Chp 3 Pulido last section UFWOC

Chp 3 Pulido last section UFWOC
1. The UFWOC was ‘obsessive’ in their use of litigation. Why was this so? (90)
“The legal undertakings were defensive actions intended to both harass and to impinge upon agribusiness as well as to achieve substantive improvements in worker and community exposure through pesticide reduction”.
2. Why was Chavez cautious with regard to the pesticide issue? (91) could expand
This issue has both external and internal impacts that can be very powerful. Chavez realized that this issue required carefully planned actions so that the workers could retain secure union jobs as well as employment in the grape industry.
3. The several lawsuits that occurred in 1968 were designed to gain access to pesticide application records. What were their demands in their attempt to settle out of court? (93)
They wanted to have more regulation and access to information on the use of the pesticides. This included having an easily accessible way to find out what was sprayed. In addition, they wanted to know the crop that the pesticide was being used on, how much was sprayed, who applied the pesticide and how they applied the pesticide. They also wanted to know when and where the pesticides were being used. This included identifying the crop that the pesticide (s) was/were being used on and the wind conditions during the application of the pesticide. They wanted to be notified three days before the application of a pesticide and written warnings in Spanish and English. The goal of these actions were to require professional sprayers to notify all farmers when they were applying “injurious materials” and to help the farmers determine how damaging to human health these pesticides would be.
4. Why were the UFWOC’s demands of disclosure put down time and time again by judges? (95, 96)
5. Why was the ‘Riverside ruling’ (Uribe v Howie, 1971) historic? (96-97)
6. Why was EDF included in the petition to reform pesticide regulations (99)
“To enhance credibility”: I don’t understand what the EDF is it seems like it is a way to make the people who would be ?e?ffected by the legislative reform seem more significant

7. Who finally won the ban on DDT? (100) EDF
8. What have the majority of US pollution control efforts emphasized? What is the difficulty with this? (102)
9. What was the big win in Solis and Torres v Fielder, 1970? (104)
The outcome of the court case was that Jerry Fielder, the director of CDFA, became required to do not only what his job explicitly called for, but also to do a little additional work. ?By law?, Jerry Fielder was required to control and regulate any pesticide “injurious to the environment, humans, animals or crops (Section 14001). After public input and more examination, the director must
10. The UFWOC used not only propaganda sheets, but strategy and information sheets (107).
11. What was the UFWOC’s ‘brilliance’ (108)
They created a variety of ways to allow people to become involved and thought of more than one way to get the pesticide industry and government to meet their demands (Pulido 108). The UFWOC did workshops for groups curious about farmworkers and pesticides (Pulido 108). They created a newspaper called El Malcriado to share more information farmworkers and pesticide s(Pulido 108). They created multiple options for participation in the movement and each level of dedication had different actions associated with it (Pulido 108). There were three levels of dedication and the actions in the levels of dedication increased in time and effort as the level of commitment desired increased (Pulido 108) For example, people with limited time could donate to the la causa fund or not buy grapes (Pulido 108). People with more time and interest could become part of a letter writing campaign or do social advocacy actions such as picketing at places where products were being sold that were produced in a way that was unhealthy for farmworkers (Pulido 108). People with the most interest and time could become organizers (Pulido 108).
Other reasons why these methods were so successful were because the majority of them could be done by anyone anywhere except the UFWOC workshops and the creation of the newspaper El Malcriado. However, even though everyone couldn’t participate in these exact two things, they could read the newspaper as well as other publications and tell people that don’t have access to the workshops about the information contained in these publications. In addition, they could be done in combination with each other to have an even greater effect than just doing one individually. For example, if a person had a great amount of time and money, they could donate to the la causa fund, not buy grapes, and be an organizer. In addition, it seems like they could become part of a letter writing campaign and participate in social advocacy actions if these didn’t conflict with the days and times that were spent being an organizer.
12. What attitudes were revealed by Arnold’s quote on page 115 (116) Could add more about what he unexplicitly says about nature and env regulation
He expressed that committee should only have the right to control what chemicals are being used if the employer is not following legal regulations; committees should have no power to suggest altering regulations, they should only be able to make sure that current laws are upheld 115. According to Arnold’s quote, decision making bodies, usually the courts and legislature, should have all of the power to change laws?,? and committees should just have the power to help enforce laws. Since the decision making bodies have the sole power to change laws, he is expressing the attitude that the decision making bodies are not ?a?ffected by politics, especially agribusiness politics, and are unbaised. Another attitude was the local knowledge and personal experience are not valuable or scientific primarily because they are too biased when he said that a committee would be too emotionally attached to be able to make a decision about how chemicals should be used in agricultural production. When he says that decisions about what chemicals are acceptable to use “should be made by experts”, he expresses the attitudes that people with just local knowledge and personal experience can’t be experts because they havn’t been formally trained or educated 115. In addition, he is expressing the attitude that experts will be the least biased, including politically biased, people to make the decision about what chemicals are safe to use.