AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org,
The War and Peace Report.
I’m Amy Goodman.
Earlier this month, more than 50 farmworkers
here in California were exposed to a highly
toxic pesticide, whose use was recently greenlighted
by the EPA in one of the agency’s first
decisions since Donald Trump took office.
About an hour after workers arrived for their
shift at Dan Andrews Farms in Bakersfield,
California, many began to exhibit symptoms
of vomiting and nausea.
At least one person fainted.
Observers suspect the source was drift from
a nearby orchard that was sprayed the night
before with Vulcan, a pesticide containing
the known neurotoxin chlorpyrifos.
This is Efron Zavalza, a supervisor and food
safety specialist with Dan Andrews Farms,
speaking with local station KGET.
EFRON ZAVALZA: We started getting like an
odor, pesticide odor, coming in from the mandarin
orchard west of our field.
I’m not pointing fingers, saying that was
done incorrectly.
It’s just an unfortunate thing, the way
it was drifted.
The wind came, pushed everything east, and,
you know, we were caught in the path.
AMY GOODMAN: Last year, the EPA was on the
verge of banning chlorpyrifos, a product of
Dow Chemical Company.
But under EPA administrator Scott Pruitt,
the agency unexpectedly reversed course and
approved its use.
Multiple studies have found the pesticide
causes both immediate symptoms, like vomiting,
diarrhea, blurred vision, as well as long-term
damage in children, such as developmental
delays and higher rates of autism.
Dow Chemical had asked the Trump administration
to reject the findings of government scientists
as they prepared a report on how pesticides
known as organophosphates threaten human health
and thousands of critically endangered species.
Organophosphates were originally derived from
a nerve agent developed in Nazi Germany.
Dow Chemical also paid a million dollars to
underwrite Donald Trump’s January inauguration,
and Dow CEO Andrew Liveris was tapped by President
Trump to head the White House’s American
Manufacturing Council.
Well, for more, we’re joined by two guests
at the University of California, Berkeley,
TV studios.
Eriberto Fernandez is the civic participation
and policy coordinator with United Farm Workers
Foundation.
He himself is the son of farmworkers, was
a child farmworker himself.
And Kristin Schafer is the program and policy
director for Pesticide Action Network North
America, which petitioned the EPA to ban the
use of chlorpyrifos.
Let’s start right now with Kristin Schafer.
Talk about what chlorpyrifos is.
KRISTIN SCHAFER: Yeah, good morning.
So, chlorpyrifos, as you mentioned, is a neurotoxic
insecticide.
It’s one of the most widely used insecticides
in the country.
Here in California, over a million pounds
are used every year on a wide range of fruits
and vegetables.
So, it is well known to be neurotoxic.
When we filed our petition back in 2007, the
chemical had already been banned from home
use, because back in 2001 there was enough
evidence that showed that it was harmful to
children, and particularly harmful to children’s
developing brains.
So there’s dozens and dozens of studies
documenting the neurodevelopmental harm caused
by low-dose exposures.
Very low doses can cause these harms.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, but explain.
It was banned for consumer use but allowed
for agricultural use.
Explain the difference.
KRISTIN SCHAFER: That’s exactly right.
So, it was banned for use in homes.
It used to be in-home products that you could
use in your garden and in your house to control
insects.
So, those were pulled from shelves back in
2001, but uses in agriculture were allowed
to continue, and at fairly high rates around
the country.
Around 8 million pounds around the country
continue to be used.
So that’s exactly why we filed a citizen
legal petition in 2007 with our partners at
NRDC and working with the lawyers at Earthjustice,
basically asking EPA to expand the ban of
chlorpyrifos to agricultural uses, because
it’s putting, you know, children in rural
communities, as well as farmworkers and consumers,
at risk, because even at the levels found
on food residues, science now shows that can
be harmful.
So, yeah, it—part of the reason that we’ve
been focusing on this is that the evidence
is so very clear, and it’s been so long
that it’s taken the EPA to take action to
pull this from the market in agriculture.
AMY GOODMAN: I want to turn to a clip of Donald
Trump signing an executive order on regulatory
reform in February.
Among the CEOs in the room was Dow Chemical
CEO Andrew Liveris.
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Every regulation should
have to pass a simple test: Does it make life
better or safer for American workers or consumers?
If the answer is no, we will be getting rid
of it and rid of it quickly.
... Andrew, I’d like to thank you for initially
getting the group together.
ANDREW LIVERIS: Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. President.
My honor.
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Really a fantastic
job you’ve done.
ANDREW LIVERIS: Thank you.
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Should I give this
pen to Andrew?
Dow Chemical.
Should I?
I think maybe.
Right?
AMY GOODMAN: So, there you have President
Trump saying, "Should I give this pen"—one
of the signing pens—"to Andrew?"
He’s the CEO of Dow Chemical, Andrew Liveris.
Kristin Schafer, explain Dow’s connection
to this drug and the significance of this
CEO being in the room.
KRISTIN SCHAFER: Yeah, so Dow is the main
producer of chlorpyrifos, and they have fought
long and hard to keep it on the market.
They’ve lobbied heavily throughout the process
and tried to slow any action that EPA has
taken.
We’ve actually just last week filed another
complaint with—a legal complaint with EPA,
because we’ve been—had a FOIA request
in now for over a year, asking for correspondence
between Dow and EPA.
So, there—we’re quite sure there’s very
clear evidence that there’s been both behind-the-scenes
lobbying and, you know, lots of pressure from
Dow to keep this on the market.
It’s a very profitable chemical for them.
I think, clearly, the connection, the corporate
buddy connection, with this administration
goes a long way to explain this decision that
was taken at the end of March.
So, basically, what happened in terms of the
decision that EPA, Scott Pruitt—EPA administrator
Scott Pruitt released on March 29th, that
was in response to a court-ordered deadline
that was triggered from our suit back in 2007.
We had to go back to court several times,
because EPA was delaying so much—again,
likely pressure from Dow that was slowing
the process.
So, but because of our ongoing legal battle,
EPA had actually, over the last year and a
half, moved forward and recommended that chlorpyrifos
be pulled from the market for all—all food
uses in agriculture.
So, they had built a very convincing scientific
case.
They had found in their health risk assessment
in last fall that infants were exposed at
140 times levels that could be considered
safe.
So, EPA itself had, you know, basically justified
and gone through all the hoops that you need
to go through for the regulatory process to
pull this chemical from the market.
What happened in March is that the Pruitt
administration, the Pruitt EPA, said, "Well,
no, we’re actually not going to take any
action on this chemical until 2022 at the
earliest."
And we immediately took them back to court,
basically because they—it can’t make that
decision without justifying it.
And so, they basically are going against their
own scientific—you know, the recommendations
of EPA scientists and a really strong scientific
case that had been built over the last couple
of years, and completely reversing course.
So, again, with—the clip that you showed
illustrates very clearly the—you know, the
buddy-buddy relationship that this administration
has with Dow Chemical.
And we’re quite convinced that there’s
been behind-the-scenes pressure and that Pruitt,
you know, gave Dow exactly what they were
asking for.
AMY GOODMAN: Eriberto Fernandez, you’re
the son of migrant workers, of farmworkers.
You, yourself, were a child farmworker.
Can you talk about what happened earlier this
month in Bakersfield when over a dozen farmworkers
got sick?
ERIBERTO FERNANDEZ: Sure.
And thank you, Amy, for having us on your
show.
It was on May the 5th, early at 6:00 a.m.
in the morning, when farmworkers—these are
cabbage harvesters out of Taft, California.
They were harvesting.
And an hour into their harvest, a lot of the
workers, especially the pickers, were smelling
a strong odor coming from a nearby farm.
It wasn’t until very long when some other
workers started to feel nauseous.
Some started vomiting right there on the field.
Others, you know, one or two, fainted.
You know, the workers quickly walked off the
field.
And it wasn’t until an hour later that paramedics
and the fire department arrived.
You know, what’s really unfortunate about
this case is that so many workers left the
field when the paramedics arrived, when the
fire department arrived, simply because—as
many farmworkers still today don’t receive
training or the proper—the proper training
on what to do in this type of incident.
We have so many cases, and, unfortunately,
so many still go unreported, throughout California
and throughout the rest of the country, where
farmworkers are exposed either directly from
a spray or through a drift or out in the community
somehow.
And so many of these cases go unreported.
And this is just very unfortunate.
It’s shameful, really, that in 2017 farmworkers
still have to contend with this—with these
types of chemicals that are—you know, the
evidence is there.
Science is overwhelmingly proven that these
chemicals are harmful to both children and
the farmworker and to the community at large.
You know, we have farmworkers throughout California
and the Central Valley, where, you know, the
valley acts as a bowl.
A lot of these chemicals are contained inside
the valley, so, for farmworkers and farmworking
communities, these chemicals are trapped in
the air, the air that we breathe.
You know, they contaminate the water that
we drink.
And, you know, they’re in the playgrounds
that our children play in.
