May, 25 2021, 12:31pm EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
George Kimbrell, Center for Food Safety, gkimbrell@centerforfoodsafety.org
Stephanie Parent, Center for Biological Diversity, sparent@biologicaldiversity.org
EPA Watchdog Report: Senior Staffers in Trump EPA Changed, Omitted Science During 2018 Review of Dicamba; Skipped Internal Peer-Review Process
Assessment was edited to exclude evidence of pesticide’s troubling drift risks.
WASHINGTON
A scathing report released yesterday by a federal oversight agency revealed that high-ranking officials in the Trump Environmental Protection Agency purposely excluded scientific evidence of dicamba's drift risks before reapproving its use in 2018.
The Office of the Inspector General found that the EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs failed to include the required internal peer reviews of scientific documents and that "senior-level" staffers "changed" and "omitted" research-based evidence of the drift risks of the pesticide that has already damaged millions of acres of crops.
"Now that the EPA's highly politicized, anti-science approach to fast-tracking use of this harmful pesticide has been fully exposed, the agency should cancel dicamba's recent approval, not try to defend it in court," said Stephanie Parent, a senior environmental health attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity. "The EPA knows that anything less is likely to result in yet another summer of damaged fields and lost profits for farmers choosing not to use dicamba."
In response to a lawsuit filed by the Center for Food Safety and Center for Biological Diversity challenging the 2018 approval, a federal court ruled last June that the EPA had violated the law when it failed to consider and account for the "enormous and unprecedented damage" caused by dicamba drift.
Yet just days before the November presidential election, the Trump EPA rushed to reapprove dicamba products for five years, and farmers and conservation groups were forced to again sue to challenge the approval. This is the third time the agency has registered these products, each time with additional restrictions that have failed to stem devastating drift.
"This report admits what we knew already: dicamba's approval was politically tainted. EPA unlawfully promoted the profits of pesticide companies instead of following the law and sound science, putting chemical companies over protecting farmers and the environment," said George Kimbrell, legal director of Center for Food Safety and counsel in the case. "The disappointing part is that EPA nonsensically continues to stand by the plainly political dicamba decision rushed through just days before the 2020 election, just 5 months after the court's striking down of the 2018 approval."
In the watchdog report released today, investigators said the EPA's actions on the dicamba registrations left the decision "legally vulnerable," spurring the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals' decision to vacate the 2018 registrations for understating some risks and failing to acknowledge others entirely.
The report stated that while division-level management review of pesticide safety documents is part of the typical EPA procedure, senior leaders were "more involved in the 2018 dicamba decision than in other pesticide registration decisions." As a result, senior-level managers made "changes to or omissions from scientific documents."
For instance, the documents excluded some conclusions by staff scientists about dicamba's drift risks, according to the report. The investigators also found that some staff felt "constrained or muted" about sharing their concerns.
Background
Over the past four years the dicamba products sprayed "over the top" of soybean and cotton crops genetically engineered to resist the pesticide have caused drift damage to 5 million acres of soybeans as well as orchards, gardens, trees and other plants on a scale unprecedented in the history of U.S. agriculture.
Recent findings also suggest dicamba endangers human health. Earlier this year scientists at the National Institutes of Health found that use of dicamba can increase the risk of developing numerous cancers.
In separate actions, thousands of farmers have sued Monsanto and BASF for dicamba drift damages, which settled last year for $400 million. In a separate lawsuit, a jury awarded Missouri peach farmer Bill Bader $265 million for dicamba damage to his peach orchard.
Internal company memos released in the course of the Bader lawsuit revealed that even as Monsanto and BASF publicly denied that their products posed a major drift threat, they were internally projecting thousands of dicamba drift complaints over the first five years of use.
At the Center for Biological Diversity, we believe that the welfare of human beings is deeply linked to nature — to the existence in our world of a vast diversity of wild animals and plants. Because diversity has intrinsic value, and because its loss impoverishes society, we work to secure a future for all species, great and small, hovering on the brink of extinction. We do so through science, law and creative media, with a focus on protecting the lands, waters and climate that species need to survive.
(520) 623-5252LATEST NEWS
US Lawmakers Sound Alarm Over Threat to Rooftop Solar in Puerto Rico
"Net metering has proven essential for families in Puerto Rico and essential for Puerto Rico's progress towards its own renewable goals."
May 17, 2024
More than 20 members of the U.S. Congressional Democratic Caucus on Friday urged a federal colonial oversight board to safeguard affordable access to rooftop solar power in Puerto Rico by protecting net metering, which the lawmakers called essential to the island's clean energy goals and economic growth.
Net metering "makes household renewable energy sources, like rooftop solar, more affordable for families by ensuring they are reimbursed for the extra energy they produce but do not use," the House Natural Resources Committee Democrats explained in a statement.
"A continued commitment to preserving net metering and a renewed focus on solar energy will benefit the island's economy and people."
However, the Financial Oversight and Management Board (FOMB) for Puerto Rico—the controversial unelected federal body tasked with approving and revising Puerto Rico's obligations under a 2016 bankruptcy law—recently directed Democratic Puerto Rican Gov. Pedro Pierluisi and the territorial Legislature to repeal Act 10, which protects net metering through 2031.
"Any attempt to reduce the economic viability of rooftop solar and batteries by paring back net metering should be rejected at this critical stage of Puerto Rico's energy system transformation," 20 congressional Democrats and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) wrote Friday in a bicameral letter to FOMB members. "Net metering has proven essential for families in Puerto Rico and essential for Puerto Rico's progress towards its own renewable goals."
"Net metering has served the people of Puerto Rico well," the lawmakers argued. "It not only compensates homeowners for their contribution to the grid and their reduced dependence on imported fuels, but it also makes renewable energy production economically viable for millions for whom it would otherwise be out of reach."
The letter continues:
Net metering is an engine for economic recovery. Currently, the renewables sector contributes approximately $1.5 billion to Puerto Rico's economy each year and employs more than 10,000 people. In addition to the direct economic benefits, the tens of thousands of solar and storage installations on the island today provide critical backup power for Puerto Rican families and businesses, helping them avoid economic hardship while supporting uninterrupted economic activity during power outages. Many of these systems provide a literal lifeline to people who depend on the uninterrupted operation of medical equipment.
Weakening or ending net metering in Puerto Rico could be devastating. Rooftop solar has added over 800 MW to an electric system whose demand is about 2,500-3,000 MW. As a result, residential solar technology is responsible for most of the progress the archipelago has made toward its ultimate goal of generating 100% renewable energy by 2050. Puerto Rico's net metering and rooftop solar programs have successfully displaced energy that would otherwise be generated by imported fossil fuel, lowering overall costs for all ratepayers.
"Making rooftop solar and battery storage systems less affordable could hurt the lowest-income people most," the lawmakers contended. "Should net metering be eliminated or weakened, the result would be a growing divide between those stuck with exorbitant energy prices from imported fossil fuels and those who can afford their own dependable solar and battery system. Slowing the adoption of rooftop solar and batteries would mean missed opportunities to leverage the private market to protect those most vulnerable to another hurricane's impacts."
After Hurricane Maria devastated Puerto Rico's energy grid in 2017, many Puerto Ricans turned to renewable energy—especially solar—to keep the lights on. Last year, the U.S. Department of Energy announced up to $440 million in residential solar funding for vulnerable households via the Puerto Rico Energy Resilience Fund.
"Undermining net metering would dramatically slow one of the most active solar and battery markets in the country at the time it is needed most."
Puerto Rico "needs more renewable production, not less," the lawmakers added. "Undermining net metering would dramatically slow one of the most active solar and battery markets in the country at the time it is needed most... We urge you to protect net metering in Puerto Rico. We believe that a continued commitment to preserving net metering and a renewed focus on solar energy will benefit the island's economy and people."
The lawmakers' letter follows a call earlier this week from the Solar and Energy Storage Association of Puerto Rico for U.S. President Joe Biden to replace six FOMB members "who are supportive of Puerto Rico, supportive of solar power, and supportive of dissolving the board as soon as possible."
