|
|
 
|
Lawsuits Over Pesticides, Herbicides Allowed
(Friday, May 6, 2005 -- CropChoice news) -- 1. Lawsuits Over Pesticides, Herbicides Allowed 1. Lawsuits Over Pesticides, Herbicides Allowed: The Supreme Court rules against the White House's pro-business reading of a 1972 law. David G. Savage, LA Times Staff Writer, April 28, 2005 WASHINGTON -- The makers of pesticides and weedkillers can be sued and
forced to pay damages if their products cause harm, the Supreme Court
ruled Wednesday, rejecting the view of the Bush administration and
reversing a series of lower courts. The 7-2 ruling permits lawsuits by farmers whose crops are damaged by
pesticides, as well as suits by consumers who are hurt by bug sprays. In its first ruling on the scope of the 1972 federal law regulating
pesticides and related chemicals, the justices said the requirement
that chemical companies submit their products for approval by the
Environmental Protection Agency did not "give pesticide manufacturers
virtual immunity" from being sued if those products proved to be
harmful to people, plants or animals. Wednesday's ruling restores the law to what it had been before the
1990s. During most of the 20th century, Americans who were hurt or killed by
toxic chemicals could sue the maker of the product in state court. But
more recently, lawyers for the chemical industry convinced courts in
much of the nation, including California, that the federal law
regulating the pesticides barred such lawsuits in state courts. Four years ago, the Bush administration adopted this pro-industry
position, saying that once a pesticide or weedkiller had won EPA
approval, it had a federal shield against being sued -- even if the
product did not work as advertised. The case of 29 Texas peanut farmers illustrated the issue. Five years
ago, they were persuaded by agents of Dow Chemical Co. to try
Strongarm, a powerful, newly approved weedkiller. The farmers say
Strongarm killed not just their weeds, but also their peanut plants. "They just plain withered away," said Ronnie Love, 63, who said he
applied Strongarm to 150 acres when he seeded his fields that spring.
Despite a summer of heavy watering, the peanut plants were stunted and
failed to produce a crop, he said. Love and the other farmers say Dow reneged on a promise to compensate
them for millions of dollars in crop losses. They notified the company
that they intended to sue in a Texas court under the terms of the
state's consumer protection law, which allows suits for products that
are defective or are deceptively marketed. But before they could file their claims, lawyers for Dow went to a
U.S. district court in Lubbock and asserted it was shielded from such
suits. A federal judge agreed with Dow and dismissed the farmers' suit. And
the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans agreed as well,
saying federal law that regulates pesticides preempts or bars lawsuits
in a state court. The California Supreme Court handed down a similar
ruling five years ago. But the Supreme Court took up the case of the peanut farmers â¤" Bates
vs. Dow AgroSciences -- and ruled Wednesday that the lower courts were
wrong to throw out such claims. Justice John Paul Stevens noted that the EPA did not test products to
see if they were effective. It simply relies on information supplied
by the manufacturer. After the peanut crops in Texas failed, Dow changed Strongarm's
product label to say the weedkiller should not be used in regions with
high-alkaline soils, which are common in Texas and Oklahoma. The company did not acknowledge liability for the earlier damage. Stevens described the 1972 law as an effort by Congress to impose grea
ter regulation on "poisonous substances." Converting it into a shield
against lawsuits would "create not only financial risks for consumers,
but risks that affect their safety and environment as well," he said. "This is a huge win for farmers, and I think it will have a big impact
in the agriculture industry," said David C. Frederick, the Washington
lawyer who represented the peanut farmers. "Pesticide makers and
farmers have to work together. And if something goes wrong with a
pesticide, the farmers deserve to be compensated. Now the courthouse
door is open to them again after being closed for the past 15 years." Patti Goldman, a lawyer in Seattle for the environmental group
Earthjustice, said the ruling would help consumers and workers harmed
by pesticides. She and other lawyers cited cases of children sickened by pesticides
that had drifted from fields into residential areas and that of a
young man who died after riding a horse that had been sprayed with a
pesticide. Recently, such lawsuits had been dismissed prior to a
trial. Wednesday's ruling does not mean the plaintiffs will always win, the
lawyers said, noting that they would have to prove the product was
defectively made or inadequately tested to prevail in court. "This just means that people will be allowed to sue for compensation
when they are harmed by a pesticide," Goldman said. "The court
recognized that these [EPA-approved] labels are written by the
manufacturers." The Bush administration, the chemical industry and other business
groups joined the case on the side of Dow Chemical Co., arguing that
the court should erect a barrier to such lawsuits. "This is a complete loss and a big disappointment," said Steve Bokat,
general counsel for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. "Our concern is that
this gives an opening for the plaintiffs' bar to bring more tort
claims against large companies." In his opinion, Stevens pointed out that the Clinton administration
believed that the federal pesticide registration law did not shield
manufacturers from all lawsuits. The Bush administration reversed
course in 2001 and said the law as originally written did block such
claims. Stevens called the new interpretation "particularly dubious" and not
entitled to much deference from the high court. Chief Justice William
H. Rehnquist and Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Anthony M. Kennedy,
David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer joined the
court's opinion. Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia dissented in part,
criticizing the court for "tipping the scales in favor of the states
and against the federal government" by allowing lawsuits in state
courts. Thomas said most of the legal claims raised by the peanut farmers
should have been thrown out of court.