So, you know, these chemicals are shamefully
still being used by corporate agribusiness,
this in 2017.
AMY GOODMAN: Eriberto, can you talk about
the difficulties with treating the farmworkers
on the scene when they got sick on May 5th?
ERIBERTO FERNANDEZ: Sure.
When the fire department arrived, it was very
unfortunate that most of the folks that were
treated, about 12 of them, farmworkers, who
remained on the field, were treated by people
who, unfortunately, did not speak the language.
Most of these paramedics were English-only
speakers.
And for the most part, farmworkers speak Spanish.
You know, we have a situation in Kern County
where a lot of the county and—county officials
and county employees are English-only speakers.
And in this type of instance, not only were
they not able to communicate directly with
the farmworkers, but it also took a very long
time for them to show up and arrive on the
scene at the time of the incident.
It took an hour for the paramedics to arrive.
And by that time, you know, most of the farmworkers
had left.
AMY GOODMAN: And have all the farmworkers
who got sick been treated?
What are the dangers of not treating people
exposed?
ERIBERTO FERNANDEZ: You know, unfortunately
for—in this instance, we still don’t know
if these farmworkers visited the ER, if at
all.
You know, what’s unfortunate is that we
still don’t know what chemical was actually
applied and what they were exposed to.
What happens is, a lot of these farmworkers
won’t seek the medical attention, number
one, because they don’t have healthcare
in their communities.
And number two, I mean, they are not aware
of how dangerous these chemicals can be.
Even for the people who did experience some
of the symptoms, unfortunately, many did not
visit the ER or follow up with a doctor, simply
because the training and the notification
of what to do in case of exposure was not
given.
AMY GOODMAN: So, are people also, farmworkers,
afraid to go to an ER, perhaps afraid of being
taken in, of being maybe deported?
ERIBERTO FERNANDEZ: Well, I think there’s
a strong connection to—you know, a lot of
these employees are contracted by farm labor
contractors.
They are, you know, oftentimes afraid to file
a complaint with—you know, with Cal/OSHA
or are afraid to file a complaint with workers’
compensation, simply because they’re afraid
of being blacklisted from their employment
and not given the chance to return back to
work.
And certainly, we know that about over 70
percent of the farm labor force across the
United States are undocumented, so that does
play a role in their decision-making and their
ability to seek proper medical care.
AMY GOODMAN: Do you know if these workers,
the farmworkers at Bakerfield, were exposed
to chlorpyrifos?
ERIBERTO FERNANDEZ: So, we’ve had conversations,
and our ally groups, CRPE and other groups
in the Central Valley, have had ongoing conversations
with the county’s ag commissioner, and who’s
indicated that while, you know, chlorpyrifos
may be a culprit, they’re still not 100
percent sure that that may be the pesticide.
But all, you know, fingers point towards a
spraying nearby this cabbage farm that was—you
know, it was a citrus farm that sprayed Vulcan.
So, you know, we won’t know for certain
until maybe even a week or two or even a month.
And by then, most of these farmworkers would
either have migrated out of the area or, you
know, have no real remedy but to just kind
of move on with their lives.
AMY GOODMAN: I want to turn to a clip from
the documentary Cesar’s Last Fast, directed
by Richard Ray Perez and Lorena Parlee.
The film features never-before-seen footage
of Chavez’s 1988 36-day fast to bring attention
to the dangers of pesticides in the fields.
DR.
FIDEL HUERTA: Today is day 30 of Cesar Chavez’s
water fast.
He’s lost approximately 30 pounds.
His physical stamina is rapidly deteriorating.
I believe I am—we are getting to a critical
point of his fast here.
UNIDENTIFIED: We’re all of the opinion that
we strongly urge Cesar to give serious consideration
to discontinuing his fast.
PAUL CHAVEZ: He was in so much pain.
Towards the end, he couldn’t talk very much.
I remember people would come in to comfort
him, right?
He ended up comforting them, and they felt
much better when they left, right?
And so, not only did he have to carry the
burden of his own fast, right, but he had
to comfort folks that came to see him, as
well.
AMY GOODMAN: That’s a clip from the documentary
Cesar’s Last Fast.
Eriberto, can you talk about the significance
of Cesar Chavez, who is focusing on pesticides
in the fields how many decades ago?
ERIBERTO FERNANDEZ: Goodness, you know, it’s
even before—well, shortly after I was born,
certainly, 1988, his longest—his longest
fast.
And, in fact, one of the chemicals that he
was fighting to eradicate in [ 1988 ], during
that fast, is the same chemical that we’re
fighting against to eradicate today: chlorpyrifos.