The FOMB has been decried as an anti-democratic colonial body that dictates the island's budget and operates in secrecy. Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 8-1 to protect the board from public scrutiny.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'We'll Be Back,' Says UAW Chief Shawn Fain After 'Tough Loss' in Alabama
Organizers are expected to continue their effort, drawing inspiration from a recent success in Tennessee that followed two defeats.
May 17, 2024
Workers at a pair of Mercedes-Benz plants near Tuscaloosa, Alabama narrowly voted against joining the United Auto Workers this week, according to a preliminary tally on Friday.
As of press time, the UAW webpage had the National Labor Relations Board tally at 2,045 in favor of joining the union (45%) and 2,642 opposed (56%).
Voting at the large facility in Vance and the battery plant in Woodstock kicked off Monday and wrapped up Friday morning. Speaking to reporters Friday evening, UAW president Shawn Fain said that it was "obviously not the result we wanted" but "we'll be back in Vance."
"These courageous workers reached out to us because they wanted justice," Fain said of the Mercedes employees. "They led us. They led this fight, and that's what this is all about—and what happens next is up to them."
"It's a David v. Goliath fight. Sometimes Goliath wins a battle but ultimately David will win the war."
"Justice isn't just about one vote or one campaign, it's about getting a voice and getting your fair share," he continued, noting that "workers won serious gains in this campaign."
Fain added that "it's a David v. Goliath fight. Sometimes Goliath wins a battle but ultimately David will win the war."
The Alabama election followed a UAW win in Chattanooga, Tennessee, where Volkswagen workers last month voted to join the union.
Labor reporter Mike Elk
noted that the "tough loss" in Alabama was "not a blowout," and organizers now have "a solid base that future campaigns can build on like they did at Volkswagen," where winning a union election took three rounds of voting.
The UAW has ramped up organizing in the U.S. South since securing contract victories last year following a "Stand Up Strike" targeting Ford, General Motors, and Stellantis, the American automobile industry's "Big Three."
The Alabama organizing effort has garnered support from progressives and union workers around the world. The U.K.-based Global Justice Now said Friday that "we stand with Mercedes autoworkers who are voting to join UAW to better their lives and help end the so-called 'Alabama discount.' It's time we end the U.S. South and Global South 'discounts' that allow corporations to perpetuate a race to the bottom that hurts all workers."
Meanwhile, Republican leaders in U.S. Southern states have shown "how scared they are that workers organizing with UAW to improve jobs and wages," as the Economic Policy Institute put it last month, after Govs. Kay Ivey of Alabama, Brian Kemp of Georgia, Tate Reeves of Mississippi, Henry McMaster of South Carolina, Bill Lee of Tennessee, and Greg Abbott of Texas issued a joint statement accusing the union of coming to their states to "threaten our jobs and the values we live by."
NEW: Right now Mercedes workers in Alabama are voting on joining the @UAW.
One reason workers are voting yes? They know they're building cars that sell for $250,000 and generating billions for Mercedes.
And that they aren't seeing that money. pic.twitter.com/vOnej9ufuO
— More Perfect Union (@MorePerfectUS) May 15, 2024
Mercedes has said that it "fully respects our team members' choice whether to unionize and we look forward to participating in the election process to ensure every team member has a chance to cast their own secret-ballot vote, as well as having access to the information necessary to make an informed choice." However, both employees and the UAW accused the company of union-busting ahead of the vote.
During his remarks to the press Friday evening, Fain charged that "this company engaged in egregious illegal behavior" and pointed to ongoing probes by German and U.S. officials into "the intimidation and harassment that they inflicted on their own workers."
The Alabama facilities are operated by Mercedes-Benz U.S. International, a subsidiary of a German parent company. The UAW said Thursday that Germany's Federal Office for Economic Affairs and Export Control has launched an investigation into worker claims.
"Autoworkers in Alabama should have the same rights and be treated with the same respect as autoworkers in Germany," Jeremy Kimbrell, who has worked at one of the Alabama plants since 1999, said in a statement. "My coworkers and I are grateful to the German government for taking our testimonies and the evidence we have provided seriously and taking the first steps to hold the lawless, reckless Mercedes managers in Alabama accountable for their action."
Mercedes toldQuartz that it "has not interfered with or retaliated against any team member in their right to pursue union representation" and is "fully cooperating with the authorities."
As The Washington Postreported Friday:
Alabama business leaders, politicians, and clergy have also stepped in to warn workers against voting for the union...
In a video posted this week on a Mercedes-run website about the union election, Rev. Matthew Wilson, a pastor and city council member in Tuscaloosa, told workers of the union vote: "This one change I would be careful of... As a lifelong resident of Tuscaloosa, we have come too far to turn around now."
ESPN sportscaster and retired University of Alabama football coach Nick Saban also spoke to Mercedes workers this week. According toAxios, "Saban owns multiple Mercedes dealerships and has reportedly said he does not endorse the UAW's campaign."
Kay Finklea, a Mercedes employee and member of the UAW's voluntary organizing committee, told the outlet that "they don't stop the line for hardly anything, but they shut the line down and they had a meeting with Nick Saban in there to talk to us about teamwork and the tactics and methods he used as a football coach."
The Alabama effort is widely seen as a test case for unionizing more auto workers in the South. Before the results were announced, Harley Shaiken, a labor professor at the University of California, Berkeley,
toldReuters that "if the union wins, they improve their momentum dramatically for future organizing."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Coral Bleaching 'Off the Charts' in Atlantic as NOAA Warns Ocean Going 'Crazy Haywire'
"We had to add additional bleaching alert levels to appropriately categorize just how hot it was," said a coral reefs expert at the agency.
May 17, 2024
The phrase "off the charts" is no exaggeration in the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's latest warning about a global coral bleaching event that scientists have linked to rising ocean temperatures and heat stress.
Derek Manzello, coordinator of NOAA's Coral Reef Watch Program, told reporters Thursday that about 60.5% of the world's coral reefs are now experiencing heat stress severe enough to cause bleaching, which can make the reefs more vulnerable to disease and harm the biodiversity they support.
Manzello said at the press briefing that after observing the first months of the coral bleaching event, which began in early 2023, NOAA changed its existing bleaching alert system because conditions were so abnormally warm in the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean Sea.
The agency's new bleaching alert system categorizes heat stress for coral reefs on a scale of 1-5, with Alert Level 5 representing ocean heat that could kill "approximately 80% or more of corals on a particular reef," Manzello said.
"We had to add additional bleaching alert levels to appropriately categorize just how hot it was," he said, with Level 5 "analogous to a Category 5 hurricane or cyclone."
"I hate that I have to keep using that word 'unprecedented.'... But, again, we are seeing unprecedented patterns again this year."
The world's oceans, Manzello, said, are going "crazy haywire."
In the Caribbean this year, heat stress off the coasts of Panama, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, and Colombia are now at levels that in previous years weren't seen until the summer months.
"I hate that I have to keep using that word 'unprecedented,'" Manzello toldThe New York Times. "But, again, we are seeing unprecedented patterns again this year."
The bleaching that took place last year resulted in coral mortality of at least 50% and as high as 93% in reefs off the coast of Huatulco, Mexico, according to a team of Mexican scientists.
In the Atlantic, fossil fuel-driven planetary heating has been exacerbated by El Niño—the natural phenomenon that causes warmer-than-normal ocean surface temperatures—and has caused the "most unprecedented and extreme" bleaching-level heat stress observed in the past year.
Manzello said 99.7% of reef areas in the Atlantic have experienced heat stress that could cause bleaching.
"The Atlantic Ocean has been off the charts," he said.
Scientists have recorded four global bleaching events since 1998 and have linked all of them to warmer ocean temperatures. Since 1950, the world has lost half of its coral reefs, according to a 2021 study.
Along with serving marine life, a quarter of which rely on coral reefs at some point in their life cycles, reefs also protect coasts from storms, whose growing severity in recent years scientists have also linked to planetary heating.
The current bleaching event has affected reefs off the coasts of at least 62 countries and territories.
Scientists earlier this year confirmed that 2023 was the hottest year in human history and the warmest year on record for the world's oceans, which absorb more than 90% of excess heat from greenhouse gas emissions.
"I am very worried about the state of the world's coral reefs," Manzello said. "We are seeing [ocean temperatures] play out right now that are very extreme in nature."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular