<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: EPA Rejects Immediate Action On Pesticide Toxic To Bees</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/?feed=rss2&#038;p=4981" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/?p=4981</link>
	<description>News on pesticide science, policy and activism</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 17 Jun 2013 14:33:59 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: BC</title>
		<link>http://www.beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/?p=4981#comment-103876</link>
		<dc:creator>BC</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Feb 2011 03:56:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/?p=4981#comment-103876</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In their own words EPA admits they are choosing which laws to follow and which laws to ignore.  That is not, and never has been, the intent of legislation.

&quot;The study was originally classified as an acceptable study (that is, a study that fully satisfies a test guideline), but is now classified as a supplemental study (that is, a study that provides scientifically-sound information, but did not follow all protocols set forth in EPA test guideline). &quot;

Gathering &quot;useful information&quot; is not the goal, using sound science to test a potentially harmful chemical is the goal.  That is the law.  EPA is responsible for requiring rigorous testing. Period. 

  No living organism should be the &quot;guinea pig&quot; while EPA , sits on their butt with their lawyers playing word games.  If you weren&#039;t sure rat poison was in the bottle labeled &quot;rat poison&quot; would you still drink it just to &quot;gather useful information&quot;? 

 EPA is fully authorized to issue a &quot;stop sale, use or removal order&quot; on clothianidin.  Instead EPA is essentially authorizing ILLEGAL APPLICATIONS of this potentially high risk chemical.  

http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/publications/monitoring/fifra/manuals/fifra/fiframanch_10.pdf]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In their own words EPA admits they are choosing which laws to follow and which laws to ignore.  That is not, and never has been, the intent of legislation.</p>
<p>&#8220;The study was originally classified as an acceptable study (that is, a study that fully satisfies a test guideline), but is now classified as a supplemental study (that is, a study that provides scientifically-sound information, but did not follow all protocols set forth in EPA test guideline). &#8221;</p>
<p>Gathering &#8220;useful information&#8221; is not the goal, using sound science to test a potentially harmful chemical is the goal.  That is the law.  EPA is responsible for requiring rigorous testing. Period. </p>
<p>  No living organism should be the &#8220;guinea pig&#8221; while EPA , sits on their butt with their lawyers playing word games.  If you weren&#8217;t sure rat poison was in the bottle labeled &#8220;rat poison&#8221; would you still drink it just to &#8220;gather useful information&#8221;? </p>
<p> EPA is fully authorized to issue a &#8220;stop sale, use or removal order&#8221; on clothianidin.  Instead EPA is essentially authorizing ILLEGAL APPLICATIONS of this potentially high risk chemical.  </p>
<p><a href="http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/publications/monitoring/fifra/manuals/fifra/fiframanch_10.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/publications/monitoring/fifra/manuals/fifra/fiframanch_10.pdf</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
