New Study: Harmful pesticides found in food made and sold by Kroger, Walmart, Costco and Albertsons

Contacts: Demarcus Andrews, Policy Advocate, demarcus@toxicfreenc.org. Veronica Aguilar, Community Mobilizer, veronica@toxicfreenc.org. Alexis Luckey, Executive Director, alexis@toxicfreenc.org.

Durham, NC– Testing released today found store and name brand foods produced and sold by the top four U.S. food retailers, Kroger (NYSE: KR), Walmart (NYSE: WMT), Costco (NYSE: COST) and Albertsons, purchased in 15 cities across the country–including Raleigh, North Carolina–contain residues of toxic pesticides linked to a range of serious health and environmental problems. The study was led by Friends of the Earth with participation from state allies across the country, including Toxic Free NC, based in Durham, North Carolina.

The report found that oat cereals, apples, applesauce, spinach and pinto beans at the retailers contained detectable amounts of glyphosate, organophosphates and neonicotinoids. The average level of glyphosate found in cereal samples (360 parts per billion) was more than twice the level set by scientists at Environmental Working Group for lifetime cancer risk for children. The average level of glyphosate found in pinto beans (509 ppb) was more than 4.5 times the benchmark.*

In North Carolina, samples were purchased from Costco and Kroger stores. Levels of glyphosate in oat cereal from Costco were 288 parts per billion, almost twice as high as EWG’s proposed health benchmark. Additionally, organophosphate pesticides were found on 100% of apples sampled, and neonicotinoids in 73% of applesauce samples.

“We’re concerned because these are showing up in high levels on food items that are commonly given to children, and research has linked these pesticides to neurodevelopmental delays and other harmful health impacts,” said Demarcus Andrews, Policy Advocate at Toxic Free NC. “We’re urging retailers like Kroger and Costco to lead the industry by addressing the prevalence of these pesticides in their supply chains, and eliminating toxic pesticides from our food and stores.”

“Toxic pesticides are showing up in what should be some of the healthiest and most affordable foods supermarkets sell,” said Kendra Klein, PhD, senior staff scientist at Friends of the Earth. “Children, farmworkers and rural communities are routinely exposed to multiple pesticides linked to cancer, learning disabilities and hormone disruption. This is unacceptable. We’re calling on food retailers to get toxic pesticides out of their supply chains and off store shelves and help make organic food available to all Americans.”

Findings of the food testing are significant because of the ubiquity of toxic pesticides found in many different types of non-organic foods children eat on a daily basis. Findings include:

• Glyphosate, a probable human carcinogen according to the World Health Organization’s cancer research agency, was found on 100% of oat cereal samples and 100% of pinto bean samples tested.
• Organophosphates, which are so toxic to children’s developing brains that scientists have called for a complete ban, were found in 100% of applesauce samples, 61% of whole apples and 25% of spinach samples, at levels ranging from 0 to 3.31 nmol/g.
• Neonicotinoids, which the European Union has banned due to robust science linking the chemicals to bee die-offs and which have been linked to endocrine disruption and autism spectrum disorder, were found in 80% of spinach and 73% of applesauce samples ranging from 0 to 0.14 nmol/g.

Brands tested by an independent laboratory included Great Value (Walmart), Kroger (Kroger), Signature Kitchens and Signature Select (Albertsons/Safeway).

Kroger, Walmart, Albertsons and Costco control over one third of all food and beverage sales in the United States. We are standing with more than 100 organizations  urging these companies and all food retailers to phase-out toxic pesticides in their supply chains and increase offerings of domestic organic foods, which are produced without these and many other toxic synthetic pesticides.  

In addition to pressuring retailers, we are calling on Congress to pass Rep. Velazquez’s bill H.R. 230 to ban the organophosphate pesticide chlorpyrifos. The report details additional actions state and federal governments could take to eliminate the use of neonicotinoids, glyphosate and organophosphates, incentivize transition to organic production and direct public dollars to purchase certified organic food and beverages.

Friends of the Earth is releasing the report  Toxic Secret: Pesticides uncovered in store brand cereal, applesauce, beans and produce today with Toxic Free North Carolina and twelve other organizations from across the country.

* EWG determined that a one-in-a-million cancer risk would be posed by ingestion of 0.01 milligrams of glyphosate per day. To reach this maximum dose, one would have to eat a single 60-gram serving of oat cereal with a glyphosate level of 160 parts per billion (ppb) or a 90 gram serving of pinto beans with a glyphosate level of 110 ppb. The highest residue level from a cereal product sample (931 ppb, purchased from Walmart) would result in an estimated 58 µg/day glyphosate exposure, which is nearly six times greater than EWG’s health benchmark. The highest residue level from a pinto bean product sample (1,849 ppb, purchased from Albertson’s) would result in an estimated 168 µg/day glyphosate, which is nearly 17 times greater.

