{"id":31607,"date":"2022-09-16T00:01:57","date_gmt":"2022-09-16T04:01:57","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/beyondpesticides.org\/dailynewsblog\/?p=31607"},"modified":"2022-09-15T16:36:11","modified_gmt":"2022-09-15T20:36:11","slug":"farmworkers-still-inadequately-protected-from-pesticides-report-finds","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/beyondpesticides.org\/dailynewsblog\/2022\/09\/farmworkers-still-inadequately-protected-from-pesticides-report-finds\/","title":{"rendered":"Farmworkers Still Inadequately Protected from Pesticides, Report Finds"},"content":{"rendered":"\r\n

(Beyond Pesticides<\/em>, September 16, 2022) A report issued on September 7<\/a> analyzes the U.S. regulatory structure that is supposed to protect agricultural workers from the harms of pesticide use. Its conclusion<\/a>? The current, \u201ccomplex system of enforcement . . . lacks the capacity to effectively protect farmworkers. . . . [and] the cooperative agreement[s] between federal and state agencies makes it nearly impossible to ensure implementation of the federal Worker Protection Standard.\u201d The report, Exposed and At Risk: Opportunities to Strengthen Enforcement of Pesticide Regulations for Farmworker Safety<\/em>, was developed by the Center for Agriculture and Food Systems at Vermont Law and Graduate School<\/a>, in partnership with the nonprofit advocacy group, Farmworker Justice<\/a>. Beyond Pesticides\u2019 coverage of farmworker exposure to pesticides and resultant harms began in the late 1970s; it continues today, most recently with attention to incidence of kidney damage<\/a>, systemic racism in the farmworker policies of EPA<\/a> (the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), and extra risks endured by farmworkers<\/a> during the COVID-19 pandemic.<\/p>\r\n

Exposed and At Risk<\/em><\/a> is issued as part of the Center for Agriculture and Food Systems (CAFS) Food System Workers Law and Policy Project. Previously, CAFS issued a report in conjunction with the Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future, titled, Essentially Unprotected: A Focus on Farmworker Health Laws and Policies Addressing Pesticide Exposure and Heat-Related Illness<\/em><\/a>. The report authors, in addition to executing extensive other research, conducted interviews and gathered \u201cstories from the fields\u201d in Washington, Illinois, Florida, and California.<\/p>\r\n

Pesticide risks to agricultural workers (and pesticide applicators) are significant. The farming sector uses roughly 90% of the one billion pounds of various pesticides deployed annually in the U.S. (across all sectors). Thus, agricultural workers are regularly exposed, at atypically high rates, to chemicals that can pose considerable safety and health risks to humans (in addition to their impacts on the environment, non-human organisms, and ecosystems broadly). These risks to farmworkers and pesticide applicators are made worse, according to the report<\/a>, by inadequate training in handling pesticides, and subsequent improper handling and application \u201cin the farm field\u201d or on other kinds of sites, as well as by bureaucratic, regulatory, and policy issues, as detailed below.<\/p>\r\n

The federal Agricultural Worker Protection Standard<\/a> (WPS) is the premier regulation, authorized under a provision of FIFRA (the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act)<\/a>, for protection of farmworkers and pesticide handlers from \u201cpesticide poisonings and injuries.\u201d Although the WPS is a federal regulation, it is largely administered by states through \u201ccooperative agreements\u201d \u2014 negotiated with states by EPA\u2019s 10 regional offices \u2014 that allow states to enact enforce federal pesticide protections (e.g., via WPS and FIFRA). Farmworkers are uniquely not generally covered by the Occupational Safety and Health Act and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.<\/p>\r\n

The chief goal of these cooperative agreements is to enforce federal law and tailor the enforcement to regional\/state needs. Typically, a state will task a lead agency, such as a department of agriculture, with primary enforcement responsibility (more on this below). These state systems (of enforcement) vary widely, exacerbating the risks to agricultural workers, causing disproportionate risks from one state to the next, and in some cases, reflecting what the report calls<\/a>, \u201cthe persistent realities of systemic racism and the routine dehumanization of noncitizen workers.\u201d For more about pesticides and structural racism, read Beyond Pesticides\u2019 2021 reporting, Disproportionate Pesticide Harm Is Racial Injustice \/ Documenting Victimization: Structural Racism<\/em><\/a>.<\/p>\r\n

The CAFS report outlines<\/a> the parameters of how this all works: \u201cAs with many environmental laws in the United States, the federal government sets broad national standards and works cooperatively with states to enforce them. In addition, states may enact laws regarding the use of pesticides, with the caveat that FIFRA expressly preempts states from creating supplemental or different labeling requirements. However, FIFRA provides only the floor of protection for the issues states are not preempted from regulating. This means, for example, that states can prohibit use of a pesticide that EPA would otherwise allow, but it cannot allow use of a pesticide that is prohibited by EPA.\u201d<\/p>\r\n

