On July 7, Arkansas and Missouri became the first two states to ban the use of the pesticide dicamba. In the age-old struggle between farmers and weeds, dicamba is the newest weapon in a farmer’s arsenal. The way a lot of farming works these days is big companies, like Monsanto, genetically modify seeds so that they are resistant to certain pesticides, like dicamba. But the pesticide has ravaged acres of farmland, killing off crops that are not resistant to its fatal chemicals. In response, states are beginning to temporarily ban the use of dicamba. Read on to learn more about dicamba and the legal issues that have cropped up around its use: 

Seeds of the Conflict

Many farmers have begun planting dicamba-resistant seeds, particularly farmers in the Midwest. According to the Center for Biological Diversity, 1.5 million of the roughly 3 million acres of soybeans planted in the state are Monsanto’s dicamba-resistant soybeans.

While nearly half of soybean farms in Arkansas are full of dicamba-resistant seeds, more than half of them are full of seeds that are not resistant to the pesticide. This is where the problem begins. Dicamba began drifting into fields planted with non-resistant seeds, killing off many plants that were not genetically modified to withstand the pesticide. When this started happening many farmers took their complaints to the Arkansas State Plant Board.

The Plant Board is a state run entity whose mission is to provide “information and unbiased enforcement of laws and regulations” that have to do with agriculture in Arkansas. They received enough complaints that the state governments of Missouri and Arkansas had to take action. Both states have banned dicamba use between July 11 and November 7. The Arkansas ruling states:

Many other instances of exposure of non-target crops being exposed to dicamba have been reported and this situation poses a grave threat to the farm economy of Arkansas and therefore the public interest requires taking action to prevent unintentional exposure of non-target crops to dicamba. Therefore, the Board finds that there is imminent peril to the public health, safety and welfare that requires adoption of emergency regulations and that the regulation should take effect upon filing with the Secretary of State.

Missouri released a similar statement that stopped the sale or use of dicamba. Missouri’s ban, which includes any product with dicamba in it, will last longer than Arkansas’, lasting until December 1.

This federal action follows a years-long struggle between farmers and weeds, pesticides and plants–and even farmer and farmer.

What is Dicamba?

Dicamba is not a new pesticide. In fact, it was devised in 1958, cooked up by the chemical company BASF. And it is not the only pesticide that farmers use. Roundup, an incredibly toxic weed killer, was once a favorite of farmers. Seed companies manufactured genetically modified seeds that were “Roundup-ready,” and could withstand the toxic pesticides.

Roundup seemed like a good solution for a while. Rather than losing crops to weeds or having to go out and eliminate every weed by hand, Roundup would do the work for you. It was an easy solution, but it did not last long. Weeds began evolving, and developed resistance to Roundup. Thus, farmers began looking for new pesticides that paired with new genetically modified seeds.  

In the Arkansas government’s Emergency Rule, which temporarily bans the use of dicamba, it recognizes the benefits of pesticides. The rule states:

Pesticides are valuable to the State’s agricultural production and to the protection of man and the environment from insects, rodents, weeds and other forms of life which may be pests; but it is essential to the public health and welfare that they be regulated to prevent adverse effects on human life and the environment.

First Signs of Resistance

It all began with a weed called pigweed, a group of weeds which became resistant to most pesticides. Pigweed also spreads like wildfire. “You get one plant in your field, and that one plant can produce more than a million seeds. Many of the seeds become new plants that can choke your fields,” said Steve Inskeep of NPR. Some farmers would rip it from the ground when they saw it. Others resorted to spraying dicamba.

For the 2016 growing season, Monsanto released a new dicamba spray that was less prone to drifting. Old dicamba sprays would vaporize and spread to other farmers’ land. If it drifted to a farm full of non-resistant seeds, the farmer’s plants would wither and die.

The new drift-averse dicamba spray has not been approved by the EPA and Monsanto told farmers not to use other drift-prone sprays, due to the problems that arose from its use. 

Farmers were fined as much as $1,000 for using the illegal spray before the ban went into effect. A steep price, but when their entire yield is at risk of being killed by a weed, some farmers decided to cut their losses. According to The Progressive Farmer, “The Environmental Protection Agency has confirmed that it executed federal search warrants at several southeastern Missouri locations as part of an investigation into alleged misuse or misapplication of dicamba onto herbicide-tolerant soybeans and cotton.”

Drift is nothing new to farmers. Other pesticides have had these problems before. But in the past, farmers would just talk it out to settle the problem. With the onset of dicamba, farmers have taken their complaints to the state. 

Arkansas Bans Dicamba

Some farmers purchased dicamba-resistant seeds, but many others did not. Their crops are starting to die off at alarming rates, and it is believed that dicamba is largely to blame.

Many crops, including soybeans, cotton, and corn, die when they are exposed to dicamba. The leaves of the plants curl and pucker, leaving farmers with a loss on their investment.  

Arkansas Democrat-Gazette reported:

As of noon Wednesday, the Plant Board, a division of the state Department of Agriculture, had received 551 complaints of damage to soybeans, cotton, vegetables and fruit, up from 25 complaints four weeks ago. The increasing numbers led [Governor Asa] Hutchinson to sign on to a 120-day emergency ban on the sale and use of dicamba.

