Bad Bills Push U.S. POPs Treaty Ratification

The Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs Treaty) now has 115 participating countries, and the U.S. is not one of them. A long simmering debate around U.S. ratification of the Treaty—the step that would make the U.S. a full participant—is heating up again on Capitol Hill.

Three live bills in Congress aim to move the process of ratifying the POPs Treaty forward, with a fourth (and better) bill expected soon. Unfortunately, the current bills appear to be motivated by the desire to make it more difficult to add chemicals to the list of POPs to be phased out, and to gain access to the Treaty’s Review Committee deliberations to undermine the process.

The POPs treaty includes phaseout plans for an initial twelve pollutants—nine of them pesticides—and lays out a process for adding new chemicals to the list. Five new chemicals, including the pesticides lindane and chlordecone, are currently being considered for addition to the list for global phaseout.

As a founding member of the U.S. POPs Watch Working Group, PAN North America is tracking the current legislation and working with friendly legislators to be sure the U.S. doesn’t undermine this important treaty.

For more information on the legislation currently in play and what you can do to support a strong POPs Treaty, visit the website of the U.S. POPs Watch Working Group: http://www.uspopswatch.org.

Lindane: A Case Study in Corporate Influence

In August 2006, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) once again has the opportunity to ban the pesticide lindane during its re-registration process. Prohibited in at least fifty-two countries, lindane is a DDT-era ­organochlorine that remains registered for use in the U.S. as a seed coating on grain crops and in shampoos and lotions to treat lice and scabies. The Ban Lindane Now! campaign demands an immediate cancellation of registration of this toxic pesticide.

The lindane story is a case study of corporate influence on the process of pesticide regulation. The chemical industry has managed to keep this pesticide on the market for three decades after EPA first targeted it for elimination. Back in 1977, EPA initiated a “Special Review” of lindane with a “presumption against registration” based on lindane’s potential links to tumors, toxic effects on the reproductive system and fetal development, blood disorders, and acute toxicity to wildlife. In 1983, EPA notified the public of its intent to cancel lindane’s registration.

But in 1985, EPA decided instead to call for more studies. For the next thirteen years EPA was busy collecting studies from the Centre Internationale d’Etudes du Lindane (CIEL), an industry task force protecting the registration of lindane. Spain’s Inquinosa, the sole supplier of lindane used in the U.S., coordinated the EPA submissions. Inquinosa produces lindane in Romania after being forced out of Spain for dirty production and community contamination. The three agrochemical companies that distribute lindane in North America—Bayer CropScience, Gustafson (owned by Bayer), and Crompton—are lobbying to block cancellation. While Canada and Mexico are eliminating lindane, in the United States, EPA has not yet acted. Crompton, which has sued Canada over its restrictions on lindane, is defended by Ed Johnson, former head of EPA’s Pesticide Programs.

For more information, see http://www.panna.org/campaigns/lindane.html

Innovative Global Chemical Management Agreement Signed

PAN played an important role in negotiating an important new international environmental agreement: the Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management, or SAICM.

SAICM, while not a legally binding instrument, lays out global commitments, broad strategies, and a range of tools for managing chemicals more safely around the world. For example, the agreement emphasizes principles of prevention, polluter pays, substitution for less harmful substances, public participation, precaution, and the public’s right to know. Regarding pesticides, SAICM commits stakeholders to “promote alternatives to reduce and phase out highly toxic pesticides.” PAN’s Skip Spitzer worked extensively on the “tool box” section of the text.

The United States, however, led the charge to weaken the pact by lobbying for a narrower scope, less emphasis on “precaution” in regulatory policy, and uncertain commitment to finance its long-term implementation. “We are of course disappointed by the damage to ­SAICM caused by the United States and others,” concluded Spitzer. “Yet SAICM remains a very important statement of global commitment to chemical safety. We now expect that those who support meaningful reform will use SAICM to raise awareness, justify change, and apply pressure to those dragging their feet while the world continues to be poisoned.”

For more information on SAICM, see http://www.panna.org/magazine/102.

Activists Defend Quebec’s Ban on 2,4-D

The Canadian Province of Quebec is on the verge of enacting historic measures to protect public health from unnecessary and dangerous lawn chemicals. The Pesticide Code of Quebec has been phased in since 2003. The final stage of the Code will come into effect on April 3, 2006. The Code bans the sale and use of twenty active ingredients contained in 212 pesticide products applied for lawn cosmetics. Agricultural uses are exempted. However, the lawn care industry is making a last-ditch effort to delay the implementation of the Code and to specifically exempt the chemical 2,4-D from the ban.

“If successful, this would mean that 2,4-D could be sprayed on the green spaces in our communities, where the children we raise with loving care play,” stated Quebec residents Rohini Peris and Michel Gaudet, “This is an unacceptable risk.” Local activists have organized international solidarity to pressure the government of Quebec to stand firm on the ban.

Quebec’s Pesticide Code was born from years of local organizing to outlaw cosmetic pesticide use at the municipal level. As many as seventy cities and towns in the Province of Quebec and fifteen more communities across Canada have already passed such reforms. These include major cities such as Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver. Dozens more are debating the issue.

For more information on Quebec’s Pesticide Code, see http://www.panna.org/magazine/103.

Collaborative Methyl Iodide Campaign Puts the Heat on EPA

Thank you to all our partners who helped organize opposition to the registration of methyl idodide as an alternative to methyl bromide. Together we generated over 12,500 comments demanding that EPA not replace one toxic fumigant with another.

Special thanks to Californians for Pesticide Reform, United Farm Workers, Organic Consumers Association, Beyond Pesticides/NCAMP, North Carolina Conservation Network, Indigenous Environmental Network, Centro Campesino, Coalition of Immokolee Workers, Washington Toxics Coalition, Physicians for Social Responsiblity, Farm Worker Labor Organizing Committee, Environmental Health Watch, and Student Action with Farm Workers.

Together we send a strong message to EPA that we are a diverse constituency that will stand united to block the registration of methyl iodide. EPA will now review these comments and is expected to make a registration decision this spring or summer

International Agricultural Assessment Gains Steam

The United Nations and the World Bank are facilitating a global assessment of the state of the world’s agriculture, and the policy options that could contribute towards more equitable and sustainable development. The Assessment has the potential to affect billions of dollars of development aid and redirect governments’ political priorities and programs. Its report is due in 2007.

PAN has significantly increased civil society’s participation in and influence over the Assessment. Most recently, we succeeded in getting dozens of civil society experts promoted as lead authors of the Assessment. Three PAN North America representatives are working with fellow co-authors to grapple with the tough but real-world challenges facing small-scale, indigenous, and poor farmers around the world, in order to produce as strong and pro-active an Assessment as possible.

For more information, see http://www.panna.org/campaigns/agDev.html.

Ozone Outlaw

The Bush administration is reneging on international commitments to phase out the fumigant methyl bromide under the Montreal Protocol. Methyl bromide is not only toxic to farm worker and community health, but also depletes the ozone layer. The treaty called for methyl bromide use to end in industrialized countries after January 1, 2005, except for “critical uses” for which there are no safer alternatives.

At the seventeenth meeting of the Montreal Protocol in December 2005 in Dakar, Senegal, the U.S. requested the highest critical use exemption of any country, and 91% of its request was granted. The amount authorized represents over 26% of the nation’s 1991 baseline consumption, indicating the U.S. is lagging behind in implementing its treaty obligations. Meanwhile, growers in Europe have moved ahead in developing innovative alternatives to this fumigant pesticide.

For more information on methyl bromide, see http://www.panna.org/magazine/104.

Time to Phase Out Fumigants!

Pesticide Action Network, Californians for Pesticide Reform (CPR), Safe Air for Everyone (SAFE), and allies across the country are organizing to convince EPA to ban fumigant pesticides. EPA is currently reassessing the use of a cluster of fumigant pesticides including methyl bromide, metam sodium, telone, and chloropicrin.

Fumigants are gaseous pesticides used primarily in California and Florida to sterilize soil before planting crops such as strawberries, tomatoes, carrots, tobacco, and potatoes. In California’s Central Valley and in Ventura County, fumigants are responsible for the majority of the pesticide-related air pollution. Most fumigant pesticides are volatile organic compounds that mix with air and sunlight to form ground-level ozone, a contributor to air pollution known to cause and exacerbate asthma and other respiratory diseases.

The Fumigant Cluster Assessment is a six-step process including release of an initial assessment for public comment in July 2005. The PAN-led campaign gathered public comments from fifty-eight groups nationwide. EPA visited California groups to learn more about how the local regulatory framework is or is not protecting workers, neighbors, and the environment. CPR and PAN helped coordinate the visit which included meetings with Central Coast farm workers and organizers from California Rural Legal Assistance, Organización de Lideres Campesinas, Environmental Justice Coalition for Water, and La Unión del Pueblo Entero.

For more information, see http://www.panna.org/fumigants.