Last week’s end of a 16-year grape boycott represents a victory for migrant workers and for the many protesters who have fought to raise awareness about dangerous pesticides.
The boycott of California table grapes was orchestrated in 1984 by United Farm Workers’ co-founder Cesar Chavez to bring attention to the low wages and working conditions of farm workers who were often exposed to dangerous pesticides.
Not every goal of the UFW has been met, but the boycott’s halt represents recent improvements that will have a positive impact on farm workers. The three pesticides Chavez focused on - Dinoseb, Parathion and Phosdrin - are no longer used in the fields. Two others, methyl bromide and Captan, are used with less frequency.
The originators of the boycott set high goals and while they did not have complete success, their efforts have considerably improved the lives of farm workers and brought awareness to workers’ rights issues. The UFW should be satisfied with the results, while still continuing to work for more progress.
The boycott also helped to unite MSU’s Chicano and Latino community in a common cause. Numerous protests took place during the 1990s, which included smashing bags of grapes on the desk of MSU President M. Peter McPherson and a six-day hunger strike that resulted in the boycott of non-union table grapes in Holden Hall. In 1997, MSU designated March 31 “No Grapes Day” in honor of Chavez’s birthday.
MSU has an agricultural background, and this activism shed light on a side of agriculture that many were unaware of. The protests show the history of student concern at MSU over workers’ rights, which has been demonstrated more recently by student activism over the university’s involvement in the Worker Rights Consortium.
Hopefully the general public will continue to be aware of the origin of its food and the working conditions of the people who produce it. Most people do not realize that their grapes were not grown in the supermarket. Someone had to pick those grapes, and possibly not under the best conditions. Hopefully this boycott made people think about where their produce comes from.
Chavez unfortunately did not live to see the end of the boycott - he died in 1993. But the results of his crusade can be seen in the improved working conditions of farm workers. The end of the boycott brings closure to Chavez’s cause.
The boycott is over, but Chavez’s dedication to this cause should encourage more improvements in the future. While pesticides have become safer, there are still more developments to be made.
The boycott may have been long, but it brought about needed improvements that should fuel further developments in pesticide use and the plight of migrant farm workers.
