LJWorld.com

• Email
• iPod-friendly
• Print

and Douglas Cohn

"Banned in America" is not the label of choice for producers of pesticides, but neither is it an impediment to exporting. A combination of money politics and insufficient concern for the lives of foreign men, women and children is allowing American companies to spew poison literally on a global scale.

An estimated 21 million pounds of pesticides that were banned in the United States were exported from U.S. ports during a recent two-year period, mostly to underdeveloped countries. And this is a low estimate because specific product names were eliminated from the shipping records for nearly two-thirds of the exported pesticides.

A pesticide is registered by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) when it is deemed to be safe. The rule is straightforward: no registration, no distribution, leaving companies with an overwhelming incentive to find other markets for their rejected products, which could more properly be labeled "Banned ONLY in America." This is hardly the foundation for a long-term foreign policy.

Here is the way it works: During the EPA's review of a product, which can last up to five years, no restrictions are placed upon exporting. Further, the EPA never reviews the effects of a pesticide manufactured strictly for export.

Under regulations established in 1970, exporters are required to notify importers if a pesticide is not registered for use in the United States. The foreign importer is required to sign a statement acknowledging the product's questionable status, and the statement is then forwarded to his government. The reality is that such notifications often do not occur, and the United States has sought to remedy this through another treaty. But the Senate, ever mindful of wealthy constituents, is dragging its feet on ratification.

Further, when a company believes its pesticide is about to be awarded the "Banned in America" label, it can simply withdraw the product from the EPA's consideration and avoid the stigma of rejection.

Separate from labeling are the problems associated with the approval process. A General Accounting Office investigation revealed that only 250 of 20,000 pesticides had been reregistered under the 1972 and 1988 laws which took into consideration the long-term effects of pesticides. Such considerations did not exist before 1972, resulting in the phenomenon that older is better for the exporters of pesticides.

In the final analysis the exportation of questionable or banned products is both a moral and a foreign-policy issue. We remember when an individual approached us with an investment opportunity. He said we could make a killing in the exportation of a substance that had been banned in America. It was causing birth defects. What he proposed was perfectly legal and obviously immoral. We passed on the killing, but the killing -- literally and financially -- continues. Perhaps the EPA's export duties ought to come under the auspices of the State Department, where foreign policy -- if not moral policy -- is conducted.

Our government has spent decades overcoming the foreign perception of the Ugly American who supported dictators and their minions in pursuit of Cold War containment policies. Now those efforts may be for naught if a new cry is heard from the millions of people who have been adversely affected by America's Ugly Products.

-- Jack Anderson and Douglas Cohn are columnist for United Feature Syndicate.