2. NFU Supports Captive Supply Reform Act Contact: Emily Eisenberg WASHINGTON (May 2, 2005) - The National Farmers Union applauds legislation
introduced by Sen. Michael Enzi, R-Wyo., that would restrict the percentage
of captive supplies allowed by meat packers. The Captive Supply Reform Act is cosponsored by Senators Byron Dorgan, D-
N.D., Tim Johnson, D-S.D., and Craig Thomas, R-Wyo. The bill addresses the
problem of captive supply in the livestock industry by amending the Packers
and Stockyards Act to require that livestock producers have a fixed base
price in their contracts. It would also require packers to put contracts up
for bid in the open market. National Farmers Union President Dave
Frederickson said the bill will help encourage competition. "Competition is what the American free market economy was founded on," said
Frederickson. "Without competition, cattle producers are faced with a 'take
it or leave it position.' Meanwhile, consolidation within the livestock
industry continues to increase." NFU's February 2005 Concentration of Agricultural Markets update shows that
four companies are now controlling 83.5 percent of the beef market.
Increasingly, independent producers are finding it increasingly difficult to
participate in a fair, open and competitive market. -30-
3. The folly of free trade with Central America Alan Tonelson WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration promises that its Central American Free Trade
Agreement will ''promote U.S. exports to a large and important market.''
Instead, CAFTA shows U.S. trade policy has become completely divorced from
the main needs of the U.S. economy and turned into an instrument for
outsourcing. Significant new markets for U.S. products would greatly benefit our still
fragile economy and still shaky manufacturing sector. But the idea that the
six Central American signatories of CAFTA can become these new markets
doesn't pass the laugh test. El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica and Dominican
Republic are among the world's poorest countries. They're among its smallest
economies, too. Measured by their ability to buy U.S. products, their
combined economic output in 2002 (latest available) totaled only $85
billion. In Ohio terms, that's about Cleveland's size ($82 billion) and about a third
larger than Columbus ($64 billion) or Cincinnati ($63 billion). Here's another way for Ohioans to view the Central America market. The six
CAFTA economies combined don't even equal three Dayton-Springfields ($32
billion) or four Akrons ($23 billion) or Toledos ($21.5 billion). Indeed,
the biggest economy of the CAFTA 6 -- Dominican Republic, $23.2 billion --
is about Toledo- or Akron-sized, about twice as big as Canton-Massillon. Such tiny, impoverished economies can't possibly import enough to drive
growth for the $11 trillion U.S. economy. But they can become major
suppliers to America -- especially if trade deals attract export-oriented
investment seeking penny-wage work forces. For example, from 1997 to 2004,
U.S. imports from the six CAFTA nations rose by 38.8 percent, to $17.6
billion. Yet U.S. exports to these six rose by slightly less, to $14.98
billion, during this period. Aggregate export numbers, however, are misleading. The biggest share of U.S.
