We asked one of the nation’s leading agronomists, Richard Fasching, to do a detailed analysis of the EPA nitrate study and report. Mr. Fasching, now retired, is a former senior agronomist with the Natural Resources Conservation Service of the United States Department of Agriculture. He initially reviewed the EPA study when it was first published but following his retirement he was more free to express his very strong opinions about the false and fraudulent nature of this study.
In addition to Mr. Fasching’s technical analysis, this document outlines the failure of the EPA Region 10 staff to conduct a proper peer review. When presented with this damning information, the staff took action to justify this failure to conduct the review by changing the category from “influential science information” to the “other” category which gave them full discretion on the level of peer review. This action, along with blatant misrepresentation of the nature of the peer review to Administrator Hladick, is a violation of Title 18 (1001) of the federal code which prohibits federal officials in the conduct of their duties to lie or materially misrepresent the facts.SFF EPA Nitrate Critique final-web version-minus graphics 053119