Skip to main content

Earthjustice sue EPA over paraquat

SAN FRANCISCO— Farmworker groups, environmentalists, and health organizations represented by Earthjustice are legally challenging the Environmental Protection Agency for approving the continued use of the deadly pesticide paraquat, which has been linked to Parkinson’s disease.

Paraquat is currently banned in 32 countries, including member states of the European Union, where the chemical is manufactured and exported, and China. In July, the US EPA reapproved the pesticide’s registration for another 15 years.

“This paraquat registration puts EPA on the wrong side of science, history and the law,” said Jonathan Kalmuss-Katz, a senior attorney at Earthjustice. “With dozens of countries banning paraquat because of its severe health effects, there is no excuse for leaving farmworkers and agricultural communities exposed to extreme risks.”

All major agricultural states are hot spots for paraquat use, according to the latest government data. But communities in Kansas, Texas, and southern states like the Carolinas and Florida face extreme exposure, while nearby communities can be impacted by runoff and downstream effects.

“The Biden EPA’s decision to reapprove widespread use, including aerial spraying, of this highly lethal pesticide shocks the conscience,” said Nathan Donley, environmental health science director at the Center for Biological Diversity. “Although much of the rest of the world has banned this dangerous poison, thanks to our rubber-stamp pesticide-approval process its use will continue to increase here in the United States, even as scientific studies reveal stronger links between paraquat use and neurological harm in both people and wildlife.”

Paraquat is manufactured by several companies, including Chevron, Adama Group, and Syngenta, which face a growing number of personal injury lawsuits related to the use of paraquat and its long-term impacts on human health.

Paraquat Is Associated With Parkinson’s Disease, Other Serious Health Effects

“It is unconscionable that EPA so devalues the lives of farmworkers as to allow the continued use of this harmful toxic pesticide,” said Jeannie Economos, coordinator of the Pesticide Safety and Environmental Health Project for the Farmworker Association of Florida. “The pandemic made the country aware that our nation’s agricultural laborers are essential. Yet EPA gives a green light to this health-harming chemical that puts men, women and children at risk of life-long health effects. Paraquat has got to go!”

"Paraquat is a pesticide that has harmed too many of our farmworkers already! We cannot allow any more farm workers and their families to be exposed,” said Milly Trevino-Sauceda, executive director and co-founder of Alianza Nacional de Campesinas. “Too many farm workers have become affected, become disabled and even suffered from kidney problems due to the exposure to this harmful pesticide.”

“Rural communities and farmworkers are left in harm’s way because of EPA’s recent decision to allow the continued use of the pesticide paraquat,” said Anne Katten, director of the Pesticide & Work Safety Project at California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation. “By discounting the body of scientific evidence that shows how dangerous this pesticide is, even in small quantities, EPA is ignoring the needs of the people and communities it’s legally responsible for protecting.”

“Paraquat is a deadly pesticide that mounting evidence shows is linked to Parkinson’s disease. It has no place near farmworkers or the country’s agricultural fields, let alone the food we eat,” said Margaret Reeves, senior scientist at Pesticide Action Network of North America.

“Farmworkers — children and elders — will be irreparably harmed for the rest of their lives by the re-registration of paraquat,” said Connor Kippe, policy advocate at Toxic Free North Carolina. “The science is clear — paraquat is highly toxic and even small doses by any method of transmission can affect health, especially for child farmworkers. Our flawed pesticide registration system enables this type of glancing regulatory approval, despite known harms to people in all parts of the food system.”

The suit was filed in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Earthjustice represents the Farmworker Association of Florida, Farmworker Justice, Alianza Nacional de Campesinas, California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation, The Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson’s Research, Pesticide Action Network North America, Center for Biological Diversity and Toxic Free North Carolina.

The Center for Biological Diversity is a national, nonprofit conservation organization with more than 1.7 million members and online activists dedicated to protecting endangered species and wild places.

Double standards in the UK

Although the use of paraquat is banned in the United Kingdom, the country continues to manufacture and export it for use in other parts of the world.  In 2018, half of the UK's exports went to the United States. 

Photo by Markus Spiske on Unsplash



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Prioritising people in nursing care.

There has been in recent years concern that care in the NHS has not been sufficiently 'patient centred', or responsive to the needs of the patient on a case basis. It has been felt in care that it as been the patient who has had to adapt to the regime of care, rather than the other way around. Putting patients at the centre of care means being responsive to their needs and supporting them through the process of health care delivery.  Patients should not become identikit sausages in a production line. The nurses body, the Nursing and Midwifery Council has responded to this challenge with a revised code of practice reflection get changes in health and social care since the previous code was published in 2008. The Code describes the professional standards of practice and behaviour for nurses and midwives. Four themes describe what nurses and midwives are expected to do: prioritise people practise effectively preserve safety, and promote professionalism and trust. The

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba

When Finance Drives Destruction

Tackling climate change means stopping the funding of rainforest destruction, says a significant study commissioned by the World Wildlife Fund.  The UK's financial services have provided directly over £8.7 billion to 167 different traders, processors, and buyers of forest-risk commodities (cocoa, rubber, timber, soy, beef, palm oil, pulp & paper) from 2013 to 2021.   With direct and indirect investment,  the figure rises to a staggering £200 bn.  Whilst not all that investment is in destructive projects,  the study concludes there is little transparency on the risk.  Finance is the oil in the economic machine.  But it also drives decisions. We all know the importance of money. We borrow to invest. So much depends on it, such as company pensions.  Do we really know what our pension pots are doing? We invest for the future. But what kind of future? Is all investment good?  Much investment is bad. Investment drives the nature of our economy. It drives our decisions as individuals,