The Tough Keep Going: Advancing Forest Practices and Pesticide Reform

Helicopter applying spray on forestry block. Photo by Francis Earthington.

 

We’ve arrived at a moment when an agreement between corporate timber representatives and environmental health and forest protection defenders has been brokered. Perspectives on the value of such an agreement run the gamut, from Governor Brown’s pronouncement of “historic” to the angry claim of “shameless” by social media users. Beyond Toxics came at this with extreme caution because we understand the risks of compromise. We had to evaluate what was lost as a trade for benefits that move the marker closer to our goals: those of non toxic communities and healthy forest ecosystems.

The intent and legal aspects of this agreement, or “memorandum of understanding,” is codified in HB 4168-2. The bill has been set adrift in the stormy, contentious waters of Oregon’s 2020 Legislative Session. The bill passed out of the House Rules Committee last week only to be shunted to the Joint Ways and Means Committee, a place often referred to as “the legislation graveyard.” Whatever your stance on the wisdom of this agreement, there is every possibility that it will fail at one of the hurdles it faces. If HB 4168-2 fails to pass, the entire agreement is scrapped. This isn’t necessarily a setback, because a strong, dedicated coalition of environmental advocates have formed to pursue future policy battles. And there are 3 ballot measures ready to be launched to get a public vote on protecting Oregon’s forest waters. Fortunately, these ballot measures poll very, very well.

Where Does Beyond Toxics Stand?

With twelve years of forest and pesticide reform and rural community health advocacy and leadership to our credit, Beyond Toxics provided in-depth consultation to the negotiators from Oregon Wild and Wild Salmon Center on the timber pesticide and notification sections of the Enviro-Timber Agreement leading to HB 4168-2.

Beyond Toxics supports the agreement because, at the minimum, it establishes a policy floor below which Oregon will never sink. By signing on to this agreement and supporting HB 4168-2, timber companies openly acknowledge for the first time that they can (and should):

  • Protect Oregon’s water with no-spray buffers on all tributaries and headwater streams;
  • Expand no-spray buffer zones on all fish and drinking water streams;
  • Expand no-spray buffers on drinking water intakes to 300 ft.;
  • Provide timely notifications and acknowledge the possibility of pesticide drift by giving 24-hr advanced notice to nearby residents who need to protect themselves and their property;
  • Increase the accuracy of the timber spray notifications and allow access to the files by other state agencies for research purposes;
  • Adopt a pathway forward to developing a Habitat Conservation Plan to protect wildlife.

These are agreements that create a foundation of understanding about the need to update and reform Oregon’s forest practices laws. The agreement levels the playing field so that shared understandings, science and the experience of disproportionate burdens experienced by multiple communities are centered and valued in the next steps moving forward. Now, Oregon legislators have a stronger basis on which to end the current stalemate on pesticide reform and take meaningful action.

The Long Road to an Agreement: Our History of Statewide Activism of Timber Herbicide Use and Water Quality

Beyond Toxics’ early involvement in timber pesticide issues began in 2008 with support for a small group of rural residents called Forestland Dwellers. Led by Lynne Bowers, these folks were hand-coloring maps of where the aerial sprays were happening near their homes. From hand-colored maps and grassroots rallies in communities from Josephine to Tillamook counties, Beyond Toxics launched a science-based and ground-truthing approach. Soon we published our report, Oregon’s Industrial Forests and Herbicide Use: A Case Study of the Risk to People, Drinking Water and Salmon, a 2012 analysis and GIS mapping report on timber herbicide use in the Coastal range of West Lane County. This report provided the first fact-based understanding of herbicide sprays in industrial timberlands; the analysis was based on the spray records provided by timber companies. Our research exposed the multiple years of pesticide spraying the industry had previously denied and the chemical cocktail tank mixes never before revealed. We identified Atrazine, 2,4D, glyphosate and hexazinone as the top four herbicides sprayed in Oregon, contributing to a total of about a dozen poisons. We put together a multi-state comparison documenting how Oregon promotes the weakest forest practices laws in the Pacific Northwest (including Idaho and Alaska).

Then in 2013, Beyond Toxics documented the horrific aerial spray exposures that harmed over 30 people in Gold Beach, Curry County. We worked side-by-side with several residents to lift the voices of this rural community of loggers and blue-collar workers to the attention of state agencies and the Oregon Legislature. The rest of the nation learned about their plight through our video documentation, national media coverage, community health reports, and our petitions to federal agencies.

Cedar Valley residents and Lisa Arkin (3rd from left) testified for aerial pesticide spray reform during the 2015 Oregon legislative session.

 

Together with this tightly-knit community, Beyond Toxics worked with Senator Michael Dembrow and former Representative Ann Lininger in 2015 to introduce SB 613, a bill to require advance spray notifications, buffer zones and more. We organized rural residents from nearly a dozen Oregon counties to travel to the State Legislature to testify and tell their stories of exposure to herbicide drift. It was an epic battle: working-class rural Oregonians versus corporate timber companies, at times attacked by their own legislators. We spoke truth to power to County Commissioners and legislators. 2015 was the session we raised the alarm about former Senator Jeff Kruse, who called his own constituents unsavory names on the floor of the Senate! (Senator Kruse was later ousted by the Legislature on charges of sexual harassment in 2018). Rob Davis, longtime reporter for The Oregonian, chronicled the fight for sensible forest laws.

Former board member David Bahr (left), Lisa Arkin, Beyond Toxics, Executive Director (center) and Darryl Ivy (right) met in spring of 2015,  before he came forward to the press with his story.

 

Then in 2015 I met Darryl Ivy, an employee of Seneca, who attended a Beyond Toxics/Umpqua Watersheds Town Hall meeting in Roseburg with other employees. Darryl was the chemical tank truck driver who videotaped his and other workers’ exposures to aerial spray drift, took pictures of leaking herbicide tank trucks in public parking lots and was forced to mix pesticides with neither training nor a pesticide handler’s license. Darryl’s story had a profound impact on the path to exposing the timber industry’s lax practices and dismal worker protection standards.

Photo taken at a clear-cut site in the Oregon Coast Range. Photo by David Tvedt.

 

Later that same year, Beyond Toxics was contacted by Nancy Webster, a Rockaway Beach resident, about their history of rampant clear cutting and aerial herbicide sprays resulting in contaminated municipal drinking water. We mapped her community’s watershed and actively supported the community’s grassroots efforts and their ongoing and highly successful community conversations series. The Rockaway Beach community and the Curry County residents joined us to testify in the State Legislature!

Oregon’s first timber spray electronic reporting system, no-spray buffers for homes and new requirements for how state agencies must respond and investigate pesticide spray incidents came from Beyond Toxics’ early years of grassroots organizing and advocacy efforts.

In 2017 we came back to the legislature, again with the guidance of Senator Dembrow, to lead the advocacy for forest practices reform bills. In that session we sought to address the public’s right to have advanced warnings about aerial sprays (SB 892), the right to have their day in court without the risk of owing potentially millions of dollars in attorney fees to timber companies (SB 500), and the right to file a claim of property damage or injury to health (SB 499).

Then in 2019 we presented the case and brought forward the concept to ban aerial sprays in state forests (SB 926).

A tour of Shady Creek Forest, an example of a forest managed with resilient forestry practices in Lane County. Photo by Lisa Arkin.

In concert with residents from rural communities reeling from the harm they experience from timber pesticide sprays, Beyond Toxics spearheaded the earliest research, grassroots organizing, video documentaries, Resilient Forestry Tours and legislation – ultimately leading to the recognition of the central importance of spray drift to health of communities  and Oregon’s watersheds. Like tributaries flowing into the mighty river, it is a legacy of work that joins with the impressive efforts of conservation groups like Wild Salmon Center, Oregon Stream Protection Alliance, Oregon Wild and many others.

We’re proud of our legacy of leadership in healthy forests and healthy communities. Today we are also pleased to be working together with a larger coalition of environmental groups to break the proverbial logjam to progress. We have a remarkable opportunity to advance critical first steps towards lasting protections for forest waters and rural communities.

If we remain strong and united, Oregon will finally have a future where forests serve their highest functions as carbon sinks, wildlife habitats, sanctuaries for cool and clear running streams, sustainable logging harvests and places for recreation and reflection. This is all the more reason to believe that the signed agreement between timber and environmentalists will jump-start actions that benefit forests, protect watersheds and modernize Oregon’s approach to timber management.

~ Lisa Arkin, Executive Director, Beyond Toxics

 

The real cause of division in communities
By David Eisler

Amanda Astor ends her recent Register-Guard column with “Better understanding of forests and the science behind decision making can bring our community closer and tear down divisions and alarmist narratives.”

Apparently she believes that scientists’ and community members’ concerns about the impacts of industrial logging are alarmist and have no basis in fact. Astor would have us all simply accept timber companies public relations and we should all get along just fine living with high-impact clear-cutting, aerial herbicide spraying, monocrop plantations and the decimation of forest and aquatic ecosystems.

So, let’s be clear about what seems to be the cause of division in the communities.

Astor correctly points out that there are many approaches to forest management used by private forestland owners. It is the management model used by large corporate landowners and timber investment management organizations, often Wall Street-based, which place value on the highest financial return for stockholders.

This management model depends on the conversion of older, healthy biodiverse and resilient forests into monocrop Douglas fir plantations that cover vast expanses of the landscape. It is the impacts — including herbicide drift onto neighboring properties and water systems, steep slope landslides, runoff sediments clogging salmon spawning streams — that create tension, division and Astor’s “alarmist narratives.”

Example of clear cut and burn forestry practices in Oregon’s Oxbow region. Photo by David Tvedt.

Plantations are not “forests.” Forests are composed of interacting communities of plants and animals that develop over long periods of time. A plantation is no more a “forest” than a 100-acre corn crop is a meadow or prairie. The complex processes that drive the development of healthy forests are increasingly well understood by researchers at Oregon State University’s Forest Ecosystems and Society program.

Astor perpetuates the industry myth that clear-cutting, burning off all residual woody material, several years of herbicide spraying and the planting of Douglas fir seedlings genetically selected for fast growth eight feet apart, somehow mimics natural disturbances such as fire or insect infestations. Scientific research has not supported this industrial narrative myth.

Any industry that has shareholder profits as its primary objective needs to convince the public that there are no environmental or human health impacts from their management. The tobacco industry put profits before truth for decades. The mining companies in Appalachia claimed to put worker safety before profits. The gasoline industry claimed that adding lead was necessary.

The timber industry has a narrative that serves their interests including softening words like “clear-cutting” to “regeneration harvests” or “overstory removal” and overusing the word “sustainable” to suggest maintaining healthy forests instead of planting seedlings to replace trees to sustain timber volume into the future.

If Astor and other industry foresters would like to educate us in the “science of decision making,” we might come to understand why clear-cutting cycles are shortening to 30 years and why it is necessary to apply fertilizer to depleted soils and why the cost and impacts of aerial herbicide spraying is economically worth the risks to human health, water quality and wildlife.

The narrative that industry lobbying groups have painted is a picture of clean water, abundant wildlife and “forests” forever, the “everything-is-just-great-folks” narrative.

While we may enjoy relatively cheap lumber prices in the short run, the industry model of high-impact logging passes along the costs of the impacts to all Oregonians.

Yes, the companies follow state laws, but with the help of a powerful lobby in Salem and a Board of Forestry dominated by industry interests, the Forest Practices Act has held off meaningful changes since 1972.

The “alarmists” and “divisions” Astor refers to are based on decades of communities directly experiencing the results of industrial forestry. Communities like Gold Beach where dozens of lives were irreversibly impacted by forestry herbicides and Rockaway Beach where municipal water now has cancer-causing chemicals, have every right to feel the divisions and expect something better from their industrial neighbors.

***************

David Eisler leads a 2017 resilient forestry tour at his privately owned Shady Creek forest in the coast range. Photo by Lisa Arkin

 

David Eisler, Ph.D., is a retired anthropologist. He has actively managed forest land in the Coast Range for 40 years. He was a founding board member of the Siuslaw Watershed Council and was a founding member of the Siuslaw National Forest’s collaborative Stewardship Group. David has been a long time partner with Beyond Toxics, starting with co-developing Resilient Forestry Tours. The tours have served, for the past 3 years, to educate Oregonians about the dangers of aerial herbicides sprays, the necessity of protecting balanced forest ecosystems and the possibilities of sustainably managed diverse, mixed species forests for clean water and carbon storage.

A right to clean air

Do you wonder how polluted the air you are breathing is? The fact is, the quality of our local air is a critical factor in our health. Sadly, air pollutants commonly found in Eugene-Springfield’s air are known to cause serious harm to public health.

Example of the air pollution sources common for residents of West Eugene. Unedited video footage of the Arauco North factory In West Eugene, 2019.

In the next few months, the air pollution permits for the Seneca Sawmill and the Seneca biomass plant (a.k.a., Seneca Sustainable Energy) will be considered for renewal. Beyond Toxics asked the Lane Regional Air Protection Agency (LRAPA) to schedule public hearings to ensure that input from those in the community most impacted by air pollution be heard and considered. Those public hearings should be announced soon.

Holding a public hearing is absolutely necessary to ensure democratic and representational input from the public. Beyond Toxics has a long history of holding LRAPA responsible for greater public accountability and transparency, including Beyond Toxics’ successful 2019 Civil Rights complaint to the US EPA. Our federal Civil Rights complaint against LRAPA was a milestone in demanding agency compliance with fair, equitable and democratic practices – we’re proud we succeeded in getting the EPA’s support (even under the current Trump administration!). Our case was one of two Civil Rights Complaint cases in the entire Pacific Northwest which were accepted as valid cases and successfully concluded!

Help our entire community keep LRAPA accountable to clean air and public health! If you value the right to clean air, please join together with Beyond Toxics to make sure that LRAPA follows the full intent of the new state law, Cleaner Air Oregon.

Cleaner Air Oregon is a set of laws created to prioritize and protect the health and well-being of all Oregonians from air toxics emissions from industrial and commercial sources. The State of Oregon recently adopted these new air quality protection laws because of the strong association between air quality and public health. I served nearly two years on the CAO Rules Advisory Committee and can assure you that Beyond Toxics fought very hard to successfully win new laws that will reduce cancers and other serious health ailments in Oregon.

New information repeatedly confirms the causal relationship between toxic exposures and the epidemic of chronic diseases in this country. The rate of cancer cases is now above 40% and climbing about 3.5 to 4% per year. According to the National Cancer Institute, estimated 2017 national expenditures for cancer care in the US were $147.3 billion. In future years, costs are likely to increase as the population ages and cancer prevalence increases. Chronic illnesses, including neurological problems, autoimmune and respiratory diseases are also associated with breathing polluted air. Until the social costs of poor public health are included in any air toxics risk assessment, we have not addressed the problem!

Upon review of Lane County’s air quality data, as gathered by the Lane Regional Air Protection Agency (LRAPA), a government organization that tracks the quality of our local air, it is clear that there is a problem that needs attention.

Rosboro Lumber was recently fined $9,000 for air pollution violations as a result of a complaint filed by Beyond Toxics.

Since November 1, Eugene has experienced only 14 days of good air quality. That means our air was healthy to breathe less than one third of the days in November and December. During four additional days, or nearly 10% of the time, the air was rated as “Unhealthy” for groups identified as especially sensitive to air pollution. According to LRAPA data, the rest of the days our air quality was “Moderate” about 60% of the time. Moderate air quality is acceptable; however, pollutants there may still be a moderate health concern for some people.

Many activities contribute to polluted air. For example, people start up their car in the morning long before they plan to actually start driving it. The exhaust of a stationary car with its motor running fills the air with benzene, carbon monoxide, airborne particulate matter and other toxic chemicals. Stagnant weather patterns also contribute to air pollution issues by trapping pollutants which can then reach unhealthy levels.

Our industrial economy uses our common air shed to discharge pollution, but these companies are not held accountable for their contribution to the public harm caused by cancer, asthma and other diseases linked to air toxics. As I visited various areas of Eugene on some of our stagnant air days, I saw industrial smoke stacks spewing out plumes of dirty emissions. Most of us smell the emissions, but we may ignore it or accept it as “the way things are in Eugene.”

Do you recognize the signature smell of creosote and naphthalene from JH Baxter? How about that pungent smell of methanol mixed with the sooty taste of particle pollution that sticks to your tongue from the string of wood product industries just beyond Beltline Highway? Beyond Toxics has recently completed over 300 individual surveys of how West Eugene residents experience the quality of the air they breathe and their observations about health patterns in their families. Our data suggests the vast majority of the people living in areas of West Eugene smell polluted air and feel its impacts on a regular basis.

Beyond Toxics recently conducted a Environmental Justice Bus Tour of West Eugene factories with a group of community members.

Join us in our effort to gather our collective power to demand that regulations are fully enforced to protect the quality of our air and our health! We’re planning a number of community meetings and town halls.

We’ll be reporting on our findings, as well as helping residents learn how to give effective testimony during the upcoming hearings on two of Lane County’s largest polluters, Seneca Sawmill and Seneca Sustainable Energy (biomass incineration) plant. We’ll be discussing how to win an Oregon Green New Deal.

Our first meeting is the West Eugene Clean Air Community Meeting on Saturday, January 25 at Peterson Barn at 5:00 PM for dinner and a community discussion about YOUR RIGHT TO CLEAN AIR. I hope to personally see you there!

See our events page for more details->>

Tribal Climate Resilience in the Pacific Northwest

Krystal Abrams, Social Media and Pollinator Projects Manager

Native American Tribes and First Nations are most at-risk of suffering the devastating effects of climate change. Climate change is no longer a distant threat, but a dangerous force that places our native communities and resources at immediate risk. As with so many threats, indigenous peoples have been at the front lines of the devastation caused by climate change, forced to fight to protect their land, homes, and culture. Across the nation, tribes are rallying together to fight against climate change. Although this issue impacts everyone in the world, it has an even greater impact on indigenous people and their lands.

What makes a community more vulnerable to climate change? Some factors include proximity to rivers and coastal floodplains, residing in areas prone to extreme weather conditions, and economies that are heavily dependent on climate (like agriculture, fishing, and winter sports). Many Native communities in the Pacific Northwest fit into at least one of these categories and many are already implementing climate action plans.

The ATNI Climate Change Summit
This summer I visited Kalispel land in Spokane, Washington to attend the Climate Change Summit with the Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians and allies. This summit brought together leaders from Tribes and First Nations throughout the Pacific Northwest and North America to discuss tribal efforts to address climate change. The summit focused on tribal climate resilience, protecting and applying Traditional Knowledge in climate change initiatives, and implementing a unified tribal climate change policy agenda.

What are tribes doing to prepare?
Overall, tribes were focused on immediate action, as many nations are already feeling the harsh impacts of climate change, right here in the Pacific Northwest.

Inundation map shows where the Village of Taholah is under threat from tsunamis, storm surges and riverine flooding. A vast majority of the village is at risk of being under 20-30 feet of water with little to no notice.

A woman from the Quinault tribe on the Washington Coast mentioned that her tribe was considering a relocation plan. If adopted, this would involve moving nearly the entire village further inland. That’s because of sea level rises, brought on by climate change, that have swallowed a chunk of the coast. The Quinault, whose ancestors lived in their fishing village since time immemorial, are now faced with the prospect of uprooting their families and moving to higher ground.

The tribes in attendance also identified another crucial way to prepare for climate change: respecting and protecting traditional knowledge and incorporating it into future conversations to help shape future adaptations. Attendees all felt it was a priority to protect traditional knowledge within climate change initiatives, and rightfully so. After all, without the knowledge of our past, how can we hope to create a vibrant and equitable future?

The concept of Decolonizing Science was a hot topic addressed during presentations and discussions. This subject can be difficult to understand, after all, what does it actually mean to “decolonize” science? In other words, how has science been used as an instrument of colonization? As a science major and an indigenous woman myself, I can say with certainty that the current system that excludes indigenous knowledge in the scientific process is a problem. However, I see the concept of indigenizing the scientific method as a way to empower people to think about the natural world in a different way.

To decolonize does not displace objective data collection or methodology and has the benefit of improving science by incorporating ways that indigenous people think about and understand the physical world. It’s important to remember that our ancestors have cultivated and managed biological diversity for thousands of years. The extractive, euro-introduced economy is still very new in this place and is becoming a more toxic problem every year.

Perhaps the problems the world faces today would be better addressed if we considered those other solutions or ways of thinking instead of belittling them. One panelist, Clarita Lefthand-Begay, even took it a step further and described her research geared toward Indigenizing the Scientific Method, which essentially proposed ways to make the scientific method more native-friendly. She shared her expertise in both indigenous research methods and western scientific research methods, as well as her perspective about how to draw those two ways of knowing about the world closer together. There are many different ways to think about science and they can’t all be learned from a textbook.

Next steps
We can, in turn, learn how to build more resilient communities by taking the lead from our tribes who are refusing to turn a blind eye to these issues, and instead are rising up to make a difference. Our tribes are tackling climate change through many different avenues, such as taking a leadership role in other climate-smart trends, like renewable energy and sustainable housing development. Our tribes are stepping up to take action. Climate change is harming our tribal communities and threatening our culture. Not only is it unfair to discount the hardships our tribes endure–through no fault of their own–but it’s also unwise to ignore all the great work these communities have done to strengthen climate resiliency on tribal lands.

Since the arrival of European immigrants over 500 years ago, mainstream society has excluded the voices of indigenous peoples. This is especially true for conversations around climate change because everyone will be impacted, regardless of race, class, and privilege. If we want all of our communities to thrive in a rapidly changing and unpredictable climate, we must end this euro-introduced mentality of exclusion and denigration. Our society must invite tribal members to share their knowledge and perspectives in every task force and at every level of decision-making.

Krystal Abrams,
Social Media and Pollinator Projects Manager

The Retreat from Roundup: Evidence Backing Cancer Claims

Yes – Herbicides May Cause Cancer
Glyphosate is a weed-killing chemical that is found in a variety of commonplace herbicides, including Monsanto and Bayer AG’s Roundup. Over the past few years, the health and safety risks associated with spraying Roundup and other glyphosate-based herbicides have been called into question.

At the center of the discussion is the potential for Glyphosate to cause cancer in humans. In 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) reported that glyphosate exposure can lead to the development of cancer. This classification, combined with the experience of Roundup users, triggered a wave of consumer lawsuits alleging that their cancer diagnoses were brought on by years of Roundup use.

Eugene Just Took Precautionary Action on Roundup
A retreat from Roundup is also taking place in cities and counties in the U.S. through policies and best practices guides. In June 2019, the City of Eugene decided to place a moratorium on the use of Roundup in order to protect public health (no end date). Their action was in response to the evidence of harm and the absence of federal regulations. This precautionary action is an increasingly common response from local governments who prioritize children’s health over misleading marketing campaigns from Monsanto and Bayer Chemical.

A recent study found residues of Roundup’s active ingredient, glyphosate, was found in several family foods. Photo by Ephraim Payne

 

Roundup’s Active Ingredient, Glyphosate, is Everywhere
In Oregon, Roundup is sprayed in ways and in places that likely pose a health risk to people who may never have purchased or used the herbicide. Beyond Toxics recently participated in a study that measured residues of Roundup’s active ingredient, glyphosate, in family foods such as cereals, beans, apples and broccoli purchased at popular Oregon grocery stores. The report found that tested products–oat cereals, apples, applesauce, spinach and pinto beans–contained detectable amounts of glyphosate. The average level of glyphosate found in cereal samples gathered in Oregon (500 parts per billion) was more than 3 times the level set by scientists at Environmental Working Group for lifetime cancer risk for children. The average level of glyphosate found in pinto beans (507 ppb) was more than 4.5 times the benchmark. We’ve also reported that the Oregon Department of Forestry use helicopters to aerially spray a mixture of chemicals, including glyphosate mixed with other herbicides, on thousands of acres of clear cuts in state-designated protected drinking watersheds.

Most concerning of all, more than a dozen products containing glyphosate can be sprayed on school grounds! In fact, herbicides containing glyphosate are on the permitted “Low-Impact” pesticides list approved for use at Oregon schools (compiled by Oregon State University).

How can Oregonians grasp the potential harm to human health from the ubiquitous use of glyphosate products, such as Roundup, on the foods we eat, the water we drink and the playgrounds where our children play? As controversies continue to swirl around the safety of glyphosate, three significant courtroom cases presented enough evidence to convince their respective juries that Monsanto’s herbicide was the root cause of the plaintiffs’ cancers. Perhaps there are lessons we can learn from these cases that resulted in courtroom wins for the cancer victims.

Justice for Roundup’s Victims

Case 1: Dewayne Johnson

Dewayne Johnson was diagnosed with terminal non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma after working at a school for years tending to the grounds, and attributes his illness to long-term exposure to Roundup. In 2018, he became the first person to take Monsanto to trial for its weed killer, attempting to prove to a jury that the agrochemical corporation was to blame for his cancer diagnosis.

During the trial, documents presented in court revealed evidence that the corporation had ghostwritten reports discussing the safety of Roundup and glyphosate and colluded with officials at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to suppress research. Johnson was eventually awarded $78.5 million, and in April 2019 Bayer filed an appeal to throw out the final verdict.

Case 2: Edwin Hardeman

In the first federal Roundup case against Monsanto, Edwin Hardeman claimed that his cancer diagnosis was caused by years of exposure to the herbicide. Hardeman’s trial brought forward several studies that analyzed the chemical makeup of Roundup and its potential link to cancer. After five days of deliberation, the U.S. jury awarded Hardeman $80 million in damages in March 2019.

Case 3: Alva and Alberta Pilliod

Alva and Alberta Pilliod, a married couple in their 70s, were both diagnosed with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and linked their cancer developments to decades of Roundup use. The Pilliods claimed that Monsanto failed to warn its customers of the health risks associated with spraying Roundup by not properly labeling the product to wear protective gear, like goggles, gloves, or long pants, while handling the herbicide. In May 2019, they were awarded $2 billion by a California jury who found their cancer diagnoses were, in fact, caused by their many years of Roundup use.

Trials in Monsanto’s Midst
New evidence appears to surface reinforcing the probable link between glyphosate and cancer. This past April, Washington State University (WSU) researchers discovered second-and third-generation offspring of rats that were exposed to glyphosate developed a variety of health problems, including prostate, kidney, and ovarian diseases, obesity, and birth abnormalities. This phenomenon, known as “generational toxicity,” suggests that one generation of humans that actively uses Roundup and other glyphosate-based weed killers can impact the health of their descendants.

As corporations often do, Monsanto and Bayer AG continue to assert that Roundup does not cause cancer or pose a threat to human health. With three court cases down, Roundup’s original manufacturer, Monsanto, still faces thousands of consumer lawsuits ahead. As long as Roundup continues to be used and sold in the United States and worldwide, Monsanto will continue to face those who have been affected by its toxic herbicide.

Families should feel confident their children are safe when they play in neighborhood parks.

 

There are positive actions we can take outside the courtroom! Beyond Toxics is growing our grassroots project, Non Toxic Oregon, a program that supports cities and schools in their effort to adopt organic land care practices. Four Oregon cities: Springfield, Eugene and Talent are transitioning park land to organic land management systems.

In the interest of all of us—the health of working people told to spray pesticides as part of their job and the child rolling on the grass, we must choose a different path. The Monsanto/Bayer trials give us ample proof that the potential risk to cancer and a growing list of serious health abnormalities is too real to ignore.

We encourage you to get involved in these campaigns! If you are inspired by a vision of a future free of toxic risks, please invite us to your city or organization to learn how to bring a Non Toxic approach to land care!

Lisa Arkin, Executive Director

We need a revolution of forest resiliency (not logjam lunacy)

When the last tree is cut down, the last fish eaten and the last stream poisoned,
you will realize that you cannot eat money
.”
– Cree prophecy

On June 27th, a logjam of logging trucks circled our state Capitol, spreading lies and fear and spewing diesel soot. Big Timber wants you to believe that taking action on climate will deprive Oregonians of forestry jobs. Rather than investing in a future that would place even greater value on our forests, opponents to the Climate Action Policy (HB 2020) are shackled to the illusory past “glory” of unrestrained logging. It’s the same set of devastating practices that brought us to our current seat on the precipice of disaster.

Let’s be clear: no amount of cash for cut logs can compare to the value of clean and abundant water! Beyond Toxics and our allies have spent countless hours speaking out and presenting good science to expose the false choices Big Timber presents via their public relations executives. The very latest scientific research makes clear that Pacific Northwest forests and the soils hold the greatest promise for taking carbon from the atmosphere while also adding new natural resource jobs. Better yet, with selective cutting and longer tree rotations, Oregon could revive the mills that are now shuttered because corporate timber companies make more money by sending big whole logs overseas. Yes, that’s right – big trees are exported to markets overseas while smaller trees are cut, chipped or made into paper and press board here.

Clear cut logging operation at Oxbow Creek in Oregon. Photo by David Tvedt.

 

We can change the extractive and destructive timber corporate investment model with the emerging revolution in forestry management of what we’re calling “resilient forestry.”

A tour of Shady Creek Forest, an example of a forest managed with resilient forestry practices in Lane County. Photo by Lisa Arkin.

By embracing the principles and practices of resilient natural resource management, Oregon can improve both our forests’ capability to resist the challenges of climate change and serve the economic interests of everyday people. We already know that forests are pivotal to solving the climate crisis–now we need to act on that fact! The United States Forest Service (USFS) ranks Pacific Northwest forests (Oregon and Washington) as the most productive for carbon storage (citation). It’s not only our living trees, it’s also the organic carbon stored in our forest soils and inter-connected root structures.

We need to manage forests to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and assign economic benefits to resilient forestry practices. Managing forests for more than the narrow, short-term benefit of tree harvesting, Oregon further gains by protecting air and water quality and ensuring a plentiful water supply for our future needs.

Photo by Kali Lamont.

What’s more, resilient carbon-based forestry allows foresters to stop using aerial herbicide sprays and synthetic fertilizers, destructive practices that broadcast poisons made from fossil fuels into Oregon’s streams and waterways –the same streams that provide Oregonians with 70% of their drinking water.

We need a state climate action plan that has a robust forest carbon storage and ecosystem stewardship component. Nothing could be more dangerous to our economy than over-cutting our private and public forests. We face a dire tipping point where the ability of Oregon’s forests to store carbon is diminished, drinking water is contaminated with bio-persistent pesticides and soils are depleted of the micro-organisms that hold ecosystems intact. Join with us to demand climate and forestry policies that save the exquisitely balanced water and carbon cycles within healthy forest ecosystems.

To learn more about the hope of resilient forestry, check out the videos listed below and be sure to sign up for our next Resilient Forestry Tour in Western Lane County on July 20th! (Registration required)

VIDEOS on the subject by Beyond Toxics

Resilient Forestry: Shady Creek

 

Resilient Forestry: Willow Witt Ranch

 

also:
Aerial Spraying in Oregon Forests

We won! And Bayer Chemical lost!

According to the USFS report, “Trees of all sizes are dead and dying along the highway.” | Photo by Lisa Arkin

On May 9th, Oregon became the first state in the country to restrict the use of Aminocyclopyrachlor (ACP), an herbicide marketed to kill weeds that ends up killing trees. In Oregon, ACP killed 2,000 majestic old-growth trees. This deadly chemical reportedly travels underground along tree root systems, passing the poison from tree to tree, and continuing to kill trees long after and far away from the original pesticide application.

Beyond Toxics led the grassroots campaign that resulted in this landmark victory to protect trees and wildlife areas from a potent herbicide. We challenged the blatant collusion between powerful chemical companies and our weak federal environmental protection agency. In the end, our perseverance paid off and we won!

Last spring, Beyond Toxics filed a public records request with the Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA) about a devastating tree die-off in the national forest along scenic Hwy 20 in Central Oregon. We learned that ODA and the US Forest Service had known about the death of thousands of old growth Ponderosa pines for years and suspected the trees had died of an exposure to the notorious herbicide ACP. As part of the Oregon Department of Transportation’s roadside maintenance activities, ACP was sprayed on the state highway shoulders within the national forest.

Our public records request revealed that state agencies neglected to do a proper investigation or test for the chemical in the affected trees, soils and ground water. Beyond Toxics immediately called for a thorough investigation and environmental testing for the presence of ACP in the dying Ponderosa pines. ODA agreed and the new investigation concluded that the herbicide, sprayed along the roadside, had poisoned nearly 2,000 old-growth Ponderosa pines. The herbicide was detected in needles far up the dying trees and also caused giant trees to die 70 ft. from where the herbicide was sprayed. Pesticide drift was ruled out.

Consider: an herbicide sprayed along a narrow 6 ft. wide gravel swath killed giant trees that had been part of a fragile ecosystem long before white settlers arrived – and killed them 70 ft. from the road. Oregon regulators looked into the history of ACP and discovered that its manufacturer, DuPont Chemical, knew it could kill trees, even from a tiny exposure. After finding out that ACP can kill trees by traveling in the ground water or among tree root pathways (or both), Beyond Toxics demanded regulatory action to end the use of ACP in Oregon. We worked to alert Oregonians and our allies around the country to the dangers of ACP and taught supporters how to submit public comment during ODA’s rulemaking period. After thousands of comments were received by ODA, an 11th hour intervention by Bayer Chemical delayed the Agency’s decision. But the substantial evidence of ACP’s extreme toxicity and the public outcry kept ODA on course!

Oregon’s new law prohibits the application of the herbicide on rights of way, in and around Sage Grouse habitat, natural and restoration areas and anywhere near a water source. In response to the concerns of roadside vegetation managers in Eastern Oregon, the rule allows ACP in areas that “do not exceed more than 5% of an acre,” but only once a year, in order to control state or county-listed noxious weeds.

In 2014, DuPont chemical company settled a nearly $2 million lawsuit with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) after the herbicide (under the brand name Imprelis) was found to kill trees at golf courses, homeowners associations, businesses, and private residences. Despite this danger, chemical corporations convinced the EPA to allow sales of ACP to continue. The EPA looked the other way when DuPont sold Imprelis to Bayer Chemical who then changed the name and the registration, but kept manufacturing the active ingredient ACP.

With a wink and a nod, chemical corporations and the EPA play a “shuffle game” with pesticides such as ACP. The game helps avoid regulatory action by switching names and ownership and keeping the dangers hidden from public scrutiny. Oregon addressed this switcheroo by restricting the active ingredient, ACP, rather than just the product name.

This victory merits a moment of celebration! Because of the new law we won in Oregon, other states may step forward to protect trees and ecosystems from poisoning. May trees everywhere rejoice!

Lisa Arkin, Executive Director
June 6, 2019

Photo on front page by Lisa Arkin
Caption: US Forest Service Plant Pathologist points out characteristics of dying Ponderosa pines affected by ACP

A New Farming Economy Shouldn’t Depend on Old WWII Warfare Chemicals

Clatsop County Commissioner Kathleen Sullivan delivered a message from her rural county to the Oregon Legislature during legislative hearings on two bills addressing two controversial pesticides.

I remember when I was a kid in 7th grade being told the American Bald Eagle was on the brink of extinction,” she said. “Today I can look up over the Columbia River and see the eagles flying. That is the result of policy makers banning DDT.”

Commissioner Sullivan testified in support of SB 853 and HB 3058, two nearly identical bills that would ban the organophosphate insecticide chlorpyrifos. A broad coalition of Oregon businesses and farmers support these bills, including the Oregon Grange, biodynamic vineyards, vegetable farmers and beekeepers, as well as health professionals, environmental advocates, organic grocery stores and labor representatives.

Chlorpyrifos is used on common foods we feed our families, such as strawberries, apples, broccoli, beans, oats and more.

Commissioner Sullivan recounted her experience as an elected official. Going around Clatsop County, she’s been hearing from young family farmers who have settled there to grow food and raise their families. A number of these farmers lost all their bees last year. She recounted the story about the comeback of Bald Eagles to support her message about bees. Sullivan said, “I trust science … and I trust exhaustive worldwide research that says our pollinators are in trouble. And I understand how this puts our food system in danger.”

She urged Oregon legislators to rely on modern science. That science says, without a doubt, there is no safe level of chlorpyrifos for children, neither for a fetus in the womb, nor during a child’s developmental years. The science is clear, but resistance arises when farmers are asked to change decades-old practices and products. Many use older organophosphate pesticides that were originally developed as nerve gases for warfare. Some of these farmers came to testify about how effective chlorpyrifos is. Sure, something powerful enough to kill soldiers can also kill a lot of bugs! The problem is that chlorpyrifos also kills bees, birds, butterflies and disrupts a child’s brain for life.

We should consider that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was set to ban chlorpyrifos in 2016. However, in 2017, former EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt rejected the Agency’s plan–even though the EPA’s own scientists determined that there are no safe levels of use for chlorpyrifos on food. Chlorpyrifos also causes serious health problems in those who have been exposed to it, particularly farm workers or families eating fruits and vegetables sprayed, or drinking the water where pesticide runoff occurs. Chlorpyrifos is used in Oregon on everything from apples to grass seed production, and is found at unsafe levels in food and in our streams.

Dr. Megan Horton, a researcher at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, has looked at children’s brains and documented an alarming impact when infants or pregnant women are exposed to chlorpyrifos. Horton told legislators that she uses magnetic resonance imaging to study the brains of children as they develop from birth to adolescence. She and her research team see “structural changes in brains” of kids exposed to low levels of chlorpyrifos even at levels below what is considered safe by the EPA. These changes can lead to permanent brain impairment. As chlorpyrifos levels in a pregnant woman increases, her child’s intellectual capability can suffer. The child can experience a childhood of behavioral problems and developmental delays. Researchers warned legislators of the immense impact these children will have on both the financial and staffing resources of local school systems throughout the state.

It should be noted that farmers who testified at the hearing could not refute the evidence that chlorpyrifos is unsafe at any level. What they want is assurance that they can keep on doing what they love to do – growing radishes, wheat, hazel nuts and all manner of agricultural crops. We all share that goal! Yet, there were marked differences in farmer testimony. Fear-based farmers spoke of losing their crops if a ban on this single outdated and dangerous pesticide changed their practices, while hope-based farmers talked about using innovation and safer chemistries to work in balance with the land and harvest nutritious crops – without poisoning pollinators and drinking water.

One farmer, a mom with kids, testified that when she sprays chlorpyrifos around the farm, she protects her children from exposure by washing her clothes in a separate wash cycle. Of course, no mother wants to poison her family, but does she wonder about the chemical residues in the washing machine, or where the pesticide ends up when it goes down the drain, or how chlorpyrifos could contaminate her neighbors’ drinking water? Does she think about the exposures to the workers on her farm? Will she notice if their children experience difficulties in school and in society?

Exposure to chlorpyrifos can radically alter a child’s life direction. Hawaii has already banned chlorpyrifos to protect their people and their pollinators.

Clay Wesson, a representative of Willamette Valley Vineyards, a biodynamic wine maker, was hopeful that Oregon can lead the agricultural industry away from devastatingly harmful pesticides. “I have confidence that the farmers in Oregon are brilliant and can find an option,” he said. “And there are other options.” He was thinking of biodynamic solutions that create healthy soils and sustain beneficial insect populations. Wesson is part of the new generation of farmers who help make Oregon fourth in the nation for sustainable agriculture, with $269 million in organic sales in 2016 — a $32 million jump from the preceding two years, according to the National Agricultural Statistics Service.

We support a healthy vision for Oregon’s future. This approach is possible when our leaders in the state capitol turn away from fear and embrace the wisdom of science and hope. Oregon needs to ban chlorpyrifos so that future generations will have the joy of watching a soaring bald eagle and a fluttering Monarch butterfly, eating honey from Oregon bees, and seeing Oregon kids reach their full creative potential. This vision can be shared by all Oregonians when state legislators vote to ban chlorpyrifos and make Oregon one of the world’s most innovative and sustainable farming economies.

Lisa Arkin, Executive Director
Beyond Toxics

Trashy and Tricky

Have you noticed the red and white emissions stack to the east of I-5, just north of Salem? That is the Covanta Marion Municipal Solid Waste Incinerator. Covanta is a large corporation owning Oregon’s single trash incinerator.

If you care about climate and resiliency, then you’ll want to know about the poison pill Covanta has inserted into this year’s legislative deliberations on the Clean Energy Jobs bill and renewable energy programs.

A number of organizations are working together with Beyond Toxics to warn the public and legislators that Covanta is up to trashy tricks to undermine the goals of the Oregon Climate Action Policy, commonly known as the Clean Energy Jobs bill.

Covanta is asking state lawmakers to certify that their company is eligible for tax credits reserved for renewable energy projects, retroactively back to 2011 and into the endless future. That sneaky maneuver has made it into the form of a bill: SB 451, sponsored by Senator Lee Beyer “at the request of Covanta.” Senator Beyer claims he’s promoting SB 451 because of a “promise” made 10 years ago by former Senator Chris Edwards, who now works as an industry lobbyist. Why should Senator Beyer be bound by a decades-old “promise” from someone else who, at the time, was not aware of today’s climate science and the urgency of reducing CO2? It is nonsense to give away tax credits that should be reserved for truly renewable energy companies, such as those creating energy via solar, wind and thermal.

Covanta is also “fired up” to get an exemption from the carbon reduction requirements of the Clean Energy Jobs bill. HB 2020 Section 10 (2) gives Covanta a free pass from having to pay into the cap-and-trade program and reduce their carbon emissions.

The problem for Covanta is that it is one of the largest emitters of carbon dioxide in the state of Oregon! According to the Oregon DEQ, Covanta is the 20th largest source of CO2 emissions among industrial sources with air quality permits in the state. The trash Covanta burns, and the pollution released from all that burning, generated 160,843 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents in 2017. Burning trash is neither clean nor renewable, especially because Covanta burns a lot of plastic. Plastic is made from fossil fuels.

In other words, by burning plastics, Covanta’s “renewable energy” plant is just more of the daily grind of extracting fossil fuels to create throw-away items that then pollute our bodies, wildlife, oceans, air and lands.

Worse yet, a lot of the plastic Covanta burns is hazardous medical waste imported from other states into Oregon. Covanta has contracts now and is seeking more contracts to haul some other state’s trash to burn in Oregon, releasing pollution into our skies!

The trashy, ashy fall-out is dispersing toxic chemicals into the backyards of vulnerable communities in Woodburn and Northeast Salem. According to the US EPA, the area within a 7-mile radius of where Covanta sends air pollutants into neighborhoods ranked in the 88th percentile for cancer and respiratory risks (using National Air Toxics Assessment data) and 83rd percentile for minority, low-income and linguistically-isolated compared to other areas in Oregon. This doesn’t mean the Covanta incinerator is entirely to blame for the excessive burdens of cancer and respiratory disease, but it is making a sizable contribution to poor air quality that harms local and vulnerable communities. This makes Covanta an environmental justice problem.

To make the same amount of energy as a coal power plant, trash incinerators release more DIOXIN, more CO2, and more CARBON MONOXIDE, NITROGEN OXIDES, and SULFUR DIOXIDES. According to their Oregon air pollution permit, Covanta also emits approximately 15 tons of HYDROGEN CHLORIDE annually across the last decade. HYDROGEN CHLORIDE is a corrosive air pollutant that results in acid rain and is a respiratory irritant. Incineration of plastics, such as the PVC in hospital waste, results in releases of hydrogen chloride.

As sad as the picture I’ve painted is, there is something you can do about this situation today! You can help keep municipal solid waste incineration OUT of Oregon’s renewable energy portfolio and IN the Carbon Cap-and-Trade Program.

HB 2020, the Clean Energy Jobs bill, is being amended this week and your involvement is time-sensitive! Please send an email to the Joint Carbon Reduction Committee at jccr.exhibits@oregonlegislature.gov TODAY! Urge them to delete Section 10 (2)(b) of the bill exempting municipal waste incineration and let them know that Oregon’s only solid waste incinerator–the 20th largest emitter of CO2–must be included in the carbon cap. Covanta must be held accountable for reducing its greenhouse gas emissions like other big polluters. Then tackle SB 451, the bill that would let Covanta cash in on a decade’s old “promise” to qualify them as renewable energy. Send your next email to the Senate Environmental and Natural Resources Committee before March 11 at senr.exhibits@oregonlegislature.gov. This email address will send your message to all the members of that committee! Tell these legislators that burning other people’s plastics and trash is neither clean nor renewable. Let them know that Oregonians prefer to uphold our obligations for a healthy planet for future generations rather than keep baseless, old promises from a former legislator-turned-lobbyist.

Want more details? Read to the coalition letter sent to top legislators about Covanta.

Thank you for taking action to keep a promise to the next generation. We must NOT remain silent. I’m counting on you to share with me the responsibility of solving a climate crisis capable of destabilizing entire eco-systems and devastating our communities. Each action you take brings us closer to sane and sensible solutions we can be proud to pass on to future generations of Oregonians.

Lisa Arkin, Executive Director
Beyond Toxics

How old growth Ponderosa pine trees became hazardous waste

It may be easier to be concerned about wolves, salmon and eagles perishing than it is to feel remorse over dying Ponderosa pine trees. Yet, the presence of giant, old growth Ponderosas in central Oregon is as emblematic of a place as any furry, swimming or flying creature.

Photo by Lisa Arkin

What would it say about our stewardship of Oregon’s natural resources if we allow the continued use of an herbicide that easily killed off nearly 1500 majestic Ponderosas? This poison, Aminocyclopyrachlor, dubbed ACP because of its tongue-twisting name, was banned from residential, business and golf course use by the U.S. EPA 5 years ago when it was manufactured by DuPont. Then Bayer Chemical bought the “rights” to make and market ACP. Bayer rebranded the poison to put it back into use.

As far back as 2015, when the US Forest Service realized that ACP was being used on highways that ran through public forests, the agency asked the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) to stop using ACP. Forest Service scientists realized the high risk of killing trees could not justify ACP roadside sprays. Yet ODOT and county road departments ignored the warning and continued spraying toxic ACP along many of Oregon’s roadways. I’ve started to wonder … perhaps those ailing fir and pine trees I’ve noticed along various highways are not symptoms of a warming climate, but are struggling to survive from absorbing ACP? Will we ever know?

ACP is undoubtedly a potent poison. Road vegetation managers spray it along the sides of roads to kill unwanted weeds that may interfere with visibility or be considered a fire hazard. ACP is good at killing noxious weeds, and yes, noxious weeds are a problem in central Oregon.

But when do the ends justify the means?

Roadside weed managers say they need ACP because the weeds have become resistant to other herbicides such as glyphosate. Like going from guns to chemical weapons to nuclear weapons in warfare, are we going to repeat the same mistakes in our environment? Will we as a civil society accept ever-increasing devastation from dangerous products in a downward spiral of environmental destruction? Just because the old ones don’t do the trick anymore? What we need are safer alternatives and a paradigm shift toward protecting environmental and public health in roadside management!

Here are the frightening facts. ACP was sprayed on a 6 ft. swath along the very edge of Highway 20, yet giant Ponderosa pines are now dying, including trees as far as 75 ft. from the sprayed road. This pesticide moves easily in the environment; the pattern suggests that ACP gets into ground water and is taken up by the roots of thirsty trees. Root zones of pine and fir trees can stretch long distances in all directions from tree trunks. From its investigation into what killed the Ponderosa pine trees, the Oregon Department of Agriculture found that ACP was detectible in the pine needles high up in trees three years after the chemical was used. The trees themselves have become so poisonous they now must be removed from the forest floor where decomposition can continue to spread the chemical’s harm. Sawdust and bark chips from these trees are hazardous waste and can never be used for soil amendments.

ACP is currently being used in seven counties across our state. I’m proud that Lane County’s Public Works Department does not allow the use of ACP because it developed a strong integrated vegetation management program based on science and environmental health benchmarks.

The Oregon Department of Agriculture is proposing to severely restrict its use by adopting new regulations. The Agency’s staff is doing their due diligence and their recommendations are commendable. Importantly, ACP will not be allowed near “desirable” tree roots, in wetlands and other surface water sites, wildlife management and habitat areas. But according to the ODA’s own calculations, the new rule will allow as many as 242 spray areas of 9 sq. ft. per acre every year!

It is time to stop, not restrict. ACP is a danger to entire ecosystems of living old growth trees. It is unpredictable in the environment and poses a threat to ground water everywhere it is sprayed.

Does Oregon want to apologize to future generations for the loss of Oregon’s iconic Ponderosa forests? I’d rather we thought ahead and acted decisively in their interest – today!

Lisa Arkin, Executive Director
Beyond Toxics