August, 09 2018, 12:00am EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Marisa Ordonia, Earthjustice, 206-343-7340
David Cruz, League of United Latin American Citizens, 818-689-9991
Elena Rios, National Hispanic Medical Association, 202-628-5895
Erik Nichols, United Farm Workers, 206-255-5774
Jeannie Economos, Farmworker Association of Florida, 407-886-5151
Maureen Swanson, Learning Disabilities Association of America, 724-813-9684
Ramon Ramirez, Pineros y Campesinos Unidos del Noroeste, 503-989-0073
Ahna Kruzic, Pesticide Action Network, 510-927-5379
Anne Katten, California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation, 916-204-2876
Andrea Arenas, Labor Council for Latin American Advancement, 202-508-6989
Ramon Ramirez, Pineros y Campesinos Unidos del Noroeste, 503-989-0073
Virginia Ruiz, Farmworker Justice, 202-800-2520
Amanda Aguirre, GreenLatinos, 281-814-4627
Kate Kiely, Natural Resources Defense Council, 917-553-5099
Court Slams EPA Failure to Protect Children and Farmworkers From Toxic Pesticide
EPA ordered to ban chlorpyrifos within 60 daysÂ
SEATTLE, WA
EPA must ban a widely used organophosphate pesticide linked to brain damage in children, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled today. The appellate court ordered EPA to finalize its proposed ban on chlorpyrifos based on undisputed findings that the pesticide is unsafe for public health, and particularly harmful to children and farmworkers.
"The Court ended EPA's shameful actions that have exposed children and farmworkers to this poison for decades," said Earthjustice attorney Marisa Ordonia. "Finally, our fields, fruits, and vegetables will be chlorpyrifos free."
Chlorpyrifos is a dangerous nerve agent pesticide that can damage the developing brains of children. Prenatal and early life exposure to chlorpyrifos is linked to lower birth weight and neurodevelopmental harms, including reduced IQ, loss of working memory, attention disorders, and delayed motor development. It is also acutely toxic to farmworkers - routinely sickening workers and sending them to the hospital.
Chlorpyirifos (pronounced: klawr-pir-uh-fos), was first developed by the Nazis for chemical warfare but later repurposed for agriculture. It is widely used on apples, oranges, broccoli, and dozens of other crops. It's been banned from home use for about two decades, as it is too toxic to children.
The court ruling details EPA's long, illegal delay in acting to ban chlorpyrifos, even after the science clearly showed the harm and risks to children's health. The court explained that enough was enough: "If Congress's statutory mandates are to mean anything, the time has come to put a stop to this patent evasion."
The court ruling comes more than a year after the Trump Administration reversed EPA's own proposal to ban this pesticide. That decision came weeks after former EPA boss Scott Pruit met with the head of Dow Chemical, which is the largest manufacturer of chlorpyrifos, selling it under the name of Lorsban. Pruitt then falsely claimed the science is "unresolved" and decided EPA would study the issue until 2022.
"We are elated with the court's decision as it ends EPA's irresponsible actions," said Sindy Benavides, chief executive officer at the League of United Latin American Citizens. "For years corporations like Dow were able to hijack our government to put profit before people. But today the court sided with reason. Children and farmworkers have the right to live and work without risk of poisonings.
"We applaud the court ruling. Chlorpyrifos affects everyone who comes in contact with this toxic chemical; allowing the use of this toxic chemical is not only irresponsible, it is a crime," said Hector Sanchez Barba, Labor Council for Latin American Advancement executive director. "Our agricultural fields should be a source of life, not sickness and we will continue pushing for a safe environment for our farm workers all over the nation."
"This court ruling is an enormous step in the right direction. The scientific evidence is clear. Chlorpyrifos is toxic to farmworkers and is linked to neurodevelopmental problems in children," said Dr. Elena Rios, president of the National Hispanic Medical Association. "We must have a chlorpyrifos ban."
"This decision confirms what EPA and scientists have said for years. Chlorpyrifos must be off our fruits and vegetables for the sake of our children and farmworkers," said Ramon Ramirez, president of PCUN. "We look forward to see a ban in place soon."
"We applaud this decision by the 9th Circuit Court that validates the 2016 rule by EPA to ban all food uses of this neurotoxic pesticide," said Jeannie Economos from the Farmworker Association of Florida. Chlorpyrifos is a major threat to the health of farmworker children. Families living in rural communities can breathe easier, knowing that they will soon no longer have to be exposed to this harmful agricultural chemical, which should have been banned more than a decade ago."
