Document 4QVGvDG4Kjaba3bJxzKraR7ZG

Message From: Sent: To: CC: Subject: Steve M illoy Ex. 6 8/19/2017 9:06:25 PM Press [/o=ExchangeLabs/ou=Exchange Adm inistrative Group Ex. 6 (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/cn=Recipients/cn=b293283291dc44eOb5dlc36be92_81d8a-Press]_ Brittany Bolen [ x. 6 i; M a n d y Gunasekara [i i Re: The N ew York Tim es & C hlorpyrifos You need to post this on your web site. Steve Milloy On Aug 19, 2017, at 3:52 PM, EPA Press Office <press@epa.gov> wrote: Richard Yamada it again. >n, they*re at Last night, the New York T im es5 Eric Upton and Roni Rabin reported on iaise facts about the ERA'S decision not to ban the pesticide Chlorpyrifos and the decision to continue the review regarding the pesticide. Specifically speaking, they left out. that the ERA'S decision was upheld by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. They also took the drastic decision of om itting words from the ERA'S one-sentence statement in response to their story that reminded Americans that the USDA had scientific: concerns about banning this pesticide. Additionally, three days before President Trum ps inauguration, the Obama Adm inistration's USDA strongly opposed banning this pesticide. Given that the New York Tim es never lets the truth get in the way of a good story, below is our officia l statement that was provided to them, along with some inconvenient facts that their story left out. "Taking em ails out of context doesn't change the fact that we continue to exam ine the science su rrounding chtorpyifos, w h ile taking Into account USDA's s c ie n tific concerns w ith m ethodology used by th e previous a d m in istra tio n .'' - ERA spokesman, Amy Graham BACKGROUND ... Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tier 13 ED 002061 00027380-00001 D espite having B years to re v ie w the petition on chlorpyrifos, the Obama Administration never banned C h lo rp yrifos. T h e ERA considered whether to ban it for roughly a decade before Trump appointed ERA Adm inistrator Scott Pruitt, a Republican from Oklahoma, to lead the agency." (Reuters, 07/25/17) T h e ERA is s till reviewing C h lo rpyrifes. "The agency said it was still reviewing the chemical's registration." (Reuters, 07/25/17) San Francisco-based 9th C irc u it C o u rt o f A ppeals re je c ts greens' appeal o f ERA decision not to ban pesticide. " A federal appeals court rejected a request from environmental groups to overturn the Environmental Protection Agency's (ERA) decision not to restrict the controversial pesticide chlorpyrifosW (The Hilo 07/18/17) T h e U.S. D epartm ent of Agriculture supported the ERA'S action. " T h is is a welcom e decision grounded in evidence and sciences said Sheryl Kuniclds, director of the Office of Rest Management Policy at USDA. dt means that this im portant pest management tool w ill remain available to growers, helping to ensure an abundant arid affordable food supply for this nation and the world. This frees American farmers from significant trade disruptions that could have been caused by an unnecessary, unilateral revocation of chiorpyrifos tolerances in the United States. It Is also great news for consumers, who w ill continue to have access to a fu ll range of both domestic and imported fruits and vegetables. We thank our colleagues at EPA for th e ir hard w ork.' " (Food Safety News, 03/31/17) N ational A ssociation o f State D epartm ents o f Agriculture also o b je cte d to O bam a's EPA m ethodology. "Sim ilarly, the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture also objected to ERA' S methodology. The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticlde Act (FIFRA) Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP) also expressed concerns with regard to ERA' S previous reliance on certain data the agency had used to support its proposal to bar? the p esticid e." (Food Safety News. 03/31/17) T h e W ashington Rost: New Y o rk Tim es g u ilty o f large screw-up on clim ate-change story. "The New York Tim es on Wednesday appended a correction to a story about a clim ate change study: Correction: August 9, 2017 -- An article on Tuesday abor.it a sweeping federal clim ate change report referred Incorrectly to the availability of the report. While it was not widely publicized, the report was uploaded by the nonprofit Internet Archive in January; It was not first made public by The New York Times. That correction, which sits at Die foot of the story, d u tifu lly straightens out the record. Yet given the magnitude of the screw-up, it should slf atop the story, surrounded by rod flashing lights and perhaps an audio track to instruct readers: Warning: This story once peddled a faulty and damaging prem ise." (The Washington Post, 08/09/17? o Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tier 13 ED 002061 00027380-00002 f Llkt> I ^ Twoct Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tier 13 ED 002061 00027380-00003