January, 04 2011, 12:30pm EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Tracey Brieger, Californians for Pesticide Reform, 415-215-5473, tracey@pesticidereform.org
Kathleen Sutcliffe, Earthjustice, 202-384-7157, ksutcliffe@earthjustice.org
Coalition Sues California Over Approval of Cancer-Causing Strawberry Pesticide
52,000 comments submitted urging Governor Brown to reverse decision
SAN FRANCISCO
On Governor Brown's first day in office, a coalition of farmworkers,
community advocates and environmental health organizations are
announcing a lawsuit to challenge the state's approval of the
cancer-causing strawberry pesticide methyl iodide. Several of the
organizations also submitted comments from over 52,000 members of the
public urging him to act quickly to prevent the use of methyl iodide in
California's fields.
The lawsuit [https://earthjustice.org/documents/legal-document/pdf/mei-final-petition]
was filed late Thursday by Earthjustice and California Rural Legal
Assistance, Inc. on behalf of Pesticide Action Network North America,
United Farm Workers of America, Californians for Pesticide Reform,
Pesticide Watch Education Fund, Worksafe, Communities and Children,
Advocates Against Pesticide Poisoning and farmworkers Jose Hidalgo Ramon
and Zeferino Estrada.
The suit challenges the state Department of Pesticide Regulation's (DPR)
December 20 approval of methyl iodide for use in California on the
grounds that it violates the California Environmental Quality Act, the
California Birth Defects Prevention Act, and the Pesticide Contamination
Prevention Act that protects groundwater against pesticide pollution.
In addition, the suit contends that DPR violated the law requiring
involvement of the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
(OEHHA) in the development of farmworker safety regulations and made an
unlawful finding of emergency with its request for Restricted Materials
status for methyl iodide.
"The public has been shocked, wondering how methyl iodide could be
approved under California law. The truth is that DPR played too fast and
loose with their decision," said Earthjustice attorney Greg Loarie.
"They exceeded their legal authority and have put the public and
farmworkers at great risk of harm."
In deciding to approve methyl iodide, DPR shunned the findings of top
scientists--including the state's own Scientific Review Committee--who
have consistently said that the chemical is too dangerous to be used in
agriculture. Upon hearing the decision, Dr. John Froines, chair of the
Committee, told press, "I honestly think that this chemical will cause
disease and illness. And so does everyone else on the committee."
Theodore Slotkin, another panel member and professor of pharmacology and
cancer biology at Duke University, wrote, "It is my personal opinion
that this decision will result in serious harm to California citizens,
and most especially to children."
"Farmworkers are on the front lines of methyl iodide use and will suffer
the most tragic consequences," observed Erik Nicholson, National
Vice-President of United Farm Workers. "If this decision is allowed to
stand, strawberries may very well become the new poster child for giving
farmworkers cancer and late term miscarriages."
Crumbling under pressure from an intensive pro-methyl-iodide lobbying
campaign run by Arysta LifeScience--methyl iodide's manufacturer and the
largest privately held pesticide company in the world--DPR fast-tracked
the registration process by declaring an "emergency." DPR's only stated
explanation for the "emergency" was that it wanted to register methyl
iodide on December 20.
"DPR created a political 'emergency' by insisting on locking-in its
decision before a new administration takes office - an administration
that would follow the science instead of catering to the largest private
agrochemical corporation in the world," said Mike Meuter, Attorney at
California Rural Legal Assistance, Inc. "DPR's move has no legal basis:
political convenience does not constitute an emergency."
The 'emergency' registration blocked the otherwise necessary public
comment period on the decision, despite the public's strong desire for
input. Last summer, over 53,000 people urged California not to legalize
the pesticide. Today, an additional 52,000 comments were submitted by
Pesticide Action Network North America, Breast Cancer Action, CREDO,
Food and Water Watch and others urging Governor Brown to reverse the
decision to register methyl iodide.
"We expect Governor Brown to do much better than his predecessor, whose
environmental legacy is defined by hypocrisy," said Paul Towers, State
Director of Pesticide Watch Education Fund. "Schwarzenegger's move to
promote the elimination of plastic bags but approve--on the very same
day--the use of one of the most toxic chemicals on earth in California's
fields has permanently tarnished his environmental record."
Methyl iodide causes late term miscarriages, contaminates groundwater
and is so reliably carcinogenic that it's used to create cancer cells in
laboratories. It is included in California's Proposition 65 list of
"chemicals known to cause cancer." The pesticide poses the most direct
risks to farm workers and neighboring communities because of the volume
that would be applied to fields and its tendency to drift off site
through the air.
