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
Once Again, Tom Cotton Blocks Bill to Shield Journalists From Betraying Sources
Responding to the GOP senator's latest thwarting of the PRESS Act, Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden vowed to "keep trying to get this bill across the finish line" before Republicans take control of the Senate next month.
Dec 10, 2024
Republican U.S. Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas on Tuesday again blocked the passage of House-approved bipartisan legislation meant to shield journalists and telecommunications companies from being compelled to disclose sources and other information to federal authorities.
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) brought the Protect Reporters from Exploitative State Spying (PRESS) Act—which would prohibit the federal government from forcing journalists and telecom companies to disclose certain information, with exceptions for terroristic or violent threats—for a unanimous consent vote.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) argued Tuesday that passing the PRESS Act is "more important now than ever before when we've heard some in the previous administration talk about going after the press in one way or another," a reference to Republican President-elect Donald Trump's threats to jail journalists who refuse to reveal the sources of leaks. Trump, who has referred to the press as the "enemy of the people," repeatedly urged Senate Republicans to "kill this bill."
Cotton, who blocked a vote on the legislation in December 2022, again objected to the bill, a move that thwarted its speedy passage. The Republican called the legislation a "threat to national security" and "the biggest giveaway to the liberal press in American history."
The advocacy group Defending Rights and Dissent lamented that "Congress has abdicated their responsibility to take substantive steps to protect the constitutional right to a free press."
However, Seth Stern, director of advocacy at the Freedom of the Press Foundation, noted ways in which Senate Democrats can still pass the PRESS Act before Republicans gain control of the upper chamber next month:
Senate Democrats had all year to move this bipartisan bill and now time is running out. Leader Schumer needs to get the PRESS Act into law—whether by attaching it to a year-end legislative package or bringing it to the floor on its own—even if it means shortening lawmakers' holiday break. Hopefully, today was a preview of more meaningful action to come.
Responding to Tuesday's setback, Wyden vowed, "I'm not taking my foot off the gas."
"I'll keep trying to get this bill across the finish line to write much-needed protections for journalists and their sources into black letter law," he added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Judges Block Kroger-Albertsons Merger in 'Win for Farmers, Workers, and Consumers'
"We applaud the FTC for securing one of the most significant victories in modern antitrust enforcement," said one advocate.
Dec 10, 2024
Antitrust advocates on Tuesday welcomed a pair of court rulings against the proposed merger of grocery giants Kroger and Albertsons, which was challenged by Federal Trade Commission Chair Lina Khan and multiple state attorneys general.
"The FTC, along with our state partners, scored a major victory for the American people, successfully blocking Kroger's acquisition of Albertsons," said Henry Liu, director of the commission's Bureau of Competition, in a statement. "This historic win protects millions of Americans across the country from higher prices for essential groceries—from milk, to bread, to eggs—ultimately allowing consumers to keep more money in their pockets."
"This victory has a direct, tangible impact on the lives of millions of Americans who shop at Kroger or Albertsons-owned grocery stores for their everyday needs, whether that's a Fry's in Arizona, a Vons in Southern California, or a Jewel-Osco in Illinois," he added. "This is also a victory for thousands of hardworking union employees, protecting their hard-earned paychecks by ensuring Kroger and Albertsons continue to compete for workers through higher wages, better benefits, and improved working conditions."
While Liu was celebrating the preliminary injunction from Oregon-based U.S. District Court Judge Adrienne Nelson, later Tuesday, King County Superior Court Judge Marshall Ferguson released a ruling that blocked the merger in Washington state.
"We're standing up to mega-monopolies to keep prices down," said Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson. "We went to court to block this illegal merger to protect Washingtonians' struggling with high grocery prices and the workers whose jobs were at stake. This is an important victory for affordability, worker protections, and the rule of law."
Advocacy groups applauding the decisions also pointed to the high cost of groceries and the anticipated impact of Kroger buying Albertsons—a $24.6 billion deal first announced in October 2022.
