To:
Jackson, Ryan[jackson.ryan@epa.gov]
From: EPA Press Office
Sent: Sat 8/19/2017 7:52:06 PM
Subject: The New York Times & Chiorpyrifos
Good Morning -
After a monumental mistake where the they're at it again.
was caught peddling false information,
Last night, the New York Times' Eric Lipton and Roni Rabin reported on false facts about the EPA's decision not to ban the pesticide Chiorpyrifos and the decision to continue the review regarding the pesticide.
Specifically speaking, they left out that the EPA's decision was upheld by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.
They also took the drastic decision of omitting words from the EPA'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 Trump's inauguration, the Obama Administration's USDA strongly opposed banning this pesticide.
Given that the New York Times never lets the truth get in the way of a good story, below is our official statement that was provided to them, along with some inconvenient facts that their story left out................................................................................................................................................................
"Taking emails out of context doesn't change the fact that we continue to examine the science surrounding chlorpyifos, while taking into account USDA's scientific concerns with methodology used by the previous administration." - EPA spokesman, Amy Graham
BACKGROUND ...
Despite having 8 years to review the petition on chiorpyrifos, the Obama Administration never banned Chiorpyrifos. "The EPA considered whether to ban it for roughly a decade before Trump appointed EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, a Republican from Oklahoma, to lead the agency." (Reuters, 07/25/17)
The EPA is still reviewing Chiorpyrifos. "The agency said it was still reviewing the chemical's registration." (Reuters, 07/25/17)
San Francisco-based 9th Circuit Court of Appeals rejects greens' appeal of EPA decision not to ban pesticide. "A federal appeals court rejected a request from environmental groups to overturn the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) decision not to restrict the controversial pesticide chiorpyrifos." (The I.?!:, 07/18/17)
The U.S. Department of Agriculture supported the EPA's action. " This is a welcome decision grounded in evidence and science,' said Sheryl Kunickis, director of the Office of Pest Management Policy at USDA. 'It means that this important pest management tool will remain available to growers, helping to ensure an abundant and affordable food supply for this nation and the world. This frees American farmers from significant trade disruptions that could have been caused by an
Sierra Club v. EPA, 1:17-cv-01906
ED_001523_00000934-00001
unnecessary, unilateral revocation of chlorpyrifos tolerances in the United States. It is also great
news for consumers, who will continue to have access to a full range of both domestic and imported
fruits and vegetables. We thank our colleagues at EPA for their hard work.'" (
,
03/31/17)
National Association of State Departments of Agriculture also objected to Obama's EPA
methodology. "Similarly, the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture also objected
to EPA's methodology. The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) Scientific
Advisory Panel (SAP) also expressed concerns with regard to EPA's previous reliance on certain
data the agency had used to support its proposal to ban the pesticide." (
,
03/31/17)
The Washington Post: New York Times guilty of large screw-up on climate-change story. `The
New York Times on Wednesday appended a correction to a story about a climate change study:
Correction: August 9, 2017 - An article on Tuesday about a sweeping federal climate 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 the foot of the story, dutifully straightens out the record. Yet
given the magnitude of the screw-up, it should sit atop the story, surrounded by red flashing lights
and perhaps an audio track to instruct readers: Warning: This story once peddled a faulty and
damaging premise." (
,08/09/17)
Unsubscribe
Sierra Club v. EPA, 1:17-cv-01906
ED_001523_00000934-00002