Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Boycott Gallo Wines
The workers of Gallo in Sonoma County have been fighting to improve working conditions, making strides to overcome an eight year drought in wage increases. However, while some Gallo workers now earn $8.18 an hour, have 8 days of vacation and receive health benefits for themselves and for their families, the majority do not. Those workers who have been denied these benefits are hired through farm labor contractors (FLCs), which are third party agencies. This contract loophole denies 75 percent of Gallo workers these hard fought benefits. This inequality is at the heart of the current battle being fought by the United Farm Workers Union of America (UFW).
From the painfully tedious work of pruning to the brutally rushed pace of harvest, working the grape fields is labor-intensive. A typical day begins at 6 a.m., and the work continues into the hot hours of the afternoon, ending around 4 p.m. This hard work is rewarded with low pay and few benefits.
The workers of Gallo in Sonoma County have been fighting to improve working conditions, making strides to overcome an eight year drought in wage increases. However, while some Gallo workers now earn $8.18 an hour, have 8 days of vacation and receive health benefits for themselves and for their families, the majority do not. Those workers who have been denied these benefits are hired through farm labor contractors (FLCs), which are third party agencies. This contract loophole denies 75 percent of Gallo workers these hard fought benefits. This inequality is at the heart of the current battle being fought by the United Farm Workers Union of America (UFW).
On June 14, 2005, the UFW announced the official boycott of all E & J Gallo, Inc. labels in an act of solidarity with Gallo farm workers in Sonoma County. UFW President Arturo Rodriguez states, “We will ask millions of people of good will to respond to an appeal for them to act constructively by convincing the Gallos to do the responsible thing. And in the end, we will succeed.”
Neither Gallo nor the UFW workers are strangers to these conflicts. Salvador Mendoza, a former Gallo worker and a long-time UFW Union Organizer, stated that the Gallo family is notorious for their anti-union values and poor treatment of workers and. In turn, the workers have had a long history of fighting back.
In 1973, the UFW led the way in asserting rights for farm workers during the first Gallo boycott. During that time, workers suffered from horrendous working conditions. Even very basic provisions were not available; there were no bathrooms and drinking water was inaccessible, if available at all. Leader Cesar Chavez urged the community to vote with their dollars against the abuse of farm workers in California.
A 1975 Louis Harris poll showed that over a million consumers were respecting the Gallo Boycott. The successful boycott and other gains of the 1970’s brought about changes that at one time were unthinkable. The current conflict represents a new opportunity to confront injustices.
Gallo workers in Sonoma County are on the front lines of these struggles. In 1994 the workers overwhelmingly voted for Union recognition, and in 2000 signed their first contract. This five-year struggle ran into a wall when the company refused to extend health benefits, seniority, grievance/arbitration procedure and vacation to workers employed through FLCs. The full benefits of the 2000 contract strictly covered direct-hires but only offered a tentative agreement to revisit the FLC workers’ needs in the next contract. At that time, the majority of the labor force consisted of direct-hires. Today, FLC workers constitute more then 75 percent of Gallo’s farm labor. Gallo is clinging fiercely to an industry trend that offers companies a free pass from worker compensation claims and the provision of employee benefits.
FLCs provide an erratic workforce that is practically immune to being organized. FLC workers are mostly young Mexican men who have immigrated from Puebla, Michuacan and Oaxaca. These immigrants do not cross the desert on a five day hike with only the clothes, water and food they can carry to then fight the injustices of the California farm labor system; they come in search of fair work. Gallo and other corporate wine giants understand that and use it in their favor. The FLC loophole is exploited by almost all growers in the industry and the UFW is fighting back. When the contract expired in November of 2003, the question of the FLCs became the focal point of the negotiations.
Given the workers’ insistence on including the FLCs in future contracts, it is no surprise that Gallo is fighting back. In January 2004, the winemaker was charged by the Agricultural Labor Relations Board (ALRB) with unfair labor practices. Company foremen and supervisors were found circulating and directing workers to sign a decertification petition to oust the UFW. Decertification is only valid, however, when the request to decertify the union is driven by the workers themselves. In November 2004, the ALRB unanimously ruled that the decertification attempted had been maneuvered by the company and charged Gallo with unfair labor practices.