"American families are the big winner today, thanks to the Federal Trade Commission. The only people who stood to gain from the potential merger between Albertsons and Kroger were their wealthy executives and investors," asserted Liz Zelnick of Accountable.US. "The rest of us are letting out a huge sigh of relief knowing today's victory is good news for competitive prices and consumer access."
Describing the federal decision as "a victory for commonsense antitrust enforcement that puts people ahead of corporations," Food & Water Watch senior food policy analyst Rebecca Wolf also pointed out that "persistently high food prices are hitting Americans hard, and a Kroger-Albertsons mega-merger would have only made it worse."
"Already, a handful of huge corporations' stranglehold on our food system means that consumers are paying too much for too little choice in supermarkets, workers are earning too little, and farmers and ranchers cannot get fair prices for their crops and livestock," she noted. "Today's decision and strengthened FTC merger guidelines help change the calculus."
Like Wolf, Farm Action president and co-founder Angela Huffman similarly highlighted that "while industry consolidation increases prices for consumers and harms workers, grocery mergers also have a devastating impact on farmers and ranchers."
"When grocery stores consolidate, farmers have even fewer options for where to sell their products, and the chances of them receiving a fair price for their goods are diminished further," Huffman explained. "Today's ruling is a win for farmers, workers, and consumers alike."
Some advocates specifically praised Khan—a progressive FTC chair whom President-elect Donald Trumpplans to replace with Andrew Ferguson, a current commissioner who previously worked as chief counsel to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and as Republican counsel on the Senate Judiciary Committee.
"Today's decision is a major win for shoppers and grocery workers. Families have been paying the price of unchecked corporate power in the food and grocery sector, and further consolidation would only worsen this crisis," declared Groundwork Collaborative executive director Lindsay Owens in a statement.
"FTC Chair Lina Khan's approach is the blueprint to deliver lower prices, higher wages, and an economy that works for everyone," Owens argued. "The rebirth of antitrust enforcement has protected consumers against the worst of corporate power in our economy and it would be wise to continue this approach."
Laurel Kilgour, research manager at the American Economic Liberties Project, called the federal ruling "a resounding victory for workers, consumers, independent retailers, and local communities nationwide—and a powerful validation of Chair Khan and the FTC's rigorous enforcement of the law."
"The FTC presented a strong case that Kroger and Albertsons fiercely compete head-to-head on price, quality, and service. The ruling is a capstone on the FTC's work over the past four years and includes favorable citations to the FTC's recent victories against the Tapestry-Capri, IQVIA-Propel, and Illumina-Grail mergers," Kilgour continued.
"The court also cites long-standing Supreme Court law which recognizes that Congress was also concerned with the impacts of mergers on smaller competitors," she added. "We applaud the FTC for securing one of the most significant victories in modern antitrust enforcement and for successfully protecting the public interest from harmful consolidation."
Despite the celebrations, the legal battle isn't necessarily over.
The Associated Pressreported that "the case may now move to the FTC, although Kroger and Albertsons have asked a different federal judge to block the in-house proceedings," and Colorado is also trying to halt the merger in state court.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Taps Anti-Trans Lawyer Harmeet Dhillon for Key Civil Rights Post
"Dhillon has focused her career on diminishing civil rights, rather than enforcing or protecting them," argued one critic.
Dec 10, 2024
LGBTQ+ and voting rights defenders were among those who sounded the alarm Tuesday over Republican President-elect Donald Trump's selection of a San Francisco attorney known for fighting against transgender rights and for leading a right-wing lawyers' group that took part in Trump's effort to overturn the 2020 presidential election to oversee the U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division.
On Monday, Trump announced his nomination of Harmeet Dhillon to head the key civil rights office, claiming on his Truth Social network that the former California Republican Party vice-chair "has stood up consistently to protect our cherished Civil Liberties, including taking on Big Tech for censoring our Free Speech, representing Christians who were prevented from praying together during COVID, and suing corporations who use woke policies to discriminate against their workers."
"In her new role at the DOJ, Harmeet will be a tireless defender of our Constitutional Rights, and will enforce our Civil Rights and Election Laws FAIRLY and FIRMLY," Trump added.
However, prominent trans activist Erin Reed warned on her Substack that Dhillon's nomination—which requires Senate confirmation—"signals an alarming shift that could make life increasingly difficult for transgender people nationwide, including those who have sought refuge in blue states to escape anti-trans legislation."
Trump has picked Harmeet Dhillon as Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights. She has stated that it must be "made unsafe" for hospitals to provide trans care, and frequently shares Libs of TikTok posts. She intends to target trans people in blue states. Subscribe to support my journalism.
[image or embed]
— Erin Reed (@erininthemorning.com) December 10, 2024 at 8:14 AM
Reed continued:
Dhillon's most prominent work includes founding the Center for American Liberty, a legal organization that focuses heavily on anti-transgender cases in blue states. The organization's "featured cases" section highlights several lawsuits, such as Chloe Cole's case against Kaiser Permanente; a lawsuit challenging a Colorado school's use of a transgender student's preferred name; a case against a California school district seeking to implement policies that would forcibly out transgender students; and a lawsuit against Vermont for denying a foster care license to a family unwilling to comply with nondiscrimination policies regarding transgender youth.
Reed also highlighted Dhillon's attacks on state laws protecting transgender people, as well as her expression of "extreme anti-trans views" on social media—including calling gender-affirming healthcare for trans children "child abuse."
Last year, The Guardian's Jason Wilson reported that the Center for American Liberty made a six-figure payment to a public relations firm that represented Dhillion in both "her capacity as head of her own for-profit law firm and Republican activist."
Writing for the voting rights platform Democracy Docket, Matt Cohen on Tuesday accused Dhillon of being "one of the leading legal figures working to roll back voting rights across the country."
"In the past few years, Dhillon—or an attorney from her law firm—has been involved in more than a dozen different lawsuits in Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Maine, Michigan, North Carolina, Virginia, and Washington, D.C. challenging voting rights laws, redistricting, election processes, or Trump's efforts to appear on the ballot in the 2024 election," Cohen noted.
As Maya Wiley, president and CEO of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, said in a statement Tuesday, "The Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division has the critical responsibility of enforcing our nation's federal civil rights laws and ensuring equal justice under the law on behalf of all of our communities."
"That means investigating police departments that have a pattern of police abuse, protecting the right to vote, and ensuring schools don't discriminate against children based on who they are," Wiley noted. "The nomination of Harmeet Dhillon to lead this critical civil rights office is yet another clear sign that this administration seeks to advance ideological viewpoints over the rights and protections that protect every person in this country."
"Dhillon has focused her career on diminishing civil rights, rather than enforcing or protecting them," she asserted. "Rather than fighting to expand voting access, she has worked to restrict it."
A staunch Trump loyalist, Dhillon has also embraced conspiracy theories including the former president's "Big Lie" that the 2020 presidential election was stolen, and has accused Democrats of "conspiring to commit the biggest election interference fraud in world history."
She was co-chair of the Republican National Lawyers Association when it launched Lawyers for Trump, a group that urged the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene on behalf of the former president after he lost the 2020 election.
Cohen also highlighted Dhillon's ties to right-wing legal activist and Federalist Society co-chair Leonard Leo, described by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) as a "lawless con man and crook" for his refusal to comply with a Senate subpoena and his organization of lavish gifts to conservative U.S. Supreme Court justices.
"We need a leader at the Civil Rights Division who understands that civil rights protections are not partisan or political positions open to the ideological whims of those who seek to elevate a single religion or to protect political allies or particular groups over others," Wiley stressed. "We need a leader who will vigorously enforce our civil rights laws and work to protect the rights of all of our communities—including in voting, education, employment, housing, and public accommodations—without fear or favor."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular