What is Rob's Job Again?

It's one thing to tell people that you raise poultry and grow vegetables.  It's another thing to say you teach computer science at a college. It is yet another thing to try to explain what I have done for Pesticide Action Network for the past two years as first a Communications Associate and then Communications Manager.

Let's get the Associate/Manager thing out of the way first.  It's a title thing more than a change in work thing.  And we'll leave it at that.

I still do things to try to introduce people to what it means to grow food as we do at the Genuine Faux Farm - so it was in line with the new job that I showed some University of Northern Iowa students around the farm under the auspices of the Iowa Organic Association recently.  But, the part that is a bit more new is the kind of writing I do (or help others to do) for PAN.

For example, yesterday's GFF blog was a cross-post of something I wrote for PAN.  Obviously, there are numerous differences from a normal GFF blog.  What I write for PAN is edited and proofed by at least two other people.  And, I have to consider much more carefully what I say and how I say it.  After all, I am representing more than just myself with my PAN writings.

The other thing I do (and will be doing more of in the future) is write the content for actions that PAN is suggesting that people like you and I should participate in.  Things that encourage you to write your senator, contact the EPA, let your governor know ... Yes, those kinds of things.

The trick is to write something that gets the point across quickly, encourages you to act, and THEN makes it really easy for you to participate - while not limiting you to the minimum participation level.  It's not an easy task, let me tell you!

This past week we worked to get an action out to support a bill in the US House of Representatives.  The bill is actually a very simple bill.  It sets the legal definition for PFAS so it matches the generally ACCEPTED definition for PFAS.  That might sound odd to you (it did to me), but the bill exists simply because the EPA has decided to create a new definition that is much more limiting for PFAS.

Why is this an issue?  Well, a prior law set a rule that they should implement reporting on the use of PFAS.  The EPA apparently doesn't want to do that much work, so they decided to come up with a definition that covers less territory.  Hence, the new bill - it's just a way to encourage the EPA to do what the original bill set for them to do.  It's just common sense.

So, here is the email text that I helped put together.

---------------

Perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), commonly referred to as “forever chemicals,” are a group of harmful, man-made chemicals that do not break down in the environment. These substances build up in our drinking water, ecosystems, and bodies.

PFAS are associated with higher risk of multiple cancers, reproductive damage, endocrine disruption, and developmental issues in children. But, the EPA is looking to proceed with a narrow definition of what would constitute a PFAS — effectively allowing each of us to continue to be exposed to higher levels of these substances with no plan to assess the risk.

Tell your Representative to cosponsor the common-sense PFAS Definition Improvement Act (H.R. 5987), which would broaden and improve the definition of PFAS for reporting.

Many pesticide products are now fluorinated, meeting the commonly accepted definition of PFAS. In fact, the fluorination of pesticides is becoming more common, with over 70% of new pesticide products approved between 2015 and 2020 using this technology. As a result, these products will persist in our soils, waters, and our bodies longer than non-fluorinated pesticides.

These products would fail to meet EPA’s proposed definition for PFAS, removing them from reporting requirements and exposing our communities to the potential for further harm.

Without changes to this limited definition, the EPA reporting rule will not capture the true pervasiveness of these dangerous chemicals, leaving us without critical information about their potential effects on our drinking water, food, and public health.

We need you to tell your Representative to keep the EPA on target when it comes to “forever chemicals.” The broader, more accurate definition of PFAS will help us to protect our health, water, and ecosystems.

Thank you for taking action to protect our communities. 

----------------

You know, I don't think I ever thought I would do work on this sort of writing during my lifetime - but here I am.

Now, let me do my person to person in the Genuine Faux Farm blog sales pitch: 

I am personally convinced that PFAS are enough of a concern that we need to have the EPA actively tracking these substances - at the very least.  The first step in the United States to move towards removing products that are causing harm to the people and the country is to start tracking it and collecting data to determine if there really IS a problem.  Yes, there is already information out there that indicates there is one, but the EPA will want to gather data themselves before they act.

That's all this bill does.  It forces the EPA to track ALL things that would normally fall under the common-use definition for PFAS.  

Would I like to see us restrict these items sooner than later?  Yes, I would.  But, that's not what this action is.  It is getting the ball rolling by pushing the EPA to pay attention.  And that's where we have to start.

If you feel this is a good idea, feel free to take the action that is linked here.  All you need to do is enter your name and address and you can add your signature in the letter text.  Pretty simple - and sometimes, it is actually effective.  But, it definitely isn't effective if you don't take the action.