We all understand why the Environmental Protection Agency was given the power to issue regulations to guard against oil spills, such as that of the Exxon Valdez in Alaska or the more recent BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. But not everyone understands that any power given to any bureaucracy for any purpose can be stretched far beyond that purpose.
In a classic example of this process, the EPA has decided that, since milk contains oil, it has the authority to force farmers to comply with new regulations to file “emergency management” plans to show how they will cope with spilled milk, how farmers will train “first responders” and build “containment facilities” if there is a flood of spilled milk.
Since there is no free lunch, all of this is going to cost the farmers both money and time that could be going into farming— and is likely to end up costing consumers higher prices for farm products.
Answer by lovinangels at 6:29 PM on Feb. 5, 2011
Answer by Carpy at 6:30 PM on Feb. 5, 2011
Answer by kittymeri at 6:30 PM on Feb. 5, 2011
Answer by stacymomof2 at 6:34 PM on Feb. 5, 2011
Answer by UpSheRises at 6:37 PM on Feb. 5, 2011
By the way, OP, there is a problem with your info. I went to the EPA website to see what this ridiculousness was about and it is not about spilled milk at all. It is about regulating pipes and holding containers for milk in order to receive "Grade A Pasteurized" status. lol. It just happened to be in a form that was also talking about oil spills. The issue was not the exact requirements but the extension of the cpompliance dates. Check it out: http://www.epa.gov/oem/docs/oil/spcc/spcc_extfs.pdf
Answer by stacymomof2 at 6:39 PM on Feb. 5, 2011
Answer by stacymomof2 at 6:40 PM on Feb. 5, 2011
Answer by janet116 at 9:29 PM on Feb. 5, 2011
Answer by jesse123456 at 9:32 PM on Feb. 5, 2011