlife, organic and other public interest groups. Numerous existing Farm Bill programs, encourage – as they should -- the use of non-toxic or less-toxic methods of pest control. The foregoing language could be interpreted to find such facilitation of safer pest control methods “discriminatory” as against the use of conventional pesticides, and could thus prohibit efforts to use such safer methods. This language drives Farm Bill policy on the issue of pesticide usage and environmental conservation in precisely the opposite direction from where it should be going. In a letter to the Natural Resources Defense Council dated February 8, 2008, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) agreed with the concerns expressed by conservation groups and stated that “the EPA would be concerned if language in the House passed version of the Farm Bill could be interpreted in any way to inhibit [pesticide risk reduction].”
Attached is a letter to the leadership of the House and Senate Agriculture Committees, urging them to follow the lead of the Senate Agriculture Committee and remove Section 11305 from the final Farm Bill. Please join me in co-signing this important letter. If you have any further questions or would like to co-sign the letter, please contact Michelle Mulder of my staff at (609) 750-9365 or michelle.mulder[a]mail.house.gov.
Sincerely,
RUSH HOLT, Member of Congress
DONALD PAYNE, Member of Congress
