Legislators push bedbug pesticide
Although I was thinking of using an alternative title to this rant:
Federal Government Encourages Rash Of Bedbugs.
Propoxur had long been labeled for use in homes. It lost that status last year because the manufacturer had declined to pay to re-test and re-register the product, Christman said.
The E.P.A. (Environmental Pandering Agency) (who's motto is I never met a human I liked) (who's job is to protect the health and welfare of every living thing-except humans) has decided to save the bedbug.
The bedbug, is a parasite (like the federal government) that can be found in beds, living off the blood of people who sleep in beds, causing minimal harm (unlike the federal government which once it starts sucking, always bleeds the victim dry).
Because the E.P.A. (Environmental Pandering Agency) must protect parasites that survive by living off the residents of this country (like every agency of the federal government as well as the federal government itself), they have decided that banning the only cheap and effective pesticide is in the best interests of the federal government and the bedbugs (but NOT in the best interest of the citizens of the United States). And just like the Securities and Exchange Commission prevented the economic meltdown and the Minerals Management Service prevented the massive oil spill, the Environmental Protection Agency will do their best to do what they were created to do. Which is to look the other way if they are paid their regulatory fees.
Any company that gets fed up with bureaucratic corruption and incompetence and refuses to pay the bribe required to get the E.P.A. (Environmental Pandering Agency) to pretend to test their product, has their product banned from the use it was designed for.
But don't look for any politician to get banned from sucking the life force from the citizens of the United States. That is a perfectly acceptable activity for the parasites in elected and appointed office.
If it's already been tested and found safe, and has a track record of extensive use without any safety issues, then why in the hell does it need to be REtested (except to justify this particular bureaucracy's existence)??
ReplyDelete