exports to the CAFTA 6 isn't the traditional, job-creating kind. These
products aren't consumed in the purchasing nations. Instead, it consists of
fabric sent to the region, stitched into final apparel and home furnishings,
and shipped back to the United States. Rather than serving new foreign markets, these ''exports'' serve the same
domestic market once supplied by U.S.-based factories. The only difference
is that American workers are removed from the equation. Thus, CAFTA isn't a
trade agreement -- it's an outsourcing agreement. More than 30 percent of U.S. exports to the CAFTA 6 consists of such
round-trip exports; 5 percent more are an electronic version of these fabric
shipments -- exports of semiconductor and related products sent to Costa
Rica for testing and assembly at an Intel plant and then re-exported. The results? No new markets for U.S.-made products, tens of thousands of
lost American jobs and trade patterns bound to enlarge U.S. trade deficits.
Neither has the American textile industry benefited noticeably. Since CAFTA's precursor, the 2000 Caribbean Basin trade agreement, the U.S.
trade deficit in textiles has jumped 73.4 percent. With manufacturing
employment still feeble, America's foreign debts reaching alarming levels
and the dollar weakening steadily, these are the last outcomes South
Carolina or America need. The CAFTA 6 will lose out, too. The U.S. market for the labor-intensive
goods they need to sell is saturated with imports from Third World regions
that have expanded trade with America, notably China. Worse, according to
U.S. government and World Trade Organization reports, the expiration of
global textile and apparel quotas in January will expose Central Americans
to more competition from even lower-wage Asia. The Bush administration could help U.S. workers and at least some of their
Third World counterparts by setting meaningful trade policy priorities and
limiting overall Third World import growth. That way, trade expansion's
benefits could be channeled to nations of special interest -- such as our
hemispheric CAFTA 6 neighbors or Mexico. But influenced by utopian economic
ideologies and pressured by retailers and other importing lobbies, the White
House is staying the indiscriminate trade liberalization course. To revive American manufacturing and all the economic and national security
benefits it generates, the United States urgently needs new trade policies.
Defeating CAFTA is the place to start. The writer is a columnist for the americaneconomicalert.org Web site and a
research fellow at the U.S. Business and Industry Council. His recent book
on globalization, The Race to the Bottom, is out in paperback from Westview
Press.
4. Honda May Set Record, in Soybean Exports By JAMES HANNAH, The Associated Press Apr. 17, 2005 - Honda Motor Co. expects to set an export record this year in
the soybeans it returns to Japan in containers that arrived in the U.S.
filled with spare parts. In the shadow of its Marysville auto plant, the company processes 550 bushels
of soybeans each hour that end up as tofu and soy sauce. The automaker
expects to sell a record 1 million bushels this year and is hunting new markets in
Australia. The company says potential customers in Europe and Thailand have
expressed interest. Honda began shipping soybeans in 1986 as a way to reuse cargo containers that
were returning to Japan empty. The crop was plentiful in Ohio, there was a
market for them in Japan, and the shipments were a way for the automaker to
invest in a state it has operated in since 1983. Between 250 and 280 farmers grow the soybeans for Honda on 22,000 acres in
Ohio and Michigan. The region produces soybeans that are especially high in
protein, a quality desired by Honda's Japanese customers because soybeans are a
substitute for meat. The growers are paid as much as $1.10 more a bushel than the $6.15 they would
get on the open market. Some of the soybeans are grown on Honda property, including in the infield of
an auto test track. Honda leases the land there to area farmers, who grow
the soybeans. At the 18-employee processing plant, pods, stems and weed seed are removed
and the soybeans are cleaned, separated by size and shape and polished.
