This Op-Ed, submitted by Kendra on May 29, appeared in today's Des Moines Register. It was slightly edited, but much of the message was word-for-word. Unfortunately, they deleted this sentence--EPA represents the one federal department explicitly intended to protect the environment and public health, or in President Nixon's words to wage "war on pollution." Reference to Sarah Jespersen's plight was also edited out. This represents another opportunity for letter-to-the-editor. Great job, Kendra! The Smell Behind EPA's Closed Doors Last week, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) lost its top official when Christie Todd Whitman resigned. Whitman's resignation comes on the heels of a new round of criticism against EPA for holding closed-door meetings with agribusiness companies in the livestock and poultry industry. According to anonymous sources familiar with the secret negotiations, Whitman and her staff were planning to shield polluting animal factories from enforcement over environmental violations. Under widespread criticism, EPA is reconsidering the lopsided deal. But EPA's next environmental top cop should bear in mind two axioms proved by this month's controversy-Americans want the government to vigorously enforce the laws that protect our air and water, and they don't like government officials making backroom deals with polluting corporations. Despite the public health and environmental risks posed by crowding thousands of animals into factory farms, there is a powerful trend in the meat industry towards larger and more concentrated animal factories. Since 1986 the number of hog operations in America has declined by 72%-a loss of over 247,500 operations-while the number of hogs raised has grown. Confining tens of thousands of animals in factory farms has led to waste management problems for the agribusiness industry. Some livestock operations are producing "the waste equivalent of a town or even a large city," according to a Senate report. Because animal waste emits toxic airborne chemicals like ammonia and hydrogen sulfide, neighbors of animal factories are increasingly faced with serious health problems. For example a column in the Des Moines Register recently described the plight of Sarah Jespersen a resident of Atlantic, Iowa who is being forced to live in unbearable conditions because of the hydrogen sulfide fumes emitted by a neighboring mega dairy. Sarah and her family are no longer able to enjoy their rural quality of life because of the toxic odiferous emissions that permeate her family's property. As Sarah's experience demonstrates, animal factories needlessly impose toxic burdens on their neighbors. The technologies already exist to raise animals under conditions that minimize air and water pollution from factory farms. Americans have been sustainably raising hogs and chickens for 200 years and will continue doing so if EPA encourages technological innovation by enforcing our safeguards and working with agribusiness to abide by our laws. Unfortunately, instead of using laws on the books like the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act to compel polluters to clean up their mess, the Bush administration has turned a blind eye. Environmental enforcement at the EPA has plummeted across the board. According to the watchdog Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, new criminal pollution cases referred by EPA for federal prosecution are down more than 40 percent since the start of the Bush Administration. Absent leadership from the EPA, advocacy groups and citizens have been forced to take matters into their own hands. That is the impetus behind a number of citizen enforcement actions in the last few years, including a federal lawsuit brought by Sierra Club against Tyson Foods, the agribusiness giant. The Tyson case seeks to hold Tyson accountable for the hundreds of pounds of toxic ammonia Tyson contractors spew into the air every day in rural Kentucky. Sierra Club v. Tyson Foods could have serious implications for the meat industry, which has avoided meaningful environmental and public health safeguards. Barely a month after the Sierra Club filed suit, EPA began negotiating a so-called "safe harbor agreement" with Tyson and other giants in the meat industry, giving animal factories far-reaching amnesty for Clean Air Act and Superfund violations. Instead of consulting with local residents endangered by factory farms or with environmental groups, EPA began secret, closed-door negotiations that could invalidate citizen attempts to enforce environmental laws. When the negotiations came to light, neighbors of factory farms and air pollution experts immediately criticized their clandestine nature. "This is a pattern of where the industry meets behind closed doors with the government," one representative for state and local air pollution officials told The New York Times. "We are suffering from the effects of toxic emissions from local feedlots," said Tom Frantz, a concerned citizen near Fresno, California "[and] we object to federal policy devised in a secret, back-room deal." To avoid future missteps, Christie Whitman's successor will do well to remember that the EPA's main commitment must be to the health and safety of Americans threatened by environmental pollution, not the profit margins of polluting corporations. EPA represents the one federal department explicitly intended to protect the environment and public health, or in President Nixon's words to wage "war on pollution." And in the Bush administration, if EPA doesn't defend communities at risk from toxic pollution, who will? Exempting polluting companies from clean air and clean water laws will benefit companies like Tyson, but it will cost families across America a great deal more. Kendra Kimbirauskas Sierra Club 3839 Merle Hay Rd. Suite 280 Des Moines, IA 50310 515.251.3995 [log in to unmask] - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To view the Sierra Club List Terms & Conditions, see: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/terms.asp