EPA gave out personal data on 80,000 farmers to enviro groups

[tinydancer]

Senator John Thune has gone ballistic on this and he's not mincing his words. The information they gave to these environmental groups included personal names, addresses, phone numbers and e-mail addresses.

Thank goodness he's on the warpath with the agency. Long overdue. They need a giant smackdown.

EPA acknowledges releasing personal details on farmers, senator slams agency

By Joseph Weber



I wonder how they would feel if Senator Thune released all the EPA's top officers personal information.

Sen. John Thune, who originally complained about the release, slammed the EPA for trying to retroactively recover the sensitive data.

"It is inexcusable for the EPA to release the personal information of American families and then call for it back, knowing full well that the erroneously released information will never be fully returned," he said in a statement to FoxNews.com.

"While EPA acknowledging that it erred is a first step, more must be done to protect the personal information of our farmers and ranchers now and in the future.

I will continue to demand answers from the EPA on how this information was collected and why it is still being distributed to extreme environmental groups to the detriment of our farm and ranch families."

The information on livestock and produce farmers was sought through a Freedom of Information Act request by the groups Earth Justice, the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Pew Charitable Trust.

They were given information on roughly 80,000 farmers and ranchers.

EPA acknowledges releasing personal details on farmers, senator slams agency | Fox News

 

[OKTexas]

Somebody should go to jail. My question is why would the EPA have this kind of data on farmers and ranchers anyway?

 

[Antares]

Imagine that.

 

[Pop23]

It certainly sounds criminal. Like our government is collecting data so they can pick and choose winners.....

Whadda you mean they already do that?

Reagan's rolling over in his grave.

 

[tinydancer]

Somebody should go to jail. My question is why would the EPA have this kind of data on farmers and ranchers anyway?

I would like to know the answer to that as well.

What's really sticking in my craw about this is that we have been witnessing the EPA becoming this entity with apparently no oversight whatsoever.

And more disturbing than that is it appears no one within the government up to now (with Senator Thune finally throwing down the gauntlet) has cared to deal with this power grabbing, over regulating monstrosity.

 

[nodoginnafight]

I think the "oppressive government" argument is overblown many times, but a lot of what I consider to be legitimate oppressive over-regulation comes from the EPA.

However, given the fact that the EPA has admitted the mistake, I don't know what else can be practically accomplished other than making sure it doesn't happen again. Well, that and Thune can earn some brownie points with his largely agricultural base by making as much noise as possible.

I don't begrudge him that. If no one else is stepping up to shine a light where it needs light, then good for him.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Oops! Fed minutes, inadvertently released early, show a divided FOMC

 

[tinydancer]

I just found the original press release from April 4rth.

Kudos to all these Senators as well. Very interesting because DHS apparently had informed the EPA that releasing information like this could very well constitute a domestic security risk.

But the EPA did it anyway.

Great link.

Fischer, Vitter: EPA Giving out Personal Information of Private Citizens to Environmental Groups
Senators ask EPA for answers regarding the agency’s blatant disregard for personal privacy concerns of small businesses, farmers, and ranchers through the misapplication of FOIA
April 4, 2013

U.S. Sen. Deb Fischer (R-Neb.) and Sen. David Vitter (R-La.), top Republican on the Environment and Public Works Committee, along with committee members Sens. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), and John Boozman (R-Ark.) today wrote to Acting Administrator Bob Perciasepe of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) questioning the agency's decision to release personal and confidential business information related to recent Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests from environmental groups.

"In releasing the personal and confidential information of private citizens and business owners, EPA has shown no regard for their privacy and safety," said the Senators in a letter.

"Conversely, EPA has recently used FOIA exemptions in an overbroad manner with respect to agency information, undermining FOIA's purpose by preventing the public from learning what EPA is up to.

EPA's current application of FOIA represents the antithesis of a transparent government and an offensive abuse of agency discretion."