It’s so shameful that after so many years
of science, of evidence, of studies and of
knowing very well what the effects are on
children, that this very same chemical is
out in the market.
It’s unfortunate that after so many years
of fighting—and certainly the United Farm
Workers is no stranger to this fight—that
we’re still contending with major agrochemical
companies whose only motive, really, is profit.
And the way that agriculture operates throughout
the Central Valley and many parts of the United
States really only cares about one thing,
which is profit.
Farmworkers are indispensable.
Unfortunately, for many of these farms, they
have all the highest technology available
to them, they have the highest chemicals available
to them—these are the growers—but yet
farmworkers are still today, in 2017, neglected
and shamefully left out of meaningful worker
protections.
AMY GOODMAN: And the role that consumers can
play?
Certainly, Cesar Chavez mobilized people around
the country, the grape boycott.
You, as a child farmworker, picked grapes,
Eriberto.
What about today?
ERIBERTO FERNANDEZ: You know, unfortunately,
still today, child labor makes up a large
part of the farm labor workforce.
It’s true across the country.
It’s certainly true in my community of Delano,
California.
And, you know, this is not because our parents
took us out there to pick grapes for profit.
It was simply because child care was just
not available or too expensive for farmworkers
to afford.
So, oftentimes—you know, my personal story
speaks to how farmworkers bring their children
out into the fields.
And oftentimes children, very vulnerable,
you know, members of our community, are exposed
to these very same toxic pesticides every
single day.
You know, consumers—certainly we all eat,
and we all have a role to play in changing
the way that America and the American diet
operates.
You know, I think consumers can do a lot,
and especially in calling out local grocery
stores, your local assemblymember, your local
congressman, to make sure that, you know,
they offer more produce that are more organically
and sustainably grown.
Consumers, of course—you know, if you have
almonds, if you have walnuts, if you have
broccoli or tomatoes or cabbage sitting in
your refrigerator, in your pantry, you know,
you should know that these same products contain
vestiges of highly dangerous chemicals, and
very toxic, that, you know, if they cause
a farmworker to faint or to vomit on the field,
you know how dangerous these chemicals can
be.
And so, you know, this is a call to action
to every single consumer out there to know
that—to visit us on our website at ww.org—"www.ufw.org":http://ufw.org/
or visit us on Facebook, so you can keep up
to date with what’s happening on the ground
with fighting for not only just farmworkers’
lives, but creating a more sustainable food
system that treats farmworkers well and that
gives respect to those whose hands feed us.
AMY GOODMAN: Kristin Schafer, your group,
Pesticide Action Network, filed several FOIA
requests to get copies of the EPA’s correspondence
with Dow Chemical.
KRISTIN SCHAFER: That’s right.
AMY GOODMAN: Again, Andrew Liveris in the
room with Donald Trump as he signs off to
deregulate a number of chemicals.
Talk about what you’re doing.
KRISTIN SCHAFER: Yeah, basically, we are wanting
to get a look at what exactly the pressure
from Dow looked like over the last several
years, as EPA was considering what to do about
chlorpyrifos.
And EPA has delayed releasing that information.
We filed again here in March under the new
administration, and they did not respond in
a timely way.
And so we just recently, last week, filed
a complaint so that we are hoping to get our
hands on that correspondence in time to respond
to the March 29th decision.
There’s actually an open-comment period
right now under the EPA docket, where folks
can voice their concerns about this decision
to greenlight chlorpyrifos.
And so, we’re hoping to—that the court
will force EPA to release those documents,
so that we can include in our comments evidence
of the collusion with Dow Chemical.
And one thing I wanted to point out: I think
Eriberto had, you know, highlighted how long
this battle has been going on around chlorpyrifos
and all these other—you know, there are
many chemicals that are known to cause human
health harms that are still on the market
despite really strong scientific evidence
showing that they really should not be.
And I think that reflects a really systemic
problem of how much influence these corporations
have on our public agencies.
So, this case is Dow Chemical, and it’s
kind of out in the open in a new and different
way under this administration.
But the fact is that corporations like Monsanto
and Syngenta and Dow, you know, all of the
pesticide corporations that have so much—that
gain so much profit from these products, have
had an amazing amount of influence on EPA
decision-making for much too long.
AMY GOODMAN: Kristin Schafer of Pesticide
Action Network North America and Eriberto
Fernandez of the UFW, United Farm Workers,
thank you so much for being with us.
This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org,
The War and Peace Report.
We’re broadcasting from California.
I’m Amy Goodman.
Thanks for joining us.