###

The NC Pesticide Board met on January 8, 2019. The first part of the meeting focused on whether or not Allen Scarborough (a representative of the agricultural chemical industry) posed a potential “conflict of interest.” It was stated that he represents Bayer Crop Science, which mass produces many pesticides. With this, he could potentially pose a conflict of interest by serving on the NC Pesticide Board. Ultimately, the Board decided that even though Scarborough represents the industry they intend to regulate, his potential conflict of interest wasn’t great enough to prevent him from serving.

Next, Renee Woody (Environmental Programs Manager, NCDA) requested $60,000 for the Plastic Pesticide Container Recycling Program for 2019. This program provides funds for counties to continue and expand their plastic recycling programs. The program has proven to be an effective mechanism that encourages safe ways to recycle pesticides containers and create useful products such as agriculture drain pipe. While this is a great accomplishment, the program does have room for enhancement and expansion. Most notably, it was stated that only 35% of the containers purchased in NC are recycled through this program.

The final portion of the meeting was dedicated to settle agreements. The first two cases dealt with pesticide drift. In both cases, the defendant applied a pesticide that drifted onto a neighboring yard, killing the vegetation. The final two cases illustrated a broken system. More specifically, it was discovered that a small pesticide business was operating for the past two years without the proper licenses to do so. This case revealed the need for an improved system that effectively tracks and monitors expiration dates for pesticide licenses. The final case involved Southern Agriculture Insecticides, Inc. This company distributes pesticides, fertilizers and other agricultural products. They sold a Restricted Use Pesticide (RUP) to a non-commercial applicator. Details that were disclosed included that the applicator called the State Department of Agriculture to inform them of his recent purchase, and, that he may have purchased a product not allowed for residential use. Luckily, the consumer read the labeling on the product and made the right decision to call the NC Department of Agriculture. This case begs the question, “what happens if the consumer doesn’t make the call?” This illustrates the need for enhanced enforcement mechanisms, to allow only the individuals with the proper licenses the ability to purchase pesticides that are labeled for restricted use.

(Image: Earthjustice)

It’s been almost 20 years since an epidemiological study of farmworkers in California began providing staggering evidence of detrimental health impacts for children exposed to organophosphate pesticides in utero. The project, still underway, has shown longitudinal links between pesticide exposure and respiratory complications, developmental disorders, and lower IQs among farmworker children.

Now, in an effort to restrict how human studies like this are used in EPA’s regulatory rule-making, the Trump administration has labeled them “secret science” and claims that epidemiology is less valid than laboratory testing on animals.

Sound familiar? This was the same tactic used by the tobacco industry to hide evidence of harm to public health.

The administration’s proposal, “Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science,” is another example of Orwellian new-speak. Do we need strengthened transparency in regulatory science? Yes. But not by divulging confidential personal data about study participants.

We need transparency around funding of Monsanto-backed research that obscures the clear links between cancer-causing pesticides like glyphosate and public health.

We need transparency in the lines of power that hold our regulatory process hostage at the expense of the health of children and pregnant women.

Epidemiology is valid peer-reviewed science that offers us evidence of the longitudinal and complex health impacts of pesticides in our environment. The real “secret science” is happening behind the doors of industry.

We’ve learned in the past year that Chemours was exposed for dumping the chemical GenX into the Cape Fear River without a permit to do so. After immense uproar from area residents and government bodies, Chemours admitted to their illegal dumping and promised to end the contamination of the residents’ primary source of drinking water.

Along with the contamination of the Cape Fear River, Chemours emits GenX into the air. In April of this year, the Department of Air Quality announced that Chemours is emitting roughly 2,700 pounds of GenX into the air each year. This amount is 40 times higher than what Chemours reported to the state environmental regulators. As such, GenX is affecting neighboring communities and water sources that are carried through the rain, wind, and other disturbances, which cause recontamination. Thus, Chemours simply stopping the discharge may not necessarily stop the pollution.

Chemours lobbyists have been fighting against any regulatory provisions, yet, offer a short and long-term plan to curve the air and water contamination. The short-term plan is to install a pair of carbon adsorption beds that would reduce air emissions by 30-40%. The long-term goal is to install a thermal oxidizer that will reduce air emissions by 99%. The estimated cost of the thermal oxidizer is $100 million. To address the water contamination, Chemours has proposed to install a filtration system for all households that have been contaminated by GenX. The costs of these systems range from $5,000-$10,000. The Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) argues that this filtration system isn’t a long-term solution. DEQ proposes that Chemours invest their time and resources into creating a long-term plan that will address the future concerns of residents that use Cape Fear River as their primary source of drinking water.

What can we do?

1. Register if you’re interested in speaking or attending public forum – Address: Crown Ballroom, 1960 Coliseum Drive
2. Sign Petition telling Chemours to stop contaminating our water!

Yesterday, US Senator Kirsten Gillibrand proposed an amendment to the Senate version of the Farm Bill that would prohibit public schools from serving fruits and vegetables that contain ANY residue of chlorpyrifos, an organophosphate that can increase risk for cognitive and developmental delays in young children.

Nearly twenty years ago, chlorpyrifos was banned from household use, but it is still widely used as a pesticide. Although the proposal was voted down last night, we applaud Senator Gillibrand’s efforts to protect children’s health and eliminate exposure to this dangerous pesticide. We also applaud Costco’s recent decision to expand organic offerings and urge suppliers to phase out chlorpyrifos and neonicotinoid pesticides.

Tell your lawmakers! Tell your retailers! Everyone deserves safe food.

NC Pesticide Board Meeting Notes

November 14, 2017

12:30 – 4:30 PM

Governor James Martin Building

NC State Fairgrounds

In attendance: Dr. Allen Scarborough (Vice Chair and presiding); Dr. Colleen Hudak-Wise; Dr. Benson Kirkman; Mr. Shawn Harding; Mr. Don Rodgers; Mr. Jim Burnette (Secretary); Ms. Mary P. Kelley

Not in attendance: Dr. Rick Langley (Chair)

Ethics Reminder

Dr. Scarborough reminded the member to avoid conflicts of interest and/or appearance of conflicts of interest. No members acknowledged conflicts of interest.

Introduction of new Board Member – Mary P. Kelley

Dr. Scarborough introduced Mary P. Kelley who was introduced as the new member of the NC Pesticide Board to represent NC Department of Environmental Quality.

Consider Board minutes from the June 8, 2017 meeting

Mr. Harding moved that the minutes be approved as is and Mr. Rodgers seconded that motion. Unanimously approved.

HB 74, Agency Rules Review Update – Jim Burnette, SPC&PD

HB 74 requires a periodic review of all rules by the enforcement agency. The Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services (DOA&CS) had proposed to the Pesticide Board the staff’s classification of the rules as “necessary with substantive public interest”; “necessary without substantive public interest”; or “unnecessary”, which the Board approved. This approval also allowed for the DOA to published the rules on an agency website for public comment. All comments will then come back to the Board, and then a final decision will be made.

Mr. Rodgers moved that the rules be published for public comment. Dr. Scarborough seconded. Unanimously approved.

Pollinator Outreach Update & PETF Request for DriftWatch and Pollinator Outreach – Patrick Jones, SPC&PD

Mr. Jones gave an update on outreach for the Division’s pollinator protection program that has been going on since June 2014. The goal of this outreach initiative is to increase communication between beekeepers, pesticide applicators, farmers, and landscapers. The Division’s strategy is to get beekeepers to register their hives on BeeCheck, which is a program of DriftWatch, so that applicators can check for hives in the area before they apply pesticides.

Mr. Jones asked the Board for an additional $6,500 for the annual fee to use DriftWatch, $1,500 for publications and “Get to Know Your Beekeeper/Farmer/Applicator/Landscaper” pamphlets, and $2,000 for outreach materials. The total proposal was for $10,000 from the Pesticide Environmental Trust Fund (PETF).

Dr. Kirkman made a motion to approve the proposal for $10,000 from the PETF. Dr. Hudak-Wise seconded the motion. Unanimously approved.

Auxin Technologies Update – Dr. Alan York, NCSU

Dr. Alan York of the Weed Science Department at NC State University gave a summary about the training that they offered this year on auxin technologies, lessons learned, and next steps. Auxin technologies allow use of dicamba and 2,4 D on cotton and soybeans, which are not new products. Auxin technologies (Xtend – dicamba resistant and Enlist – 2,4D resistant) allow the use for longer period of times and on more land.

Dr. York expressed that many broadleaf crops are extremely sensitive to some of these products, and that many growers did not know this, or didn’t respect it. Last summer, Dr. York felt like it was time to do some outreach and education as to not make the same mistakes as some growers did in the mid-South.

Overall, in the 2017 growing season, there were few complaints from drift of dicamba (15 complaints) that were reported to the DOA&CS. Eight incidents were involving drift onto tobacco, and no official complaints of vegetables or homeowners. Dr. York felt these could be explained by spray drift by growers that were not paying attention to wind speed, direction, etc.

Dr. York discussed how the EPA is examining the label for dicamba and are expected to reduce the maximum wind speed when the chemical can be applied, time of day that the chemical can be applied, and a few other things. Dr. York and DOA&CS will monitor the exact language and develop outreach as they understand the breadth of the proposed changes.

Monitoring Surface Water for Pesticides – John Allran, SPC&PD

Mr. Allran explained the potential changes that made be made through a collaboration with NC DOA&CS, DHHS, and DEQ. This new system would use the current Random Ambient Monitoring System (RAMS) Program to sample and evaluate newer pesticides through randomly sampling 30 streams across the state twice a year. Currently, RAMS evaluates 88 pesticides, but fewer than half of the pesticides are currently registered for use in NC. The Quality Assurance manager with NCDEQ, Nick Jones, wants to streamline this current list and make sure that it is testing for relevant pesticides.

To help to classify the ~900 active ingredients that are registered for use in NC, the DOA&CS developed a methodology that will break down these chemicals into low, moderate, and high risk to aquatic species. This was done through a formulation examining run-off potential through soil adsorption (mobility) and soil metabolism half-life (persistence). The DOA&CS also examined EPA toxicity data on various species of fish and aquatic invertebrates to rank the mortality from exposure as a measure of acute toxicity. Through this system, out of 373 pesticide active ingredients registered for use in NC, 88% rank as moderate or high risk to aquatic species.

Mr. Allran suggested that DEP will use the RAMS Program to collect samples, the DHHS will analyze the samples for 148 pesticides, and potentially more, and the results will be used to compare to EPA Aquatic Life Benchmarks, make management decisions, focus on outreach and education, support enforcement, and report to EPA for use in risk assessment, registration, and label amendments process.

The Pesticide Board members were supportive of the initiative, but no formal action was required. 

Settlement Agreements

N.C. Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Structural Pest Control and Pesticide Division, v.

Public Comment – Bev and Scott Veals 

Bev and Scott Veals of Carolina Beach spoke to the Board about a current situation with a neighbor that uses pesticides to chemically mow his yard. They have had ongoing problems with this neighbor for years and have complained on numerous occasions to the DOA&CS about potential violations.

Mrs. Veals is a three-time cancer survivor who has chemical sensitivity due to her radiation therapy. Mr. Veals has spoken with the neighbor on numerous occasions to try to find a compromise on when he can spray chemicals and Mrs. Veals wouldn’t be exposed; however, the neighbor is insistent that he will continue to spray even if that means that Mrs. Veals will be exposed.

Mrs. Veals feels that this is not a unique problem in neighborhoods across the state and wanted to reach out to the Board about potential for collaboration on education and outreach. The Board was receptive to this and felt it appropriate to continue the conversation.

By Patricia Patterson, Policy Advocacy Intern

The first time I learned about food stamps, I was six years old and starting the first grade in a new state. Our family, having just moved from Pennsylvania to North Carolina, was gradually becoming accustomed to the grocery store “giants” of the south. I formed a list in my head of all the new company names—Lowes Foods, Harris Teeter, Kroger, and Food Lion. The list sounded more like an inventory of foreign animals, set with their respective genus and species, than a compilation of grocery store names. Among the disarray of learning new street names and retail shops, I overheard my parents discussing another unfamiliar word, food stamps. I asked my father if grocers stamped our food and if the ink would get into our mouths when we ate it. Though my father laughed and assured me that we weren’t eating ink-saturated food, there were other hidden dangers in the food we purchased. We were just unaware of them at the time.

What my family, and millions of other families across the United States, didn’t know was that a dangerous chemical known as Bisphenol-A, or BPA, inhabited several packaged food and drink items, including bottled water and canned foods. This consumer ignorance was recently highlighted in a news report that aired on CBS in which reporter Steve Sbraccia discussed the hazards of purchasing canned products containing BPA. The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIH) states that “the primary source of exposure to BPA for most people is through the diet.” Presently, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) assumes that “BPA is safe at the current levels occurring in foods” and fails to consider the long-term effects of BPA on the human body. According to a study published by Environmental Health Perspectives, BPA exposure increases estrogen sensitivity in the mammary gland, demonstrating that responses to BPA are potent in pubescent phases but most potent in prenatal stages. By assessing only acute toxicity, the FDA is choosing to ignore the neurological and reproductive effects of BPA that occur over time and harm many, especially infants and children who are most sensitive to toxins.

Today, despite the persistence of environmental organizations and the public to remove BPA from numerous products, BPA persists in the lining of several canned food items found in local grocery stores. According to a study published in 2015 by the Breast Cancer Fund, over 67% of canned food products from the 192 that were tested contain BPA. Among those tested are canned items from local retailers like Kroger and Harris Teeter. 13 out of 21 cans tested from Kroger and 2 out of 6 cans tested from Harris Teeter contained BPA.

Canned products are often more cost efficient, which may be more appealing to low income consumers or consumers who receive federal aid much like my family did. In many cases, purchasing cans is more convenient to the average, time-conscious consumer who would rather buy canned beans than boil and soak dried beans overnight. Most consumers, however, unknowingly purchase canned items that may contain BPA. My grandmother, a native to Mexico, purchases cans of pickled jalapeños from a company named Conservas La Costeña, sold in local grocery stores. My mother purchases La Costeña whole black beans. In the Breast Cancer Fund’s 2015 report on BPA, 1 out of 1 of the Conservas La Costeña cans tested and 2 out of 2 of the cans tested from their parent company Vilore Foods contained BPA.

While we may not be physically consuming “ink-stained food” like I feared when I was six years old, local grocery stores such as Kroger and Harris Teeter continue to market items that contain BPA in their can linings. In a recent study conducted by the Center for Environmental Health (CEH) from January to April 2017, 252 canned items were tested for BPA across eleven states, including North Carolina, and 38% of those cans contained BPA. Of the four major retail stores tested—Kroger, Albertsons, Dollar Tree, and 99 Cents Only—24 of the 73 canned items from Kroger, approximately 33%, contained BPA. Despite a decrease of BPA found in canned items, about a 1.8% reduction since 2015, several canned products sold in local grocery stores still contain BPA, potentially triggering endocrine disruption and other health concerns.

Those most likely to purchase canned items—and, thus, those more likely to be exposed to these toxins—are low-income or fixed-income consumers. According to a 2016 survey published by the AARP Foundation, individuals aged 50 and above that purchase canned items have an average annual income of $40,000 or less. These consumers identify their chief motives for purchasing canned products as “easy/quick preparation” and “long shelf-life.” A study published by Environmental Health Perspectives (EHP) indicates that males, individuals from rural and low-income areas, and individuals aged 50 or below have higher percentages of BPA concentration in their bodies. These individuals are also more likely to not have proper health insurance providing access to a doctor for preventative treatment. In order to reduce the toxics exposure, local grocery stores such as Harris Teeter and Kroger should aim to eliminate products containing BPA from their shelves or at least include warning labels to increase consumer awareness of these hazardous products. Regardless of whether you use food stamps to purchase food, you are hyperconscious of time, or you enjoy the ease of purchasing canned items, you deserve to know what is in your food.

Click here to view Toxic Free NC’s BPA Policy Brief!

By Patricia Patterson, Policy Advocacy Intern

Just twenty minutes outside of Raleigh, North Carolina is a white house with blue shutters, blue doors. The exterior of the house is composed of an eroding material that seems to eat at itself from the inside out. I have lived in this house for over fourteen years. I have watched the house grow older and rustier and become more of a cardboard box than a home. As a child, I would walk through a field behind my house. Most of the time, this field was barren, a seemingly deserted terrain, with symmetrical rows of mounds of dirt. I used to trudge carefully in between the rows, leaving footprints in my wake. When I would wander too far, I would retrace my footprints back to my cardboard house. It never occurred to me that this may have been a commercial field where I was unwelcome, that my curiosity had a name—trespassing.

“¡No vayas tan lejos!” (Don’t go so far!) my mother would scold.

It wasn’t until much later that I started to notice my surrounding area, the many acres of tobacco and corn and sweet potatoes and crops I couldn’t recognize from a car window. At the time, I didn’t fully understand what I was looking at or the greater implications. Even as I watched a truck of migrant farmworkers pass by from a school bus window at 5 a.m. one morning in middle school, I still didn’t understand. It wasn’t until I recently accompanied a group—consisting of representatives from Toxic Free NC and the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services—to visit and meet local migrant workers that it finally sunk in—these workers put their lives in danger every day to complete their work. This is real.

The farmworkers we met gave us a warm welcome. One worker stopped mowing the lawn when he saw us approaching and only resumed after we left. They offered us peaches and plums and apologized for not having refreshments available for us. When we attempted to assure them that we were grateful for their hospitality and not to worry, one man continued to insist that he should have gone to the grocery store prior to our visit. They were eager to share their stories with us. When asked about what they perceive as the most dangerous aspect of their job, a 50-year-old worker mentioned his fear of potential pesticide exposure.

“Con los pesticidas, uno tiene que tener cuidado con el trabajo porque muchos plantas llevan pesticidas,” he said. “Y tienes que tener cuidado con el calor. Usar más camisas con manga larga, paño, guantes… Ahorita que esta un calorón feo—nombre—tiene que tomar mucha agua y tener cuidado al tomar su paso.”

“One has to be careful when handling pesticides while working because many plants have pesticides,” he said. “And one has to be careful with the heat. Use more long sleeves, washcloths, and gloves…. Now when there’s a terrible heat—no way—you need to drink a lot of water and watch your step.”

When asked about their work, they all replied with a version of, “It’s rough.” To my astonishment, none of the workers dwelled on negative aspects of working in the fields. They recognized that their work is difficult, especially working in the heat, but they were not resentful or indignant in regards to their situation. Despite acknowledging the danger of fieldwork, they stated that several other jobs are just as difficult and hazardous. Many worked other arduous jobs prior to fieldwork—roofing, warehouse work, slaughterhouse work, packaging, factory work, and many others. To them, it was just work, work that no one else would complete due to the laborious conditions. Many workers declared their pride in the work they do in the fields.

One 48-year-old woman discussed the obstacles she had to overcome in order to work in a new country. She maintained that her motivation to work was always to provide food and housing for her children. As of today, she has worked in agriculture for twenty years.

“Para mí era muy difícil [ser trabajadora agrícola] porque yo nunca he trabajado así en la labor,” she said. “En México yo había trabajado solo de ama de casa. El trabajo sí es muy pesado para uno, más cuando una trae familia. Tiene uno que dar los niños a cuidar… Para ellos [mis niños] era un poco difícil. Era difícil porque como yo no conocía y no tenía nadie que los cuidara, yo tenía que cargar con ellos al trabajo. Y pues, por eso los complicaba mucho. No les gustaba. Ellos querían regresar pero era difícil.”

“For me, it was very difficult [being a farmworker] because I had never worked this way before,” she said. “In Mexico, I had only been a house wife. The work is very difficult for one, even more difficult when one brings their family. You have to give the kids to someone that will take care of them… I didn’t know anyone, so I had to bring the kids to work with me. They hated it. They complained about wanting to go home, but I had no one to leave them with, no one I knew who would babysit them.”

The woman explained that the language barrier was another obstacle she had to overcome. At first, she could only use eye contact and body language as a means to understand her employers. Many American employers were considerate and sympathetic to her situation, trying their best to use creative alternatives in communication until she learned the language. Other employers, however, grew angry and frustrated when she couldn’t understand them.

“Más que nada hay que tener más cuidado para la gente que trabajan en el campo porque es muy difícil,” she said. “Muy pesado. A veces tienen que trabajar—yo he visto cómo trabajan bajo la lluvia y en calorones tan fuertes… Yo llegue a trabajar cuando a veces estaban tirando veneno y uno lo traen así trabajando. Tirando veneno y otras atrás de la máquina cortando tabaco.”

“More than anything, one has to be more mindful of the people who work in the fields because it is very difficult work,” she said. “Very laborious. Sometimes they have to work—I have seen how they work in heavy rain and in unbearable heat… I arrive to work sometimes when they are applying poison, and they still have them [farmworkers] work. Spilling poison and another behind the machinery, cutting tobacco.”

What some workers suggested when asked what could be done to implement positive change in the system was increased visits to work sites. They explained that visiting workers more often would likely create a greater understanding between groups of people, especially in terms of workers and employers. Some discussed the importance of education, wishing that their children or grandchildren or younger people they know would recognize the difficulty of fieldwork and decide to continue their studies. Through education, they hoped that the youth might have the opportunity to seek a better life.

When I went home that night, I thought about the migrant farmworkers. I thought about the 52-year-old man who never gets to go home, who sends money to his family in Mexico and calls them every week. I thought about what it must feel like to never be able to see your family. I thought about the 70-year-old man who works just as much as the others, despite his bad back. When was the last time he has seen a doctor? I thought about the 50-year-old man who works before sunrise to after sunset every day and still has the will power to mow the lawn after his workday. I thought about the 48-year-old woman who lifts heavy boxes every day despite her small frame, who comes home late to feed her children and her grandchildren. Worst of all, I thought about wandering the field behind my house as a child and never realizing that workers like the ones I met might have been in my backyard all along.

By Patricia Patterson, Policy Advocacy Intern

In December of 2016, Gina McCarthy—the former administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency, or EPA—delivered a letter to the current administration of the EPA, petitioning a delay in the implementation of the Worker Protection Standard (WPS). Prior to this petition, most of the revised WPS was scheduled to officially go into effect on January 2, 2017. This petition proposed that the EPA place the implementation date behind a full year due to violations such as failing to provide adequate educational materials regarding WPS rule changes. In February of 2017, Barbara Glenn—the Chief Executive Officer of the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture, or NASDA—urged the EPA to publish an official letter relaying their agreement to delay implementation. Glenn requested that the EPA delay WPS until “adequate enforcement guidance, educational materials, and training resources have been completed and the state lead agencies have the tools, time, and resources necessary to effectively implement the rule changes and assist the regulated community with compliance activities.” The EPA is yet to publicly release an effective date for WPS since its recent decision to grant NASDA’s petition.

The most recent revision to WPS was published in the Federal Register in November of 2015, which aimed to strengthen protections for farmworkers and their families. Since 2015, there have been hundreds of incidents of pesticide exposure that have jeopardized the health and lives of farmworkers. In February of this year near Bakersfield, California, an aerial application of a fungicide was applied to an almond farm while six workers were still in the field. This farm failed to notify and remove their workers prior to application, needlessly exposing them to a harmful pesticide. Despite the $500 fine that was issued to the employer for violating WPS, it is impossible to reverse the harmful effects caused by pesticide exposure. In addition to this, in June of this year, two pesticide exposure incidents occurred on a farm in Watsonville, California within a week of each other. Over 25 farmworkers were exposed to harmful insecticides and fungicides in two separate cases of pesticide drift that occurred in rapid succession of one another. As a result, several farmworkers were hospitalized due to severe dizziness, eye irritation, and other symptoms of illness. Violations such as the ones in Bakersfield and Watsonville further indicate an importance for effective revisions and swift enforcement of the WPS, changes that may not be implemented in time to help farmworkers currently suffering from pesticide exposure in their day-to-day lives.

A new regulation under the revised WPS aims to lessen the burden of toxics exposure by addressing the issue of children having direct contact with pesticides. The EPA has included a “first-time ever minimum age requirement,” which states, “Children under 18 are prohibited from handling pesticides.” It has long been known that the developing organ systems of children often make them more sensitive to toxic exposure. The EPA recognizes that children are more susceptible to toxics exposure, because children take in more pesticides relative to their body weight than adults. Children under 18 are at a higher risk of becoming developmentally and cognitively impaired due to pesticide exposure. The new WPS rule change would reduce the negative effects of toxics exposure on children by prohibiting them from handling pesticides. The choice to delay implementation of WPS prevents employers from enforcing safety measures such as this one, harming children who continue to handle pesticides.

By delaying implementation of the revised WPS, the EPA is allowing farmworkers to continue to be exposed to pesticides while maintaining limited regulation. While the EPA has managed to implement a couple of changes to WPS in 2017, many changes still remain unaffected. According to their website, the EPA plans to execute three major changes under WPS on January 2, 2018. These requirements under the revised WPS are listed as the following: “pesticide safety training must cover the expanded content; pesticide safety information (posters) must meet the revised standards; and handlers must suspend applications if workers or other people are in the application exclusion zone.” New regulations under the WPS such as the suspension of pesticide application while workers or others are present will help minimize the risk of pesticide exposure. Ensuring that these requirements are enacted as soon as possible is the best way to protect farmworkers and their families.

Notes by Patricia Patterson, Policy Advocacy Intern, Toxic Free NC

In attendance: Dr. Rick Langley (Chairman); Dr. Allen Scarborough (Vice Chairman); Dr. Colleen Hudak-Wise; Dr. Benson Kirkman; Mr. Don Rogers; Mr. Shawn Harding; Mr. Pat Jones (Substitute for the Secretary)

Not in attendance: Mr. Jim Burnette (Secretary)

Consider Board Minutes from March 14, 2017

Dr. Hudak-Wise moved that the minutes be approved as is, which was seconded by Mr. Rogers. This was unanimously approved.

Presentation by Dr. Gary Roberson (NCSU) titled, “Agricultural Use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (Drone) Technology”

Dr. Roberson, an associate professor in the Department of Biological and Agricultural Engineering at NC State University, presented on the various applications of unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) technology for commercial use. In UAV technology, sensing is used to monitor satellite imagery and other data in order to improve the agricultural landscape. Electronic sensors can track temperatures, decipher relative heat indexes, and gather soil properties. Dr. Roberson discussed several guidelines set by the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for operating UAV technology at the commercial level, including the minimum age to obtain a license and where to access information on testing (see https://www.faa.gov/). Since this is an emerging technology, Dr. Roberson stressed the importance of educating the public on the requirements for a commercial license and application information.

The current options for UAVs are fixed wing, rotary wing, and hybrids. Fixed wing UAVs are smaller, electric-powered drones that possess the capacity for multiple sensors such as RGB, thermal, and hydro spectral cameras that can be used for gathering a wide range of data; this technology is an especially significant advancement in the surveillance and surveying world. Rotary wing is the most common among UAV users due to its various sensor controls and its vertical take off and landing, which requires less space and planning.

Dr. Roberson elaborated on the use of UAV technology to collect heat signatures of livestock and to track crop and plant health. In addition to this, Dr. Roberson mentioned the possibility of using UAV technology to monitor water quality at the state level in the future. UAV technology is helpful in identifying regions where crops have been negatively affected by natural phenomena such as disease, erosion, and microburst wind damage. Dr. Roberson concluded that UAV technology could assist farmers and crop scouts in discovering problems with crop growth in a timely manner to promote recovery.

Proposal for a Part-Time Bilingual (Pesticide) Specialist; Request for Funding

Mr. Pat Jones, the Deputy Director for Pesticide Programs, proposed that the board fund a part-time position for a bilingual specialist within the division. The bilingual specialist will translate and reproduce information on pesticide use (e.g. pest control and disposal) in documents such as exams, brochures, pamphlets, signs, and other outreach materials. The Title 6 Civil Rights Act of 1964 states that employers must provide meaningful access to individuals with limited English proficiency in the workplace. In an effort to reduce the chances of insubordination with Title 6 and to provide opportunities for all workers to access pesticide information, Mr. Jones urged the board to further consider funding the position for the proposed bilingual specialist, Carmina Hanson, a native Spanish speaker, at the requested amount. The proposed hourly rate for the part-time position was $24.50 for 20 hours per week, a yearly salary of $25,084.

Mr. Harding made a motion to accept the proposal, and Dr. Hudak-Wise made a motion to second it. The motion was unanimously accepted.

Proposal for the Production and Distribution of Pesticide Record-Keeping Manuals; Request for Funding

Dr. Wayne Buhler, the interim department head and professor in the Department of Horticultural Science at NC State University, proposed that the board fund the production and distribution of pesticide record-keeping manuals. The manual assists the private grower (primary audience) as well as the commercial applicator (see https://content.ces.ncsu.edu/north-carolina-agricultural-chemicals-manual/pesticide-use-and-safety-information) in regulating their pesticide use as well as providing detailed information on state and federal application restrictions. The manual is a simple way for the grower to monitor their pesticide use and to maintain written records of this information.

The record-keeping branch of the Agricultural Marketing Service and the USDA, no longer in existence, requested a revision of the manual to remove all North Carolina specific information in order for the manual to be used at the federal level. Dr. Buhler requested that the board fund the production and distribution of 15,000 revised manuals through the Pesticide Environmental Trust Fund for $44,400. In addition to the proposed funds from the board, the NC Agro Medicine Institute accepted Dr. Buhler’s proposal for assistance in funding the project.

Dr. Hudack-Wise made a motion to accept the requested amount for funding. Dr. Langley seconded this motion. The motion carried with a unanimous vote.

Proposal for a Design and Construct an Inexpensive Demonstration for Pesticide Storage, Mixing, and Loading Facility for Small Farmers; Request for Funding

Mr. Jerrold Moody, the Avery County Extension Director, proposed that the board assist in funding the design and construction of a facility for pesticide storage, mixing, and loading. Mr. Moody expressed concern regarding unsafe disposal methods in terms of the potential negative environmental and human health impacts. This facility would also serve as a means to promote educational awareness on pesticide disposal and storage. The proposed funding for the new pesticide facility was $15,360.

Dr. Hudack-Wise made a motion to accept the requested amount for funding. Mr. Rogers seconded this motion. The motion carried with a unanimous vote.

Proposal for WPS Respiratory Support; Request for Funding

Mrs. Jessica Wilburn (in substitution for Dr. Robin Marcom), a Nurse Coordinator at the NC Agromedicine Institute, proposed that the board fund supplies such as outreach materials, fit testing materials, and other educational materials to promote WPS respiratory support. According to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requirements, workers must have a medical evaluation, be fit tested, and undergo respiratory training before operating a respirator and must maintain these record for at least two years. The proposed amount for funding ($30,000) would also cover translation, printing, and distribution services.

Dr. Hudack-Wise made a motion to accept the requested amount for funding. Mr. Rogers seconded this motion. The motion carried with a unanimous vote.

Settlement Agreements 

N.C. Department of Agriculture and Consumer Service, Structural Pest Control and Pesticide Division v. Violator