Riemann's Contribution to Flight and Laser Fusion

Under American law, an accusedis presumed innocent untilproven guilty. Under the scrutiny ofthe Environmental ProtectionAgency, any new pesticide, regardlessof how great the need or goodthe intent, becomes an accused andis presumed guilty until proven innocent.Speculation as to harmfuleffects to any insect, bird, fish, wildlifein its entirety, water, air, soil,and, finally, people other than thetarget bug can raise more questionsthan can be answered in a reasonablelength of time. The questionsraised do not have to be germaneto the problem and are seldom answeredsatisfactorily the first fewtries.Recent estimates are that it takes8 to 10 years and costs $15 millionto $20 million to develop a newcrop protection chemical, and thisdoes not include a plant to produceit. The time element is important inthat our most experienced, wisest,and oldest scientists won't begin anew search that they can't expect tofinish. In this way some of our bestminds are lost to the battle of foodproduction except in an advisorycapacity.Costs of finding, perfecting, andproving a chemical to the point ofobtaining a label are greatly increasedunder Environmental ProtectionAgency regulations. Thetime element and proving a chemical"not guilty" of any accusationmade are expensive activities. Scientistscost money, and the longerit takes the more it costs. Laboratories,personnel, and test plots extendedin proving the chemical"not guilty" increase the costs forscientific and factual evaluation.The legal work of meeting the regulations,filing documents, and finalizingthe application are expensive.Lawyers don't work for fun!Another major effect of the presentcostly regulations is that minorcrop uses, which are the primarycash crops for many farm producers,are neglected because it is notViewpointA SensiblePublic PolicyOn Pesticidesby Jim Buck Rosseconomical to pursue them. Thecosts in time and money exceed theexpected return. Such crops—vegetables,nuts, and other minorcrops—are very important in ourdiet. It may take wormy apples,peaches, tomatoes, and other acceptedfoods to convince peoplethat such crops need chemical protection.The only new crop protectionchemicals being developed arethose for major crop uses. Eventhese are slow in developing intousable compounds, not only becauseof the time and cost elementsbut because other chemicals—betteror not as good—reach the acceptablestage earlier.The unnecessary cancellations ofnew chemicals are based on suspicion,unfounded accusations, and,in the case of DDT, deliberate disregardfor scientific fact. This is disarmingthe soldier before sendinghim into battle.The Case of the Fire AntNot only do these cancellationshurt farmers; they also endangerhuman health and destroy the environment.A simple case is the EPAcancellation of Mirex for the fireant infestation in nine states. Thehuman population has sufferedmany deaths and thousands of casesrequiring hospital and medical attentionfrom fire ant stings, but nota single death from cancer directlyattributed to Mirex. In addition,thousands of acres of land are lostto crop production, housing development,public, and private uses.The comparative use, volume, andprofits were so small that AlliedChemical decided that it wasn'tworth the cost of doing battle withthe EPA and Environmental DefenseFund to prove the safety of Mirex.The Mississippi Fire Ant Authoritywas created to provide interim protectionand search for new solutions.Its resources, however, wereinadequate for an extended confrontation,and, even if it hadproven Mirex safe, the dictatorialpower of the EPA administrator issuch that he could have canceledthe registration and use as in thecase of DDT, which is still usedaround the rest of the world beneficiallyand without harm.The EPA will proudly point outthat it expedited the approval of alimited conditional label for Amdroto replace Mirex for fire ant control.Wonderful: We have a new tooltemporarily to be fully approved inthe future—maybe—but at whatcost? The price of 1 pound of Mirexbait to treat an acre was 29