Beyond Pesticides has written<\/a> that the original, 1974 WPS \u201coffered virtually no occupational safety standards for workers being exposed to highly toxic pesticides.\u201d Indeed, in 1983, EPA finally and \u201cofficially\u201d found it inadequate to offer adequate protections, but it was not until 1992 that the agency updated the regulation. (Read about the role Beyond Pesticides played in the 1983 assessment here<\/a>.) We wrote<\/a>: \u201cThose 1992 updates to the WPS were intended to eliminate or reduce exposure to pesticides, mitigate exposures that occur, and inform employees about the hazards of pesticides. Despite these intentions, the updated WPS still did not adequately protect farmworkers.\u201d<\/p>\r\n

In 2015, the Obama EPA again updated the WPS, this time strengthening the regulation via, for example, more training for handlers, and a minimum age at which children would be allowed to work around pesticides. Then, the Trump administration weakened the standard<\/a>, including reducing protections via Application Exclusion Zones<\/a> (AEZs, or buffer zones), which were to have gone into effect in late 2020. In early 2021, the federal GAO (Government Accountability Office) issued a report<\/a> asserting that EPA was failing to administer the 2015 changes to WPS effectively.<\/p>\r\n

In early 2021, Beyond Pesticides noted that the\u00a0protection of farmworkers<\/a>\u00a0from the threats of pesticide exposures had been the subject of multiple recent developments and actions, including a finalized\u00a0rollback of aspects of EPA\u2019s pesticide Application Exclusion Zone (AEZ) rules<\/a>; a\u00a0temporary stay on implementation of those rule changes<\/a>\u00a0by SDNY; the\u00a0recommendations from GAO<\/a>\u00a0mentioned above; and advocacy by\u00a0Beyond Pesticides<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0others<\/a>, including\u00a0Farmworker Justice and Earthjustice<\/a>.\u00a0Beyond Pesticides has called attention<\/a>\u00a0to the inadequate state of farmworker protections from pesticides, and advocated for robust regulation to ensure the health of these essential workers, including\u00a0extra protections<\/a>\u00a0during the Covid-19 pandemic.<\/p>\r\n

Another of those developments was 2020\u2019s\u00a0litigation against EPA<\/a>,\u00a0by a five-state coalition led by New York\u2019s Attorney General Letitia James, for the agency\u2019s retrograde October 2020 rule on AEZs<\/a>. The suit argued that \u201cEPA violated federal law when it adopted a regulation that allows pesticide spraying to continue even if farmworkers or other persons are within the area immediately surrounding the spraying equipment, if that area is outside the farm\u2019s boundaries.\u201d Plaintiffs added<\/a> that the AEZ regulation \u201cputs many more people at significant risk of dangerous exposures to pesticides,\u201d and that EPA was \u201cignoring its obligation to identify and address the disproportionately high and adverse effects of this policy change on minority and low-income populations.\u201d<\/p>\r\n

Ms. James commented<\/a>, at the time of the announcement, that pesticides are \u201cextremely dangerous to the health of farming communities. . . .\u00a0Trump\u2019s EPA knowingly increased the risk that farmworkers, their families, and others will be exposed to these dangerous chemicals. Throughout the COVID-19 crisis, farming communities have been our front-line workers, underpinning our economy and ensuring we have enough food on our tables. To further endanger their health and safety is as unconscionable as it is illegal.\u201d<\/p>\r\n

An important aspect of the CAFS report\u2019s findings<\/a> is that, even with regulations and laws for farmworker protection in place \u2014 such as the federal WPS \u2014 enforcement of these is weak. In a fairly clear \u201cfox and henhouse\u201d example, the report notes that, often, the very state agencies (such as agriculture departments) that are charged with enforcement of federal and state pesticide laws are also the entities whose tasks include promotion of the state\u2019s agriculture sector and its economic interests. <\/em>Thus, the report opines that<\/a> \u201cthe agencies charged with pesticide regulation at the state and federal level may not be the best suited for this [enforcement] role. Further, because the current enforcement system lacks capacity to inspect all farms, the likelihood of catching violators is low, resulting in frequent violations by growers.\u201d<\/p>\r\n

The report names multiple problems<\/a> the research has unearthed in its section titled, \u201cEffect of our Current Structure of Pesticide Regulation Enforcement\u201d (p. 22):<\/p>\r\n