Throughout the negotiations, workers charge that dishonesty and ill-will on the part of Gallo have become more and more evident; this helps to further their resolve. Though their organizing efforts have been strong, they have not achieved all their goals. Gallo continues to deny additional benefits to employees working under FLCs. The UFW bargaining committee has offered a counter-proposal to provide the FLC workers with an end-of-season bonus. The grape harvest ends in December, a month when workers traditionally go back to Mexico. In a clear example of bad-faith negotiating, the Gallo’s counter-offer promised to pay the workers this bonus in January. However, Gallo knows that it is never certain that a worker will return the next season, or that the supervisor of the FLC will choose to re-hire the worker.
By enacting a commercial boycott of Gallo products, the public can hold this wine giant accountable for fair labor practices, preventing them from taking advantage of the FLC loophole. A successful boycott will impact Gallo economically, thereby pushing the company to comply with worker demands—mainly, equal benefits for direct hires and FLC workers.
California’s wine consumption alone is twice the national average. The state’s buying power can be an effective tool in bringing justice to the people who put food on our table and wine in our glasses. First UFW Vice President, Irv Herschembalm, sums up the situation this way: “After nineteen months of trying to get Gallo to respect the workers, it has become clear that the only thing Gallo respects is power . . . so we are taking the power to the community.”
Vanessa Rhodes grew up in the Central Valley. She worked during 2004 as an Organizer/Contract Administrator in Sonoma and Napa counties. She is currently representing homecare workers in Contra Costa County with SEIU-United Healthcare Workers-West.
The workers of Gallo in Sonoma County have been fighting to improve working conditions, making strides to overcome an eight year drought in wage increases. However, while some Gallo workers now earn $8.18 an hour, have 8 days of vacation and receive health benefits for themselves and for their families, the majority do not. Those workers who have been denied these benefits are hired through farm labor contractors (FLCs), which are third party agencies. This contract loophole denies 75 percent of Gallo workers these hard fought benefits. This inequality is at the heart of the current battle being fought by the United Farm Workers Union of America (UFW).
On June 14, 2005, the UFW announced the official boycott of all E & J Gallo, Inc. labels in an act of solidarity with Gallo farm workers in Sonoma County. UFW President Arturo Rodriguez states, “We will ask millions of people of good will to respond to an appeal for them to act constructively by convincing the Gallos to do the responsible thing. And in the end, we will succeed.”
Neither Gallo nor the UFW workers are strangers to these conflicts. Salvador Mendoza, a former Gallo worker and a long-time UFW Union Organizer, stated that the Gallo family is notorious for their anti-union values and poor treatment of workers and. In turn, the workers have had a long history of fighting back.
In 1973, the UFW led the way in asserting rights for farm workers during the first Gallo boycott. During that time, workers suffered from horrendous working conditions. Even very basic provisions were not available; there were no bathrooms and drinking water was inaccessible, if available at all. Leader Cesar Chavez urged the community to vote with their dollars against the abuse of farm workers in California.
A 1975 Louis Harris poll showed that over a million consumers were respecting the Gallo Boycott. The successful boycott and other gains of the 1970’s brought about changes that at one time were unthinkable. The current conflict represents a new opportunity to confront injustices.
Gallo workers in Sonoma County are on the front lines of these struggles. In 1994 the workers overwhelmingly voted for Union recognition, and in 2000 signed their first contract. This five-year struggle ran into a wall when the company refused to extend health benefits, seniority, grievance/arbitration procedure and vacation to workers employed through FLCs. The full benefits of the 2000 contract strictly covered direct-hires but only offered a tentative agreement to revisit the FLC workers’ needs in the next contract. At that time, the majority of the labor force consisted of direct-hires. Today, FLC workers constitute more then 75 percent of Gallo’s farm labor. Gallo is clinging fiercely to an industry trend that offers companies a free pass from worker compensation claims and the provision of employee benefits.
FLCs provide an erratic workforce that is practically immune to being organized. FLC workers are mostly young Mexican men who have immigrated from Puebla, Michuacan and Oaxaca. These immigrants do not cross the desert on a five day hike with only the clothes, water and food they can carry to then fight the injustices of the California farm labor system; they come in search of fair work. Gallo and other corporate wine giants understand that and use it in their favor. The FLC loophole is exploited by almost all growers in the industry and the UFW is fighting back. When the contract expired in November of 2003, the question of the FLCs became the focal point of the negotiations.
Given the workers’ insistence on including the FLCs in future contracts, it is no surprise that Gallo is fighting back. In January 2004, the winemaker was charged by the Agricultural Labor Relations Board (ALRB) with unfair labor practices. Company foremen and supervisors were found circulating and directing workers to sign a decertification petition to oust the UFW. Decertification is only valid, however, when the request to decertify the union is driven by the workers themselves. In November 2004, the ALRB unanimously ruled that the decertification attempted had been maneuvered by the company and charged Gallo with unfair labor practices.
Throughout the negotiations, workers charge that dishonesty and ill-will on the part of Gallo have become more and more evident; this helps to further their resolve. Though their organizing efforts have been strong, they have not achieved all their goals. Gallo continues to deny additional benefits to employees working under FLCs. The UFW bargaining committee has offered a counter-proposal to provide the FLC workers with an end-of-season bonus. The grape harvest ends in December, a month when workers traditionally go back to Mexico. In a clear example of bad-faith negotiating, the Gallo’s counter-offer promised to pay the workers this bonus in January. However, Gallo knows that it is never certain that a worker will return the next season, or that the supervisor of the FLC will choose to re-hire the worker.
By enacting a commercial boycott of Gallo products, the public can hold this wine giant accountable for fair labor practices, preventing them from taking advantage of the FLC loophole. A successful boycott will impact Gallo economically, thereby pushing the company to comply with worker demands—mainly, equal benefits for direct hires and FLC workers.
California’s wine consumption alone is twice the national average. The state’s buying power can be an effective tool in bringing justice to the people who put food on our table and wine in our glasses. First UFW Vice President, Irv Herschembalm, sums up the situation this way: “After nineteen months of trying to get Gallo to respect the workers, it has become clear that the only thing Gallo respects is power . . . so we are taking the power to the community.”
Vanessa Rhodes grew up in the Central Valley. She worked during 2004 as an Organizer/Contract Administrator in Sonoma and Napa counties. She is currently representing homecare workers in Contra Costa County with SEIU-United Healthcare Workers-West.
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
Another reason to boycott Gallo wines is the excess use of pesticides and other chemical sprays known to cause cancer and other physical health disruptions in all living beings. This includes but is not limited to grape workers, consumers, residents, birds, fish, mammals, etc..
Grape workers are most directly impacted by exposure to pesticides containing known carcinogins used by Gallo. People with cancer and skin rashes are often sent home without any medical treatment, the cases of injury from pesticide exposure are underreported. The dependency by grape plantations on pesticide is a result of severe habitat alteration and replacement of native species by grape monoculture..
Gallo's grape plantation monoculture doesn't allow habitat for beneficial predatory insects like dragonflies and ladybugs. The spraying of pesticide toxins also adversely effects the beneficial predator population because of bioaccumulation and slower lifecycle than pest insects. This results in an outbreak of pesticide resistant pest insects with few predators to keep their population in check. Next year stronger pesticides are needed to prevent the now resistant pest insects from impacting the grape harvest..
Since the wind does not discriminate, nearby residents living downwind of Gallo's grape plantations also can expect a daily coating of pesticides and herbicides on their homes and gardens..
Some info from a previous indybay article;
http://www.indybay.org/news/2005/07/1750716_comment.php
Here's some linx from a group of Sonoma residents in favor of ending the spraying of toxic chemical pesticides by the grape growers, primarily Gallo..
No Spray Action Network;
http://www.freestone.com/nospray/
http://www.freestone.com/appleblossom.html
http://www.freestone.com/ruralalliance/
http://www.freestone.com/
"It is estimated that 10% of Sonoma's 50,000 acres of vines were converted from wooded land, particularly from orchards, oak and redwood stands. Contributing to public fear is a recent study by the University of California which identified 150,000 acres of mostly woodland that is ideally suited to conversion to grape agriculture."
above and rest of article @:
http://www.marikane.com/kanewrld/natives.html
(site down)
Pesticides applied to grape vinyards resulted in thousands of workers becoming ill from direct contact exposure via wind. It is nearly impossible to stand in a large grape vinyard and not breath in airborn chemicals from pesticide/herbicide/etc applications. Masks are not 100 percent effective at blocking pesticide molecules from entering the lungs..
The resulting illnesses of Mexican grape workers from pesticide exposure led to the table grape boicott organized by Cesar Chavez and UFW years ago. Corporations like Gallo still depend on heavy pesticide applications for their large monocultura vinyards. The less crop diversity, the more pesticides needed..
Grape Boicott "Wrath of Grapes"
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=315
(2000 article)
The problem with monocultura grape plantations is they cannot exist without depending on the petrochemical pesticides and fertilizers that lead to cancer and contaminated ecosystems. The intrusion of the grape vinyards into oak woodlands can have ill effects on the remaining trees also..
There is some evidence that diseases like "sudden oak death" are in fact a result of overexposure to pesticide/herbicide contamination from wind drift. Overwatering near oak trees can also encourage fungi and root rot. The oaks have evolved with the dry Mediterranean summers of the valley/foothills and cannot tolerate overwatering as grape plantations are notorious for. The oak tree is a living being that can suffer from a toxic chemical exposure similar to humans. A weakened immune system in oak trees from airborn herbicide exposure could result in increased susceptibility to standard diseases like "sudden oak death". The grape belt around Sonoma is one of the locations where sudden oak death initially emerged..
Oaks were and are a food staple for thousands of years to present for indigenous Californians. Acorn bread from blue or valley oaks can be enjoied by anyone, just gather some acorns and soak them to remove tannic acid, then peel the shells, soak again, grind into flour and add something to make bread. Is really tasty, healthy and also free!!
Having a few grape vines growing amongst the oak woodlands would improve the quality of life for everyone. Some extra moisture from the trees via deep taproot transpiration would keep the grapes from getting so thirsty. Horizontal oak branches could be included in the trellis framework. A communal oak/grape woodland vinyard could provide people with fair trade food/drink crops for trade and barter minus the pesticide/herbicide toxicity currently employed by Gallo..
We need to challenge the claims of land ownership Gallo corporation makes on large tracts of oak woodlands. how did Gallo come into "owning" half the county land, and who were the initial stewards of the land (Pomo) and where are they now?
These current Gallo monocultura vinyards can be returned to oak woodlands easily (easy physically, not easy boreocratically). Gallo's corporate occupation of oak woodland habitat needs to end..
love, peace and anarchy,
luna moth
article below from Beyond Pesticides website;
"Take Action: Boycott Gallo Wine
(Beyond Pesticides, July 19, 2005) On June 14, 2005, the United Farm Workers, AFL-CIO (UFW) launched its second boycott of Gallo wine in 32 years and the union’s first major nationwide boycott in more than two decades. With contract negotiations set for July 21, 2005 in Santa Rosa, CA, UFW is stepping up its boycott of Gallo wine with supporters gathering today in 19 cities across the U.S. to distribute boycott appeals online. The Washington, DC event will be hosted by Beyond Pesticides. The first National Day of Internet Organizing for “No Gallo!” will be followed by similar events held in the U.S. and in some of the other 85 other countries where Gallo wines are sold.
According to UFW, farmworkers have been trying to negotiate a new contract at Gallo's high-end winery, Gallo of Sonoma for nearly two years. Gallo of Sonoma hires the majority of its farm workers through labor contractors but wants to deny them the health benefits and contract protections provided to direct hires.
The Gallos deny the majority of their Sonoma County vineyard workers benefits and grievance rights. UFW says that the Gallos abuse, cheat and deny these workers benefits, job protections and humane living conditions in the heart of California’s fabled wine country. The Gallos say they have no responsibility for the miserable conditions endured by their vineyard employees because they are “temporary workers.” Gallo is a multi-billon dollar company yet pays less than other Sonoma County wineries.
Farmworkers who are exposed to toxic pesticides on an ongoing basis are at greater risk for cancer, birth defects, depression and other diseases, as well as work-related injury. Under current U.S. pesticide law, farmworkers are not treated as equals with the rest of society. Pesticide cancer and other disease risks are permitted to be ten times higher for farmworkers than the general population.
Farmworkers have marched, sent letters and petitioned the company to negotiate a fair contract. With no progress on negotiations, they turned to people of goodwill nationwide to boycott all Gallo products.
