The state Department of Agriculture's effort to block even modest pesticide reforms

Quick take:

Lawmakers are considering a proposal this spring that would strengthen state pesticide laws in two very modest ways designed to put farmworkers on par with other state workers: 1) By allowing workers to file confidential complaints, and 2) By raising fines for those who violate health and safety rules above their current, laughable levels. Unfortunately, at last report, the state Department of Agriculture was blocking all progress on the legislation.

Imagine you are a factory or mill worker in North Carolina. One day, your supervisor informs you and your co-workers that you are to start using a new process to clean the machinery you use. The cleaning process involves the use of a powerful new solvent.

Unfortunately for the workers, however, the new solvent is extremely toxic. It causes skin blisters and a burning sensation in the lungs of those who breathe it in. When you complain, the supervisor tells you to "open the windows and quit whining," but offers no further protection or any indication of concern. Indeed, he tells you "I better not hear about any more complaints." What do you do?

Under current law, you would have a right to file a confidential report with state Department of Labor's Division of Occupational Safety and Health (OSHA). That office, in turn, could investigate the problem, interview witnesses confidentially and take action against the employer without revealing the identity of the complainant. Though far from perfect, this system at least provides workers with some hope of vindication and protection.

The Department of Ag's complaint "Catch-22"

Now, imagine you're a North Carolina farmworker experiencing similar problems with exposure to noxious chemicals. In your case, your supervisor regularly directs you to enter fields that have been treated only hours before with a powerful pesticide. Sometimes the pesticides drift right into the trailer encampment abutting the fields where you and your family try to live. Of course, as a farmworker, you're probably a migrant with limited English skills too. What are your options?

As it turns out, your rights are much more limited than the factory/mill worker. Since farm work is not regulated by OSHA, you're only option is to turn to the N.C. Department of Agriculture – the state agency whose mission is to support and promote (and occasionally regulate) the agriculture industry.

But let's assume, you're really angry and scared and motivated and decide to plow ahead with the effort to complain. If you do, you'll find one other little challenge: Unlike OSHA, the Department of Agriculture won't accept confidential reports.

Instead, you have only two choices: a) file a report in which you give your name (which the Department will then reveal to the grower who employs you) or, b) file an anonymous report that has virtually zero chance of having much of an impact – witness the recent and infamous Ag-Mart case in which the lack of named witnesses resulted in the collapse of large case against a giant agribusiness that involved multiple poisonings and severe health consequences for the workers and their families.

The bottom line: No confidential reports by farmworkers – even if workers are willing to swear or affirm to their content.

Catch 22 — Part two

Here's another remarkable and illogical injustice endured by farmworkers: Not only are there two classes of workers, there are two classes of workers exposed to pesticides! When farmworkers are exposed to pesticides unlawfully, the maximum fine is only $500 – even if it's a major hazard affecting numerous workers, and then, only when the employer's actions are "willful." For large agribusinesses, such fines are laughably small and, in the unlikely event that they're ever assessed, easily chalked up to "the cost of doing business."

For other wrongful pesticide exposures, on the other hand – such as might occur on a golf course – the maximum fine is four time higher ($2,000) and the requirement that the violation be willful is dispensed with. Mere negligence will do.

So, to review:

• Mexican farmworker and his family poisoned intentionally: The maximum fine is $500. If accidental, no fine at all.
• Suburban teenager exposed (even accidentally) while spraying the green at your local country club: The maximum fine is $2,000.

A modest proposal

This spring at the General Assembly, a small collection of advocates and concerned lawmakers are trying to combat this unfairness. They have advanced a modest bill that would provide farmworkers with a couple of the protections enjoyed by their fellow workers in other industries.

Under the legislation, workers who believe there has been a violation of pesticide safety rules could file a confidential complaint with the Department of Agriculture. The change would also allow the Department to conduct confidential interviews with witnesses. In other words, no more cases dismissed because workers are too fearful come forward and go on the record.

In addition, the bill would raise fines for violators from their current, "slap on the wrist" levels to something relatively commensurate with the seriousness of such a potentially health and life threatening offense.

Your Department of Agriculture in action 

Not surprisingly, the pesticide bill is opposed by big agribusiness. What is surprising and frustrating, however, is the opposition from the North Carolina Department of Agriculture. Indeed, not only is the Department opposed, it has refused to seriously discuss toughening state laws at all. To date, it is the Department's position that current law is, in a word, "fine." 

In other words, a government agency charged with enforcing an important set of laws that protect human life (and our environment) is saying "no" to the prospect of greater flexibility and authority in carrying out that mission. Talk about a public body that's controlled by the industry it supposedly oversees!

Ordinarily, the combined opposition of industry and regulators would be enough to guarantee the demise of just about any legislative proposal. In this case, however, it seems at least conceivable that lawmakers may decide to think for themselves and bypass the opposition of the agriculture establishment. Let's hope so.

If they do, it will likely be because they've figured out that the best way to practice a clean brand of politics and policymaking is to avoid treating innocent people like dirt.