

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

Erin Fitzgerald, efitzgerald@earthjustice.org
Ayleen Lopez, Alianza Nacional de Campesinas, ayleen@campesinasunite.org
Grayson Morley, Rural & Migrant Ministry, Inc., rmmgrayson@gmail.com
BA Snyder, Veritas Group for Farmworker Justice, BA@TheVeritasWay.com
Last week, Earthjustice and Farmworker Justice, on behalf of a coalition of farmworker advocacy and community health groups, filed a series of legal challenges to the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) weakening of safeguards that prevent farmworkers and rural residents from being accidentally sprayed with pesticides. EPA gutted the Application Exclusion Zone (AEZ), which is a key provision of the Agricultural Worker Protection Standard (WPS). The coalition is comprised of Alianza Nacional de Campesinas, CATA - The Farmworkers Support Committee, Farmworker Association of Florida, Migrant Clinicians Network, Pineros y Campesinos Unidos, United Farm Workers, United Farm Workers Foundation, Rural & Migrant Ministry, Inc., and Rural Coalition. The New York Attorney General's office is leading a coalition of five states who are also challenging these rollbacks.
The "Application Exclusion Zone" or AEZ is the area surrounding the pesticide application that must be free of all people other than the trained pesticide applicators. The larger and better defined the AEZ, the safer the area. AEZ is critical for schools and residential areas that are right next to agricultural fields, as well as for farmworkers and their families, who live and work on or near agricultural facilities.
The rollback makes the following changes:
"The EPA's latest rollback is a despicable attack on farmworkers and rural communities. In yet another handout to industry, the EPA delivered a blow to the health and safety of farmworkers by weakening protections that prevent unnecessary and unsafe exposure to pesticides," said Carrie Apfel, a staff attorney in Earthjustice's Sustainable Food and Farming Program. "Exposure to pesticides have a range of negative health impacts, such as respiratory distress. Amid a respiratory pandemic, it's unconscionable that an agency tasked with protecting public health would instead choose to seriously endanger vulnerable, yet essential, workers and communities."
"EPA is illegally revising the rules that farmworkers need to stay safe," said Iris Figueroa, senior staff attorney at Farmworker Justice. "Farmworkers and their families need protections to prevent unnecessary exposure to and injury from pesticides. A safe workplace is a right and not a privilege."
Every year, approximately 20,000 agricultural workers, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention -- or as many as 300,000, according to the U.S. Government Accountability Office -- suffer pesticide poisoning. The immediate aftermath of acute pesticide poisoning can result in rashes, vomiting, and even death. In the long-term, pesticide exposure has been associated with increased risk of cancers, infertility, neurological disorders, and respiratory conditions.
During aerial applications, up to 40% of the pesticide can be lost to drift, traveling long distances from the target area. Some pesticides will persist in the environment long after the application ends, contaminating air and water. The burden of this contamination disproportionately falls on rural communities. The enormity of these health harms and advocacy by farmworkers from across the country compelled the federal government to protect farmworkers and rural communities with the implementation of the AEZ. Now, the EPA is unraveling those protections in favor of big business. The rule is set to take effect on December 29, 2020. The coalition has filed an emergency motion to stay in order to prevent the rule from taking effect and that hearing has been scheduled for Wednesday, December 23 at 5:00 p.m..
Quotes from the clients:
"The EPA knows farmworkers and their families are at risk of dangerous pesticide exposure, day in and day out. Yet it refuses to provide life-saving protections for the workers who handle the most toxic pesticides," said Richard Witt, executive director of Rural & Migrant Ministry, Inc. "This is outrageous and immoral."
"Farmworker women and children are adversely affected by pesticide exposure," said Mily Trevino-Sauceda, Executive Director of Alianza Nacional de Campesinas. "It's time for the EPA to step up and do the right thing to ensure the health and safety of farmworker women and their families. We will not stand by as our communities are poisoned - we demand justice."
"The weakened AEZ rule under the Worker Protection Standard shows us how easy it is for our government to disregard farmworkers' health and safety," said Jessica Culley, general coordinator of the CATA - The Farmworkers Support Committee. "Farmworkers deserve the right to a safe workplace and to change the rule to make it less protective and not more is a great injustice and a disservice to the hard fought protections already secured."
