People get sick when sugarcane burns. Florida lawmakers giving industry a gift, anyway | Editorial

An architecture firm hired to modernize an elementary school in the Glades — the rural area south of Lake Okeechobee known for its sugarcane fields — emphasized that the building’s new design is meant to prevent students from having to walk outside.

That may seem odd, but it’s because every year, from October to May, nearby sugarcane fields are burned to prepare for harvest.

“The heavy smoke and ash prohibits outdoor play, keeping the children inside throughout the school day many times during the year,” the firm, Song + Associates Inc., wrote on its website.

There’s sufficient evidence that heavy smoke, known as “black snow,” can lead to health issues — nebulizers for respiratory issues are common in Glades households.

A Florida International University study found that levels of harmful particle pollution increase 15-fold during the harvest season.

Harder to sue

Now, keep that word “particle” in mind. That’s because it is tucked into a bill approved by the Florida Senate in March that would shield farm operations from what’s known as “nuisance lawsuits.”

House Bill 1601 and Senate Bill 88 expand Florida’s “Right to Farm” laws. Several states have such laws to protect farmers from frivolous lawsuits when city dwellers move next door and want to take farmers to court because they don’t like the smell of manure, dust or loud tractor noises.

These laws exist for a legitimate reason. Lawmakers from both parties say they must strengthen them as urban sprawl increasingly encroaches into rural areas to accommodate the Sunshine State’s population growth. After all, in a state known for its orange groves, we don’t want mom-and-pop farmers to go out of business because they are drowning in legal fees.

But this legislation has nothing to do with Joe the Farmer. It’s got Big Sugar written all over it.

The bills specifically adds “particle emissions” to the list of things considered a “nuisance grievance,” essentially shielding farmers from lawsuits related to sugarcane burning. Furthermore, as if this legislation was designed with Glades residents in mind, it also limits who can file lawsuits to those living within half mile of an operation and limits compensation if they succeed in bringing a claim. “Black snow” can be seen, smelled and inhaled miles away from where sugar fields are burned.

Campaign donors

Bill sponsors swear the legislation has nothing to do with the sugar industry, which has remained silent on this issue. But we are not buying it.

As the Herald’s Mary Ellen Klas reported this month, the sugar industry spent $11 million on political campaigns in Florida during the 2020 cycle — and the industry has been generous with both parties.

The Senate passed SB 88 with a bipartisan 37-1 vote. Senate Democratic Leader Gary Farmer, of Broward County, was the only vote against it.

The timing of this legislation couldn’t be more suspicious. In 2019, a class-action lawsuit was filed against several sugar companies — including giants Florida Crystals and U.S. Sugar Corp. — alleging that pre-harvesting burning contains carcinogens and is to blame for respiratory problems in surrounding communities and for diminished property values.

Bill sponsors say HB 1601 and SB 88 would not be applied retroactively and impact that class-action lawsuit, which was filed in federal court. But, oddly, they rejected an amendment by Rep. Omari Hardy, D-West Palm Beach, to specify that in the bill text.

Best air quality?

The sugar industry says the Glades enjoys some of the best air quality in the state, but the EPA’s environmental-justice mapping tool places the area within the 80th to 98th percentile in its index of the most hazardous areas for respiratory health.

However, that still doesn’t violate legal standards established under the Clean Air Act, according to a report published on the environmental news site Grist and the Miami Herald.

Despite the industry’s contention that sugar cane burning doesn’t harm the Glades, the state has said it’s a different story for other parts of the state. When the wind is blowing east toward Palm Beach County’s coastal areas, which are more densely populated and wealthier, the industry has to stop burning or use the alternative method of “green harvesting,” which costs more and takes longer.

If lawmakers are trying to prevent frivolous lawsuits against farmers, current law already does that.

If they want to modernize that law, they could keep one provision in the legislation that rightfully adds agro-tourism to the list of protected operations and throw away the rest, as another failed amendment by Hardy proposed.

But this isn’t about you-pick-’em berry farms and livestock petting zoos. It’s a blatant effort to protect a powerful economic interest.

Lawmakers could at least own up to it.

This story was originally published April 10, 2021 at 7:56 PM.