In response to a FOIA request for information related to concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) from environmental groups, EPA released comprehensive data providing the precise locations of CAFOs, the animal type and number of head, as well as the personal contact information, including the names, addresses, phone numbers, and email addresses of CAFO owners.

Previously, the Department of Homeland Security had informed EPA that the release of such information could constitute a domestic security risk.

In contrast, EPA has refused to disclose information relating to internal agency actions and emails, even when such disclosure is the intent of FOIA.

.: U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works :: Press Room :.

 

[Mr. H.]

This part, I like...

The groups wanted the information, they say, because such large-scale operations are a major source of water pollution and they want to hold the EPA accountable for enforcing the Clean Water Act.

The EPA is aggressively holding the oil and gas industries to the Clean Water Act. Why should Agriculture get a pass?

 

[Bfgrn]

I just found the original press release from April 4rth.

Kudos to all these Senators as well. Very interesting because DHS apparently had informed the EPA that releasing information like this could very well constitute a domestic security risk.

But the EPA did it anyway.

Great link.

Fischer, Vitter: EPA Giving out Personal Information of Private Citizens to Environmental Groups
Senators ask EPA for answers regarding the agency’s blatant disregard for personal privacy concerns of small businesses, farmers, and ranchers through the misapplication of FOIA
April 4, 2013

U.S. Sen. Deb Fischer (R-Neb.) and Sen. David Vitter (R-La.), top Republican on the Environment and Public Works Committee, along with committee members Sens. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), and John Boozman (R-Ark.) today wrote to Acting Administrator Bob Perciasepe of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) questioning the agency's decision to release personal and confidential business information related to recent Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests from environmental groups.

"In releasing the personal and confidential information of private citizens and business owners, EPA has shown no regard for their privacy and safety," said the Senators in a letter.

"Conversely, EPA has recently used FOIA exemptions in an overbroad manner with respect to agency information, undermining FOIA's purpose by preventing the public from learning what EPA is up to.

EPA's current application of FOIA represents the antithesis of a transparent government and an offensive abuse of agency discretion."

In response to a FOIA request for information related to concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) from environmental groups, EPA released comprehensive data providing the precise locations of CAFOs, the animal type and number of head, as well as the personal contact information, including the names, addresses, phone numbers, and email addresses of CAFO owners.

Previously, the Department of Homeland Security had informed EPA that the release of such information could constitute a domestic security risk.

In contrast, EPA has refused to disclose information relating to internal agency actions and emails, even when such disclosure is the intent of FOIA.

.: U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works :: Press Room :.

"It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners"
Albert Camus

I am always amazed at what conservatives get fired up about, but more amazed at what they could give two shits about. Vitter and Inhofe are accessories to death of American citizens.

How Senator Vitter Battled the EPA Over Formaldehyde’s Link to Cancer

Sen. David Vitter, R-La., has pushed the EPA to slow its process of updating its 20-year-old health assessment of formaldehyde. After Hurricane Katrina, thousands of his state's residents said they suffered respiratory problems after being housed in government trailers contaminated with formaldehyde. (Left: A child looks out of a FEMA trailer in Port Sulphur, La. May 2008 photo by Mario Tama/Getty Images)

When Sen. David Vitter persuaded the EPA to agree to yet another review of its long-delayed assessment of the health risks of formaldehyde, he was praised by companies that use or manufacture a chemical found in everything from plywood to carpet.

As long as the studies continue, the EPA will still list formaldehyde as a "probable" rather than a "known" carcinogen, even though three major scientific reviews now link it to leukemia and have strengthened its ties to other forms of cancer. The chemical industry is fighting to avoid that designation, because it could lead to tighter regulations and require costly pollution controls.

"Delay means money. The longer they can delay labeling something a known carcinogen, the more money they can make," said James Huff, associate director for chemical carcinogenesis at the National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences in the Department of Health and Human Services.
---
Vitter’s ties to the formaldehyde industry are well known. According to Talking Points Memo, his election campaign received about $20,500 last year from companies that produce large amounts of formaldehyde waste in Louisiana. But ProPublica found that Vitter actually took in nearly twice that amount if contributions from other companies, trade groups and lobbyists with interests in formaldehyde regulation are included. Among those contributors is Charles Grizzle, a top-paid lobbyist for the Formaldehyde Council, an industry trade group that had long sought a National Academy review of the chemical.

Sen. James Inhofe persuaded the EPA to delay its formaldehyde risk assessment in 2004. (Getty Images file photo)

Congress stalled the formaldehyde risk assessment once before. In 2004, Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., persuaded the EPA to delay it, even though preliminary findings from a National Cancer Institute study had already linked formaldehyde to leukemia. Inhofe insisted that the EPA wait for a more "robust set of findings" from the institute.

Koch Industries, a large chemical manufacturer and one of Inhofe’s biggest campaign contributors, gave Inhofe $6,000 that year. That same year Koch bought two pulp mills from Georgia-Pacific, a major formaldehyde producer and one of the world’s largest plywood manufacturers. The next year Koch bought all of Georgia-Pacific.



Whenever a separation is made between liberty and justice, neither, in my opinion, is safe.
Edmund Burke

 

[tinydancer]

I just found the original press release from April 4rth.

Kudos to all these Senators as well. Very interesting because DHS apparently had informed the EPA that releasing information like this could very well constitute a domestic security risk.

But the EPA did it anyway.

Great link.

Fischer, Vitter: EPA Giving out Personal Information of Private Citizens to Environmental Groups
Senators ask EPA for answers regarding the agency’s blatant disregard for personal privacy concerns of small businesses, farmers, and ranchers through the misapplication of FOIA
April 4, 2013

U.S. Sen. Deb Fischer (R-Neb.) and Sen. David Vitter (R-La.), top Republican on the Environment and Public Works Committee, along with committee members Sens. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), and John Boozman (R-Ark.) today wrote to Acting Administrator Bob Perciasepe of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) questioning the agency's decision to release personal and confidential business information related to recent Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests from environmental groups.

"In releasing the personal and confidential information of private citizens and business owners, EPA has shown no regard for their privacy and safety," said the Senators in a letter.

"Conversely, EPA has recently used FOIA exemptions in an overbroad manner with respect to agency information, undermining FOIA's purpose by preventing the public from learning what EPA is up to.

EPA's current application of FOIA represents the antithesis of a transparent government and an offensive abuse of agency discretion."

In response to a FOIA request for information related to concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) from environmental groups, EPA released comprehensive data providing the precise locations of CAFOs, the animal type and number of head, as well as the personal contact information, including the names, addresses, phone numbers, and email addresses of CAFO owners.

Previously, the Department of Homeland Security had informed EPA that the release of such information could constitute a domestic security risk.

In contrast, EPA has refused to disclose information relating to internal agency actions and emails, even when such disclosure is the intent of FOIA.

.: U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works :: Press Room :.

"It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners"
Albert Camus

I am always amazed at what conservatives get fired up about, but more amazed at what they could give two shits about. Vitter and Inhofe are accessories to death of American citizens.

How Senator Vitter Battled the EPA Over Formaldehyde’s Link to Cancer

Sen. David Vitter, R-La., has pushed the EPA to slow its process of updating its 20-year-old health assessment of formaldehyde. After Hurricane Katrina, thousands of his state's residents said they suffered respiratory problems after being housed in government trailers contaminated with formaldehyde. (Left: A child looks out of a FEMA trailer in Port Sulphur, La. May 2008 photo by Mario Tama/Getty Images)

When Sen. David Vitter persuaded the EPA to agree to yet another review of its long-delayed assessment of the health risks of formaldehyde, he was praised by companies that use or manufacture a chemical found in everything from plywood to carpet.

