The US Forest Service is up to their new old tricks again this time in a document called the Klamath and Shasta-Trinity National Forests’ Prescribed Fire Project (AKA The Two Four Fire and Fuels project) we first heard about this project last summer. Now a document has been released and in it we found that they slipped these two provisions into their draft environmental assessment.
“Fugitive dust emissions, dispersion, and transport will be minimized for commercial operations by treating selected main, unpaved haul routes with water or chemical dust suppressants when needed.”
“Weed infestation discovered before, during, or after project implementation would be evaluated by a forest botanist for necessary prevention and control measures. Control measures include (but are not restricted to): a. avoidance b. manual, mechanical or chemical removal c. burning d. mulching e. seeding and f. equipment cleaning.”
The use of chemicals as dust suppressants or weed killers goes against an over 40 year old embargo on using these chemicals in the Trinity National Forest. This embargo comes at the request of the Trinity County Board of Supervisors as set forward in numerous resolutions still on the books.
This represents another escalation in anti-environmental positions being taken by Shasta Trinity National Forest. Currently 4 groups including; Safe Alternatives for our Forest Environment, Environmental Protection and Information Center, Klamath Forest Alliance, and Conservation Congress are in court with the Shasta Trinity National Forest about failure to follow the National Environmental Policy Act and also their failure to fully consult with US Fish and Wildlife involving two timber sales at Rainier Ridge and Long Canyon.
Some First Nations don’t like glyphosate
Glyphosate is widely used in forestry, agriculture and land-use management. Commercially sold under brands such as Roundup, it’s the most widely used herbicide in the world. Controversy and suspicion continue around the use of glyphosate; those concerns have been recently amplified by the retraction of an article published in the academic journal “Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology”, the article claimed that glyphosate posed no risk to human health. Those claims should now be suspect because of the action taken by the Journal.
In the journal’s retraction notice it said: “Concerns were raised regarding the authorship of this paper, validity of the research findings in the context of misrepresentation of the contributions by the authors and the study sponsor and potential conflicts of interest of the authors.” These are the same concerns the environmental activists have been raising for years about the efficacy and biases of these studies conducted by the pharmaceutical companies.
While scientific studies are a very important part of protecting the public’s health and well being and that of the whole planet, It tells only a part of the story. There have long been concerns regarding its impacts on the environment and human health, particularly from Indigenous communities. Current research, in partnership with the Animbiigoo Zaagi’igan Anishinaabek (AZA) First Nation in northwestern Ontario, about the impact of glyphosate being sprayed on their traditional territory demonstrates that policymakers and researchers need to learn from the experiences of people living and working on the land.
Several First Nations communities expressed great concern over the levels of environmental contaminants on their territories. Members of the AZA have been particularly distressed about the impacts of glyphosate on their traditional food systems, the land and watershed, and the community’s health for several years. People who live and work on the land have noticed many changes to food systems and community health and they have called immediately for research and action to address these concerns.
International agencies have classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans” based on “limited” evidence it causes cancer in people and “sufficient” evidence it causes cancer in animals. This pronouncement has been of intense interest for many Indigenous communities because glyphosate is being sprayed on the berries they eat, the animals they take and the fish that make up their traditional diet along with the natural medicines they collect in the wild. Some health-related issues have been directly connected to glyphosate use, such as destruction of cells, inflammation that can damage healthy tissue and weakening of the immune system’s ability to defend the body against infections and disease, And what makes the situation even more concerning is that there is no clear consensus on what level is considered safe.
Western science dominates policymaking and regulation. However, Indigenous knowledge has a lot to contribute to research and decision-making if we understand its value. The indigenous concept of “Two-eyed seeing” is a way to integrate Indigenous and western ways of knowing, foster deeper understanding and create more holistic, balanced approaches for the benefit of all.
MAGA – MAHA backlash over herbicide promotion
Many first time voters who joined the Trump campaign during the 2024 election did so because of promises to tackle “toxics in our environments and pesticides in our food”. These voters are very angry and feel betrayed after Trump signed an executive order to boost U.S. production of glyphosate, the pesticide used in the weedkiller Roundup, that is possibly linked to cancer and is the subject of numerous lawsuits, including one brought by Trump’s own Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
“Ensuring an adequate supply of glyphosate-based herbicides is crucial to national security and defense, including food-supply security,” Trump claimed in his Executive order. This decision has completely alienated the people that referred to themselves as “MAHA moms” after Kennedy’s “Make America Healthy Again” slogan, are now abandoning their support for the president. Many of these women feel like they were lied to and that the whole MAHA movement was a scam. Most of the anger is directed towards Trump but many question why Kennedy is backing production of a chemical he has criticized his whole career and gone to court over its use.
This executive order also has garnered strong push back from a surprising source, Republican Representative Thomas Massie, who said that he would introduce legislation to overturn the order. It seems that Trump has started a fight between MAGA and MAHA.
Thomas Massie said he will introduce the “No Immunity for Glyphosate Act” to undo the recent Executive Order which promotes glyphosate (Round-Up) and insulates manufacturers from liability.
At the same time MAGA Republicans in the House of Representatives are launching a full on assault on theToxic Substance Control Act (TSCA) this coincides with a series of rule changes within the EPA that also seek to weaken chemical oversight. Trump campaigned on cleaning up the nation’s water and food supply, a priority for the Robert F Kennedy Jr-led MAHA movement that he has not followed through with.
The most serious change, is the new TSCA law would eliminate the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) mandate to ensure new chemicals won’t harm people. The agency would only have to say a chemical probably won’t harm people, this a very important legal distinction because it would allow many dangerous substances, like Pfas “forever chemicals”, to go to market despite their obvious dangerous risks.
It is well known that the Trump administration has very close ties to the chemical and pesticide industries, and its ongoing deregulation operation has fueled tension among many Republicans and MAHA. The chemical safety office is now headed by former chemical and pesticide industry lobbyists, so what could go wrong?
What’s on Larry’s radar
Larry Glass has been working with the NEC now for 50 years and is its longest serving board member. He has been an environmental activist since the first Earth Day. Larry is focused on forest and public lands defense. Larry is Currently the Public Lands Director for the Northcoast Environmental Center.