The chemical is approved to be applied to California's strawberry fields
at rates up to 100 pounds per acre on much of the state's 38,000 acres
in strawberry production, totaling millions of pounds of use. Though
methyl iodide will likely be used primarily on strawberries, it is also
registered for use on tomatoes, peppers, nurseries and on soils prior to
replanting orchards and vineyards.
"It's farmworkers like me who become sick," said plaintiff Jose Hidalgo.
"As a strawberry picker, I have worked near many pesticide
applications. First we smell the pesticides. Then our eyes burn, our
noses run and our throats hurt. I'm against using methyl iodide because
it's already too dangerous in the fields, we don't need new, even more
dangerous, toxins."
"Living near California's strawberry fields just became even more
deadly," commented Lynda Uvari, Founding Board Member of Community and
Children's Advocates Against Pesticide Poisoning, a community group in
Ventura County. "Will Arysta and DPR be there to help when people in our
communities get cancer or lose their babies?"
"Given the special susceptibility of adolescents to this developmental
toxicant, methyl iodide poses a special health risk to teenage children
working in the fields or exposed to drift," declared Lora Jo Foo, Legal
Director of Worksafe.
In the last days of the Bush Administration in 2007, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approved methyl iodide at the
national level, ignoring concerns from over 50 eminent
scientists--including six Nobel Laureates in Chemistry--who expressed
astonishment in a letter to U.S. EPA that the agency was "working to
legalize broadcast releases of one of the more toxic chemicals used in
manufacturing into the environment."
Arysta LifeScience pushed to secure registration of the pesticide in
California because it is one of the most lucrative pesticide markets in
the nation. New York and Washington states refused to register methyl
iodide for agricultural purposes.
LATEST NEWS
US Voter Registrations Surge as Republicans Try to Limit Ballot Access
One group said it has registered over 100,000 new voters since U.S. President Joe Biden dropped out of the 2024 race.
Jul 26, 2024
The group behind a popular get-out-the-vote technology platform said Friday that it's registered more than 100,000 new U.S. voters since President Joe Biden withdrew from the 2024 presidential race, a surge that came amid mounting Republican efforts to make it harder to register and vote.
Vote.org said that 84% of voters registered in the new wave are under age 35. Nearly 1 in 5 new registrees is 18 years old. Andrea Hailey, the group's CEO, said that "since 2020, we have led the largest voter registration drive in U.S. history," with more than 7.8 million people registered.
After dropping out, Biden endorsed Vice President Kamala Harris to face former Republican President Donald Trump and Sen. JD Vance (R-Ohio) in the November election. The new presumptive Democratic candidate has already earned endorsements from many Democrats in Congress and groups advocating on issues including climate, labor, and reproductive rights.
Vote.org's success comes as Republicans at the federal level are proposing and passing legislation creating obstacles to the ballot box.
Earlier this month, U.S. House Republicans passed Rep. Chip Roy's (R-Texas)
Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act, which would require proof of American citizenship to vote in federal elections. Republicans claim the bill is meant to fix the virtually nonexistent "problem" of noncitizen voter fraud.
However, Rep. Summer Lee (D-Pa.)
slammed the bill as a "xenophobic attack" meant to silence "Black voices, brown voices, LBGTQIA+ voices, [and] young voices."
Lee said the SAVE Act underscores the need to pass her recently introduced Right to Vote Act, "which would establish the first-ever affirmative federal voting rights guarantee, ensuring every citizen may exercise their fundamental right to cast a ballot."
Earlier this year, U.S. Senate Democrats also reintroduced the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, legislation its sponsors say will "update and restore critical safeguards of the original Voting Rights Act."
Meanwhile, Republican-controlled state legislatures and red-state governors are enacting laws imposing tough restrictions on voter registration, with violations punishable by stiff fines that critics say are meant to dissuade people from registration drives and similar efforts.
Again under the guise of preventing fraud, Republican Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis last year signed legislation limiting voter registration drives, with fines of up to $250,000 for violators.
"These draconian laws and rules are like taking a sledgehammer to hit a flea," Cecile Scoon, an attorney and president of the Florida chapter of the League of Women Voters,
toldThe New York Times in an article published Friday.
Three years after Kansas passed a law making "false representation" of an election official a crime, campaigners say it's become extremely difficult to sign up new voters.