As long as the studies continue, the EPA will still list formaldehyde as a "probable" rather than a "known" carcinogen, even though three major scientific reviews now link it to leukemia and have strengthened its ties to other forms of cancer. The chemical industry is fighting to avoid that designation, because it could lead to tighter regulations and require costly pollution controls.

"Delay means money. The longer they can delay labeling something a known carcinogen, the more money they can make," said James Huff, associate director for chemical carcinogenesis at the National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences in the Department of Health and Human Services.
---
Vitter’s ties to the formaldehyde industry are well known. According to Talking Points Memo, his election campaign received about $20,500 last year from companies that produce large amounts of formaldehyde waste in Louisiana. But ProPublica found that Vitter actually took in nearly twice that amount if contributions from other companies, trade groups and lobbyists with interests in formaldehyde regulation are included. Among those contributors is Charles Grizzle, a top-paid lobbyist for the Formaldehyde Council, an industry trade group that had long sought a National Academy review of the chemical.

Sen. James Inhofe persuaded the EPA to delay its formaldehyde risk assessment in 2004. (Getty Images file photo)

Congress stalled the formaldehyde risk assessment once before. In 2004, Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., persuaded the EPA to delay it, even though preliminary findings from a National Cancer Institute study had already linked formaldehyde to leukemia. Inhofe insisted that the EPA wait for a more "robust set of findings" from the institute.

Koch Industries, a large chemical manufacturer and one of Inhofe’s biggest campaign contributors, gave Inhofe $6,000 that year. That same year Koch bought two pulp mills from Georgia-Pacific, a major formaldehyde producer and one of the world’s largest plywood manufacturers. The next year Koch bought all of Georgia-Pacific.



Whenever a separation is made between liberty and justice, neither, in my opinion, is safe.
Edmund Burke

Deflection, deflection, deflection aka utter bullshit with regards to this thread.

My OP deals strictly with the EPA directly going against DHS and releasing personal and confidential business information.

The letter sent to the EPA nails this point to the wall.

As you are aware, FOIA's purpose is to provide the public with a means to access government information.

The statute essentially enables people to learn "‘what their government is up to.'"

FOIA is not, however, a mechanism by which private citizens or organizations may obtain personal information of other private citizens, or confidential business information.

EPA's recent and overbroad application of FOIA exemptions with respect to agency information undermines FOIA's purpose by preventing the public from learning what the agency is up to.

And this part really nails it...

Conversely, in releasing the personal and confidential information of CAFO owners, EPA has shown no regard for the privacy and safety of private citizens, and businesses.

EPA's current application of FOIA thus represents the antithesis of a transparent government and an offensive abuse of agency discretion.

.: U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works :: Press Room :.

 

[Mr. Peepers]

Um, these are farms. How hard would it be to get that information anyway, it's public info you could easily find on the interwebs, for the most part, yes - like owner's names and addresses / e-mail addresses? They're probably pimpin' GMO's anyway.

 

[Bfgrn]

I just found the original press release from April 4rth.

Kudos to all these Senators as well. Very interesting because DHS apparently had informed the EPA that releasing information like this could very well constitute a domestic security risk.

But the EPA did it anyway.

Great link.

Fischer, Vitter: EPA Giving out Personal Information of Private Citizens to Environmental Groups
Senators ask EPA for answers regarding the agency’s blatant disregard for personal privacy concerns of small businesses, farmers, and ranchers through the misapplication of FOIA
April 4, 2013

U.S. Sen. Deb Fischer (R-Neb.) and Sen. David Vitter (R-La.), top Republican on the Environment and Public Works Committee, along with committee members Sens. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), and John Boozman (R-Ark.) today wrote to Acting Administrator Bob Perciasepe of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) questioning the agency's decision to release personal and confidential business information related to recent Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests from environmental groups.

"In releasing the personal and confidential information of private citizens and business owners, EPA has shown no regard for their privacy and safety," said the Senators in a letter.