Terry Walker, the Plant Board’s director, said in an interview with Arkansas Democrat-Gazette that the government had a right to protect the farmers who had not bought dicamba-resistant seeds and who were experiencing adverse effects because of other farmers who were using an illegal pesticide.

The Plant Board also requested an increase in fines. Their request was approved. Beginning on August 1, fines for farmers caught using dicamba will rise from $1,000 to $25,000.

A Pesticide Worth Killing For?

The main controversy surrounding dicamba has been the effect the pesticide has on crops. But one case escalated to the point of murder.

In 2016, farmers began noticing an increase in damages to crops that were not dicamba-resistant. More than 200,000 acres of fruits and vegetables, including soybeans, tomatoes, watermelon, and peaches, took a hit. In a year that was already one of the leanest since 2002, this extra damage was not a welcome sight.

Mike Wallace, a farmer in Arkansas, started noticing a decline in his yield. His crops were dying, and it looked like dicamba was to blame. After complaining to the Plant Board, Wallace took matters into his own hands. He called up Allan Curtis Jones, a 26-year-old farmer from Arbyrd, Missouri. The two argued over the phone and eventually met in person. The meeting, according to Modern Farmer, did not go well:

Wallace grabbed Jones by the arm during the argument, Jones pulled out a gun and shot the older man, who was unarmed. Jones’ cousin called 911 and deputies found Wallace dead by the side of the road when they arrived.

Jones was arraigned last November and was released on a $150,000 bail.

Is Dicamba Legal in Other States?

Dicamba is very toxic and thus highly regulated.

The EPA has approved a list of 34 states (including Arkansas and Missouri) where dicamba can be registered to be used on genetically engineered cotton and soybeans. The EPA has also approved a special strain of dicamba, Xtendimax, that can be used on genetically engineered cotton and soybeans.

Xtendimax “is designed to be the industry’s lowest volatility dicamba,” according to its manufacturer, meaning it is less likely to evaporate. The problem with other dicamba formulas was they would evaporate once sprayed, and float to nearby fields, some of which were not planted with dicamba-resistant seeds. This new formula, which still requires farmers to follow a list of precautions in order to ensure they are adhering to safe practices, was designed to combat the drifting problems many farmers were seeing.

Next Steps

For farmers in Arkansas and Missouri, the next steps will be to untangle the complaints, and to closely examine dicamba’s potential problems and opportunities. Bob Scott, professor and weed scientist at the University of Arkansas Cooperative Extension Service, recently told CropLife, “Going into the fall, we’re really going to have to look at drift complaints, categorize and narrow them down, and try to figure out what’s going on here to determine whether we can use this technology or not.”

Scott said that some farms that were following the rules were still being investigated because their neighbors reported what looked like dicamba-related damage. That could mean a variety of things. Perhaps the dicamba is drifting farther than farmers previously thought it could. Maybe the approved methods of dicamba use are not as safe as was once thought. Whatever the answer ends up being, a thorough investigation will likely be conducted in the coming months. 

Conclusion

Dicamba has led to a lose-lose situation for farmers in Arkansas and Missouri. The farmers who did not buy genetically modified seeds saw losses because their crops could not withstand the illegal use of dicamba. The farmers who did buy dicamba-resistant seeds are now barred from using the powerful pesticide because of the new Emergency Rule. Their options are limited. Some plausible options are they can either pull weeds by hand, try other pesticides, or hope that the weeds do not kill too many of their crops. For now, farmers in Arkansas and Missouri must resist using dicamba, unless they accept the hefty fine–or worse. 

Anne Grae Martin

Anne Grae Martin is a member of the class of 2017 University of Delaware. She is majoring in English Professional Writing and minoring in French and Spanish. When she’s not writing for Law Street, Anne Grae loves doing yoga, cooking, and correcting her friends’ grammar mistakes. Contact Anne Grae at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Dicamba: A Look at the “Deadly” Pesticide appeared first on Law Street.

When Upton Sinclair wrote “The Jungle,” he intended to show the harsh conditions of poor immigrants working in the meat packing factories of Chicago. Published in 1906, his book ended up being one of the earliest catalysts for American food regulation. People were revolted by the unregulated food industry and the awful truth behind where their meat came from.  Sinclair’s book led to a public outcry, and many called for more regulations for the food industry. And for good reason–throughout American history up until that point there had never been any serious attempts to regulate the food industry. 

We now live in an age of big farms and monoculture. It used to be that most of the food you ate was grown or raised fairly close to where you lived. As technology and jobs changed, and the demand for meat grew, food began to be produced on a larger scale. Read on to learn more about the changing food culture and the concept of “food sovereignty.” 

Eating Local?

During President Theodore Roosevelt’s tenure, the U.S. began regulating food and drugs produced in the country with the Pure Food and Drugs Act of 1906. This act prohibited “misbranded and adulterated foods, drinks, and drugs in interstate commerce.” This was regulated by the Bureau of Chemistry in the Department of Agriculture, which eventually became the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1930.

Today, food laws are still imperfect. But the American public is increasingly conscious of where and how food is produced. Debates regarding food production are happening all over the country. Most Americans eat three times a day. A 2011 study found that the average American eats roughly 1,996 pounds of food each year. With that much food at stake, it makes sense that people are concerned.

Recently in America there has been a push toward “eating local.” Many people want to go to farmers markets and buy their tomatoes and cabbage from the farmer who grew it. They want to buy their eggs from chickens that were raised in hen houses that they could visit, rather than from a place straight out of “Food Inc.” 

In short, people are more aware of where their food is coming from. And that is where “food sovereignty” comes in. It’s an issue that is starting to gain traction in the U.S. Those who advocate for food sovereignty feel that farming has become over regulated. The movement is global, and many farmers around the world are standing up for themselves and for food production as a whole.

What is Food Sovereignty?

La Vía Campesina, an international “peasant” movement, coined the term “food sovereignty” at the 1996 World Food Summit. The group defines it as such:

Food sovereignty is the right of peoples to healthy and culturally appropriate food produced through sustainable methods and their right to define their own food and agriculture systems.

With the increased demand for locally-grown produce in America, it’s becoming more popular for farmers to want to sell their produce to their local communities. But it’s also important to note that outside of the U.S., food sovereignty takes on a much more important role. Hannah Wittman, Annette Desmarais, and Nettie Wiebe, authors of “Food Sovereignty: Reconnecting Food, Nature and Community,” wrote: 

The stunted growth and high mortality rates of hungry children and the ill health and lost potential of malnourished adults are clear and tragic results of the chronic food shortages suffered by an increasing number of people. A growing number of households and communities fear for tomorrow’s meals, even though there may be enough food for today.

Shifting more power to local farmers would increase the availability of food. And food would not have to travel as much, making it less costly and more likely to be fresh.

In the U.S., Maine Leads the Way

The U.S. has very structured regulations for farmers. One state is breaking away from this model. On June 16, Maine Governor Paul LePage signed LD 725, or An Act to Recognize Local Control Regarding Food Systems. This act is the first of its kind in the United States. It shifts power from the state to local municipalities. The Bangor Daily News described the rationale behind the law:

Supporters of food sovereignty want local food producers to be exempt from state licensing and inspections governing the selling of food as long as the transactions are between the producers and the customers for home consumption or when the food is sold and consumed at community events such as church suppers.

There were already about 20 municipalities in Maine that had their own food sovereignty laws. Now with this statewide law, municipalities that apply for food sovereignty will be granted more control. 

The law allows small farmers to sell food within their communities with fewer government regulations. Maine Rep. Craig Hickman enthusiastically embraced the passage of the law. In an interview with the Bangor Daily News, he said, “Food sovereignty means the improved health and well-being of the people of Maine by reducing hunger and increasing food self-sufficiency through improved access to wholesome, nutritious, and locally produced foods.”

According to a 2012 USDA census, Maine has some of the youngest farmers in the country. And the field is drawing in more and more young farmers, partially due to the growing demand for local produce. As more farmers embraced this lifestyle, and consumers demanded local produce, Maine decided to change the regulations a bit to accommodate them.

In 2013, many municipalities in Maine fought for food sovereignty. One of their complaints was about a new law that allowed small farms that sold less than $1,000 worth of chicken a year to slaughter chickens on their own farms rather than go to a slaughter house. The regulations it sought to change would require those farms to spend as much as $40,000 to be able to properly slaughter their chickens.

The Advantages of Food Sovereignty

Less regulations may give pause to the more cautious eater or the revolted reader who cannot get the images of “The Jungle” out of his or her head. But many local Maine representatives feel that this new act is a good thing for Maine. So what regulations are being repealed exactly? While the law states that food produced locally must still adhere to federal standards, these local farms do not require state licensing, nor do they have to go through state inspections of food produced, sold, and consumed locally.

The new law does not apply to every food producer and seller, however. Chain grocery stores and establishments selling large quantities of food must still adhere to the old laws. The new act is specifically designed for small farmers selling within their communities.

Betsy Garrold, the acting executive director of Food for Maine’s Future, felt that this will encourage many young and burgeoning farmers to enter the trade. She told the Bangor Daily News, “This means face-to-face transactions are legal if your town has passed a food sovereignty ordinance [and] you can sell food without excessive government regulations,” she said. “If we can feed ourselves, no one can push us around.”

Garrold felt that with the amount of farms in Maine, large and small, it is hard to make one law that regulates everyone equally. “Now if a small vegetable farmer wants to diversify their holdings and run a few meat birds, they can,” she said.

But Not Everyone is Onboard

Maine might be alone in its quest to deregulate farmers for a while. As of right now, no other states are moving to enact food sovereignty laws.

There are national food sovereignty groups, like the U.S. Food Sovereignty Alliance (USFSA). However, the group is more engaged in activism than writing laws. USFSA “works to end poverty, rebuild local food economies, and assert democratic control over the food system,” according to its website.

And while other states do not seem to be following Maine any time soon, not even all Maine farmers are pleased with the new act. When Maine began allowing certain municipalities more sovereignty back in 2013, Kevin Poland, a local Maine farmer, was less than pleased.

“It has nothing to do with encouraging local farming,” Poland said in an interview with NPR back in 2013. “There’s plenty of that here. What there should be more encouragement of is food safety. The state of Maine has laws that work,” he added.

Perhaps this is why other states have not joined Maine in passing their own food sovereignty laws. With all of the criticism that the food industry faces, it could seem counterintuitive to try to ease regulations on those who provide us with our food.

Global Impact

While Maine may be the first state in the U.S. to enact a food sovereignty law, other global initiatives have been on the forefront of this movement for decades. La Vía Campesina (The Peasants’ Way) started in 1993 as a way to support small farmers. The group is now a huge global initiative that has been one of the largest advocates of food sovereignty. 

La Vía Campesina says on its website that it represents, “164 local and national organizations in 73 countries from Africa, Asia, Europe and the Americas. Altogether, it represents about 200 million farmers.”

Most recently, the group supported a rally in Morogoro, Tanzania on June 23. The protesters felt that the government was not acting in the best interest of the Tanzanian people. In a statement on its website, La Vía Campesina said, “We know that our African elites in the public and private sectors have been for many years colluding in corruption with the evil transnational corporations which today represent the new face of imperialist neo-colonialism.”

Conclusion

Food sovereignty is a topic that is gaining traction around the world. Those fighting for it do so because they cannot comply with the regulations imposed by the government that are intended for larger farms. For small farmers selling food within their community, these regulations can be damaging. In America, it is less dire that we change our food sovereignty laws, but in other countries, the consequences are higher. Food shortages and government corruption are why farmers around the world want to take their food back into their own hands. 

Anne Grae Martin

Anne Grae Martin is a member of the class of 2017 University of Delaware. She is majoring in English Professional Writing and minoring in French and Spanish. When she’s not writing for Law Street, Anne Grae loves doing yoga, cooking, and correcting her friends’ grammar mistakes. Contact Anne Grae at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Food Sovereignty: Shifting Control from the Government to Local Farmers? appeared first on Law Street.

The idea of child labor in the United States sounds absurd. It’s 2015, after all. But the truth is that it’s more common than you may think, especially in the agriculture industry. The U.S. government currently has exemptions in place for the minimum age and maximum work hour requirements for child farmworkers. Hazardous work is prohibited until 18 in other industries, but notable exemptions exist for agricultural companies. Child farmworkers have high rates of injury, are exposed to serious health risks, and often receive few protections, particularly on tobacco farms. Read on to learn more about dangerous, but legal, child labor in the United States.

What is the Current Federal Law?

Loopholes in child labor laws for the agriculture industry stem from the 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), last revised in 2007. For all nonagricultural sectors, the FLSA restricts the hours children under 16 can work and prohibits children under 18 from work that is considered dangerous. In those industries, for example, children cannot work more than three hours on school days or more than eight hours on nonschool days.

However, the rules are far more lenient for the agriculture industry. Children under 16 cannot work during school hours, but there are no maximum hour limits beyond that. There is also no limit for working after school or on weekends, and there is essentially no limit for child workers during the summer. Some states place additional hour restrictions on child employment in agriculture.

At age 16, children can perform hazardous work, like operating chainsaws, forklifts, forage harvesters, or power post hole diggers. They can work from a ladder or scaffolding at over 20 feet from the ground and may drive a tractor over 20 PTO horsepower. They can also handle or apply toxic agricultural chemicals and may also handle or use a blasting agent (i.e. dynamite, black powder).

With parental consent, children under 12 can work on farms where workers are exempt from federal minimum wage requirements. Children aged 12 and 13 can be employed with parental consent or on a farm where a parent or guardian is also working. At 14, children can work any agricultural occupation not deemed hazardous by the Secretary of Labor and 16-year-olds can engage in any agricultural occupation, even during school hours. Children of any age may be employed on a farm in any occupation at any time if a parent or guardian owns the business.

Minors do not need working paper or work-permits. Farm workers under 20 years old can be paid $4.25 an hour during the first consecutive 90 calendar days of employment. Lastly, farmworkers of all ages are not subject to the overtime provisions in the FLSA.

Tobacco Farms

In 2014, Human Rights Watch (HRW) conducted a survey, which found that child laborers on tobacco farms face harsh conditions and receive little protections. According to HRW, 90 percent of American tobacco is cultivated in Kentucky, Virginia, North Carolina, and Tennessee. Although exact numbers remain unknown, thousands of child laborers work on these fields every year. Ohio Rep. Mary Kaptur and several British Members of Parliament toured a North Carolina tobacco farm last year. An article from The Hill summarized the report from their visit noting the “squalid conditions, lack of sanitation, hot water, flushing toilets and basic health services” that tobacco farm workers face. According to the HRW report, child laborers often work 50 to 60 hours a week in bad conditions and extreme heat.

Injury Risks

Machinery poses a real risk to child farmworkers. According to a 2013 study from the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), the agriculture industry accounts for the largest number of work-related deaths. NIOSH reported that the fatality rate for child farm workers is four times greater than that of any other industry and that two-thirds of farm deaths occurred among children 16 years old and under. According to the study:

Young worker deaths in agriculture are noteworthy. In addition to accounting for the largest number of deaths of any industry, previous research has suggested that the fatality rate is about four times greater than for youth working in other industries [Barkume et. al. 2000, Hard and Myers 2006] and comparable to the risk for young and middle-aged workers in agriculture. Nearly 2/3rds of the deaths in agriculture occurred among youth less than 16 years of age [Windau and Meyer 2005]. Nearly 60% of the deaths of youth in agriculture occurred on family farms. Farm family workers accounted for nearly 25% of all young worker deaths from 1998 to 2002.

Human Rights Watch also reported that more than 1,800 children working on farms in 2012 received non-fatal injuries from  sharp tools and machines. In 2010, two teenagers died trapped in a grain bin. One 16-year-old Tennessee worker, interviewed by Human Rights Watch, remembered an incident saying, “I cut myself with the hatchet.… I probably hit a vein or something because it wouldn’t stop bleeding and I had to go to the hospital…. My foot was all covered in blood.” Another 16-year-old said that he lost two fingers in an accident involving a mower.

Health Risks

Another alarming aspect is the health risks that workers on tobacco fields may encounter. Child laborers under 16 may be free from operating the most dangerous machinery, but they are exposed to toxic pesticides and risk nicotine poisoning. You have to be at least 18 to buy cigarettes, but not to cultivate tobacco. According to Margaret Wurth from Human Rights Watch, “as the school year ends, children are heading into the tobacco fields, where they can’t avoid being exposed to dangerous nicotine, without smoking a single cigarette.”

Child laborers interviewed by Human Rights Watch also reported working while nearby field were sprayed with chemicals. These pesticides can cause cancer, damage to the nervous system, and issues with reproductive health. Public health experts  have linked nicotine exposure in adolescents with mood disorders and permanent cognitive deficits.

A number of the children interviewed by HRW exhibited signs of acute nicotine poisoning, also known as Green Tobacco Sickness. Side effects include nausea, vomiting, dizziness, headaches, loss of appetite, and sleeplessness. Others also reported difficulty breathing, skin rashes, and irritations to the mouth and eyes.

What is being done?

Recent attempts at reform have been futile. Although countries across the globe, like Brazil and India, prohibit children under the age of 18 to work on tobacco fields, the United States does not.

In 2011, during President Obama’s first term, former Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis proposed banning workers under the age of 16 in the tobacco fields–ridding the FLAS of many of its exemptions. Her plan included stricter regulations for “agricultural work with animals, pesticides, timber, manure pits, and storage bins.” It also proposed safety measures for young farmworkers.

However, powerful opposition from farm conglomerates emerged. Montana Representative Denny Rehberg lamented the consequences when “big-city bureaucrats try to craft policies for rural America.” Farmers also complained that it would prevent their children from contributing to chores, even though Solis suggested an exception regarding farmers’ children. State legislators responded by drafting bills asking respective Congressional delegates to oppose the proposed changes to child labor exemptions. The successful lobbying campaign resulted in all the proposals being dropped and the Obama administration promising to abandon the issue indefinitely.

Another legislative attempt to help child laborers is Representative Lucille Roybal-Allard’s Children’s Act for Responsible Employment (CARE Act). Initially introduced in 2001, the CARE Act has been reintroduced in several sessions of Congress over the past decade, most recently in June. The CARE Act standardizes child labor protection in agriculture with every other industry.

Not only would the CARE Act revise current child labor law exemptions, it would increase and establish criminal penalties for child labor violations. The bill currently sits in the House Committee on Education and the Workforce.

The Children Don’t Belong on Tobacco Farms Act, co-authored by Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin and Rhode Island Rep. David Cicilline, is the most recent attempt to alter the current laws. Although the bill doesn’t prohibit children from tobacco fields, it limits the type of work that can be performed. Children under eighteen would be banned from direct contact with tobacco plants or dried tobacco leaves. Like other legislation attempting to reform these laws, the bill has not moved past its assigned committee.

Conclusion

The evidence shows that dangerous child labor conditions are not exclusively third world problem– it is prevalent here in the United States. Although multiple attempts at reform have been made, they have either failed or stalled in Congress. Significant progress could also be made without major changes to existing laws. Removing exemptions for the agriculture industry could create uniform standards for the employment of children in all industries. However, such efforts seem unlikely to succeed as powerful interests have managed to block recent efforts.

Resources

Primary

Human Rights Watch: Child Workers in Danger on Tobacco Farms

U.S. Department of Labor: Child Labor Requirements In Agricultural Occupations Under the Fair Labor Standards Act

Trade Union Group: A Smokescreen for Slavery

Additional

The Atlantic: How Common Is Child Labor in the U.S.?

CNS News: Farm State Outrage Intensifies Over Labor Dept. Proposal to Ban Children From Doing Some Chores on Farms 

Congress.gov: CARE Act of 2013

The Hill: Back to School – Or Back to the Fields? 

The Hill: Democrats Want Children Off Tobacco Farms

The Nation: Child Labor in the USA

NCBI: Short- and Long-Term Consequences of Nicotine Exposure during Adolescence for Prefrontal Cortex Neuronal Network Function

NIOSH: Health and Safety of Young Workers

The United States Department of Labor: US Labor Department Proposes Updates to Child Labor Regulations

Editor’s Note: This post has been updated to clarify the history of the CARE Act.

Jessica McLaughlin

Jessica McLaughlin is a graduate of the University of Maryland with a degree in English Literature and Spanish. She works in the publishing industry and recently moved back to the DC area after living in NYC. Contact Jessica at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Do Child Farm Workers Have Enough Protections? appeared first on Law Street.

Our adventures in genetics began with a monk named Gregor Mendel.  Mendel systematically bred pea plants to demonstrate the concepts behind genetic transmission before “gene” was even a word. He brandished a paint brush to cross breed plants that exhibited inheritance of exciting traits like wrinkly peas and inflated pods. Mendel was confined to pea plants in his search for potential traits. Today, we aren’t bound to the same species in our search for traits. We can bend the rules of nature as we know them using recombinant DNA technology. Welcome to the world of genetically modified organisms.

OMG…what are GMOs, anyway?

GMO is more than just a backwards OMG. GMO stands for genetically modified organism. Other terms used to describe them include bioengineered, transgenic, genetically engineered (GE), or just genetically modified (GM). All of these terms describe an organism created through genetic engineering. Genetic engineering allows us to transfer genes that yield desirable traits from one organism to another. Technology has granted us power to cross species barriers, so unlike Mendel, we don’t have to choose traits from just one species.

How are traits transferred?

Genetic engineering uses recombinant DNA technology to splice a piece of DNA from one species and insert it into the DNA of another species. Scientists identify the piece of DNA responsible for the desired trait, clone it, modify it to make it more compatible with the destination organism, and then insert it into the new organism. The modification occurs on a cellular level and the borrowed gene transforms to fit the destination organism’s DNA. Other methods involve repressing a gene that causes a certain characteristic, like they did to make a tomato that ripened after harvesting.

The Great Health Debate

Genetic engineering enables us to create crops with ideal characteristics, taking yields far beyond the possibilities of even the most resourceful farmers. Everyone must be thrilled! Not so much. In fact, many people are concerned about what GMOs might be doing to our health. Even with hazy understanding of GMOs, worries run rampant.

Leave it to Jimmy Kimmel to delve deep into society’s perceptions of hot-button issues.

What’s behind all of these worries?

No studies have proven that GMOs pose a significant health threat. There were some false alarms, but the studies were flagged for faulty mechanisms. In the absence of clear-cut science, why are people still worried about GMOs and their health?

Most people fear that a reason to be concerned just hasn’t been found yet, not that it doesn’t exist. Common misgivings are that gene transfer might also transfer antibiotic resistance and allergens, and that GMOs might not be as nutritious as their natural counterparts. While many of these apprehensions remain unsubstantiated, they’re still putting GMOs under scrutiny.

Are we right to worry about GMOs and our health? It turns out we may not know enough. Experts agree that the completed studies fall short in meriting total confidence. GMO testing has no minimal length requirement, even for crops cultivated on a large scale. Many point to a need for more long-term, quality, and transparent studies done on possible health effects of GMOs.

This article from University of California San Francisco quotes Patrice Sutton, a public health expert, to summarize concerns regarding GMOs and public health:

“Many people could rightly look at the existing science and see that it’s extremely weak,” Sutton said. “However, weak science does not prove safety; it just demonstrates that the public health impacts of GMOs are uncertain. It’s an overall public health principle that in the face of scientific uncertainty to expose everybody to something is a legitimate concern that should give us pause.”

Some contend that labeling food containing GMOs could fill in information gaps. After all, 97 percent of edible GMOs are cultivated in the United States and South America where no labeling requirement exists. Without labeling, long term studies and traceability are impossible. Which leads to our next point…

Should we label GMOs?

The FDA says “no” and hasn’t changed its mind since 1992. It adheres to substantial equivalence, the concept that a GMO doesn’t merit concern if it’s substantially equivalent to an existing food. This view was challenged in the court case, Alliance for Bio-Integrity v. Shalala. The court sided with the FDA, deferring to  its technological expertise in this complicated matter.

These decisions did little to quell budding concerns from the public. Today, 93 percent of Americans desire GMO labels on food, according to an ABC News poll.

The “Yes” People

The “yes” people rally behind the “right to know” battlecry, using it as the basis for GMO labeling initiatives. They believe consumers have a right to know what their products contain and make informed decisions for themselves.

At present, GMO ingredients in food are credence qualities — those that a consumer cannot evaluate let alone leverage in their purchase decisions. Labeling proponents say consumers can’t make informed decisions at the point of purchase without labels.

Doctors have also chimed in on the “right to know,” asserting that GMO labeling could affect how they study and treat their patients. It could be challenging to detect potential health impacts, including food allergies, if consumers don’t know what they’re eating.

Of course the worries mentioned above — allergies, antibiotic resistance, and nutrition — also factor into the “yes” arguments. Without labeling, it will be taxing to discern if these worries ever manifest as realistic concerns.

The “No” People

The “no” people suppose that a consumer’s “right to know” could lead to a consumer’s “right to be confused.” They think labels might give people a false reason to worry since no evidence suggests GMOs are harmful to health. A label doesn’t guarantee an informed consumer, especially when people are already confused. Furthermore, some argue that a GMO label only treats a symptom of consumers’ grander problem with industrial farming techniques.

And there’s more where that came from. The “no” people have a whole laundry list of concerns surrounding GMO labeling. Here’s a preview:

• A GMO label may inspire worry, leading to decreased demand and therefore production. Poor market acceptance could prematurely cripple a promising technology.
• A GMO labeling requirement could cause costs to skyrocket — some estimate by 10 percent of an annual grocery bill.
• A GMO label isn’t necessary. Concerned consumers can just buy certified organic foods that prohibit the use of GMOs.
• The food system infrastructure in the United States would need to be overhauled if a GMO label is required. Producers would need to implement extensive tracking and reporting systems to accommodate the new requirement, possibly with unforeseen costs and consequences.

So that covers “yes” and “no,” but the question of GMO labeling is far too complex for  monosyllabic responses. The decision packs a load of potential economic, legal, and societal implications.

From lawyers to farmers, this NPR spot explores why voters in Colorado and Oregon are answering “yes” or “no” to the deceptively simple question of GMO labeling that they’re facing on upcoming ballots:

There you have the gist of both sides. Now, what decisions have actually been made concerning GMO labeling?

Decisions…decisions…

States are buzzing with proposals to require GMO labeling. The Center for Food Safety keeps track of the status of proposed bills on this page if you’re curious. So far, GMO labeling bills have been rejected in California and Washington. Connecticut and Maine have passed laws, but they lack potency until neighboring states also pass labeling laws. Vermont stands alone as the only state to pass a GMO labeling law, no neighbors required. The labels will start popping up in 2016. Or maybe not. Food manufacturing heavyweights have filed a lawsuit against Vermont’s GMO labeling law. The groups purport that Vermont exceeded its constitutional authority by forcing costs and undermining the authority of federal agencies like the FDA. The results of the lawsuit will determine the temperature of GMO labeling measures in other states. Oregon is up to bat next as it makes a statewide ballot decision about GMO labeling on November 4, 2014.

Umm…what about the rest of the United States?

If you’re thinking state-by-state labeling laws could get complicated, you’re not alone. Two bills from the 113th Congress address GMO labeling on a nationwide scale. They’re on opposite ends of the spectrum:

1. The Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act was introduced by Representative Mike Pompeo (R-Kan.) in April 2014. The bill would require producers to notify the Secretary of Health and Human Services of the use of a bioengineered organism intended for consumption. It would then be up to the Secretary to determine if a label should be required based on whether or not there is a material difference between the bioengineered product and the traditional food. The bill would nullify any previous state laws passed requiring mandatory labeling. Some critics have called the bill the DARK or Deny Americans the Right to Know  act because many GMOs would likely escape labeling.
2. Conversely the Genetically Engineered Food Right to Know Act introduced by Senator Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Representative Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) would require any food with one or more genetically modified ingredients to be labeled as such or be deemed misbranded.

Some companies have decided to take GMO matters into their own hands. After all, the customer is always right!

GMO Labeling Trailblazers

Private companies don’t have to wait for a state or federal government to make company-wide GMO decisions. According to the NPD Group, 11 percent of primary shoppers would pay more for non-GMO products. Some companies commit to serving this hyper-concerned segment.

• General Mills announced its original Cheerios are GMO free.
• Whole Foods plans to move to full GMO transparency by 2018.
• Ben and Jerry’s fully supports mandatory GMO labeling and wants to remove GMOs from its products. The company believes happy ingredients = happy ice cream.

Will labels determine the fate of GMO ingredients?

Consumer concerns will remain regardless of decisions on GMO labeling. With most American consumers saying they deserve the right to know, the search for information will continue whether it’s slapped on the front of a package or not.

But GMO labeling decisions and subsequent market reactions could determine if GMO technology skyrockets or stalls.

Conclusion

What will GMOs mean to future generations? A Pandora’s Box of unnatural selection? A budding innovation that ends world hunger? Right now, we really don’t know. In this circumstance, not knowing simply means we have many more exciting things to learn in the years to come.

Resources

Choices: Genetically Modified Organisms: Why All the Controversy?

UC San Francisco: Genetically Modified Food Labeling Through the Lens of Public Health

National Geographic: The GMO Labeling Battle is Heating Up–Here’s Why

International Journal of Biological Sciences: Debate on GMOs Health Risks After Statistical Findings in Regulatory Tests

WebTV: Food Fight: The Debate Over GMOs in Colorado

Slate: The Price of Your Right to Know

World Health Organization: Frequently Asked Questions on Genetically Modified Foods

Denver Post: GMO Labeling Measure in Colorado Triggers Heated Debate

NPR: Voters Will Get Their Say On GMO Labeling In Colorado And Oregon

AgBioForum: Labeling Policy For GMOs: To Each His Own?

Colorado State University: Labeling of Genetically Modified Foods

Center for Food Safety: Ben & Jerry’s, GE-Labeling Advocates Protest Anti-GE Labeling Bill

Politico: GMO Labeling Bill Would Trump States

Politico: Food Industry to Fire Preemptive GMO Strike

Los Angeles Times: General Mills Drops GMOs from Cheerios

Institute of Food Technologists: Most Consumers Won’t Pay More For Non-GMO Food

National Academies Press: Genetically Modified Organisms: An Ancient Practice on the Cusp

Science Meets Food: What You Need to Know About GMOs, GM Crops, and the Techniques of Modern Biotechnology

Ashley Bell

Ashley Bell communicates about health and wellness every day as a non-profit Program Manager. She has a Bachelor’s degree in Business and Economics from the College of William and Mary, and loves to investigate what changes in healthy policy and research might mean for the future. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Yes or No? GMO Labeling Is Not That Simple appeared first on Law Street.

My house rumbles and shakes as the cargo trains thunder down the rail that is less that 500 yards away. Although the necessity of turning up the volume on my TV is not much more than a nuisance, the fact that I sleep within the blast zone of a highly combustible material being transported in an inept and accident-prone manner is highly unnerving. Despite the speed of aircraft or the capacity of cargo ships, railroads remain the most efficient medium for transporting goods. That does not mean, though, that they are a flawless medium. In fact, when dealing with the transportation of crude oil, they and the system on which they operate are horrifically flawed.

Fracking in North Dakota yields a crude oil that is shipped in trains across the country and down the Hudson River. In the New York portion, the rail runs literally right along the river’s edge. The particular form of crude coming from these fields can turn into an explosive fire should the trains derail, giving this transportation system the name “bomb trains”. The American Petroleum Institute disputes this claim, though. The issue is compounded by the fact that it is being transported in outdated cars, called DOT-111s, which have thin hulls and are prone to puncture. In the last several years, oil train derailments have spilled millions of gallons and resulted in deaths, notably in Quebec last year.

Apparently the Transportation Department has been looking into the DOT-111 situation for several years now, but a surge in oil production in the North Dakota Bakken shale region has resulted in an immediate demand for large scale transport. There are not enough pipelines to accommodate this volume, so it is being sent along in trains, dubbed a “virtual pipeline.” Furthermore, the existing oil trains were not originally intended to move this type of oil at this level of intensity, thus the dangers. While safer designs are in the proposal stage, many of the existing cars are too old to be retrofitted with the new features and would have to be replaced all together. This is problematic, Jad Mouawad of The New York Times points out, because the transition period would mean that there are fewer cars on the rails and the oil demands would be difficult to meet.

Also sorely lacking is an emergency response plan. Should a disaster occur, sufficient measures are not currently in place either to mitigate the consequences of a spill or to effectively address the human welfare. Not only would lives be endangered, but a spill would gravely threaten the drinkability of the water for both locals and the eight million residents of New York City, as well as the wellbeing of the river’s biodiversity. In a flash, a spill could undo everything that the Hudson conservation organization Riverkeeper has spent the last half century trying to accomplish.

A bird struggles amidst an oil spill near Crimea, courtesy of Marine Photobank/Igor Golubenkov via Flickr

The lack of safety precautions is not the fault of emergency workers, but the Transportation Authority and oil industries themselves. The latter needs to be more open as to when trains are running through what areas, and what is the nature of their cargo. Last month, Orange County, New York joined neighbors Rockland and Ulster in calling for a full environmental review of the potential impacts of the increased oil shipments, a ban on DOT-111s, and an exploration of alternative means of transporting the oil. Embodying the philosophies of Riverkeeper, these actions criticize the secretive nature of the oil industry and demand the release of data to the public. By empowering the people with information, appropriate measures can be taken.

One town in North Jersey took things a step further, staging a protest and calling for a moratorium on the oil trains until safety standards are met. As previously mentioned, the trains run through my own hometown and neighboring ones in Bergen County, New Jersey pass through a very built up and densely populated region; a disaster in this area would be catastrophic and unquestionably deadly.

One must be cautious when performing a review of potential environmental impacts, as the method can be manipulated so as to be favorable to one party over another. The mayor of Albany recently accused the Department of Environmental Conservation of segmentation, an illegal action under the Environmental Quality Review Act. This process enables the review of a project in individual groups, not as an overall whole. In so doing, environmental impacts can be overlooked or miscast. This has allowed oil companies to enlarge or change their transportation permits time and again without raising any red flags. Ecosystems are large and complex; an issue in one arena will affect, often in an unforeseen manner, aspects of another. Further, humans are tightly intertwined with their surrounding environments. The issue must be looked at in its entirety in order to properly assess the dynamics of the dangers and their potential consequences.

The interrelatedness of people, policy, and environment with regard to this issue extends widely. The overemphasis on oil shipments is creating a backlog in other industries. Millions of dollars are lost and countless jobs are endangered as North Dakota farmers, the longtime mainstay of the economy there, are unable to ship their grain products across the country. A cascade effect follows; food companies are pressured to put out their products in light of delayed shipments, occasionally resulting in lower supply and higher prices. Exportation economics suffer as well, as these rails send grains to the Pacific Northwest to be shipped to Asia, and down the very same routes in New York State to be sent to Europe. In the long run, grain will be a more reliable product than oil. Companies are too short sighted and capitalize on the spike, with wide ranging and ever worsening consequences.

While the increased production, transportation, and use of oil is frustrating enough for those who would rather see progress in the field of renewable energy, the fact that it is compounded by a massive threat to local ecosystems and human welfare is outrageous and unacceptable. This issue is more than a concern over energy policy; it is making the use of fossil fuels an environmental and human threat in manners that go beyond emissions and pollution. The dangers must be effectively addressed, and soon.

Franklin R. Halprin

Franklin R. Halprin holds an MA in History & Environmental Politics from Rutgers University where he studied human-environmental relationships and settlement patterns in the nineteenth century Southwest. His research focuses on the influences of social and cultural factors on the development of environmental policy. Contact Frank at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The New Black Death: Oil Trains and Insufficient Safety Regulations appeared first on Law Street.