"In 2020, even with the pandemic, we had registered nearly 10,000 Kansans to vote. Now, we haven't been able to register anyone," Davis Hammet, president of the youth voter mobilization group Loud Light, told the Times.
In Louisiana, Republican state lawmakers quietly passed legislation making it easier for election officials to toss out absentee ballots with missing details, limiting how people can mail in other voters' ballots, and restricting the ability to assist people with disabilities with their ballots.
"What we've found is that these measures have a disproportionate impact on voters with disabilities, both Black and white," NAACP Legal Defense Fund senior policy counsel Jared Evans
toldNola.com earlier this week.
"It's clear that their goal is to make it harder to vote, harder for specific communities to vote especially," Evans added. "What they don't realize is that these laws hurt white voters, too."
In Nebraska, Republican Secretary of State Bob Evnen last week
ordered county election offices to stop registering voters with past felony convictions who have not received official pardons. The move came after the state's unicameral Legislature passed a bill granting voting eligibility to felons immediately after they have completed their sentences instead of waiting two years.
"We refuse to accept thousands of Nebraskans having their voting rights stripped away," ACLU of Nebraska legal and policy fellow Jane Seu said in a statement. "We are confident in the constitutionality of these laws, and we are exploring every option to ensure that Nebraskans who have done their time can vote."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Critics Warn Manchin-Barrasso Permitting Bill 'Is Taken Straight From Project 2025'
"You thought Project 2025 was just a threat after the election? It's actually happening *right now,*" said one climate campaigner.
Jul 26, 2024
Climate and environmental defenders on this week implored U.S. senators to block a permitting reform bill introduced this week by Sens. Joe Manchin and John Barrasso that campaigners linked to Project 2025, a conservative coalition's agenda for a far-right overhaul of the federal government.
Common Dreamsreported Monday that Manchin (I-W.Va.) and Barrasso (R-Wyo.)—respectively the chair and ranking member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee—introduced the Energy Permitting Reform Act of 2024.
The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) noted that although the proposal "includes several positive reforms for the accelerated development of transmission projects," it also advocates "limiting opportunities for communities to challenge projects, loosening oversight for drilling and mining projects, extending drilling permits and fast-tracking [liquified natural gas] permits, and several other provisions friendly to fossil fuel giants."
"This dangerous bill doesn't deserve a floor vote."
These are nearly identical policies to what's proposed in Project 2025's Mandate for Leadership. The plan, which was spearheaded by the Heritage Foundation, calls for "unleashing all of America's energy resources," including by ending federal restrictions on fossil fuel drilling on public lands; limiting investments in renewable energy; and rolling back environmental permitting restrictions for new oil, gas, and coal projects, including power plants.
While Manchin has been trying—and failing—to pass fossil fuel-friendly permitting reform legislation for years, Brett Hartl, director of public affairs at the Center for Biological Diversity, said that his "Frankenstein legislation is taken straight from Project 2025, and it's the biggest giveaway in decades to the fossil fuel industry."
Hartl said the bill "deprives communities of the power to defend themselves and gives that power to Big Oil by making it harder for communities to challenge polluting projects in court," and "prioritizes the profits of coal barons over public health."
"And it mandates oil and gas extraction in our oceans," he continued. "The insignificant crumbs thrown at renewable energy do nothing to address the climate emergency."
"Monday was the hottest day in recorded history," Hartl noted. "It's shocking that as the climate emergency continues to break records around us, the Senate continues to fast-track the fossil fuel expansion that is killing us. This dangerous bill doesn't deserve a floor vote."
Hartl added that "to preserve a livable planet," Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) "must squash this legislation now."
Manchin—who has said this will be his last term in office—has been a steadfast supporter of the fossil fuel industry, partly because his family owns a coal company. The senator says his permitting reform bill "will advance American energy once again to bring down prices, create domestic jobs, and allow us to continue in our role as a global energy leader."
However, Allie Rosenbluth, Oil Change International's U.S. manager, warned Thursday that "this bill is yet another dangerous attempt by Sen. Manchin to line the pockets of his fossil fuel donors, sacrificing communities and our climate along the way."
"Don't be fooled: The Energy Permitting Reform Act is another dirty deal to fast-track fossil fuels above all else," she continued. "It would unleash more drilling on federal lands and waters, unnecessarily rush the review of proposed oil and gas export projects, and lift the Biden administration's pause on new LNG exports."
"We urge Congress to reject this proposal and commit to action that protects frontline communities from the impacts of fossil fuel development and the climate crisis," Rosenbluth added.
"Don't be fooled: The Energy Permitting Reform Act is another dirty deal to fast-track fossil fuels above all else."
NRDC managing director of government affairs Alexandra Adams said Wednesday that "this bill is a giveaway for the oil and gas industry that will ramp up drilling and environmental destruction at a time when we need to be putting a hard stop to fossil fuels."
"We cannot afford to roll back so many of our bedrock environmental and community legal protections and offer a blank check to the oil and gas industry," she stressed. "We need new solutions for permitting if we are going to meet our clean energy potential and address the climate challenge. But this is not it."
"This bill would altogether be a leap backward on climate, health, and justice if passed into law," Adams added. "The Senate should reject it and look toward alternative solutions already being considered."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Nothing To Eat': War-Torn Sudan Faces Mass Famine as Military Delays Aid
Both parties in Sudan's civil war are to blame for a looming mass famine, experts say, and the military's blocking of U.N. aid at a border crossing with Chad exacerbates the problem.
Jul 26, 2024
Sudan's military is blocking United Nations aid trucks from entering at a key border crossing, causing severe disruptions in aid in a country that experts fear may be on the brink of one of the worst famines the world has seen in decades, The New York Timesreported Friday.
The border city of Adré in eastern Chad is the main international crossing into the Darfur region of Sudan, but the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF), the state's official military, which is engaged in a civil war with a paramilitary group called the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), has refused to issue permits for U.N. trucks to enter there, as it's an RSF-controlled area.
U.S. and international officials have issued increasingly alarmed calls for steady aid access to help feed the millions of severely malnourished people in Darfur and other areas of Sudan.
Last week, Linda Thomas-Greenfield, the United States ambassador to the U.N., said that the SAF's obstruction of the border was "completely unacceptable."
Both warring parties in Sudan continue to perpetrate brazen atrocities, including starvation of civilians as a method of warfare. This piece focuses on the SAF's ongoing obstruction of essential aid. The situation is catastrophic. The policy is criminal. https://t.co/FKhqQh3EI9.
— Tom Dannenbaum (@tomdannenbaum) July 26, 2024
The Sudanese who've made it out of the country and into Adré reported dire and unsafe conditions in their home country.
"We had nothing to eat," Bahja Muhakar, a Sudenese mother of three, told the Times after she crossed into Chad, following a harrowing six-day journey from Al-Fashir, a major city in Darfur. She said the family often had to live off of one shared pancake per day.
Another mother, Dahabaya Ibet, said that her 20-month-old boy had to bear witness to his grandfather being shot and killed in front of his eyes when the family home in Darfur was attacked by gunmen late last year.
Now the mothers and their families are refugees in Adré, where 200,000 Sudanese are living in an overcrowded, under-resourced transit camp.
In addition to those that have made it out of the country, there are 11 million people internally displaced within Sudan, most of whom have become displaced since the civil war began in April 2023.
An unnamed senior American official told the Times that the looming famine in Sudan could be as bad as the 2011 famine in Somalia or even the great Ethiopian famine of the 1980s.
In April, Reutersreported that people in Sudan were eating soil and leaves to survive, and The Washington Postcalled it a nation in "chaos," reporting that World Food Program trucks had been "blocked, hijacked, attacked, looted, and detained."
In late June, a coalition of U.N. agencies, aid groups, and governments warned that 755,000 people in Sudan faced famine in the coming months.
The U.S. last week announced $203 million in additional aid to Sudan—part of a $2.1 billion pledge that world leaders made in April, which some countries have not yet delivered on.
Some officials including Thomas-Greenfield, who has dubbed the situation in Sudan "the worst humanitarian crisis in the world," have called for the U.N. Security Council to allow aid delivery into the country even in the absence of SAF approval; it's believed that Russia would veto such a measure.
Sudan's civil war has seen a great deal of international interference. Amnesty International on Thursday published an investigatory briefing showing that weapons from Russia, China, Serbia, Turkey, Yemen, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) had been identified in the country. And The Guardian on Friday reported that the passports of Emirati citizens had been found among wreckage in Sudan, indicating the UAE may have troops or intelligence officers on the ground, though the UAE denied the accusation.
The International Service for Human Rights on Friday warned that both the SAF and RSF were engaged in wrongful killings and arrests, especially targeted at lawyers, doctors, and activists. The group called for an immediate cease-fire.
The SAF and Sudanese government figures have cast doubt on international experts' claims about famine in the country.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular