NEW YORK—On June 18, thirty Farm worker unions and supporters wrote a letter of concern to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) about the new modifications made to a policy in regards to fumigant pesticide use starting in May.
The letter criticizes the EPA saying they are using outdated approaches to pesticides when there are greener alternatives available.
“We need to look at ways of growing food that doesn’t put workers and community members at risk and helps agriculture be more sustainable in general,” said Carol Dansereau, executive director of Farm Worker Pesticide Project in Seattle.
These fumigants are used for agricultural purposes on fields of crops such as strawberries, potatoes and tomatoes, which are mostly concentrated around Washington, Idaho, California, Georgia and Florida.
Several chemicals are used in fumigation including chloropicrin, dazomet, metam sodium and methyl bromide—all of which are known to have negative health effects such as dizziness, nausea, burning sensations, as well as long term effects like brain damage and seizures.
On its Web site, the EPA states that, “all measures to reduce risks are still required; however, some aspects of these measures have been adjusted based on input from stakeholders and on new scientific data that reduce the uncertainties in the Agency’s assessments and improved information on certain technological capabilities.”
The letter however raises concerns about several modifications that were made to the initial fumigant policy in 2008, which they say has weakened protection of farm workers and residents.
The EPA has suggested having buffer zones around a fumigated area to ensure nearby residents are not affected by the chemical drift. This time around, buffers can include residential areas on condition that residents agree to leave the buffer zone during fumigation until the area is safe again.
Critics say that this policy does not protect people as many may feel pressured to sign due to lack of adequate information or will sign in fear of losing their jobs.
“It’s really hard. People are afraid to speak out and get involved because people need their jobs. If they complain, it can be hard to get jobs. Cases happen where workers try to do the right thing and when they resist people loose their jobs,” said Dansereau.
Dansereau says that it is additionally difficult because sometimes people living in the area are in poverty, have immigration status problems or language barriers. “There tends to be an intimidating atmosphere for immigrants,” she added.
“We’d like to see more commitment in trying to reduce fumigant use so we don’t keep coming to this situation,” said Anne Kattan, Pesticide and Work Safety project director at the California Legal Assistance Foundation
In the letter to the EPA, those against the new modifications state that allowing the residents to consent to leaving undermines the notion of a protective zone set aside to protect public health.
Brian Hill, a senior scientist at Pesticide Action Network in San Francisco is among those dissatisfied with the new modifications.
Hill says that fumigants are some of the most deadly gases used in agriculture and that he is concerned about the long list of weakenings in the revised May 2009 decision.
He says that in 2006, fumigation could only occur a 1/4 of a mile away from schools, which has now been reduced to 1/8 of a mile. Furthermore, he said that toxic zones are now allowed to cross public roads. In 2007, this could only be done with the permission of local officials. “These collectively add up to a decrease in protection,” he said.
Dansereau cited two poisoning incidents that have occurred since last July when the policy was adapted. Both incidents occurred last October in Franklin County, Washington State.
One of the incidents involved 19 people, including five children under 17 whose symptoms included eye irritation, tearing and burning in the nose and throat. In both cases, a temperature inversion was what helped drift the vapors into the residential area.
Hill says that he is optimistic about the letter and that the EPA will reopen the case.
The EPA said that they are reviewing the letter and will respond appropriately.
The letter criticizes the EPA saying they are using outdated approaches to pesticides when there are greener alternatives available.
“We need to look at ways of growing food that doesn’t put workers and community members at risk and helps agriculture be more sustainable in general,” said Carol Dansereau, executive director of Farm Worker Pesticide Project in Seattle.
These fumigants are used for agricultural purposes on fields of crops such as strawberries, potatoes and tomatoes, which are mostly concentrated around Washington, Idaho, California, Georgia and Florida.
Several chemicals are used in fumigation including chloropicrin, dazomet, metam sodium and methyl bromide—all of which are known to have negative health effects such as dizziness, nausea, burning sensations, as well as long term effects like brain damage and seizures.
On its Web site, the EPA states that, “all measures to reduce risks are still required; however, some aspects of these measures have been adjusted based on input from stakeholders and on new scientific data that reduce the uncertainties in the Agency’s assessments and improved information on certain technological capabilities.”
The letter however raises concerns about several modifications that were made to the initial fumigant policy in 2008, which they say has weakened protection of farm workers and residents.
The EPA has suggested having buffer zones around a fumigated area to ensure nearby residents are not affected by the chemical drift. This time around, buffers can include residential areas on condition that residents agree to leave the buffer zone during fumigation until the area is safe again.
Critics say that this policy does not protect people as many may feel pressured to sign due to lack of adequate information or will sign in fear of losing their jobs.
“It’s really hard. People are afraid to speak out and get involved because people need their jobs. If they complain, it can be hard to get jobs. Cases happen where workers try to do the right thing and when they resist people loose their jobs,” said Dansereau.
Dansereau says that it is additionally difficult because sometimes people living in the area are in poverty, have immigration status problems or language barriers. “There tends to be an intimidating atmosphere for immigrants,” she added.
“We’d like to see more commitment in trying to reduce fumigant use so we don’t keep coming to this situation,” said Anne Kattan, Pesticide and Work Safety project director at the California Legal Assistance Foundation
In the letter to the EPA, those against the new modifications state that allowing the residents to consent to leaving undermines the notion of a protective zone set aside to protect public health.
Brian Hill, a senior scientist at Pesticide Action Network in San Francisco is among those dissatisfied with the new modifications.
Hill says that fumigants are some of the most deadly gases used in agriculture and that he is concerned about the long list of weakenings in the revised May 2009 decision.
He says that in 2006, fumigation could only occur a 1/4 of a mile away from schools, which has now been reduced to 1/8 of a mile. Furthermore, he said that toxic zones are now allowed to cross public roads. In 2007, this could only be done with the permission of local officials. “These collectively add up to a decrease in protection,” he said.
Dansereau cited two poisoning incidents that have occurred since last July when the policy was adapted. Both incidents occurred last October in Franklin County, Washington State.
One of the incidents involved 19 people, including five children under 17 whose symptoms included eye irritation, tearing and burning in the nose and throat. In both cases, a temperature inversion was what helped drift the vapors into the residential area.
Hill says that he is optimistic about the letter and that the EPA will reopen the case.
The EPA said that they are reviewing the letter and will respond appropriately.