"Farmworkers waited so long for the implementation of these key provisions of the Worker Protection Standard to be implemented. Having a protective aerial exclusion zone is an important way to reduce exposure to dangerous toxics," said Retyna Lopez, Executive Director of Pineros y Campesinos Unidos. "Farmworkers deserve to live long and healthy lives. We must not allow this critical protection to be taken away."
"It is unconscionable that the men and women who harvest our food will continue to remain in harm's way," said Teresa Romero, president of United Farm Workers. "We will not rest while farmworkers and their families are forced to worry about the myriad of ways that exposure to pesticides could impact their lives. We will continue to fight for justice to ensure that this harmful revision is prevented from taking place."
"Sadly, the EPA continues to endanger farmworkers and vulnerable communities by putting them at risk to accidental exposure to harmful chemicals and a 'toxic' waste of taxpayer money in fighting the ban in the courts," said Jeannie Economos from the Farmworker Association of Florida. "The Agency, in addition to dropping the revised rule, should create a fund for addressing harmful health effects experienced by farmworkers and their children from pesticide exposure over these last four years."
"Farmworkers and their children deserve protection from pesticide exposure. It's that simple. Yet the very agency tasked with protecting workers, the very agency that issued rules to minimize exposure, is ignoring the facts and taking an enormous step backwards. Their actions will harm those who put food on our tables," said Amy Liebman, Director of Environmental and Occupational Health at the Migrant Clinicians Network (MCN). "We hope that the courts swiftly rebuke the latest affront to rural communities and prevent the revised rule from taking effect."
"For far too long, producers, farmworkers, tribal and rural people of the land have been left in harm's way for the benefit of industry while the EPA has failed our communities time and again," said Lorette Picciano, Executive Director of The Rural Coalition. "The courts need to immediately reinstate the stronger provisions of the Worker Protection Standard and we will continue to fight to make sure that our communities are protected and afforded the rights they deserve."
Legal Documents:
Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief filed in the South District of New York
Proposed Order to Show Cause for Emergency Relief
Memo in Support of Proposed Order
Read more:
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.
800-584-6460"The Trump administration's extremely short-sighted effort to gut the Fish and Wildlife Service will throw gasoline on the raging fire that is the extinction crisis," said one conservation advocate.
Court documents released Monday show that the Trump administration is exploiting the ongoing government shutdown to pursue mass firings at the US Fish and Wildlife Service amid the nation's worsening extinction crisis.
The new filings came as part of a legal fight between the administration and federal worker unions, which took emergency action earlier this month to stop the latest wave of terminations.
While the unions secured a victory last week in the form of a temporary restraining order against the new firings, the conservative-dominated US Supreme Court has repeatedly proven willing to permit large-scale job cuts that labor unions and legal experts say are patently illegal and dangerous.
Tara Zuardo, a senior campaigner at the Center for Biological Diversity, said Monday that the newly revealed administration push to terminate dozens of staffers at the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) is "really sad and troubling." The court filings show that the administration has proposed eliminating positions at the FWS Migratory Birds Program, Office of Conservation Investment, Fish and Aquatic Conservation, National Wildlife Refuge System, and other areas.
"The Trump administration's extremely short-sighted effort to gut the Fish and Wildlife Service will throw gasoline on the raging fire that is the extinction crisis," said Zuardo. "We've lost 3 billion birds since 1970, yet the administration is slashing funding for migratory birds. It's incredibly cynical to cut programs that help struggling fish and other aquatic animals and assist landowners in conserving endangered species habitats."
The latest firing push is part of the Trump administration's sweeping effort to terminate thousands of jobs at the US Interior Department, which oversees FWS.
The attempted terminations come months after the Trump administration issued a proposal that would eviscerate habitat protections for endangered species in the United States—a push that closely aligns with the far-right Project 2025 agenda. More than 150,000 Americans used the public comment process to express opposition to the Trump administration's plan.
The Center for Biological Diversity said Monday that the proposed mass elimination of jobs at FWS would "deliver devastating blows to programs put in place to protect, restore, and conserve bird populations and their habitats."
"Court disclosures also report severe cuts to additional agencies including the Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, Office of the Secretary, U.S. Geological Survey, and others," the group noted.
One congresswoman pointed out that "she does not have access to an official website for constituents to receive updates, an office phone number for constituents to call, or a congressional email."
Congressional Democrats were among the critics taking aim at US Speaker of the House Mike Johnson on Monday for the Louisiana Republican's "genuinely insane" remarks on his refusal to swear in Democratic Rep.-elect Adelita Grijalva of Arizona.
Twenty days into a federal government shutdown that resulted from Republicans' fight for healthcare cuts set to negatively impact tens of millions of Americans, Johnson said he would administer the oath of office to Grijalva, "I hope, on the first day we come back."
"Instead of doing TikTok videos, she should be serving her constituents," Johnson added. "She could be taking their calls. She could be directing them, trying to help them through the crisis that the Democrats have created by shutting down the government."
Another Democrat elected to represent Arizonans, Congressman Greg Stanton, fired back at the speaker: "How pathetic. Mike Johnson is now blaming Adelita Grijalva for not doing her job. Quit taking orders from Trump and swear her in now."
Grijalva won the special election for her late father's seat last month, pre-shutdown. Johnson could have swiftly administered the oath of office, and despite the shutdown, he can still do so. He has denied that he has intentionally delayed swearing her in to push off a vote on releasing files about deceased sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, a former friend of President Donald Trump—but many critics don't believe him.
Responding to the speaker on Monday, Rep. Jason Crow (D-Colo.) said: "Republicans refuse to swear in an elected member of Congress. Why? They are covering up the Epstein files."
As Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes threatens legal action over the delay—with a filing expected this week—Grijalva, Democratic lawmakers, and others have used various social media platforms to call out Johnson.
In one such video, posted online last week, Grijalva speaks with Rep. James Walkinshaw (D-Va.), the newest member of the House, about how he was sworn in just a day after winning his special election, like two of his GOP colleagues.
As viewers of Grijalva's videos know, she finally got access to her office on Capitol Hill last week, but her ability to functionally serve constituents remains limited.
Pointing to similar comments that the House speaker made last week on CNN, Congresswoman Kelly Morrison (D-Minn.) explained Monday: "Unlike Mike Johnson, I actually spoke to Rep.-elect Adelita Grijalva this week. She does not have access to an official website for constituents to receive updates, an office phone number for constituents to call, or a congressional email to receive news like the rest of Congress. Why? Because until Johnson swears her in, she is not a member of Congress."
Podcaster and writer Matthew Sitman is among those highlighting how this is bigger than Grijalva. He said: "I really don't think it's possible to make a big enough deal of this. If it's accepted that this quisling has absolute, unilateral power to decide when, or even if, to swear in duly elected representatives, they will further abuse that power—why not refuse other Democrats?"
Writer Nick Field similarly wondered, "So why do we think Donald Trump and Mike Johnson will accept the results and seat new House members if they lose the majority in next year's midterms?"
"After crashing the soybean market and gifting Argentina our largest export buyer, he's now poised to do the same to the cattle market," said an Illinois cattle producer.
US ranchers and industry groups are responding critically to President Donald Trump's proposal that the United States "would buy some beef from Argentina," in a bid to "bring our beef prices down," while pursuing an up to $40 billion bailout for the South American country.
Trump made the suggestion to reporters on Air Force One Sunday, according to the Associated Press. A few days earlier, he'd said that a deal to cut the price of beef was "gonna be coming down pretty soon." The AP noted various reasons for "stubbornly high" US prices, including drought and reduced imports from Mexico.
"President Trump's plan to buy beef from Argentina is a betrayal of the American rancher," Christian Lovell, an Illinois cattle producer and senior director of programs at the organization Farm Action, said in a Monday statement. "Those of us who raise cattle have finally started to see what profit looks like after facing years of high input costs and market manipulation by the meatpacking monopoly."
"After crashing the soybean market and gifting Argentina our largest export buyer, he's now poised to do the same to the cattle market," he continued, referring to one of the impacts of Trump's tariff war. "Importing Argentinian beef would send US cattle prices plummeting—and with the meatpacking industry as consolidated as it is, consumers may not see lower beef prices either. Washington should be focused on fixing our broken cattle market, not rewarding foreign competitors."
"Trump has done more in the past month to help Argentina than he has to help the American people."
"With these actions, President Trump risks acting more like the president of Argentina than president of the United States," Lovell declared. The US leader is a key ally of the nation's actual president, Javier Milei, whose austerity agenda has created the need for a massive bailout from Washington, DC.
Farm Action's proposed fix for the US is to tackle the "structurally flawed system" with three steps: "Reinstate Mandatory Country of Origin Labeling (MCOOL) for beef and pork, restore competitive markets by enforcing antitrust laws, and rebuild the US cow herd to achieve national self-reliance in beef production."
The group was far from alone in criticizing Trump's weekend remarks and offering alternative solutions to reduce US prices.
"We appreciate President Trump's interest in addressing the US beef market, which has been producing all-time record-high consumer beef prices," said Bill Bullard, CEO of R-CALF USA, the nation's largest cattle association, in a statement. "We urge the president to address the fundamental problems in the beef market, not just its symptom."
"The symptom is that the US has shrunk its beef cow herd to such a low level that it can no longer produce enough beef to satisfy domestic demand," he continued. "But the fundamental problem is that decades of failed trade policies have allowed cheap, undifferentiated imports to displace the domestic cow herd, driving hundreds of thousands of cattle farmers and ranchers and millions of domestic beef cows out of the domestic beef supply chain."
"In addition, the nation's beef packers and beef retailers have been allowed to concentrate to monopolistic levels, enabling them to interfere with competitive market forces," he asserted. "Attempting to lower domestic beef prices simply by inviting even more imports will both exacerbate and accelerate the ongoing dismantling of the domestic beef supply chain."
Instead of promoting US beef production, Trump now wants to establish a preferred position for Argentine beef in the US. Why, exactly? Is this what America First means?
[image or embed]
— Scott Horton (@robertscotthorton.bsky.social) October 20, 2025 at 2:23 PM
National Cattlemen's Beef Association CEO Colin Woodall said that "NCBA's family farmers and ranchers have numerous concerns with importing more Argentinian beef to lower prices for consumers. This plan only creates chaos at a critical time of the year for American cattle producers, while doing nothing to lower grocery store prices."
"Additionally, Argentina has a deeply unbalanced trade relationship with the US," Woodall noted. "In the past five years Argentina has sold more than $801 million of beef into the US market. By comparison, the US has sold just over $7 million worth of American beef to Argentina. Argentina also has a history of foot-and-mouth disease, which, if brought to the United States, could decimate our domestic livestock production."
Justin Tupper, president of the US Cattlemen's Association, highlighted the rising costs that ranchers are enduring.
"The cost of producing beef today is accurately represented in the consumer markets where it is sold," he said. "Ranchers are facing historic highs for feed, fuel, labor, and land—and those costs have risen far faster than beef prices on grocery shelves."
"When policymakers hint at intervention or suggest quick fixes, they can shake the market's foundation and directly impact the livelihoods of ranchers who depend on stable, transparent pricing," Tupper warned in the wake of the president's recent remarks. "Sudden price moves make it harder for independent producers to plan, invest, and keep their operations running."
"Efforts to support consumers must consider the economic realities on the ground and ensure the voices of independent ranchers lead the discussion," he added. "Market-driven prices—not mandates or panic interventions—have delivered value for generations. Let's focus on transparency, market integrity, and maintaining the conditions for sustainable rural economies."
Trump's signal that the US may buy more beef from Argentina comes as poll after poll shows that Americans—whose federal minimum wage hasn't increased in over 15 years—are stressed about the climbing costs of groceries. In addition to beef, shoppers are facing higher prices for staples such as coffee and eggs.
The Democratic National Committee also called out Trump's proposal on Monday, with Kendall Witmer, the DNC's rapid response director, charging that "Trump has done more in the past month to help Argentina than he has to help the American people, who are struggling to afford everything from rent to groceries."
"Because of Trump, farmers are on the brink of bankruptcy, and the government has been shut down for almost a month," Witmer added. "You would think that the so-called 'America First' president would be focused on reopening the government and saving millions of Americans from skyrocketing healthcare premiums—but Trump is showing his true colors. He only cares about helping himself and his friends, even at the expense of the American people. Let's be clear: MAGA now stands for Make Argentina Great Again."