You Can Help Keep Sprays Away

Article Tools

Image Gallery

Print

E-mail

Comments

RSS

The citizens' group picked up members and support as it went along, and its confidence grew. But-on May 11-a second discussion with USDA and MDA officials made the situation seem next to hopeless.

The state and federal spokesmen assured everyone that Dimllin was "completely innocuous", and then announced that there would be no exceptions from the spray program. What's more, the "public servants" stated that alternative control methods would not be considered . . . even if they were used at the landowner's expense and even if that person's way of life was at stake.

To cap off the already unpleasant evening, a lawyer who was present at the time told CACC that it had a "less than ten percent" chance of winning, should the group decide to take the matter before the courts. The farmers were worried, and some went so far as to discuss passive resistance . . . but even this "radical" proposal had an air of futility about it. The landowners were close to being beaten.

One day later, however, the situation took a turn for the better. The Chicago office of the EPA mailed a copy of the Dimilin label to the CACC office. That label—according to government regulations—had the "force and effect of law", and yet it specifically prohibited many of the things that the MDA had planned to do. The identification tag warned, for instance, that Dimilin was harmful to humans and that contamination of foodstuffs should be avoided. The label also listed the substance as a potential environmental hazard, and stated that the pesticide should not be applied to crops . . . or in any area used for food, feed, hay, or pasture.

CACC confronted the state and federal representatives with this information, and were told that an "official expanded label" allowed the MDA to ignore the original warnings. The farmers weren't about to be put off so easily, though. They called the Washington EPA and discovered that the environmental agency was unaware of any "expanded" label . . . and that the APHIS program, itself, was under EPA investigation.

At this point the group had enough evidence to go into action. They hired attorney James Olson, and put the case before Judge Ray Hotchkiss of the Ingham County Circuit Court. As a result of the information presented by the wholistic farmers, Judge Hotchkiss granted a temporary restraining order against the MDA until another hearing could be held on June 1.

RSS | Comments | E-mail | Print