Why is new pesticide adverse effects info so hard to get at?

[Sue.Darcey, Pesticide Report <sdarcey@erols.com>]

I'm Sue Darcey, editor and publisher Pesticide Report, a biweekly
newsletter covering pesticide regulations, risk assessments, adverse
effects, etc.  I've experienced a great deal of frustration using
EPA libraries, databases, docket rooms and resources such as the
Freedom of Information Act to get at the information I would like
to write about and think is important for the public to know, i.e.:

1) The adverse effects of specific pesticides on humans;
2) All the ingredients (including inerts) of pesticides;
3) RECENT (within the last 3-4 months) studies that EPA staff
   know about concerning ecological effects of pesticides on 
   mammals, birds, fish and particularly amphibians/reptiles;
4) carcinogenicity studies on specific toxic substances;
5) what the agency knows about multiple chemical sensitivity, but
   is not telling the public;
6) How chemical industry's  concerns are hampering the flow of 
   information from EPA to the general public;
7) How to get quicker access to EPA regional office enforcement
   cases concerning FIFRA and pesticides (all I can get now are
   regional press releases).

I've been particularly frustrated with the FOIA process and
EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs.  Staff tells me to use FOIA, 
but it simply takes too long to retrieve information (four to six
months on average)to get any pesticide adverse effects information
through that avenue.

I know that on Friday, Sept. 15, EPA's pesticide office finally
posted an "EFOIA" web page, but all the information and studies
on that page are pretty creaky and old (at least one year old),
and already available through other electronic means (like the
OPP web page, which lists organophosphate risk assessments
and 6-month old pesticide Reregistration Eligibility Decision
documents).

I guess that basically I don't understand why it's easier to 
get usable information about pesticide toxicity through environmental
groups (which are obviously going to be somewhat biased about
the way they present that information)than it is through what
I hope would be a more neutral source, a government agency 
sworn to protect the environment.

Sue Darcey, Pesticide Report