October 29, 2012
Introduction
The average American gives little thought to tomatoes. The weekly trip to the grocery store never disappoints; the red orbs are always there, no matter the season. January? No problem. The tomatoes displayed on the shelves in deep winter actually look no different than the ones that graced the same shelves in July. Likewise, when buying a Whopper from Burger King, one simply expects there to be a slice or two of fresh tomato on the patty. Never mind that snow had to be brushed off the car earlier that day; tomatoes are always available. Magically.
Where do those winter tomatoes come from, and what has happened to our system of agriculture that makes it seem so easy to have tomatoes on our dinner plate year round? Most people recognize that the miracle of the tomatoes happens far away in the South, where the sun shines high in the sky throughout the winter months. Beyond that though, there is a void of understanding. There is a hidden and tragic aspect to the seemingly bountiful flow of our most ubiquitous fruit that most people are unaware of. Our system of retailing the abundance of agriculture has detached the consumer from the farm so much that the true cost of our food is not only deeply hidden from the consumer, but that cost is in fact difficult to discover even when a conscientious consumer wants to make the effort to find out.
Some of the worst abuses of farm workers prevail today because the workers are invisible to society.
In this paper I will introduce a group of people who labor in the fields to produce our food, and specifically winter tomatoes. The paper will describe the struggle of migrant farm workers in southwestern Florida to work safely and fairly. I will use indicators described by David Pellow in his book, “Garbage Wars” (1), to show that the working conditions for that group of laborers warrants the label of environmental injustice. The paper will explore some of the injustices that have exploited this class of workers to the benefit of industrial farms and indirectly, to our own benefit as consumers. It will discuss some of the historical background of the injustices in order to help us better understand the roots of the problem. It will identify the multiple stakeholder relationships, and will delve into the specific struggles and actions these workers and others have taken to resist the injustices. Finally, the paper will consider the issues that continue to face the workers in the road towards environmental justice.
A History of Agriculture in Immokalee
The hub of tomato agriculture in Florida is centered in a community in the far southwest portion of the state, called Immokalee. About twenty miles north, the Caloosahatchee River connects the Gulf of Mexico with Lake Okeechobee. Immokalee itself is on high ground, an important feature that attracted agribusiness to the area, because the land doesn’t require draining. Prior to the use of land by agriculture, though, Immokalee was a small cattle town. In 1921, the Atlantic Coast Line Railway was extended south, connecting Immokalee to the rest of the country, facilitating commerce. Construction of the railroad attracted US-born Blacks to the area to fill the need for labor.
In the 1930’s, lumber developed as a new use of the land around Immokalee. Timber attracted more workers, and the sawmill owners built living quarters for the workers. Resin from the tree stumps was sold for use in explosives and medicine, and the stumps were removed for that purpose. Before long, however, the virgin cypress and pine were logged out, and the sawmills had to close down. With the trees and even the stumps cleared out, the land was ready for vegetable farming.
In 1940, Immokalee Growers, Inc. was established as the first packinghouse in Immokalee, and with that, agribusiness began shooting down roots in the region.
With the advent of the Second World War, so many farmworkers left the fields of Florida (and across the country) either to fight in the war or to work in various war industries, that their vacancies left a serious shortage of workers to harvest the crops needed to feed the nation. To answer that need, US president Franklin D. Roosevelt negotiated an agreement with Mexico in 1942 that offered a guarantee of basic protections to Mexican workers. Known as the “Bracero Program”, the Mexican Farm Labor Program sponsored millions of guest workers from Mexico from 1942 to 1964. (2) (3) Many of those workers came to Immokalee.
As land was devoted to agriculture, the need for workers grew, and Mexicans immigrated in droves under the Bracero Program to fill that need. They left poverty and corruption in their home country in the hopes of finding work in Immokalee. Most had very little education and spoke no English, but they had what was needed for the fields: experience and drive. They just wanted to work and make better lives for themselves.
In 1959, American-owned businesses in Cuba were taken over by Castro. During the ensuing revolution, many people left Cuba and came to the Immokalee area because of the availability of work. In 1962, a US trade embargo was established against the purchase of products from Cuba, and this is when big vegetable growers started arriving in Immokalee and agribusiness started to take off in Southern Florida. Improvements in technology (e.g. culture beds, drip irrigation, fertilization, plastic mulching) made it possible to grow tomatoes there, despite the infertile, sandy soil. During that time the workforce was still dominated by Blacks and destitute Whites, but the population of Latinos (mostly Cubans, and Mexicans) was growing. Other workers started coming from Puerto Rico, and Tejanos (Mexicans from Texas) came from southeast Texas to work in Immokalee during the 60’s.
In 1980, Fidel Castro’s regime announced that Cubans were free to emigrate to the US from a single port, Mariel. The US welcomed the Cubans from this “Freedom Flotilla”, as refugees. Although not as welcomed by the Americans as the Cubans, Haitians came along with them by the thousands, many staying in Miami, and others moving on to rural communities, like Immokalee.
Guatemalans first came to the Immokalee area in the early 1980’s. In the mid-1980s they were able to file asylum claims because of the war in their home country.
In the 80’s new immigrants arrived in Immokalee every day with no money and no place to stay. They needed to live in proximity to the parking lots where buses picked up workers for the fields, so the south side of Immokalee became more and more crowded. The place named “Immokalee” from the Seminole word for “My Home”, had no room for the hopeful workers. They slept under trailers, under trees, in cardboard boxes. Once they worked and were able to save a little money, they could rent a place to stay. Slumlords, however, charged exorbitant prices for them to share a trailer or room or shack with other immigrants.
In the 1990’s the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), and the devaluation of the Mexican peso, made it easier for farmers in Mexico to compete with American growers, and subsequently, the influx of immigrants settled down to a more steady pace. Florida’s tomato revenues went down 20% during that time; some tomato companies in Immokalee went out of business. Still, Immokalee remained one of the first places new immigrants came.
The immigrants arrived in Immokalee with only a few dollars and their clothes in a bag, and they spoke no English. They came to Immokalee because they heard there was work there. Once here, they work in the fields of all winter, sending what they can back to their loved ones in their home country. At the end of the season, they pack everything they own into bags and migrate north for the summer season to follow the crops. (3)
Figure 1: Migrant farm workers picking tomatoes in Florida. Photo from Britannica Online for Kids (4)
The Men and Women Who Pick the Food We Eat
Facing extreme poverty in their home countries, men and women come at great risk to Immokalee with a deep hope for a better life. Today Mexicans make up over 50% of Immokalee’s population. 8-10% are Haitians, and 5-10% Guatemalans. (3) Many leave behind family members, including children or ailing parents unable to make the risky journey. Many speak only their native dialects, having no English skills and in fact, very little Spanish. They come with little education, but they nurture great courage in the face of the unfamiliar culture, harboring the hope that they may be able to earn money to send home to their families. They come prepared to work hard, and are driven by desperate need.
Since the Bracero Program, legal immigration has become very difficult for Mexicans. Immigration from any country requires a sponsor (a company or close relative who is a permanent resident or US citizen) to petition to bring them in. Even with a sponsor, the limit on visas issued per year per country means that a potential immigrant might have to wait years before a visa becomes available. Because of this, many prospective migrants turn to “coyotes,” smugglers who facilitate the migration to America, for a price. Many of these migrants show up at the fields of Immokalee, where they work for cash. (3) According to the National Agricultural Workers Survey (NAWS), half of all hired crop farmworkers lack legal authorization to work in the United States. (5)
Picking tomatoes is “piecework”, which means workers are paid by the bushel picked, not by the hour. Fresh market tomatoes must be picked by hand, because splits, dents, and gouges from automated machines are unacceptable in a fresh tomato. In this way, the fresh-market tomato agricultural methods in Immokalee differ from those whose tomatoes are destined for canning purposes; canning tomatoes are harvested by machine.
Because they are paid by the bushel, workers must be fast and able to endure long (usually 12-hour) days of back-breaking work. They must also be able to run their bushel baskets quickly to the waiting truck; those workers assigned areas farther from the truck are paid less, because they are forced to spend more time running than picking. On average, workers pick 20 buckets per hour. (6) Without even considering running time, that means the workers fill a bucket in about three minutes time.
I wanted to have first-hand experience of farming myself, so this past summer I volunteered to work part-time on an organic produce farm in central Illinois. Since the tomatoes were destined for local markets, we harvested only the fruits that had ripened on the vine, so extra care was needed in handling the tomatoes because of their ripened tenderness. Instead of bushel baskets, in which the weight of tomatoes would certainly crush those on the bottom, we used very shallow baskets. In contrast to the three-minute average picking time achieved by the workers described above, I was only able to pick one shallow bucket in about a half-hour’s time. The experienced farm hands were able to pick much faster than I, but were still significantly slower than three minutes per bucket. This experience gave me a real appreciation for the kind of work demanded of migrant workers. In order to fill a bushel basket with tomatoes, albeit solid fruit, those workers’ hand and arm movements must be lightning fast.
The pay for workers is no different than it was 30 years ago, and when adjusted for inflation, it’s about half of what it was then (7). Because they don’t have their own vehicles, workers are bussed to the farms. They are not compensated for time spent waiting for morning dew to dry, or for inclement weather. Less than a tenth of migrant farmworkers have health insurance, and they seldom receive overtime pay. The 2008 Profile of Hired Farmworkers (5) reports that, at $350, the median weekly earnings of full-time farm workers are only 59% those of all wage/salary employees, and that migrant farmworkers earn even less than settled farmworkers. Because of the seasonal nature of their work, harvest weeks are limited, and farm workers in Florida report annual incomes of between $7000 and $9000. (6)
Their health is poorer, and their children face more difficult educational challenges than their settled peers. The housing conditions are substandard because of “crowding, poor sanitation, poor housing quality, proximity to pesticides, and lax inspection and enforcement of housing regulations.” Agricultural work is “among the most hazardous occupations in the United States, and farmworker health remains a considerable occupational concern. Farmworkers face exposure to pesticides, risk of heat exhaustion and heat stroke, inadequate sanitary facilities, and obstacles in obtaining health care due to high costs and language barriers.” (5)
When we as American consumers purchase cheap tomatoes that come from the farms of Immokalee, we are benefitting from a system that is unfair to the workers. The men and women who work the fields are essentially subsidizing the price of our cheap tomatoes through their lack of fair wages for the dangerous service they provide.
Chemical Exposure
Because of the poor soil quality in Florida, research to improve growing conditions for tomato production began in the mid 1940’s. Growers avoided increases in various plant pathogens and weeds associated with repeated cropping, by moving their growing enterprises to previously un-cropped land every couple of years. However during the late 1950’s, the availability of inexpensive land was reduced due to the growth of urban populations competing for the land, and growers faced the dilemma of having to reuse the same land for their crops in order to be profitable. In order to control a complex known as “old land disease” in fresh market tomato crops, a system was developed in the 1960’s that included in-the-row fumigation, followed by the application of a polyethylene mulch and fertilizers, with maintenance of a high water table. This system was widely employed to enable the frequent re-use of the land for tomato crops. Modified and improved since the 1970’s, it is still the system of choice for the majority of Florida tomato growers. (8)
Over 30 chemicals are routinely sprayed onto a tomato field during the growing season (9). Many are rated highly toxic and some (metribuzin, mancozeb, and avermectin) are known to be “developmental and reproductive toxins”, according to the Pesticide Action Network (10).
Pesticide exposure results in toxic effects that can be both acute and chronic. Depending on the classification of the pesticide, symptoms may vary, but acute symptoms include blurry vision, headache, dizziness, fatigue, diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, heavy sweating, muscle or abdominal pain, tremors, lack of coordination, confusion, skin irritation, irritability, sensitivity to sound or touch, blindness, fingernail loss, nosebleeds, loss of appetite, twitching muscles, difficulty walking, talking, and concentrating, convulsions, unconsciousness, difficulty breathing, coma, and even death. (11)
Chronic health impacts include many types of cancers and neurological effects. Many years after the exposure, large numbers of people who have suffered serious acute poisoning have “significantly impaired hearing, vision, intelligence, coordination, reaction time, memory, and reasoning.” Cognitive symptoms of chronic damage to the nervous system “include personality changes, anxiety, irritability, and depression.” Fertility can be affected through damage to men’s and women’s reproductive organs, as unfortunately many have learned to their deep sorrow. Many pesticides that persist for long periods in the environment are also known to be endocrine disruptors. (11)
When pesticides are used, the US Environmental Protection Agency requires a certain amount of time to pass before workers may return to the fields. Workers have reported violations of this regulation, stating that they were ordered to pick the fruit during the safety interval.
In the United States, government estimates indicate more than 20,000 farmworkers out of 5 million or more workers in this country suffer acute pesticide poisonings per year. As for chronic impacts, no serious effort has been made to develop estimates of annual cases, because of the difficulty in linking the effects to the pesticides. At the global level, the World Health Organization estimates that three million acute pesticide poisonings occur each year, including 220,000 fatalities. (11)
One of those workers affected by pesticides was 19-year-old Francisca Herrera. She worked in fields that had recently been sprayed with mancozeb, 24 to 36 days into a pregnancy (12). Her son Carlos was born without arms or legs, a rare condition called tetra-amelia syndrome. “When you work on the plants, you smell the chemicals,” she said. “It has happened to me many times that when you are working and the chemical has dried and turned to dust that you breathe it.” (7)
Regulations require that workers use protective eyewear, gloves, rubber aprons, and vapor respirators. Herrera said she had not been warned of the dangers or advised of the protective regulations. She felt sick with nausea, dizziness, and burning eyes the entire time she worked in the field. She subsequently developed rashes and open sores.
Herrera’s boss, a subcontractor to Ag-Mart, told her that if she did not work, she would be kicked out of the room he was providing. Because of her pregnancy, she needed a place to live, so despite her illness she continued to work. Even after quitting the fields for the childbirth, she continued to hand-wash the chemical-soaked clothes of both her husband and brother.
After Carlos’ birth, he needed constant medical attention. Although by birth he was an American citizen, Herrera and her husband were undocumented and at risk of deportation. There was not much they could do for their son.
Florida surpasses most other states in its use of pesticides and toxic chemicals. For example, in 2006, Florida’s tomato farmers applied nearly eight million pounds of insecticides, fungicides, and herbicides, compared to only one million in California (7). This is likely because the conditions in Florida are not conducive to growing tomatoes, because of the lack of rich soil and also because of the high number of pests that thrive year-round in the Florida sunshine.
In 2006, the Florida Department of Health reported only two definite or probable cases of harmful pesticide exposure among its agricultural workforce of roughly 400,000 men and women. California, with only three times the number of workers, reported 200 cases. Because of the higher risk of exposure in Florida, this may be evidence of a lack of enforcement of regulations.
In both Florida and California, physicians are required to report cases of pesticide poisoning. But in Florida that law is “unenforced and ignored” (7). The director of the hospital where Herrera’s deformed baby Carlos was born said he wasn’t even aware of the regulation.
According to a 1997 report, “Indifference to Safety: Florida’s Investigation Into Pesticide Poisoning of Farmworkers,” Florida enforcement of safety regulations meant to prevent avoidable exposure and injury came up short:
· The State repeatedly failed to find a causal connection between pesticide exposure and the injuries suffered by farmworkers.
· The State found regulatory violations in 31 instances, but issued only two fines.
· The State failed to adequately investigate poisoning complaints even when a farmworker was seriously injured or killed, by systematically: failing to interview co-workers or other eyewitnesses out of the presence of supervisory personnel (with adequate translators); failing to obtain relevant medical records; routinely accepting uncorroborated employer claims of compliance; using checklists as a substitute for a thorough on-site inspection; and ignoring evidence of employer retaliation.
· The State lacked adequate investigative protocols.
· The State failed to coordinate the investigative efforts of FDACS and other enforcement agencies, such as OSHA.
· The State failed to impose meaningful penalties when pesticide violations resulted in worker injury. (13)
This indifference to worker safety on the part of the state has resulted in a corresponding indifference on the part of the landowners, who take advantage of the lack of enforcement to improve efficiency of their farming processes, at the expense of the workers.
Most cases of illness from pesticide exposure go unreported. Workers are not trained to recognize symptoms of pesticide poisoning, which can be similar to the common cold or flu. They do not have health insurance and many workers are undocumented, so they avoid visits to the doctor in any case. Many are embarrassed to be seen as weak, so continue to work through their illnesses. In many cases, they are threatened with termination if they miss work due to illness, or report being sprayed.
One example was Guadalupe Gonzales III, who arrived at work in 2005 at 7 AM, at a farm operated by Thomas Produce Company, then one of the biggest players in the Florida produce business. Gonzales did not report directly to the farm, but to a contractor, or “crew boss,” Raul Humberto Ruiz. Gonzales’ assignment that day was to apply methyl bromide.
The EPA classifies methyl bromide as a “Category I Acute Toxin,” the most deadly category. The label instructions on the chemical container read “All persons working with this fumigant must be knowledgeable about the hazards, and trained in the use of the required respirator equipment and detector devices, emergency procedures and proper use of the equipment.” Gonzales claimed that he had not received training, and was not even told the name of the pesticide, and he was wearing a short-sleeved shirt. By 11:00, his head started aching, his eyes stung, and he experienced severe chest pains. Instead of sending him to a medical facility for treatment, the crew leader told him to sit in the air-conditioned truck. After a while Gonzales felt better, so returned to work, but that evening his condition worsened, and he went to the emergency room. Two days later he returned to the fields and his symptoms returned, so he filed for worker’s compensation. He reported that his boss fired him saying, “If you keep feeling bad, I can’t keep you as part of the crew anymore.” Gonzales lost his job for following protocol. Ultimately, the state fined the company $5000, a slap in the wrist. The fine was later reduced to $3500 on appeal. (7)
Another example of this indifference to safety was Victor Grimaldi. He recalled his first day on the job: “I was taken into the office, and the first thing the boss said was, ‘Sign this!’ It was a document written in English, which I don’t read or speak, but I needed work, so what was I going to say?” Grimaldi was then shown a pesticide-handling safety video, also in English, but he was able to understand a little bit from the context of the graphics. He was given a backpack-mounted tank full of pesticide, and told to start spraying a row of tomatoes. Eventually he came to a group of pickers, so he moved around them. When the boss asked him why he moved, Grimaldi replied that he had just seen a video showing that spraying near people was against the law. “I’m the law out here,” the boss replied, and ordered Grimaldi to return to the row with the pickers.
Later that day, Grimaldi had to stand in what seemed to be water, but that night his toenails fell off in the shower, like flakes of soap. Grimaldi said that when workers complained, they lost their jobs. So workers learned to be silent about their symptoms. (7)
Is this abuse of workers an environmental justice issue?
The Stakeholders
The fact that agricultural reliance on pesticides continues to grow despite evidence of the devastation to our ecology, forces us to question why. We must examine the mechanisms of power that operate in corporations and in our national regulatory agencies, and look directly at the economic and social contexts that “grant official invisibility” to epidemic levels of poisonings, health consequences, and ecological damage. (11)
Farmworkers fear being fired or being labeled as troublemakers if they seek medical help, or take time off work to recover. According to one study, nine percent of farmers reported at least one incident serious enough to seek medical attention. The same study noted that the farmers “tended to accept this level of illness as part of the work of farming.” (11) This perplexing level of submission in the face of injury underscores the level of social disparity that exists, allowing astounding rates of occupational hazard to persist without (A): consequences to the suppliers of the pesticide products or to the subcontractors who perpetuate the lackadaisical enforcement of precautions that already exist, or (B): subsequent adoption and enforcement of regulatory measures sufficient to reduce the rate of injury.
Industry scientists, regulators, pesticide users, and public interest groups all agree that the chronic use of pesticides is a health and environmental hazard. It would be logical to think that a course of action leading away from the use of pesticides would be prudent. But somehow, this is not what is happening. Instead, excuses stack up against regulations to stall them: “They can be applied in a safe and harmless manner if instructions are followed”, they say. “Research we’ve sponsored indicates that no significant hazard exists.” “By controlling the exposure we can control the risk.” “Alternatives are not cost effective.” “We don’t know enough about the extent of harm to justify extreme measures.” “The harm done is outweighed by the economic benefits of using the pesticide…” Such claims by the chemical companies and big growers having both political and economic clout serve to perpetuate the debate endlessly in our regulatory system, resulting ultimately in an abhorrent lack of action against the use of pesticides. The first to lose are those farmworkers who experience primary exposure. The second losers are the ecosystems which are all affected by the use of pesticides. The third losers are the American consumers who are unwittingly sponsoring the use of pesticides in their food with their purchases, unaware of the health consequences not only to the workers, but also to themselves as they consume products grown in a manner that marries dangerous chemicals to their food. And who are the winners?
Six of the world’s top six chemical and seed companies, collectively known as the “Big Six”, control the first link in the corporate food chain. Business-friendly court decisions in the 1980’s opened the door to a faster rate of market concentration than any other farm input sector. The Big Six agenda promotes chemical dependence in a way that thwarts both public and private sector alternatives and innovation. Heading the list at 19% market share of agrochemical sales in 2009 is a company named Syngenta, based in Switzerland. Bayer (Germany, 17%), BASF (Germany, 11%), Monsanto (USA, 10%), Dow AgroSciences (USA, 9%), and DuPont (USA, 5%) follow close behind. The six companies enjoy a collective market share worldwide of 71%. These companies have a dangerous chokehold on the global agricultural research agenda. They determine to an astonishing degree, the priorities and future direction of agriculture research worldwide. (14) (15) According to a study prepared for the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, there is “clear evidence suggesting a trend towards greater concentration at several stages” of the agricultural input segment. Three leading companies account for roughly half of the total market. An aspect of the convergence of the agricultural market is increased coordination, which can be interpreted as a trend towards “contractual arrangements, alliances, and tacit collusive practices” between the companies. Evidence suggests a trend towards heightened strategic cooperation among the largest competitors. Vertical coordination upward and downward along the food chain including the handling, processing, and marketing of agricultural inputs is also noted in the report. (16)
Syngenta, Monsanto, and their other chemical buddies, along with the businesses involved in the marketing of the food and products, are the big winners in the chemical war, and they laugh their way all the way to the bank.
The fact that pesticides continue to be used, promoted, and accepted in spite of the serious consequences, is a symptom of this different, more sinister kind of chronic poisoning. Economic policies that put short-term agricultural profits first at the expense of health and social concerns are gaining ground. Continuing public confusion about the extent of damage from pesticides, weak regulations and enforcement, and a lack of public investment in alternative sustainable pest management approaches that already exist, are additional symptoms of the poisonous influence of this industry. (11)
The structural changes that are unfolding in the agricultural industries up and down the food chain are subtle. They are difficult to detect because of the complexity of corporate deals that often escape public scrutiny. (16) Besides the growing monopoly of the chemical market, other key components have been instrumental in perpetuating the destructive use of pesticides.
First, the agricultural industry has worked to guarantee an oversupply of farm workers by lobbying and negotiating for labor and guest worker programs such as the Bracero Program described above. Big growers have used their political influence to have immigration restrictions loosened. They have also worked, sometimes illicitly, to recruit a steady stream of uneducated and desperately poor men and women who are vulnerable to their manipulations and thus unable to voice the horror of their predicament. It is in the growers’ best interests to ensure an oversupply of impoverished workers, because of the resulting competition among the workers and the ensuing silence of their voices for the sake of their jobs.
Further, growers have historically sought to define farmworkers as a special group of laborers who do not merit the same workplace protections or rights to organize as other American workers. When other workers were provided with basic labor protections in the 1930s (minimum wage, Social Security, unemployment insurance, the right to organize), farmworkers were specifically excluded.
Layers of contractors and subcontractors allow large companies to distance themselves from the workers they rely on. Farmworkers are forced to struggle within an informal world that is difficult to regulate because of the unnavigable layers.
The Resistance
In 1993, a small group of workers in Florida’s largest farmworker community, Immokalee, began meeting weekly in a room borrowed from a local church to discuss how to better their community and lives. They organized themselves as the “Coalition of Immokalee Workers”, or CIW. At first their efforts focused on raising wages, and later they became more activist, focusing as well on workers’ rights. By 1998 they had won industry-wide raises of 13-25%, which brought the workers’ pay back up to pre-1980 levels. But wages remained below poverty level.
In 2001, the CIW called for a Taco Bell boycott to pressure the company to take responsibility for human rights abuses in the fields of Florida. In 2005, Taco Bell finally agreed to meet the demands of CIW to improve wages and working conditions for the Florida workers in its supply chain. Later, McDonald’s and Burger King also reached agreements with CIW. Whole Foods Market, Trader Joe’s, and Subway have also followed suit. (17)
An offshoot of CIW’s successful Campaign for Fair Food, The Fair Food Standards Council opened in November 2011, and now oversees the “Fair Food Program”, which forms a new model of social accountability. Through this program, participating buyers give preference to Florida growers participating in the program, and pay a 1.5 cent premium per pound of tomatoes. The growers agree to a worker education program conducted by the CIW, agree to have compliance independently monitored, agree to pass on the price premiums to their workers, and implement a system of health and safety which affords the workers structured input into the safety of their work environment. (18) (19) Directing the program is 58-year old Laura Safer Espinoza, former New York Supreme Court justice, who came out of retirement to take on the daunting responsibility. She had moved to Florida anticipating to volunteer to help the Immokalee tomato pickers, but applied for the FFSC position instead, when she learned of the opening. “I feel it’s an honor and a privilege to be part of a moment in history when buyers and growers and workers come together to rectify an historic injustice,” she said. (20)
The case of Carlitos Candelario versus AgMart
The benefit of having such a coalition in place to provide a voice for the people is evident in the story of baby Carlos, described earlier in this paper. Had his plight occurred in isolation, his defects would have been considered an unfortunate anomaly. But incredibly, two other infants having severe deformities were born to workers in the same community, and all three babies were born within eight weeks of each other. One of the three babies died within three days. All three mothers worked for the same company, Ag-Mart Produce, Inc. Because of the migratory nature of farmworkers, it is unknown exactly how many total births occurred in the area at the time, but it is estimated that 25 live births occur per year among 191 female farmworkers that were employed in the area where the mothers worked, or two live births per month. If we consider the three-month period during which these three unfortunate infants were born, and assuming the other three estimated births during the period were healthy, that provides an incidence rate of 50%. (12) In Florida, approximately 3% of live births have major birth defects, so in contrast, the three incidences together with baby Carlos present a tragically significant case.
Andrew Yaffa is an attorney widely recognized as one of the top lawyers in the state of Florida. He learned of the plight of baby Carlos through the Coalition, and decided to take on the entire modern agricultural industry with its chemical-based philosophy in a trial that would eventually have important ramifications for agricultural workers in Florida. Instead of suing the chemical company that made the pesticide that resulted in Carlos’ deformity, Yaffa decided to depart from convention and go to battle against the corporate farm where Herrera had worked. He approached Carlos’ mother, Francisca Herrera, and promised to bear all of the legal expenses himself, and be paid only by taking a percentage of anything they won in the lawsuit.
Through tissue samples, genetics were ruled out as a cause of Carlos’ deformity, and it became an environmental issue. Dr. Omar Shafey PhD, an epidemiologist, told Yaffa that the three instances of defects within such a short period represented a cluster that could not possibly have happened by chance. Dr. J. Routt Reigart stated that in his opinion, Herrerra had been “exposed to a witch’s brew of herbicides during the early stages of her pregnancy.” (7)
Herrera and her husband, Abraham Candelario, are from Guatemala, and speak no English and very little Spanish. During the deposition in 2006, Herrera made the following points through an interpreter:
· She had gotten her job with Ag-Mart when a recruiter had come to her village and offered to take her to the company’s farms with other workers.
· She acknowledged that she had signed a document, “Chasing the Sun Training Acknowledgement”, which stated that she had watched a training video about pesticide handling. However, she had not seen the video; she just signed the papers they had given her.
· She also acknowledged that she had signed a questionnaire that had been filled out by Ricardo Davilos, an employee of the Florida Agriculture Department following Carlos’ birth. She had told Davilos that she had felt sick whenever the tomatoes were sprayed; she got headaches and earaches, and her eyes would burn. She also got a rash on her skin. What Davilos wrote on the document, however, was that “I have never been sprayed and was not made to work in a field that was sprayed.” She’d had no idea what had been written on the document she signed.
· There was enough spray to make her clothes wet with the spray. She said, “when you put your hands in the plants, immediately it sticks to you.” But she could not wear gloves because she didn’t have the money to buy them. She described being sprayed directly two or three times per week. She and other workers would try to run from the spray, but the wind would carry the spray to them anyway.
· When Herrera stayed home sick one day, her boss told her that if she didn’t come in to work she would need to move out of the house.
In 2008, nearly three years after Yaffa took on the case, they settled out of court. Ag-Mart admitted no guilt, but paid a substantial (undisclosed) sum, enough to ensure care for Carlos for the rest of his life. The money was placed in a life-care plan, overseen by a trustee who is charged with making sure the funds are used to directly support the boy. Although the agreement resulted in the success and resolution of the individual case for Carlos, it was a disappointment that the deeper and farther-reaching tangle of issues surrounding the consequences of the pesticides were left unaddressed. Still, a precedent was set that will hopefully pave the way for future cases. The silence was broken.
The Organic Movement
The question of whether pesticides are needed at all is under hot debate. Organic methods are being developed that can sustain the kind of yield capable of feeding the world, without the use of the herbicides and insecticides that present such great risk to people and our ecology. Proponents of conventional methods fear that organic methods add significant cost to the price of our food such that it would not be affordable at large-scale. Consider though that the costs of collateral damage due to conventional methods are not currently reflected in the price of the food we buy. We are paying with our tax dollars (and with our health) for damage resulting from the destruction of our soil and waterways, and for the devastating effects of toxicity to farm workers. We haven’t even begun to bear the costs of the massive cleanup efforts that will ultimately be needed, or of the enormous loss of the fossil fuels consumed by conventional methods. The consequences of the deterioration of our soil and water resources, and the long-term effects on our ecology such as global warming, will have to be faced at some point if we continue such unsustainable farming practices. Additionally, our taxes subsidize the production of certain conventionally produced crops. All of these costs are paid behind the scenes, hidden from the consumers. Those costs are significant; we cannot afford not to use organic methods.
In one astounding study whose results were just released this past summer, researchers found that low-input, high-diversity (LIHD) rotations outperformed the conventional system in yields, while surprisingly producing similar profits.
The project, conducted by Iowa State University, began ten years ago on the University’s Marsden Farm in Boone County. It compares the conventional corn-soybean system with two alternatives of three-year or four-year rotations with a cover crop. Yields from the rotation crops were actually greater on average than those using conventional methods for both corn (4% greater), and the soybeans (9%). The longer rotations reduced herbicides by 88% compared with the conventional system, with little difference in the amount of weeds observed. The freshwater toxicity resulting from the herbicides used was 200 times less in the longer rotations.
Another important finding of the study was that, in addition to the improvement in yields, profits obtained from the rotations were similar to those using conventional methods, even during the transition years, and even though labor expenses were higher. This is a significant consideration for farms that support diversification of cropland.
The results were achieved by replacing purchased chemical inputs with combinations of ecological processes, human knowledge, production management skills, and labor.
While the methods were not strictly organic in certification terms, the results show that both yield and profits comparable to or exceeding conventional methods may be obtained while minimizing the use of synthetic fertilizers, herbicides, and fossil fuels. The diverse rotations also enrich the soil, break disease and weed cycles, and diminish erosion. They protect nearby waterways from pollution and reduce the risk of creating herbicide-resistant weeds. (21) (22) (23)
This is big news, indeed. The success of this study should encourage further long-term studies for other crops that are conventionally under high use of chemicals for production, including tomatoes.
The Continuing Struggle
Efforts of the Coalition of Immokalee Workers have gone a long way to improve conditions and risks faced by the men and women of the fields. While these interventions have improved the lives of many workers and their families, they have failed to transform farm labor into a job that can provide a living wage. A farmworker’s status has become so institutionalized that the “only way to improve the lives of migrant farmworkers is by challenging the structure of our nation’s farm labor system.” (24)
The Fair Food Program won’t be sustainable unless the major grocery stores participate and reward the growers with their purchases and pay the price premium. Although Whole Foods Market and Trader Joe’s have led the way in their participation of the program, major supermarket chains including Ahold, Kroger’s, and Publix, Dominick’s, and Jewel, have yet to sign on to the program. The US Agriculture Department itself leaves an additional and conspicuous vacancy in the Fair Food Program; the Department does not participate in the program for its own school lunch program purchases. (25)
Every five years since 1949, Congress revises and reauthorizes massive agricultural legislation in what is known as the Farm Bill, which has far-reaching and significant implications not only for the farmers, but also for us as consumers, because to a large extent it determines the food we eat. Among the important provisions of the 2008 Farm Bill that are relevant to this paper is the CRP Transition Incentives Program, which provides for a transition option for beginning and socially disadvantaged farmers. Under this program, incentives are given to land owners to transition their land to organic use of the land or to make conservation improvements. Other provisions of the Bill support the growth of the local food and organic movements, including a Farmers Market Promotion Program, a National Organic Certification Cost Share Program, an Organic Agriculture Research and Extension Initiative, and a program for Outreach and Assistance to Socially Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers. This year Congress has worked overtime to debate the features of the next Bill, but incredibly, three weeks ago on September 30, the current bill was allowed to expire in what has been called a “Congressional Meltdown.” Congress not only failed to pass a new Farm Bill, but in an unprecedented debacle failed to pass even a short-term extension to provide ongoing legal authority. When Congress returns to its lame-duck session next month, our legislators will have to either hammer out the new Bill within a month and turn it over to the President (something they were unable to do even without lame-duck status), or extend the old Bill. If that happens, the new Congress beginning session after the first of the year will have to start all over again at square one to draft an all new Bill for 2013. This is a classic example of the kind of policy paralysis that is surrounding the deeply controversial matters of farming, and of the sticky stronghold and influence Big Agribusiness has on our legislators.
Despite all this, many independent farmers are continuing to develop alternative ecologically sustainable farming methods, sometimes at significant personal sacrifice. They are leading the way towards more widespread use of responsible techniques to fulfill their inherent stewardship of the land and to protect the workers under their employ. Those heroic farmers need the support of consumers. Additionally, more public and private funds need to be dedicated to research, and programs designed to reduce pesticide use need to be put into place. We need more than simple assurances from corporations that the fox is not in the henhouse. Independent verification and enforceable regulations will go a long way in ensuring a continuous progression towards cleaner farm practices, safer working conditions, and fair labor practices. We need to put effective mechanisms into place for targeting specific uses of hazardous chemicals, removing them from the market, and replacing them with safer approaches. Preventing the release of harmful chemicals into our environment is actually the “most effective, economical, and morally justifiable approach to safeguarding people and ecosystems from costly and sometimes irreversible damages.” (11)
The secrecy and misinformation surrounding farm practices continue to leave consumers in the dark and protect the companies who benefit; this lack of awareness remains a huge obstacle to the development of safer approaches. Big growers satiate the public’s desire for clean, healthy food by churning out advertisements proclaiming the buzzwords of the system, such as “Fresh”, “Natural”, “Healthy”, and “Pure”. Photographs of beautiful, serene farm country grace the packages of farm products and the aisles of the supermarkets to give the impression of beauty, safety, and serenity; they proclaim a subliminal message to the consumer that all is well and good at our farms. These are stalling tactics that work miracles in turning otherwise public scrutiny away from the tragic reality. The fact that these messages are sometimes partially true makes it all the more easy to swallow the myth that all is well in agriculture in our beloved free country. The lack of awareness of the true sinister scale of damage associated with conventional farming practices keeps people from challenging assumptions that we benefit more than we lose from those practices. We must address the social contexts in which massive unnecessary pesticide damages are considered “normal” and “acceptable”. Helping the American consumer to discern agricultural fact from these profitable fantasies will require a consistent and steady increase in disclosure; the voice of reality must be loud enough to match the corporate propaganda of the agri-giants. This voice of truth must be strong enough to touch the sensitivities of the public consumers. It must produce the justifiable outrage that will ultimately generate support for the change that is so desperately needed. Exposing the hidden dimensions of pesticide damage remains an urgent public and environmental health priority. (11)
Conclusion
As we are reminded by Daniel Rothenberg, “Hands touch, feel, caress, and labor, reminding us that, in the end, production is always linked to people – to their lives, struggles, and stories.” (24) The tomatoes we purchase with little thought reach our supermarkets at a great cost that is not reflected in their retail price. This cost is ultimately absorbed by farmworkers in Immokalee and other areas throughout the country, who are among the poorest of American workers. They are recruited from among the least powerful cultures and are historically denied equal protections. Because of their language difficulties, their lack of authorization in this country, and the lack of awareness of their inherent rights, they lack the ability to resist this injustice and their human rights are ignored. Through the lack of educational opportunities for their children, their poverty perpetuates from one generation to the next. The history of America’s farmworkers is a “tale of an entire class of laborers who have been repeatedly denied access to our nation’s promise that hard work will be justly rewarded.” (24)
Although the tomato industry faces problems such as perishable products and volatile weather, and although the seasonal nature of tomato crops requires workers to migrate and to work for multiple employers, there is no reason why these men and women should be our nation’s poorest laborers.
A lack of popular awareness has come about because our culture has isolated those who are more fortunate from those who are less fortunate. “The apparent invisibility of production is a form of social forgetting, a politics of glossing over the real social and economic relations that allow for our high standard of living.” (24) This state of forgetting reflects the poignant failure of our country to live up to its own ideals. We must work to restore the links in our local food systems that bring farmers and consumers together. These links represent the key to raising awareness of the issues and of the tragic abuse of those who feed us, the very abuses agri-giants would rather we don’t see. Ultimately, it is those links that may help us to heal our broken agricultural system.
Bibliography
x
| 1. | Pellow DN. Garbage Wars: The Struggle For Environmental Justice In Chicago Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press; 2002. |
| 2. | Wikipedia: Bracero Program. [Online]. [cited 2012 10 27. Available from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bracero_Program. |
| 3. | Thissen CA. Immokalee's Fields of Hope Lincoln, NE: iUniverse Star; 2002. |
| 4. | Encyclopaedia Britannica Kids. [Online]. [cited 2012 October 28. Available from: http://kids.britannica.com/comptons/art-117513/Migrant-farm-workers-pick-tomatoes-in-central-Florida. |
| 5. | Kandel W. Profile of Hired Farmworkers, A 2008 Update. Washington, DC: United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service; 2008. |
| 6. | Jill L. Findeis AMVJMLJLR. The Dynamics of Hired Farm Labour: Constraints and Community New York: CABI Publishing; 2003. |
| 7. | Estabrook B. Tomatoland Kansas City, Missouri: Andrews McMeel Publishing, L.L.C.; 2012. |
| 8. | Bewick TA. Use Of Soil Sterilants In Florida Vegetable Production. In III International Symposium on Soil Desinfestation; 1989: ISHS Acta Horticulturae. p. 61-72. |
| 9. | Michael Aerts, Mark Mossler. National Information System of the Regional Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Centers. [Online].; 1999, revised 2006 [cited 2012 October 2. Available from: http://www.ipmcenters.org/cropprofiles/docs/FLtomatoes.pdf. |
| 10. | Pesticide Action Network (PAN). PAN Pesticide Database. [Online].; 2011 [cited 2012 October 2. Available from: http://www.pesticideinfo.org. |
| 11. | Moore M. Hidden Dimensions of Damage: Pesticides and Health. In Kimbrell A, editor. The Fatal Harvest Reader: The Tragedy of Industrial Agriculture. Washington: Island Press; 2002. p. 130-147. |
| 12. | Geoffrey M. Calvert WAAACMSCRBACSHHLLJCABRHAaEE. Case Report: Three Farmworkers Who Gave Birth to Infants with Birth Defects Closely Grouped in Time and Place -- Florida and North Carolina, 2004-2005. Environ Health Perspectives. 2007 May; 115(5): p. 787-791. |
| 13. | Shelley Davis RS. Farmworer Justice. [Online].; 1997 [cited 2012 October 02. Available from: http://foodandfarmworkers.org/sites/default/files/documents/4.6.d.10%20Indifference20to20Safety--Florida27s20investigation20into20pesticide20poisoning20of20farmworkers.pdf. |
| 14. | Shand H. The Big Six: A Profile of Corporate Power in Seeds, Agrochemicals & Biotech.; 2012 [cited 2012 October 28. Available from: http://www.seedsavers.org/pdf/HeritageFarmCompanion_BigSix.pdf. |
| 15. | Pesticide Action Network North America. Chemical Cartel. [Online]. [cited 2012 October 28. Available from: http://www.panna.org/issues/pesticides-profit/chemical-cartel. |
| 16. | UNCTAD Secretariat. Tracking The Trend Towards Market Concentration: The Case Of The Agricultural Input Industry. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development; 2006. |
| 17. | Coalition of Immokalee Workers. [Online]. [cited 2012 October 9. Available from: http://www.ciw-online.org/. |
| 18. | Fair Food Standards Council: The Leading Edge of Human Rights in Agriculture. [Online]. [cited 2012 October 9. Available from: http://fairfoodstandards.org/. |
| 19. | Williams AB. Fair Food Standards Council Oversees Compliance In Order To Protect Tomato Pickers. News-Press. 2012 June 16. |
| 20. | Cox B. Making Tomato Farming Less Brutal. Herald-Tribune. 2012 April 20. |
| 21. | Iowa State University Marsden Farm. [Online].; 2012 [cited 2012 October 29. Available from: http://www.leopold.iastate.edu/sites/default/files/pubs-and-papers/2012-07-diversifying-corn-soybean-rotations.pdf. |
| 22. | C.A. Chase KDMLaKL. Diversifying Corn-Soybean Rotations. [Online].; 2008 [cited 2012 October 29. Available from: http://www.extension.iastate.edu/Publications/PMR1001.pdf. |
| 23. | Robin Gomez MLDNSaCAC. Comparison of crop management strategies involving crop genotype and weed management practices in conventional and more diverse cropping systems. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems. 2012 May 8;: p. 1-14. |
| 24. | Rothenberg D. With These Hands: The Hidden World Of Migrant Farmworkers Today Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press; 2000. |
| 25. | Burkhalter H. Fair Food Program Helps End The Use Of Slavery In The Tomato Fields. Washington Pos. 2012 September 2. |
| 26. | Giagnoni S. Fields Of Resistance, The Struggle of Florida's Farmworkers for Justice Chicago, IL: Haymarker Books; 2011. |
| 27. | Congress Ao1. Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000. [Online].; 2000 [cited 2012 October 9. Available from: http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/10492.pdf. |
| 28. | Kevin Bales RS. The Slave Next Door Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press; 2009. |
| 29. | Lovato R. Gulf Coast Slaves. [Online].; 2005 [cited 2012 October 9. Available from: http://www.salon.com/2005/11/15/halliburton_katrina/. |
| 30. | Estabrook B. Politics Of The Plate: The Price Of Tomatoes. Gourmet Magazine. 2009 March. |
| 31. | Beardsley S. Brothers Receive 12-Year Prison Terms In Immokalee Human Slavery Case. Florida Farmers.. |
| 32. | Convict Lease. [cited 2012 October 9. Available from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convict_lease. |
| 33. | Peonage. [cited 2012 October 9. Available from: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/450524/peonage. |
| 34. | Daniel P. The Shadow of Slavery: Peonage in the South, 1901-1969 Urbana: University of Illinois Press; 1972. |
| 35. | Blackmon DA. Slavery by Another Name: The Re-Enslavement of Black Americans From The Civil War To World War II New York: Anchor Books; 2009. |
x