"Conversely, EPA has recently used FOIA exemptions in an overbroad manner with respect to agency information, undermining FOIA's purpose by preventing the public from learning what EPA is up to.

EPA's current application of FOIA represents the antithesis of a transparent government and an offensive abuse of agency discretion."

In response to a FOIA request for information related to concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) from environmental groups, EPA released comprehensive data providing the precise locations of CAFOs, the animal type and number of head, as well as the personal contact information, including the names, addresses, phone numbers, and email addresses of CAFO owners.

Previously, the Department of Homeland Security had informed EPA that the release of such information could constitute a domestic security risk.

In contrast, EPA has refused to disclose information relating to internal agency actions and emails, even when such disclosure is the intent of FOIA.

.: U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works :: Press Room :.

"It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners"
Albert Camus

I am always amazed at what conservatives get fired up about, but more amazed at what they could give two shits about. Vitter and Inhofe are accessories to death of American citizens.

How Senator Vitter Battled the EPA Over Formaldehyde’s Link to Cancer

Sen. David Vitter, R-La., has pushed the EPA to slow its process of updating its 20-year-old health assessment of formaldehyde. After Hurricane Katrina, thousands of his state's residents said they suffered respiratory problems after being housed in government trailers contaminated with formaldehyde. (Left: A child looks out of a FEMA trailer in Port Sulphur, La. May 2008 photo by Mario Tama/Getty Images)

When Sen. David Vitter persuaded the EPA to agree to yet another review of its long-delayed assessment of the health risks of formaldehyde, he was praised by companies that use or manufacture a chemical found in everything from plywood to carpet.

As long as the studies continue, the EPA will still list formaldehyde as a "probable" rather than a "known" carcinogen, even though three major scientific reviews now link it to leukemia and have strengthened its ties to other forms of cancer. The chemical industry is fighting to avoid that designation, because it could lead to tighter regulations and require costly pollution controls.

"Delay means money. The longer they can delay labeling something a known carcinogen, the more money they can make," said James Huff, associate director for chemical carcinogenesis at the National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences in the Department of Health and Human Services.
---
Vitter’s ties to the formaldehyde industry are well known. According to Talking Points Memo, his election campaign received about $20,500 last year from companies that produce large amounts of formaldehyde waste in Louisiana. But ProPublica found that Vitter actually took in nearly twice that amount if contributions from other companies, trade groups and lobbyists with interests in formaldehyde regulation are included. Among those contributors is Charles Grizzle, a top-paid lobbyist for the Formaldehyde Council, an industry trade group that had long sought a National Academy review of the chemical.

Sen. James Inhofe persuaded the EPA to delay its formaldehyde risk assessment in 2004. (Getty Images file photo)

Congress stalled the formaldehyde risk assessment once before. In 2004, Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., persuaded the EPA to delay it, even though preliminary findings from a National Cancer Institute study had already linked formaldehyde to leukemia. Inhofe insisted that the EPA wait for a more "robust set of findings" from the institute.

Koch Industries, a large chemical manufacturer and one of Inhofe’s biggest campaign contributors, gave Inhofe $6,000 that year. That same year Koch bought two pulp mills from Georgia-Pacific, a major formaldehyde producer and one of the world’s largest plywood manufacturers. The next year Koch bought all of Georgia-Pacific.



Whenever a separation is made between liberty and justice, neither, in my opinion, is safe.
Edmund Burke

Deflection, deflection, deflection aka utter bullshit with regards to this thread.

My OP deals strictly with the EPA directly going against DHS and releasing personal and confidential business information.

The letter sent to the EPA nails this point to the wall.

As you are aware, FOIA's purpose is to provide the public with a means to access government information.

The statute essentially enables people to learn "‘what their government is up to.'"

FOIA is not, however, a mechanism by which private citizens or organizations may obtain personal information of other private citizens, or confidential business information.

EPA's recent and overbroad application of FOIA exemptions with respect to agency information undermines FOIA's purpose by preventing the public from learning what the agency is up to.

And this part really nails it...

Conversely, in releasing the personal and confidential information of CAFO owners, EPA has shown no regard for the privacy and safety of private citizens, and businesses.

EPA's current application of FOIA thus represents the antithesis of a transparent government and an offensive abuse of agency discretion.

.: U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works :: Press Room :.

So American needlessly dying from cancer and Mesothelioma because US Senators are running interference for the killers is NOT YOUR ISSUE.

You are a partisan hack and a human piece of excrement.

 

[Bfgrn]

From the OP:

The information on livestock and produce farmers was sought through a Freedom of Information Act request by the groups Earth Justice, the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Pew Charitable Trust. They were given information on roughly 80,000 farmers and ranchers.

Pew returned the original information, per the agency's request Thursday, according to documents obtained by Fox.

The EPA said the majority of the data was already publicly available through state databases, web sites and federal and state permits, or is required to be released under federal or state law.

 

[tinydancer]

"It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners"
Albert Camus

I am always amazed at what conservatives get fired up about, but more amazed at what they could give two shits about. Vitter and Inhofe are accessories to death of American citizens.

How Senator Vitter Battled the EPA Over Formaldehyde’s Link to Cancer

Sen. David Vitter, R-La., has pushed the EPA to slow its process of updating its 20-year-old health assessment of formaldehyde. After Hurricane Katrina, thousands of his state's residents said they suffered respiratory problems after being housed in government trailers contaminated with formaldehyde. (Left: A child looks out of a FEMA trailer in Port Sulphur, La. May 2008 photo by Mario Tama/Getty Images)

When Sen. David Vitter persuaded the EPA to agree to yet another review of its long-delayed assessment of the health risks of formaldehyde, he was praised by companies that use or manufacture a chemical found in everything from plywood to carpet.

As long as the studies continue, the EPA will still list formaldehyde as a "probable" rather than a "known" carcinogen, even though three major scientific reviews now link it to leukemia and have strengthened its ties to other forms of cancer. The chemical industry is fighting to avoid that designation, because it could lead to tighter regulations and require costly pollution controls.

"Delay means money. The longer they can delay labeling something a known carcinogen, the more money they can make," said James Huff, associate director for chemical carcinogenesis at the National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences in the Department of Health and Human Services.
---
Vitter’s ties to the formaldehyde industry are well known. According to Talking Points Memo, his election campaign received about $20,500 last year from companies that produce large amounts of formaldehyde waste in Louisiana. But ProPublica found that Vitter actually took in nearly twice that amount if contributions from other companies, trade groups and lobbyists with interests in formaldehyde regulation are included. Among those contributors is Charles Grizzle, a top-paid lobbyist for the Formaldehyde Council, an industry trade group that had long sought a National Academy review of the chemical.

Sen. James Inhofe persuaded the EPA to delay its formaldehyde risk assessment in 2004. (Getty Images file photo)

Congress stalled the formaldehyde risk assessment once before. In 2004, Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., persuaded the EPA to delay it, even though preliminary findings from a National Cancer Institute study had already linked formaldehyde to leukemia. Inhofe insisted that the EPA wait for a more "robust set of findings" from the institute.

Koch Industries, a large chemical manufacturer and one of Inhofe’s biggest campaign contributors, gave Inhofe $6,000 that year. That same year Koch bought two pulp mills from Georgia-Pacific, a major formaldehyde producer and one of the world’s largest plywood manufacturers. The next year Koch bought all of Georgia-Pacific.



Whenever a separation is made between liberty and justice, neither, in my opinion, is safe.
Edmund Burke

Deflection, deflection, deflection aka utter bullshit with regards to this thread.

My OP deals strictly with the EPA directly going against DHS and releasing personal and confidential business information.

The letter sent to the EPA nails this point to the wall.

As you are aware, FOIA's purpose is to provide the public with a means to access government information.

The statute essentially enables people to learn "‘what their government is up to.'"

FOIA is not, however, a mechanism by which private citizens or organizations may obtain personal information of other private citizens, or confidential business information.

EPA's recent and overbroad application of FOIA exemptions with respect to agency information undermines FOIA's purpose by preventing the public from learning what the agency is up to.

And this part really nails it...

Conversely, in releasing the personal and confidential information of CAFO owners, EPA has shown no regard for the privacy and safety of private citizens, and businesses.

EPA's current application of FOIA thus represents the antithesis of a transparent government and an offensive abuse of agency discretion.

.: U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works :: Press Room :.

So American needlessly dying from cancer and Mesothelioma because US Senators are running interference for the killers is NOT YOUR ISSUE.

You are a partisan hack and a human piece of excrement.

And you aren't sticking to the topic in my OP. My thread is based on the abuse of the FOIA act by the EPA.

You want to discuss formaldehyde and other cancer causing agents, start your own thread in the Health forum.

No one is forcing you stay in this thread. Go start your own.

 

[tinydancer]

From the OP:

The information on livestock and produce farmers was sought through a Freedom of Information Act request by the groups Earth Justice, the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Pew Charitable Trust. They were given information on roughly 80,000 farmers and ranchers.

Pew returned the original information, per the agency's request Thursday, according to documents obtained by Fox.

The EPA said the majority of the data was already publicly available through state databases, web sites and federal and state permits, or is required to be released under federal or state law.

If all the information that the EPA claimed was out there for the enviro groups to research, why did they go to the EPA under FOIA?

And as far as Pew returning the information once they were already privy to all the data in it is one hell of a sadly laughable scenario.

EPA is busted for abusing their power. Even the DHS warned them not to give out personal information.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Deflection, deflection, deflection aka utter bullshit with regards to this thread.

My OP deals strictly with the EPA directly going against DHS and releasing personal and confidential business information.

The letter sent to the EPA nails this point to the wall.

As you are aware, FOIA's purpose is to provide the public with a means to access government information.

The statute essentially enables people to learn "‘what their government is up to.'"

FOIA is not, however, a mechanism by which private citizens or organizations may obtain personal information of other private citizens, or confidential business information.

EPA's recent and overbroad application of FOIA exemptions with respect to agency information undermines FOIA's purpose by preventing the public from learning what the agency is up to.

And this part really nails it...

Conversely, in releasing the personal and confidential information of CAFO owners, EPA has shown no regard for the privacy and safety of private citizens, and businesses.

EPA's current application of FOIA thus represents the antithesis of a transparent government and an offensive abuse of agency discretion.

.: U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works :: Press Room :.

So American needlessly dying from cancer and Mesothelioma because US Senators are running interference for the killers is NOT YOUR ISSUE.

You are a partisan hack and a human piece of excrement.

And you aren't sticking to the topic in my OP. My thread is based on the abuse of the FOIA act by the EPA.

You want to discuss formaldehyde and other cancer causing agents, start your own thread in the Health forum.

No one is forcing you stay in this thread. Go start your own.

LOL - Translation: Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. Let's just stick with my hyper-partisan attack shall we?

 

[nodoginnafight]

MHO: EPA screwed up. Fix it. Move on.

 

[Mr. Peepers]

Also, industrial farms are seriously polluting the soil and waterways. Why wouldn't the EPA be involved?

 

[nodoginnafight]

Also, industrial farms are seriously polluting the soil and waterways. Why wouldn't the EPA be involved?

Agreed. But they shouldn't have released the personal information. They should have made them get it from permits and other public records. They should have forced the group to do their homework rather than giving them a cheat sheet.

In the whole scheme of things, I just can't get too worked up over it though and I am no fan of the EPA. But fix it and move on. They've done a lot worse.