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

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

His way or none? Why I can't vote for Jeremy

There is an assumption that all would be well with the Labour Party if people hadn't expressed their genuine concern with what they consider the inadequacies of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership. If only, it is said, the Parliamentary Labour Party and his Shadow Cabinet had supported him, instead of undermining him, all would have been fine. If they had been quiet and towed the line, then the party would not have been in the mess it is in. So, should they have stayed silent, or speak of their concerns? There comes a point when the cost of staying silent outweighs the cost of speaking out. This is a judgment. Many call it a coup by the PLP. They paint a picture of a right-wing PLP out of touch with the membership.  This is the narrative of the Corbyn camp. But Jeremy Corbyn, over the decades he has been in politics, showed the way.  It was Jeremy Corbyn who opposed almost all Labour leaders and rarely held back from speaking out, or voting time and again against the party line. As

Mr Duncan-Smith offers a disingenuous and divisive comparison

Some time ago, actually it was a long time ago when I was in my early teens, someone close to me bought a table. It was an early flat pack variety. It came with a top and four legs. He followed the instructions to the letter screwing the legs into the top. But when he had completed it the table wobbled. One leg he explained was shorter than the other three; so he sawed a bit from each of the other legs. The table wobbled. One leg, he explained, was longer than the other three. So, he sawed a bit off. The table wobbled. He went on cutting the legs, but the table continued to wobble. Cut, cut, cut! By this time he had convinced himself there was no alternative to it.  He ended up with a very low table indeed, supported by four very stumpy legs and a bit of cardboard placed under one of them to stop it wobbling on the uneven floor.  Mr Duncan-Smith argues that we need a 1% cap on benefits to be 'fair to average earners'. Average  earners have seen their incomes rise by less tha