{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Beyond Pesticides Daily News Blog","provider_url":"https:\/\/beyondpesticides.org\/dailynewsblog","author_name":"Beyond Pesticides","author_url":"https:\/\/beyondpesticides.org\/dailynewsblog\/author\/beyond-pesticides\/","title":"EPA Excludes Details on Worker Protection Rule  - Beyond Pesticides Daily News Blog","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"1x4aX1nC9d\"><a href=\"https:\/\/beyondpesticides.org\/dailynewsblog\/2013\/01\/epa-excludes-details-on-worker-protection-rule\/\">EPA Excludes Details on Worker Protection Rule<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/beyondpesticides.org\/dailynewsblog\/2013\/01\/epa-excludes-details-on-worker-protection-rule\/embed\/#?secret=1x4aX1nC9d\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"&#8220;EPA Excludes Details on Worker Protection Rule&#8221; &#8212; Beyond Pesticides Daily News Blog\" data-secret=\"1x4aX1nC9d\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script type=\"text\/javascript\">\n\/* <![CDATA[ *\/\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n\/* ]]> *\/\n<\/script>\n","description":"(Beyond Pesticides, January 11, 2012) Environmentalists, farmworkers, and farmworker advocates have become increasingly uncomfortable with the new proposal for pesticide safety measures which does not include details on how the proposed rule will protect agricultural workers, farmers, and applicators. These sentiments stem from the concern that this may mean less stringent regulations than those originally proposed. In 2010, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released a \u00a0 document proposing Worker Protection Standards (WPS) that would determine ways to increase training, improve safety requirements, provide clear emergency information, and create strong protection for applicators. However, a recent EPA handout distributed \u00a0during a November 2012 Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee (PPDC) meeting downplays the details within those goals, and brings into question the agency&#8217;s \u00a0previous commitments. Advocacy groups have raised pointed complaints on the new document\u2019s prose: &#8220;I have to agree that we are just really in the dark,&#8221; said one environmental group lawyer, &#8220;It is mysterious that it&#8217;s taken them so long to come up with a draft to propose, and the fact that they are being kind of tight-lipped about it and that even the very minimal detail about the proposal that was in the 2010 document disappeared from the 2012 [&hellip;]","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.beyondpesticides.org\/dailynewsblog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/01\/farm-worker2-300x201.jpg"}