A $1 million dust-collection system keeps soybean dust from migrating to
Honda's nearby paint plant, where Accords are painted in colors such as Desert
Mist, Satin Silver and Nighthawk Black. "It's like a vacuum sweeper with a 75-horsepower motor on it," said Joe
Hanusik, manager of the processing plant. "It would clean your house in about 15
seconds." Once processed, the soybeans are shot into 66-pound bags. A robotic arm
plucks each bag from the conveyor belt, wheels around and gently stacks it on
wooden pallets. Honda exports the soybeans along with auto parts, aluminum and steel under
Honda Trading America, a subsidiary founded in 1972. HTA had $2 billion in
gross revenues last year, up from $1.3 billion five years ago. The automaker got its start in the soybean business in the mid-1980s
following a chance meeting at an airport between Honda executive Hitochi Morimoto
and a Japanese soybean supplier who was looking to expand the export of U.S.
soybeans to Japan. Morimoto set up the business and later became president of
Honda's soybean-exporting operation. At first, Hanusik's family-run business, Madison Seed Co., processed soybeans
for Honda in modest amounts. He now processes soybeans exclusively for the
automaker, doing about twice the business of the seed company, which since has
been sold. Honda built its processing plant in 1999. It shipped between 750,000 and
800,000 bushels of soybeans in 2004 and had $10 million in soybean sales from
March 2004 and March 2005. That compares with $20 billion in auto-related sales
for Honda in just the last three months of 2004. Other automakers have also stepped outside their core business when
opportunities arose. General Motors Corp. disposes of used sand from its foundries by
selling it to make concrete. The company also sells sludge generated from
the paint process at its assembly plants for use in making plastics for park
benches and playground equipment. Soybeans account for about 23 percent of all the grain grown in Ohio. Honda's
exports accounted for only a fraction of the 207 million bushels of soybeans
grown last year in the state. But Melanie Wilt, spokeswoman for the Ohio
Department of Agriculture, calls the company's effort significant. "Any time that we can easily facilitate the export of grain commodities
directly from Ohio, that's a great thing for Ohio's economy," she said.
http://www.hondatrading.com
5. One Reporter's Opinion - 'NADA' to CAFTA George Putnam It is this reporter's opinion that we should have listened to Sir James
Goldsmith, former member of the British Parliament and internationally
recognized economist, when he warned us of the North American Free Trade
Agreement (NAFTA) and the New World Order. Sir James, speaking before our own Senate Commerce Committee hearings on
Nov. 15, 1994, stated that NAFTA, GATT, WTO and the New World Order were the
"most destructive proposal presented to the American people." He based his
statement on the experience of Europe - loss of jobs, unemployment and a
host of other attendant problems. But we wouldn't listen. A few critics argued that NAFTA would be bad for U.S. workers. Others said
it would hurt Mexican workers. But they were shouted down by the proponents,
who optimistically predicted that a rising tide of profits and productivity
would result. Look at the results today - north and south - and you'll see
that the benefits of NAFTA add up to NADA. But the globalists will not give
up. On July 18, 1993, Council on Foreign Relations member and trilateralist
Henry Kissinger wrote: "With NAFTA, the U.S. creates a New World Order. What
Congress has before it is not a conventional trade agreement but the
architecture of a new international system. The trade agreement with Mexico
is the vital first step for a new kind of community of nations, a first step
toward THE NEW WORLD ORDER." There you have it! In their own words: NAFTA is an important step in the
globalists' plan for a New World Order. Now here we come with the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA).
President Bush is obsessively pushing for CAFTA as an enlargement of the
ill-fated NAFTA. And now President Bush is urging Hispanics to support
CAFTA. In a warning from my friend Rob Sanchez in the "Job Destruction Newsletter"
(April 2005), he states that Bush is appealing to the Hispanic businessmen,
the rich ruling elite of Mexico. Sanchez warns: "NAFTA is a very bad deal,
especially for Mexican farmers. ... NAFTA was partly responsible for the
massive economic problems in Mexico that has left their impoverished farmers
with no choice but to sneak across our border in order to survive." He believes Bush is unlikely to convince rank-and-file Hispanics to support
CAFTA because so many of them are victims of NAFTA. But Bush's public relations ploy is a deliberate attempt to shift attention
away from the ones who will support CAFTA (the wealthy families who control
almost all of the wealth in Latin America, along with the multinational
corporations that want to exploit Central America's chief labor pool). To find out how NAFTA fuels the illegal invasion from Mexico, there's no
better authority than Philip Martin at the University of California, Davis.
He says: "CAFTA is a danger to our nation. If Congress approves CAFTA, we
will not only suffer massive job loss, our sovereignty will be threatened." NewsWeek Editor Fareed Zakaria explains why: "Unlike the United Nations, the
WTO can actually require that a country change its laws, regulations and
precedents - not simply national laws but often state and local laws - that
its rulings on disputes between nations are binding. It is undemocratic and
filled with technicrats." Surprisingly, most members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and others
in the Hispanic community are either against or appear to be leaning against
CAFTA. "There are great concerns about how it will affect the Latino
community," says Rep. Grace Napolitano, D-Calif., chairwoman of the
21-member caucus. Napolitano says she would vote against CAFTA. The administration would need at least 20 House Democratic votes to pass the
measure and faces some opposition from Republicans worried about provisions
related to sugar and textiles. Democrats cite labor-related concerns. Rep.
Xavier Becerra, D-Calif., a member of the caucus, has said, "CAFTA does
little to protect workers' rights, including the right to organize and
collective bargaining." He says that CAFTA would leave Central Americans
vulnerable to exploitation and drive down wages. Napolitano's and Becerra's concerns are echoed elsewhere. But Bush is
obsessively pushing for CAFTA, an enlargement of the ill-fated NAFTA, and
the president is determined to press for a plan that would extend amnesty to
a million Mexican agricultural workers in the U.S., his totalization
agreement plan that would extend Social Security benefits to Mexican
workers, and his determination to reform Social Security - all but ignoring
our own No. 1 crisis: Medicare (with 50 million Americans struggling without
health protection). David Bacon, a labor journalist and author of "The Children of NAFTA," says:
"The Bush administration, not satisfied with the current economic chaos
under NAFTA, now hopes to establish a free trade area in the Americas, which
would export NAFTA's principles to Central and South America and the
Caribbean. But Bush may be in trouble. He has found, in dealing with the
trade ministers of Brazil, Ecuador, Argentina, and Venezuela, they are not
willing to repeat our experiences with Mexico and follow NAFTA's path to
mass unemployment and poverty." Has the president forgotten this nation's real priorities? As I said before,
concerning NAFTA and CAFTA, we should have listened to Sir James Goldsmith.
As for CAFTA and NAFTA - a great big NADA! References:
6. Corn Growers Announce Recall of Awards: ACGA Offers to Reissue Agriculture Journalist Awards to Comply With Trademark Restrictions WASHINGTON May 6, 2005 Larry Mitchell, American Corn Growers Association (ACGA) Chief Executive Officer, today announced his organization will recall eleven awards presented since 1995 to agricultural electronic and print journalists. The action is a result of a request made by the American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF) due to a trademark violation. "The issue in question is this," said Mitchell. "Since 1995, ACGA has identified and presented an award, titled the ‘American Corn Growers Association Voice of Agriculture Award,’ to an outstanding agricultural journalist at our annual convention. AFBF contends that ‘Voice of Agriculture’ is a Registered Service Mark protected by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. AFBF is sensitive to the possibility that members of the public and agricultural community will mistakenly believe that the ACGA award is sponsored by or associated with AFBF." "ACGA understands the legal responsibility to AFBF and will extend the courtesy of complying with the cease and desist request, even though AFBF filed for the government protection a full ten months after ACGA presented its first award," added Mitchell. "ACGA finds it a amazing, if not a bit amusing, that an organization such as AFBF, which spends hundreds of thousands of dollars and untold quantities of political capital to advance a free market, unburdened by the mandates of government regulation and government intervention, would call upon a federal agency to protect its intellectual property." "We will expand upon the courtesy by offering an immediate, voluntary and public recall to all of our previous recipients of our previously known ‘Voice of Agriculture’ awards and offer each of them a replacement award if they should request one," according to Mitchell. "These replacement awards, as well as all future awards, will be renamed "The ACGA True Voice of Agriculture Award." ACGA is offering the replacement awards to the following recipients; 1995 Larry DeSha "It was not our intention to mislead the public or agricultural community in this matter," concluded Mitchell. "We are indeed regretful if we have caused any misfortune to AFBF, but it is even more regrettable that time and resources were expended on this issue when there are so many more important challenges facing our nation’s farm families." The American Corn Growers Association represents 14,000 members in 35 states. See http://www.acga.org -30- | |