The EPA has put the women and men who harvest the food we eat every day in harm's way too long by allowing the continued use of this dangerous neurotoxin," said Erik Nicholson, United Farm Workers of America national vice-president. "We commend the court for doing what EPA should have done years ago. The people who feed us deserve a safe and healthy workplace."
"We are pleased with the court's decision to move forward on this case," said Virginia Ruiz, director of occupational and environmental health at Farmworker Justice. "Farmworkers and their families have needlessly suffered from exposure to chlorpyrifos for far too long."
"We are gratified that the court recognized the urgency of protecting children from a pesticide that we know is linked to neurodevelopmental harms," said Anne Katten, Pesticide and Work Safety Project director at the CRLA Foundation. "Chlorpyrifos has no place in our fruits and vegetables, let alone our agricultural fields.
"This court decision not only protects the health of children and farmworkers, it also affirms EPA's duty to actually protect public health," said Kristin Schafer, executive director at PAN. "Under this administration, apparently it takes judges to force our public agencies to stand up to corporate interests and do their jobs."
"This court decision is a great victory for the health of our farmworkers and our families," said Mark Magana, President & CEO of GreenLatinos. "Production of food for our tables should not put at risk the neurodevelopment of children nor poison farmworkers. EPA must now side with public health, not corporate profit, and ban chlorpyrifos for all uses."
"Some things are too sacred to play politics with--and our kids top the list," said Erik Olson, Senior Director of Health and Food at the Natural Resources Defense Council. "The court has made it clear that children's health must come before powerful polluters. This is a victory for parents everywhere who want to feed their kids fruits and veggies without fear it's harming their brains or poisoning communities."
A decade ago, Earthjustice and partners began legal action to protect children, farmworkers, and rural communities from chlorpyrifos. While families across the country are at risk of dangerous exposure through food, farmworkers and children living in rural Latino communities face disproportionate risk. Chlorpyrifos is unsafe for farmworkers even with the most protective safety gear. In addition, their children risk exposure at home, as chemicals can linger on work clothes. Moreover, anyone living downwind of farms risks exposure when the wind carries the toxic spray into schools and homes.
Learn more about chlorpyrifos.
Earthjustice is a non-profit public interest law firm dedicated to protecting the magnificent places, natural resources, and wildlife of this earth, and to defending the right of all people to a healthy environment. We bring about far-reaching change by enforcing and strengthening environmental laws on behalf of hundreds of organizations, coalitions and communities.
800-584-6460LATEST NEWS
Wyden Says Spying Bill Would Force Americans to Become an 'Agent for Big Brother'
"If you have access to any communications, the government can force you to help it spy," said Sen. Ron Wyden.
Apr 17, 2024
Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden took to the floor of the U.S. Senate on Tuesday to speak out against a chilling mass surveillance bill that lawmakers are working to rush through the upper chamber and send to President Joe Biden's desk by the end of the week.
The measure in question would reauthorize Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) for two years and massively expand the federal government's warrantless surveillance power by requiring a wide range of businesses and individuals to cooperate with spying efforts.
"If you have access to any communications, the government can force you to help it spy," said Wyden (Ore.), referring to an amendment that was tacked on to the legislation by the U.S. House last week with bipartisan support. "That means anyone with access to a server, a wire, a cable box, a Wi-Fi router, a phone, or a computer. So think for a moment about the millions of Americans who work in buildings and offices in which communications are stored or pass through."
"After all, every office building in America has data cables running through it," the senator continued. "The people are not just the engineers who install, maintain, and repair our communications infrastructure; there are countless others who could be forced to help the government spy, including those who clean offices and guard buildings. If this provision is enacted, the government can deputize any of these people against their will, and force them in effect to become what amounts to an agent for Big Brother—for example, by forcing an employee to insert a USB thumb drive into a server at an office they clean or guard at night."
Wyden said the process "can all happen without any oversight whatsoever: The FISA Court won't know about it, Congress won't know about it. Americans who are handed these directives will be forbidden from talking about it. Unless they can afford high-priced lawyers with security clearances who know their way around the FISA Court, they will have no recourse at all."
Wyden's remarks came after the Senate narrowly approved a motion Tuesday to proceed to the FISA reauthorization bill ahead of Section 702's expiration at the end of the week. The Oregon senator, an outspoken privacy advocate, was among the seven members of the Democratic caucus who voted against the procedural motion.
Despite its grave implications for civil liberties, the bill has drawn relatively little vocal opposition in the Senate. A final vote could come as soon as Thursday.
Titled Reforming Intelligence and Securing America Act (RISAA), the legislation passed the Republican-controlled House last week after lawmakers voted down an amendment that would have added a search warrant requirement to Section 702.
The authority allows U.S. agencies to spy on non-citizens located outside of the country, but it has been abused extensively by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and National Security Agency to collect the communications of American lawmakers, activists, journalists, and others without a warrant.
Privacy advocates warn RISAA would dramatically expand the scope of Section 702 by broadening the kinds of individuals and businesses required to participate in government spying. A key provision of the bill would mandate cooperation from "electronic communications service providers" such as Google, Verizon, and AT&T as well as "any other service provider who has access to equipment that is being or may be used" to transmit or store electronic communications.
That would mean U.S. intelligence agencies could, without a warrant, compel gyms, grocery stores, barber shops, and other businesses to hand over communications data.
"In the face of the pervasive past misuse of Section 702, the last thing Americans need is a large expansion of government surveillance," Caitlin Vogus, deputy director of advocacy at Freedom of the Press Foundation, wrote in an op-ed for The Guardian on Tuesday. "The Senate should reject the House bill and refuse to reauthorize Section 702 without a warrant requirement. Lawmakers must demand reforms to put a stop to unjustified government spying on Americans."
Wyden said during his floor speech Tuesday that some of his colleagues "say they aren't worried about President Biden abusing these authorities."
"In that case, how about [former President Donald] Trump? Imagine these authorities in his hands," said Wyden. "If you're worried about having a president who lives to target vulnerable Americans, to pit Americans against each other, to find every conceivable way to punish perceived enemies, you ought to find this bill terrifying."
Keep ReadingShow Less
House Dems Voice 'Deep Concern' Over Biden Claim That Israel Is Legally Using US Arms
A letter from 26 lawmakers notes the "stark differences and gaps" between what Biden administration officials say and the opinions of "prominent experts and global institutions" accusing Israel of genocide.
Apr 16, 2024
More than two dozen House Democrats on Tuesday challenged the Biden administration's claim that Israel is using U.S.-supplied weapons in compliance with domestic and international law—an assertion made amid an ongoing World Court probe of "plausibly" genocidal Israeli policies and practices in Gaza.
Citing "mounting credible and deeply troubling reports and allegations" of human rights crimes committed by Israeli troops in Gaza and soldiers and settlers in the occupied West Bank, 26 congressional Democrats led by Texas Reps. Veronica Escobar—who co-chairs President Joe Biden's reelection campaign—and Joaquin Castro asked U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, Secretary of State Antony Blinken, and Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines "whether and how" their agencies determined Israel is lawfully using arms provided by Washington.
"We write to express our deep concern regarding the U.S. Department of State's recent comments regarding assurances from the Israeli government, under National Security Memorandum (NSM) 20, that the Israeli government is using U.S.-origin weapons in full compliance with relevant U.S. and international law and is not restricting the delivery of humanitarian assistance," the lawmakers wrote in a letter to the Cabinet members.
The letter acknowledges the "grave concerns" of institutions and experts around the world regarding Israel's "conduct throughout the war in Gaza, its policies regarding civilian harm and military targeting, unauthorized expansion of settlements and settler violence in the West Bank, and potential use of U.S. arms by settlers, in additional to limitations on humanitarian aid supported by the U.S."
The legislators noted Israeli attacks on aid convoys, workers, and recipients—like the February 29 "
Flour Massacre" in which nearly 900 starving Palestinians were killed or wounded at a food distribution site—and "the closure of vital border crossings" as Gazan children starve to death as causes for serious concern.
While the lawmakers didn't mention the International Court of Justice's January 26
preliminary finding that Israel is "plausibly" committing genocide in Gaza, their letter highlights the "stark differences and gaps in the statements" made by Biden administration officials and "those made by prominent experts and global institutions"—many of whom accuse Israel of genocide.
The lawmakers' letter came amid reports of fresh Israeli atrocities, including a drone strike on a playground in the Maghazi refugee camp in northern Gaza that killed at least 11 children. Eyewitnesses described a "horrific scene of children torn apart."
While Biden has called out Israel's "indiscriminate bombing" in Gaza—much of it carried out using U.S.-supplied warplanes and munitions including 2,000-pound bombs that can level whole city blocks—his administration has approved more than 100 arms sales to Israel, has repeatedly sidestepped Congress to fast-track emergency armed aid, and is seeking to provide the key ally with billions of dollars in addition weaponry atop the nearly $4 billion it gets annually from Washington.
This, despite multiple federal laws—and the administration's own rules— prohibiting U.S. arms transfers to human rights violators.
According to Palestinian and international officials, more than 110,000 Palestinians have been killed or wounded by Israeli forces since October 7. Most of the dead are women and children. At least 7,000 Palestinians are also missing and presumed dead and buried beneath the rubble of hundreds of thousands of bombed-out homes and other buildings.
Around 90% of Gaza's 2.3 million people have been forcibly displaced in what many Palestinians are calling a second Nakba, a reference to the ethnic cleansing of over 750,000 Arabs from Palestine during the establishment of the modern state of Israel in 1948.
A growing number of not only progressive lawmakers but also mainstream Democrats are calling for a suspension of U.S. military aid to Israel.
On Tuesday, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.)—who was criticized earlier in the war for not calling for a cease-fire—stood beside a photo of a starving Gazan girl while declaring "no more money for" the far-right government of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his "war machine."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Weasel Words': Julian Assange's Wife Slams US Assurances to UK
"The diplomatic note does nothing to relieve our family's extreme distress about his future—his grim expectation of spending the rest of his life in isolation in U.S. prison for publishing award-winning journalism."
Apr 16, 2024
The wife of jailed WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange sharply criticized "assurances" the U.S. government made as the U.K. High Court considers allowing the 52-year-old Australian's extradition to the United States, where he faces 175 years in prison.
The U.S. document states that if extradited, "Assange will have the ability to raise and seek to rely upon at trial (which includes any sentencing hearing) the rights and protections given under the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States," though it points out that "a decision as to the applicability of the First Amendment is exclusively within the purview of the U.S. courts."
"A sentence of death will neither be sought nor imposed on Assange," the document adds, noting that he has not been charged with any offense for which that is a possible punishment. It comes after the U.K. court ruled last month that the Biden administration had until Tuesday to confirm that he wouldn't face the death penalty and if it did not, he could continue appealing his extradition.
Responding on social media, his wife, Stella Assange—who is an attorney—blasted the U.S. assurances as "weasel words."
"The United States has issued a nonassurance in relation to the First Amendment, and a standard assurance in relation to the death penalty," she said. "It makes no undertaking to withdraw the prosecution's previous assertion that Julian has no First Amendment rights because he is not a U.S citizen."
"The Biden administration must drop this dangerous prosecution before it is too late."
"Instead, the U.S. has limited itself to blatant weasel words claiming that Julian can 'seek to raise' the First Amendment if extradited," she added. "The diplomatic note does nothing to relieve our family's extreme distress about his future—his grim expectation of spending the rest of his life in isolation in U.S. prison for publishing award-winning journalism. The Biden administration must drop this dangerous prosecution before it is too late."
The U.K. court's next hearing is scheduled for May 20. Last week, reporters asked U.S. President Joe Biden about requests from Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and members of the country's Parliament to drop the extradition effort and charges. He said that "we're considering it."
So far, the Biden administration has ignored significant pressure from Australian and U.S. politicians as well as human rights and press freedom groups, and continued to pursue the extradition of Julian Assange, who was charged under former President Donald Trump—the Republican expected to face the Democratic president in the November election.
Assange was charged under the Espionage Act and Computer Fraud and Abuse Act for publishing classified documents including the "Collateral Murder" video and the Afghan and Iraq war logs. Since British authorities dragged Assange out of the Ecuadorian Embassy in London—where he lived with political asylum for seven years—he has been jailed in the city's Belmarsh Prison.
The WikiLeaks founder's wife, with whom he has two children, was not alone in condemning the U.S. assurances on Tuesday.
"This 'assurance' should make journalists even more worried about how the Assange prosecution could impact press freedom in the U.S. and globally. The U.K. should grant Assange's appeal and refuse to extradite him," said the Freedom of the Press Foundation. "The U.S. doesn't disclaim the ability to argue that the First Amendment doesn't apply to Assange because of his nationality or other reasons, or for a court to rule against a First Amendment challenge to his prosecution."
Jameel Jaffer, director of the Knight First Amendment Institute, similarly said that "no one who cares about press freedom should take any comfort at all from the United States' assurance that Assange will be permitted to 'rely upon' the First Amendment."
"If the prosecution goes forward, the U.S. government will be trying to persuade American courts that the First Amendment poses no bar to the prosecution of a publisher under the Espionage Act," Jaffer warned. "And if the government is successful, no journalist will ever again be able to publish U.S. government secrets without risking her liberty."
"So the government's First Amendment assurances aren't responsive at all to the concerns that press freedom advocates have been raising," he concluded. "This case poses essentially the same threat to press freedom today as it did yesterday."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular