Agricultural Pesticide Misuse Prosecutions
Overview: Agricultural Pesticide Misuse
Agricultural pesticide misuse occurs when individuals or companies use pesticides in ways that violate federal or state laws. The primary laws governing pesticide use in the U.S. are:
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) – regulates distribution, sale, and use of pesticides.
Clean Water Act (CWA) – addresses contamination of water bodies with pesticides.
State-specific pesticide laws – often enforced by state Departments of Agriculture.
Violations can include:
Using pesticides in unapproved ways.
Exceeding recommended dosages.
Applying pesticides in prohibited areas (e.g., near water bodies or schools).
Falsifying pesticide application records.
Prosecutions are both civil and criminal, depending on the severity of misuse, environmental harm, or endangerment of human health.
Notable Cases
1. United States v. George F. Lewis (1999) – FIFRA Violation
Jurisdiction: Federal Court, Iowa
Summary: George F. Lewis, a farm operator, applied restricted-use pesticides to crops without a certified applicator license and in violation of label directions. He also applied pesticides near a public water source.
Prosecution Details: Prosecuted under FIFRA for applying restricted pesticides without certification and for contaminating a water source.
Outcome: Lewis was fined $50,000 and placed on probation, with mandatory training on proper pesticide use.
Significance: Reinforced that certification and adherence to label instructions are mandatory for restricted-use pesticides.
2. United States v. Makita Corporation (2005) – Worker Exposure Violation
Jurisdiction: Federal Court, California
Summary: Makita Corporation, a large agricultural business, failed to provide proper protective equipment to workers applying pesticides on orchards. Several workers suffered acute pesticide poisoning.
Prosecution Details: Violations under FIFRA and OSHA pesticide-related safety standards.
Outcome: Corporation paid $750,000 in fines and compensation. Two managers received criminal charges for negligence leading to worker injury.
Significance: Established precedent for employer liability when failing to protect farmworkers from pesticide exposure.
3. United States v. Dow AgroSciences LLC (2010) – Environmental Contamination
Jurisdiction: Federal Court, Michigan
Summary: Dow AgroSciences improperly disposed of pesticide waste in nearby rivers, causing fish kills and contamination of downstream agricultural areas.
Prosecution Details: Prosecuted under FIFRA and Clean Water Act for illegal disposal and environmental contamination.
Outcome: Dow AgroSciences paid $2.5 million in fines and restitution to affected farmers. Court ordered enhanced environmental compliance audits.
Significance: Highlighted the intersection of pesticide misuse and water pollution regulations.
4. State of New York v. John J. Sullivan (2012) – Overapplication on Crops
Jurisdiction: State Court, New York
Summary: Farmer John J. Sullivan intentionally applied glyphosate at higher than approved dosages to gain faster crop growth, ignoring label warnings.
Prosecution Details: Violations included FIFRA and state pesticide laws. Environmental tests detected pesticide runoff into nearby streams.
Outcome: Fined $100,000 and license suspended for three years. Court mandated soil and water remediation efforts.
Significance: Showed that overapplication not only risks human health but also triggers civil and criminal penalties.
5. United States v. AgriChem Co. (2015) – False Reporting & Mislabeling
Jurisdiction: Federal Court, Florida
Summary: AgriChem Company falsified pesticide application logs and misrepresented pesticide concentrations to buyers. This caused crop damage and health complaints among workers.
Prosecution Details: Violated FIFRA’s reporting and labeling provisions.
Outcome: Company fined $1.2 million; CEO sentenced to 18 months in federal prison. Mandatory compliance program imposed.
Significance: Emphasized criminal liability for record falsification and deceptive pesticide practices.
6. State of California v. GreenFields Inc. (2018) – Drift onto Neighboring Property
Jurisdiction: State Court, California
Summary: GreenFields Inc. sprayed pesticides on wind-sensitive crops without buffer zones. Pesticide drift damaged neighboring organic farms and caused health issues.
Prosecution Details: Violations of California’s pesticide control laws and local ordinances.
Outcome: Paid $500,000 in damages to neighboring farmers; two pesticide operators fined individually.
Significance: Established liability for pesticide drift and the need for buffer zones near sensitive areas.
7. United States v. Syngenta AG (2019) – Illegal Export Use
Jurisdiction: Federal Court, Illinois
Summary: Syngenta exported unregistered pesticide formulations for use in other countries. Some of these products were imported back into the U.S., causing contamination in local produce.
Prosecution Details: FIFRA violation for unregistered pesticide use and illegal importation.
Outcome: Company paid $3.5 million in fines and implemented strict export controls.
Significance: Showed the global compliance obligations of pesticide companies.
Key Takeaways
FIFRA Compliance is Mandatory: Violations carry both civil and criminal penalties.
Environmental Harm Matters: Cases involving contamination of water bodies or drift onto neighboring farms are heavily prosecuted.
Worker Protection: Employers are criminally liable if they fail to protect workers from hazardous pesticide exposure.
Record-Keeping & Label Adherence: Misreporting or ignoring label directions can result in both fines and imprisonment.
Corporate Accountability: Both small farms and large agrochemical corporations face prosecution if misuse occurs.
RELATED Blog
0 comments