Beyong Pesticides in an American website that contains much useful information.
Story titled: Decision to Ban Hazardous-to-Farmworker Pesticide Stands
Here’s a quote (taken from the American EPA) – you can click on the links within it to read about Shelley Davis’ work on behalf of farm workers, and the EPA’s 2001 decision:
“In 2001, EPA found that insecticides azinphos-methyl (AZM) poses unacceptable risks to farmworkers and announced that 28 crop uses were being canceled, seven crop uses were to be phased-out over four years, and eight crop uses were to be allowed to continue under a “time-limited” registration for another four years. Farmworker advocates, including Shelley Davis, former deputy director of Farmworker Justice, Beyond Pesticides board member, and recipient of Beyond Pesticides’ 2008 Dragonfly Award, challenged that decision in federal court citing that EPA failed to take into account the costs of poisoning workers, exposing children, and polluting rivers and streams. A settlement agreement effectively stayed the legal challenge pending EPA’s reconsideration of the “time limited” uses of AZM. In November 2006, EPA agreed and decided that AZM poses unreasonable adverse effects and issued a final decision to cancel AZM, but allowed continued use on some fruit crops (apples, cherries, pears) for six more years –until 2012.
EPA has an astounding history of negotiated multi-year phase-outs with industry, placing economic gains over the protection of the health of the public. As seen in other EPA decisions, cancellation of a toxic pesticide does not mean that the chemical would be removed from the market, but it is allowed to linger on the market for years continuing in the endangerment of farmworker health and environmental contamination. For instance, in 2010, EPA negotiated a long phase-out agreement with endosulfan’s manufacturers that allows uses to continue through 2016, even though EPA concluded that endosulfan’s significant risks to wildlife and agricultural workers outweigh its limited benefits to growers and consumers, and that there are risks above the agency’s level of concern for aquatic and terrestrial wildlife, as well as birds and mammals that consume aquatic prey that have ingested endosulfan.”
Sounds depressingly familiar, doesn’t it? For the full article, click the link below.