By STAN MADDUX

Indiana Correspondent

WASHINGTON D.C. — Those in agriculture are praising a decision to streamline the process for regulating the use of pesticides, but environmentalists allege the move is for economic gain at the expensive of endangered species.

The U.S departments of Interior and Commerce have entered into a Memorandum of Agreement to evaluate and improve the Endangered Species Act (ESA) consultation process for pesticide registrations. House Agriculture Committee Chair K. Michael Conaway, a Republican from Texas, hailed the decision as a way of achieving fairness for farmers while still protecting the environment.

“America’s farmers face an endless maze of red tape, approvals, permits and expensive regulations, all of which make their jobs more difficult and drive up food costs for consumers. I applaud the Trump administration’s work to strike a balance between oversight and commonsense regulatory processes that don’t place unnecessary burdens on our farmers,” he said.

“This is an important first step, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to evaluate legislative options.”

Environmental groups such as the Center for Biological Diversity allege the intent is to roll back protections under the ESA to make it easier to build infrastructure and open public lands to do more oil and natural gas drilling. The result, they say, will be fewer endangered species on the protected list and less protection for animals and plants.

Rachel Millard, communications director for House Agriculture, said the goal is to develop a more effective and efficient consultation process that’s also practical in deciding the pesticides to approve for use.

Under the current process, it took years for decisions to be made on just three of the more than 700 pesticides still up for review. “There’s been a significant backlog and it’s taken a large amount of time and resources. There just hasn’t been a really good process for doing so,” she said.

According to the U.S. EPA, a wide variety of potential health effects to humans, wildlife, fish and plants, including endangered species, are assessed from use of a pesticide a company wants to produce. Potential human risks range from short-term toxicity to long-term effects such as cancer and reproductive system disorders.

Risk for contamination to surface or ground water from leaching, runoff and spray drifting are also studied during the approval process. Companies wanting to produce a pesticide must provide data from studies that comply with the testing guidelines, according to EPA.

Jay Vroom, president and CEO of Croplife America, said it’s crucial to have a process that allows farmers to maintain access to safe and effective technologies.

“It’s encouraging to see that our work with the environmental and farming communities and the administration has resulted in a positive step towards solving this important and complex issue,” he said. “We expect the Working Group’s recommendations will not only help to ensure that consultation works between agencies to actually protect species but will also promote government efficiency and effectiveness.”

Jamie Rappaport Clark, president of Defenders of Wildlife, took a more objective position than some of the environmental groups staunchly opposed to the proposal. She said the challenge is complex, but the resources are there to achieve an outcome she hopes achieves “greater technical accuracy, collaboration, timeliness and conservation outcomes” in the pesticide consultation process.

“However, any recommendations must be consistent with the Endangered Species Act and other applicable environmental laws. This process should not lead to recommendations that undercut the ESA or any other bedrock environmental law,” Rappaport Clark explained.

Millard said it is not known how long it will take a study group to review and come back with a new registration review process.