SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
For Immediate Release
June, 06 2017, 02:45pm EDT
Contact:
Virginia Ruiz, director of occupational and environmental health, Farmworker Justice, 202-800-2520
Groups Appeal EPA's Refusal To Ban Dangerous Pesticide
Chlorpyrifos is linked to long-term damage in children’s developing brains
WASHINGTON
A dozen health, labor and civil rights organizations represented by Earthjustice filed an administrative appeal to the U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyMonday, urging the federal government to ban chlorpyrifos, a widely used agricultural pesticide that has been linked to reduced IQ, loss of working memory and attention deficit disorder in children.
The attorney generals of New York, California, Washington, Massachusetts, Maine, Maryland and Vermont filed their own appeal calling for a ban also Monday. It is now up to EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt to decide the appeal.
The appeal to the EPA was filed by Earthjustice, on behalf of the League of United Latin American Citizens, United Farm Workers, Farmworker Association of Florida, Labor Council for Latin American Advancement, Farmworker Justice, GreenLatinos, National Hispanic Medical Association, Pineros y Campesinos Unidos del Noroeste, Learning Disabilities Association of America, California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation, Pesticide Action Network North America and Natural Resources Defense Council.
"EPA failed farmworkers, their children, and many others when it refused to totally ban chlorpyrifos. This hazardous pesticide was banned from household use 17 years ago, but farmworkers and their families continue to be exposed to this dangerous chemical that causes brain damage to children and poisons workers and bystanders. EPA could have ended this terrible double standard. Yet, it decided to allow continued chlorpyrifos exposure of farmworkers and their children," said Virginia Ruiz, director of occupational and environmental health at Farmworker Justice.
In March, the EPA refused to ban chlorpyrifos arguing the science is "unresolved" and that it would study the issue until 2022. With this action, the EPA reversed its own proposal to ban all food crop uses of chlorpyrifos. The agency took this position even though EPA found chlorpyrifos unsafe in drinking water in 2014 and 2015. And even though in late 2016 EPA concluded there is no safe level of chlorpyrifos exposure in food or drinking water, and that workers are exposed to unsafe levels of the pesticide even with maximum protective controls. In 2016, the EPA also confirmed chlorpyrifos is found at unsafe levels in the air at schools and homes adjacent to agricultural areas.
This appeal comes two months after Earthjustice asked federal appeals court judges to order the EPA to decide now whether to ban the pesticide. That court ruling is pending. The new appeal challenges, on its merits, the EPA's March action that allows chlorpyrifos to continue to be used on food crops.
Since Administrator Pruitt has said he wants to delay the pesticide ban, the groups have also filed a court case that asks the 9th Circuit Court in San Francisco to decide the issues presented in the administrative appeal because of the likelihood of a delayed resolution by the EPA. In addition, Earthjustice, along with Friends of the Earth, Center for Food Safety, U.S. Public Interest Research Group, UFW, PAN North America, and NRDC, submitted nearly 150,000 comments to the EPA asking for a ban.
Chlorpyrifos was banned from residential use 17 years ago. Yet this organophosphate--which comes from the same chemical family as sarin nerve gas-- is still widely used on strawberries, apples, citrus, and more. It is linked to long-term damage to children's developing brains and nervous systems at low levels of exposure during pregnancy and early childhood. It is also acutely toxic.
While families across the country are at risk, farmworkers and children in Latino communities in rural areas face disproportionate exposure. Just in May more than 50 farmworkers picking cabbage outside of Bakersfield, California, were likely exposed to chlorpyrifos that may have drifted from a nearby field. At least twelve people reported symptoms of vomiting and nausea. One person fainted.
###
Additional Contacts:
Patti Goldman, Earthjustice managing attorney,206-343-7340, Ext. 1032
Brent Wilkes, executive director, League of United Latin American Citizens, 202-509-9574
Jeannie Economos, pesticide safety & environmental health project coordinator, Farmworker Association of Florida, 407-886-5151
Erik Nicholson, national vice president, United Farm Workers, 206-255-5774
Hector E. Sanchez, executive director, Labor Council for Latin American Advancement, 202-508-6918
Virginia Ruiz, director of occupational and environmental health, Farmworker Justice, 202-800-2520
Mark Magana, president and CEO, GreenLatinos, 202-230-2070
Elena Rios, president and CEO, National Hispanic Medical Association, 202-628-5895
Ramon Ramirez, president, Pineros y Campesinos Unidos del Noroeste, 503-989-0073
Maureen Swanson, director of Healthy Children Project, Learning Disabilities Association of America, 724-813-9684
Kate Kiely, Natural Resources Defense Council, 212-727-4592
Paul Towers, Pesticide Action Network, 916-216-1082
LATEST NEWS
‘Really Chilling’: Trump Judicial Nominees Refuse to Say He's Not Eligible for 3rd Term
"The language of the constitutional amendment... makes it clear that no, he is not eligible for a third term," Sen. Chris Coons informed one Trump judicial nominee.
May 05, 2026
Political observers are expressing alarm after several of President Donald Trump's lifetime judicial nominees refused to say whether he is eligible to run for a third term.
During a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Thursday, Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) asked Trump judicial nominee John Marck to describe the 22nd Amendment of the US Constitution, which states that "no person shall be elected to the office of the president more than twice."
"The 22nd Amendment... senator, my career has mostly been in criminal prosecution, I haven't had an opportunity to use that one, specifically," Marck replied.
JUST IN: A Trump judicial nominee was asked point blank: is Trump eligible to run for a third term?
Their answer: “I would have to review the actual wording…”
Sen. Chris Coons then asked every nominee in the room to confirm the Constitution bars a third term.
Silence.
Every… pic.twitter.com/LzUZxFzaOL
— Brian Allen (@allenanalysis) May 4, 2026
"Anyone able to help on the 22nd Amendment?" Coons asked the other judicial nominees at the hearing, one of whom explained that it was the amendment that sets a two-term limit for the presidency.
"Correct," Coons replied. "It states that no person shall be elected to the office of the president more than twice. Mr. Marck, is President Trump eligible to run again for president in 2028?"
"Senator, without considering all the facts and looking at everything, depending on what the situation is, this, to me, strikes as something more of a hypothetical..."
"It's not a hypothetical," Coons interjected. "Has President Trump been elected president twice?"
"President Trump has been certified as president of the United States two times," Marck acknowledged.
"Is he eligible to run for a third term under our Constitution?" Coons asked.
"Uhm, I would have to review the..." Marck began before Coons again interjected.
"All I need to tell you is the language of the constitutional amendment that makes it clear that no, he is not eligible for a third term," the senator said.
Coons then challenged other Trump judicial nominees at the hearing—Southern District of Florida nominee Jeffrey Kuntz, Southern District of Texas nominee Arthur Roberts Jones, and Northern District of Ohio nominee Michael Hendershot—to say if they believed the Constitution barred Trump from running for a third term, and none of them did.
After watching video of Coons' exchange with Trump judicial nominees, investigative journalist and author Nick Bryant declared the whole episode to be "really chilling."
"Like a scene from a dystopian movie, and alarming for anyone who cares about democracy," Bryant wrote in a Monday social media post. "A judicial nominee flagrantly flouting the Constitution about Trump's eligibility for a third term. The Constitution is unambiguous. He is not eligible."
Former Democratic presidential candidate Marianne Williamson noted that the Trump nominees were "not even pretending to honor the Constitution" during the hearing, while former Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.) simply declared the entire exchange "unreal."
While the chances of Trump being allowed to stand for an unconstitutional third term at the moment are very low, the president has repeatedly teased plans to run for president again in 2028, telling an audience on Monday that he would be leaving the White House "eight or nine years from now."
Joyce Vance, a former federal prosecutor and current professor at the University of Alabama School of Law, said that Trump's declared intention to run for a third term should not be brushed off as mere trolling.
"This is how he started with the whole 'if I lose the election is fraudulent' shtick," she wrote. "If we don’t listen to this, shame on us. That man isn’t building a ballroom for the next guy."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Justice Jackson Condemns Supreme Court's Decision to Fast-Track Louisiana Electoral Map Ruling
The Monday evening decision "is tantamount to an approval of Louisiana’s rush to pause the ongoing election in order to pass a new map."
May 05, 2026
Warning that the US Supreme Court's right-wing majority was appearing to give its approval of Louisiana's decision to suspend federal primary elections in the state following the court's ruling on the state's congressional map last week, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson on Monday evening was the lone dissenter as the court agreed to immediately finalize the ruling instead of waiting the customary 32 days.
By expediting the ruling, suggested Jackson, the court was taking an obviously political stance in support of efforts to ensure Louisiana Republicans can quickly redraw the state's congressional map to yield more electoral wins for the GOP.
"The court’s decision to buck our usual practice," wrote Jackson, "is tantamount to an approval of Louisiana’s rush to pause the ongoing election in order to pass a new map."
Ordinarily, the court would wait 32 days to transmit an opinion to the lower courts, giving the losing party time to request that the justices reconsider the case.
In a brief, unsigned opinion Monday evening, the court said that the Black voters who had defended the state's 2024 congressional map at the center of Louisiana v. Callais had "not expressed any intent to ask this court to reconsider its judgment.”
In Louisiana v. Callais last week, the court ruled along ideological lines that the 2024 map—which was drawn to better represent the population of Louisiana, where one-third of residents are Black—was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. The ruling effectively struck down the last remaining provision of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which held that voters of color can challenge racially discriminatory electoral maps.
The map that was struck down ensured there were two majority-minority districts in the state. Louisiana's Republican-controlled legislature is expected to try to eliminate at least one of those districts, with a new map yielding five Republicans and one Democrat in the US House.
In transmitting last week's ruling to the lower courts without delay, the court granted a request from the group of white voters who had challenged the state's map.
"Because it is for the District Court to either draw an interim remedial map or approve a legislative remedy, jurisdiction should be returned to the District Court as soon as possible so that it can oversee an orderly process," wrote the plaintiffs.
The Supreme Court granted the plaintiffs' request days after Republican Gov. Jeff Landry took executive action to suspend the state's US House primaries in an effort to ensure they take place after the new map is drawn.
That action, wrote Jackson on Monday, had "a strong political undercurrent" that the court's latest move appeared to openly endorse.
"Louisiana’s hurried response to the Callais decision unfolds in the midst of an ongoing statewide election, against the backdrop of a pitched redistricting battle among state governments that appear to be acting as proxies for their favored political parties," wrote Jackson, noting that the court has only expedited a decision twice in the last 25 years. "As always, the court has a choice... To avoid the appearance of partiality here, we could, as per usual, opt to stay on the sidelines and take no position by applying our default procedures."
"But, today, the court chooses the opposite. Not content to have decided the law, it now takes steps to influence its implementation," she wrote.
John Bisognano, president of the National Democratic Redistricting Committee, said that the court was going against its practice of following the "Purcell doctrine," which came out of a 2006 Supreme Court order and holds that "courts should not change voting or election rules too close to an election in order to avoid confusion for voters and election officials alike."
The Supreme Court, said Bisognano, "decided to inject itself into an ongoing election and at this point no one can say otherwise."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Rejecting Trump Admin's Account, Iran Says US Killed Five Civilians in Strait of Hormuz
"Events in Hormuz make clear that there's no military solution to a political crisis," said Iran's top diplomat.
May 05, 2026
Iranian officials on Tuesday rejected the Trump administration's account of events in the Strait of Hormuz over the preceding 24 hours, saying that the US military attacked two cargo boats and killed at least five civilians amid President Donald Trump's ploy to force open the critical waterway.
Iran's state-affiliated media carried comments from an unnamed Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) commander who said that American forces "attacked two small boats carrying people on their way from Khasab on the coast of Oman to the coast of Iran on Monday," killing five people on board, and that no IRGC vessels were hit. US forces, said the commander, "must be held accountable for their crime."
The IRGC commander's version of events was reported hours after the head of the US Central Command told the press that two US-flagged commercial vessels successfully transited the Strait of Hormuz with the help of American forces, which purportedly shot down drones and destroyed six Iranian speedboats that were said to be targeting the ships.
Monday's exchanges came amid Trump's newly announced scheme—titled Project Freedom—to "guide" vessels through the Strait of Hormuz, which Iran has closed in response to the US-Israeli war and the Trump administration's subsequent blockade of Iran.
Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, a top Iranian negotiator and speaker of the country's parliament, said in a statement posted online early Tuesday that "the new equation of the Strait of Hormuz is in the process of being solidified."
"The security of shipping and energy transit has been jeopardized by the United States and its allies through the violation of the ceasefire and the imposition of a blockade; of course, their evil will diminish," he wrote. "We know full well that the continuation of the status quo is intolerable for America; while we have not even begun yet."
The US military has not yet responded to Iran's statements on developments in the Strait of Hormuz. Pentagon Secretary Pete Hegseth and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Dan Caine are set to hold a press conference on Tuesday morning.
Abbas Araghchi, Iran's foreign minister, said Tuesday that "events in Hormuz make clear that there's no military solution to a political crisis."
"As talks are making progress with Pakistan's gracious effort, the US should be wary of being dragged back into quagmire by ill-wishers," Araghchi added. "So should the UAE. Project Freedom is Project Deadlock."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular