Persistent on pesticides

******

CORRECTION

An editorial March 19 about alleged pesticide regulation violations was incorrect in implying that at least 40 workers for Ag-Mart Produce Inc. have complained to state investigators that they were forced to work in fields recently sprayed with pesticides. The editorial should have stated that according to advocates for the workers, as reported in a Jan. 8 News & Observer news article, dozens of them were willing to testify that they had been sprayed with pesticides.

The editorial also should have made it clear that it has not been formally established that Ag-Mart workers have been wrongfully exposed to pesticides. Charges to that effect are pending before the state Pesticide Board.

Ag-Mart denies that any of its workers were exposed to pesticides.

******

The pesticide exposure case against tomato giant Ag-Mart has gone on for some time, but it's an important matter deserving the attention it has received. After initially filing 369 charges in 2005, the N.C. Pesticide Board voted last week to fine the Florida company $21,000 for 42 violations, including improper use and storage of the chemicals. But it also voted to open its own hearing on 202 of the most serious charges.

It's taken so long partly because the board exercised its legal right to have administrative law judges untangle the complex case. Scores of farm workers complained of growing sick after having to work in fields recently sprayed with pesticides. Some female workers in North Carolina (and in Florida) say they delivered deformed infants as a result.

The judges recommended that the bulk of the charges be dropped, no doubt in part because state lawyers called none of the affected workers to testify. That testimony needs to be part of the upcoming hearings, set for July.

The judges also recommended dropping the charges because Ag-Mart successfully argued that records it was required to keep, detailing what fields were sprayed and where workers were in relation to the spray, were unreliable. That's shoddy but not illegal, because the record-keeping rules are flawed. It's something the state needs to fix, if farm workers and their family members are to be safeguarded. Vague, unenforceable rules can be worse than no rules at all.

Rehearing the 202 charges is a correct step by the board from a public responsibility perspective. The case of a powerful company potentially poisoning migrant workers -- among the most powerless people in this society -- shouldn't go quietly away. And people still may be being hurt. By reopening the case, the board sends the signal that it intends to pursue complaints to a reasonable conclusion.

Regardless of the outcome, the board should to use this episode to urge the legislature to refine the rules on recordkeeping when pesticides are used, so that regulators can trace with certainty when a worker toils amid chemical hazards that no one should have to face.