Related Links • Pesticide Coalition's Text to Enters House Bill (The Washington Post, May 13) • Summary and Status of Bill • Environmental Working Group • EWG's Pesticides Page • Campaign 2000 • Live: "Free Media" • Who do you want to talk to? E-mail us

Thursday, September 7, 2000; 1 p.m. EDT

Who's giving the big bucks for access to the debate on the environment? Who's cashing the checks? The Environmental Working Group, a non-profit environmental watchdog group, tracks the money and the influence of companies EWG describes as "polluter front groups."

The Pombo pesticide bill (introduced by Rep. Richard W. Pombo, R-Calif.) was looking to be one of the few real congressional dust-ups on the environment before the elections. Pombo and supporting members in Congress say the bill (which was sidelined today) is needed to improve the process of regulating potentially dangerous pesticides. Critics say the legislation would make it harder for federal regulators to restrict existing pesticides and give manufacturers chances to introduce new ones.

Ken Cook, president of the Environmental Working Group, will be live online to talk about the mission of EWG and the Pombo pesticide bill on Thursday, Sept. 7.
Read the transcript.

Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.

Arlington, Va.: I saw the Roll Call article, so what happened with the Pombo bill in the Agricultural Committee? I thought he had plenty of support for it.

Ken Cook: Hello Arlington.

The Pombo bill just vanished, didn't it? We're puzzled, too. All but two of the Ag Comm members co-sponsor the bill. And Mr. Pombo has been proclaiming for weeks now that it would not only pass the Committee, but also go to the floor--with Speaker Hastert's enthusiastic support. Rep. Delay's, too, evidently.

Here is the speculation: Mr. Pombo did get the mark up on the agenda, but leadership had not given much thought to the problem that would be created if the bill were to pass the Ag. Committee and (1) offend the Commerce Committee, including Chairman Bliley, with a hurried, by-pass strategy to get to the floor without Commerce consideration--a serious breach of House protocol (2) make moderate R's and the majority of Dems vote for a bill that is not going to go anywhere this session anyway. That's a lot off risk 9 weeks out from the elections for no clear gain.

Again, just speculation. The Ag. Committee's majority staff and Mr. Pombo's office aren't saying why his mark-up went POOF! But it is surely a blow to him politically.

Free Media: Good afternoon Ken and welcome. Would you please explain a little about the pesticide bill introduced by Rep. Richard Pombo and where it stands now. What other environmental bills do you expect to come up before the election?

Ken Cook: Mr. Pombo's bill, supported by 235 co-sponsors (or thereabouts) in the House, would in our view severely undermine the landmark 1996 Food Quality Protection Act. It would delay EPA action to take the most dangerous pesticides off the market. EWG and other environmentalists think this action is, if anything, going too slowly. But the pesticide lobby has been very upset that EPA has acted under the Act to restrict several bug killers in the past year--including Dow's popular Dursban.

Kansas City, Mo.: Has George W. Bush really made an attempt to improve the environment in Texas?

Ken Cook: Hi K.C. I'm originally from M.O. myself.

I'd say Gov. Bush has taken environmental protection backwards in Texas. Pollution has gotten worse, environmental enforcement has been neglected, and land conservation has suffered. Not a great record--as you can see for yourself at the the League of Conservation Voters Web site (www.lcv.org) where they go into Gov. Bush's record in detail.

Washington D.C.: Why has EWG opted to send a letter regarding Pombo's ethics to the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct directly instead of working with members of Congress to see if they are concerned about this? Or have you tried this already and been unsuccessful?

Ken Cook: We'll see how the committee responds, but we have not ruled out working through other Members on this issue. However, many members are very, very reluctant to initiate such action these days.

Washington, D.C.: In 1996, the EWG called the Food Quality Protection Act the pesticide industry's dream bill. Now the EWG is doing all it can to stop any FQPA reform.

How can the EWG try to have it both ways on this issue?

Ken Cook: The original industry-supported bill was a disaster. The bill that passed was a complete rewrite that has had the pesticide companies and Farm Bureau complaining--not EWG.

Here is how we sized up the bill when it passed in '96:

http://www.ewg.org/pub/home/reports/newpestlaw/newpestlaw.html

Washington, D.C.: The Environmental Working Group has been very active on the Pombo bill. Is this within the limits of your tax status? You are a 501C3, correct?

Free Media: 501C3s, for readers who don't know, are tax-exempt non-profits whose political activities are limited by the IRS. Ken, what is your tax status?

Ken Cook: Our actions are well within our tax status--thanks for caring.

Washington, D.C.: How do you combat "front" companies that are sponsored by major polluting industries? Some of their material in the media looks pretty good!

Ken Cook:
1. Research them.
2. Expose them to the public.
3. Repeat steps 1 and 2, more or less endlessly. There's no shortage of opportunities.

Their "material" may look good--but their facts, slants and tactics tend to biodegrade in the sunlight.

Evanston, Ill.: Why have all the big environmentalist groups timidly lined up behind Al Gore? Gore's enthusiastic support for corporate globalization and negligible proposals to combat global warming (the inadequate Kyoto agreement aside) mean that he fails to address the most vital environmental concerns facing the world today. Ralph Nader has no such shortcomings. As long as environmentalists remain in feudal bondage to the Democratic Party (particularly its corporate wing, which is headed by Gore and Lieberman), we might get protection for national monuments, but the worst problems will only get worse.

Ken Cook: First, EWG is not in the endorsement business. But I have to say I'm sympathetic to a lot of what you say. We have been very critical of VP Gore on pesticide policy and several other issues. We've also supported the administration when they've done the right thing by our lights.

I'm also an admirer of Nader for many of the things he has accomplished. I do not think "big" or small environmental groups that support Gore are being timid. They're acting because they thing Gore has done a lot of good, Bush will almost certainly do a lot of bad, and Nader can't win. If he get's 10 percent of the vote, he doesn't get 10 percent of the power. He gets zero percent. If the environmental movement were to get SERIOUS about electoral politics--which we have yet to do--our first order of priority would be to challenge anti-environmental legislators with real political muscle. My personal view is that Nader is a public interest hero, but he has not put in his time and effort (as he'd admit) in the electoral context. Neither have the organizations he has spawned--they're terrific, but issue-oriented, policy-oriented, not devoted to electoral politics. Taking votes away from Gore doesn't strike me as a plausible (or helpful) short cut to the tough, long-term business of electing progressive legislators. And I think that, in the end, is what inclined Sierra Club, FOE, LCV, and many individual environmental leaders to support Gore.

Washington, D.C.: Health is an important issue in regards to FQPA -- but EPA implementation of FQPA can eliminate products to fight mosquitos that cause West Nile Fever and encephalitis, and cockroaches that cause asthma in inner cities.

What is your organization doing to protect our children from diseases like these?

Ken Cook: There are plenty of alternative routes to controlling the bugs you mention, and their public health risks, without resorting to outdated, overly risky pesticides that EPA is finally beginning to regulate.

The scare stories pesticide companies are peddling now about cockroaches and W. Nile vectoring mosquitoes sound EXACTLY like the scare stories they used to oppose regulation of DDT, chlordane, heptachlor and every other pesticide EPA has ever tried to restrict or ban. We end up doing fine without them after regulation. And agriculture doesn't go belly up, either.

Bethesda, Md.: Who do you think can better support your cause, Al Gore or Ralph Nadar. I am an environmentalist on the fence. Is Al Gore the real thing?

Ken Cook: Without power, neither one can provide helpful support. Gore has sometimes disappointed but can win in November. Nader has never had direct power and won't win in November.

I think no politician, particularly in the White House, can deliver all we need environmentally. It's up the citizens and environmentalists to keep the pressure on.

Washington, D.C.: Even Vice President Gore has been critical of the EPA's implementation of the Food Quality Protection Act -- in April 1998 calling for changes in implementation for public health, regulatory transparency, a reasonable transaction for agriculture and consultation with the public.

What do you think of Mr. Gore's criticisms?

Ken Cook: We disagreed with the VP's stance at the time and said so publicly, and nothing since has changed our minds. We think EPA should be going faster, if anything, to act on the FQPA's mandates. I think that EPA is only just now recovering from VP Gore's intervention in 1998--and that it slowed things down for at least a year. And it's not like it bought any support from pesticide companies and agribusiness. They have remained ferociously critical of EPA, FQPA and all the regulatory decisions so far.

Takoma Park, Md.: Ken: Did you see these right-wing media types like this "Free Market Project" objecting to your John Stossel campaign? Do you track dirty money going into right-wing think tanks, including the ones that intimidate the media toward the right? (You should see Trudy Lieberman's new book Slanting the Story on these right-wing media-bashing hacks.)

Ken Cook: Yeah, sure, we saw the objections--from all the "Institutes" on the right--Cato, Hudson, Competitive Enterprise. We've published a number of rebuttals. They're worried that the Stossel franchise might be in danger.

We tend to think the best sources on anti-enviro media work are FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting) and John Stauber at PR Watch.

Washington D.C.: Your group has not been reluctant to dig into the technical details of EPA's pesticide health assessments. Which of the pesticides coming up for review in the next year are of most concern to you?

Ken Cook: Diazanon (another OP bug killer) and atrazine (#1 farm weed killer) top our list of concerns.

Arlington, Va.: Is there a way to find out which companies have connections to each other? Does the law require that information to be public or are there ways around it?

Ken Cook: There are a number of ways, depending on what connections you have in mind. The SEC web site is a place to start.

Camp Verde, Ariz.: Do these poisoners own stock in cancer drug development companies?

Ken Cook: Camp Verde, not sure I understand your question. Hum a few more bars.

Washington, D.C.: I understand your concerns about the Pombo bill -- but shouldn't something be done about the assumptions the EPA makes on the so-called 99.9 percentile -- for instance that a 23 year old man eats over 17 lbs. of peanuts a day, or an 11 year old girl eating 1.76 lbs. of grapes daily.

Does the EWG support these ridiculous figures?

Ken Cook: I'm not familiar with the numbers you cite. Our analyses, and our review of EPA's analyses, regarding 99.9, indicate that the risk drivers are mostly the toxicity of the pesticides and much more plausible consumption numbers than you are presenting. Put another way, when we (and EPA) have been challenged to "eliminate" high consumption values from our analyses, it has not tended to change the risk outcomes very much.

Elk Grove, Calif.: The family farmer is being run out of business by low prices, high input cost and extreme environmental laws that do not rely on science. The chemical companies do not care because they just come out with a new more expensive product, the environmentalist do not care because the make national news and have all their donations keep coming in for their cause. And who looses? The family farmer!! So do you support a nation relying on imports for their food?

Ken Cook: I have to disagree about the "extreme environmental laws" part of your assessment. We do not support relying on imports for food, and don't think it will ever come to that. We can have safer food and a sounder farm economy. To me the big problem is supply consistently out pacing demand and depressing prices for most commodities, most year. Maximizing yield with chemicals and, in some cases, poor land use practices, is not the way out of this problem.

Arlington, Va.: What are the next few big projects you are planning?

Ken Cook: We'll continue our work on pesticides, toxic chemical pollution, air pollution, drinking water contamination, and farm subsidy reform.

Washington, D.C.: Who are your major supporters in Congress...what about you major opponents? How do you think congressional support for you will change with the new Congress?

Ken Cook: There are a great many strong environmentalists in Congress--too many to name. Unfortunately, the same is true for opponents. If you want a quick read on who's pro environment and who's con, go to www.lcv.org and check out their ratings.

Hard to say what November will bring, but I sure hope we get a working, bi-partisan, pro-environment majority.

Washington, D.C.: Do you think you'll get better support from Gore or Bush? Has Bush done anything to change his bad environmental image?

Ken Cook: Easy. Gore.

I haven't seen anything from Bush to change his environmental image with me.

Elk Grove, Calif. : Obviously you have not followed farm markets. The major cause of depressed market is not overproduction in the U.S., but the flood of cheap imported foods by countries that use cheap labor and cheap pesticides that we outlaw here. Should not other countries that import into the U.S. have to follow the same standards we do?

Ken Cook: Well, someone's not following farm markets...compared to supply factors at home for virtually all commodities, I'd say imports remain secondary. But I do agree that other countries importing to the U.S. should have to play by the rules our farmers play by. And that should not mean lowering our standards, but insisting theirs be raised.

Washington, D.C.: Do you think you'll win over more Republicans for environmental causes?

Ken Cook: Yes. And I think a great many Republicans are displaying leadership and committment to the environment--usually at the risk of riling their leadership, which is overwhelmingly anti-environmental. Again, www.lcv.org is the best place to quickly assess the situation.

Free Media: That was our last question for Ken Cook from the Environmental Working Group. Thank you to Ken and to all who participated.

   |       |