|
Health and Safety Litigation
|
Farmworker
Justice, in collaboration with one or more of the following groups,
EarthJustice, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and
California Rural Legal Assistance (CRLA), is engaged in the
following, pending lawsuits:
UFW v. EPA:
This case,
brought on behalf of the UFW, PCUN, Beyond Pesticides, Sea Mar
Community Health Center, the Frente Indigena de Organizaciones
Binacionales (FIOB), and an individual farmworker challenges the
EPA’s decisions to allow continued use of three highly toxic
pesticides, based on flawed cost-benefit analyses. The three
pesticides, guthion (also known as azinphos-methyl), phosmet and
chlorpyrifos (also known as lorsban or dursban), were all derived
from nerve gas and can cause damage to the brain and the nervous
system.
In its most recent
decision, EPA established a six-year phase out for guthion, even
though this pesticide cannot be used safely, in order to give
growers time to switch to alternative products and sustain their
access to export markets. Farmworkers are seeking an immediate ban
on the use of this product because of its extreme harmfulness to
workers, their children and the environment and because of the
current availability of efficacious, alternative pest control
methods. In 2007, the EPA allowed the neurotoxic insecticide phosmet
to be used on 10 crops, under conditions that will put the health
and safety of workers at risk, even though there are safer
alternatives available. The EPA has also allowed continued use of
chlorpyrifos in agriculture, on cost-benefit grounds, even though it
made no effort to balance the risks to workers against the alleged
benefits to growers. Chlorpyrifos ranks as one of the top five
pesticides, causing reported injury to farmworkers. With regard to
AZM and phosmet, the EPA conducted a one-sided cost-benefit
analysis, quantifying the benefits from using the pesticides, but
making no effort to characterize the magnitude or severity of the
risks to farmworkers, their children or the environment. In the case
of chlorpyrifos, the EPA “determined” that the benefits outweigh the
risks, without even conducting a cost-benefit assessment. Click
here to view a press release on EPA’s decisions. (Counsel for
plaintiffs are Eearthjustice, FJ, NRDC and CRLA).
NCAP v. EPA:
This
case challenges EPA’s failure to apply the Food Quality Protection
Act’s (FQPA) protections for children when it established tolerances
(or pesticide residue levels) for a number of pesticide products.
(Attorneys for plaintiffs are NRDC, FJ and Earthjustice).
NRDC v.
EPA:
This case, brought on behalf of farmworker, pesticide, and health
groups, challenges EPA’s new rule, permitting pesticide companies to
determine the toxicity of pesticides by testing them on people.
(Counsel for plaintiffs are NRDC, FJ and Earthjustice).
Reynaga v. DPR: On October 26, 2006, FJ and CRLA filed suit against
Mary-Ann Warmerdam, the Director of the California Department of
Pesticide Regulation (DPR), to challenge her declaration of an
agricultural emergency which reduced the restricted entry interval
(REI) for sulfur on table grapes, from three days to one day, for a
5-county area in California’s Central Valley. By regulation,
<<California>> table
grape growers must keep fieldworkers out of vineyards treated with
sulfur for three days, from May until the end of the harvest, which
usually occurs in December. The state had established a three-day
REI for sulfur in this area because there had been hundreds of eye,
skin and respiratory injuries from exposure to sulfur in recent
years. On several occasions, and most recently on October 2, 2006,
the California Grape and Tree Fruit League (CGTFL), asked DPR to
declare an agricultural emergency for a five county area to reduce
the sulfur REI to one day, because of early and intermittent rain in
that area. DPR responded on
October 4, 2006 by
declaring an agricultural emergency and reducing the REI to one day.
On October 26, 2006, two grape workers, Hector Reynaga and Benito
Hernandez, sought an emergency Writ of Mandate to force DPR to
rescind its declaration. The next day, DPR, with the agreement of
the CGTFL, agreed to do so. The lawsuit will continue, however, to
challenge DPR’s failure to determine the presence of agricultural
emergencies in accordance with the criteria set by the Worker
Protection Standard and California regulations. (Attorneys for
plaintiffs are CRLA and FJ).
|