Gallo wines sell under the following brand names (sometimes the back label will say Gallo):
Anapamu, Andre, Ballatore Spumante, Bartles & Jaymes Coolers, Bella Sera, Black Swan, Boone's Farm, Bridlewood Winery, Burlwood, Carlo Rossi, Cask & Cream Caramel Temptation, Cask & Cream Chocolate Temptation, Copperidge, Da VINCI, E & J Gallo Twin Valley, E&J Cognac, E&J Gallo Vineyards, E&J VS Brandy, E&J VSOP Brandy, Ecco Domani, Ernest & Julio Gallo Twin Valley Vineyards, Frei Brother, Frei Brothers Reserve, Gallo Estate, Gallo Fairbanks, Gallo Livingston Cellars, Gallo of Sonoma, Gallo of Sonoma County Series, Gallo of Sonoma Estate Series, Gallo of Sonoma Single Vineyard, Gallo Sheffield Cellars, Gallo Vermouth, Gossamer Bay, Indigo Hills, Indigo Hills Blanc de Blancs, Liberty Creek, Livingston Cellars, Louis M. Martini, MacMurray Ranch, Marcelina, McWilliams Hanwood Estate, Mirassou, Napa Valley Vineyards, Peter Vella, Rancho Zabaco, Rancho Zabaco Winery, Red Bicyclette, Redwood Creek, Tott's, Turning Leaf, Turning Leaf Coastal Reserve, Whitehaven, Wild Vines, and William Wycliff.
TAKE ACTION: Join the boycott of Gallo wines. SIGN THE PETITION! For background information, sample letters and to sign the online petition, visit http://www.gallounfair.com. If you are in the Washington, DC area and would like to participate in the email action lunch, contact John Kepner at jkepner [at] beyondpesticides.org. About the event: While the boycott officially began about a month ago, the purpose of this event is to spread the word and make the campaign "go viral." Join other activists in sending email alerts to your friends, family and colleagues during the email-action lunch. Sure, you could spread the word from your office, but the idea is to get together, show support for the farmworker community and have lunch and a glass of non-Gallo organic wine with other campaign supporters. We will provide sample text, which you will be able to customize for your audience. To participate, you may: a) bring your laptop and connect to our wireless network, b) bring your email list on CD or floppy disk, or c) email your email list in advance to jkepner [at] beyondpesticides.org."
above info at;
http://www.beyondpesticides.org/news/daily_news_archive/2005/07_19_05.htm
Sad to say that labor unions of today are not always up to facing the challenge of corporate intrusions on indigenous land. Still a remnent of industrial agriculture, the UFW is attempting to operate in a system of farming no longer desireable. It would be best for Gallo corporation to completely disappear instead of pretending that some form of compromise is possible. However, UFW still has some good info on the health effects of pesticide on workers..
UFW Pesticide info;
http://www.ufw.org/pesticides.htm
Grape workers are most directly impacted by exposure to pesticides containing known carcinogins used by Gallo. People with cancer and skin rashes are often sent home without any medical treatment, the cases of injury from pesticide exposure are underreported. The dependency by grape plantations on pesticide is a result of severe habitat alteration and replacement of native species by grape monoculture..
Gallo's grape plantation monoculture doesn't allow habitat for beneficial predatory insects like dragonflies and ladybugs. The spraying of pesticide toxins also adversely effects the beneficial predator population because of bioaccumulation and slower lifecycle than pest insects. This results in an outbreak of pesticide resistant pest insects with few predators to keep their population in check. Next year stronger pesticides are needed to prevent the now resistant pest insects from impacting the grape harvest..
Since the wind does not discriminate, nearby residents living downwind of Gallo's grape plantations also can expect a daily coating of pesticides and herbicides on their homes and gardens..
Some info from a previous indybay article;
http://www.indybay.org/news/2005/07/1750716_comment.php
Here's some linx from a group of Sonoma residents in favor of ending the spraying of toxic chemical pesticides by the grape growers, primarily Gallo..
No Spray Action Network;
http://www.freestone.com/nospray/
http://www.freestone.com/appleblossom.html
http://www.freestone.com/ruralalliance/
http://www.freestone.com/
"It is estimated that 10% of Sonoma's 50,000 acres of vines were converted from wooded land, particularly from orchards, oak and redwood stands. Contributing to public fear is a recent study by the University of California which identified 150,000 acres of mostly woodland that is ideally suited to conversion to grape agriculture."
above and rest of article @:
http://www.marikane.com/kanewrld/natives.html
(site down)
Pesticides applied to grape vinyards resulted in thousands of workers becoming ill from direct contact exposure via wind. It is nearly impossible to stand in a large grape vinyard and not breath in airborn chemicals from pesticide/herbicide/etc applications. Masks are not 100 percent effective at blocking pesticide molecules from entering the lungs..
The resulting illnesses of Mexican grape workers from pesticide exposure led to the table grape boicott organized by Cesar Chavez and UFW years ago. Corporations like Gallo still depend on heavy pesticide applications for their large monocultura vinyards. The less crop diversity, the more pesticides needed..
Grape Boicott "Wrath of Grapes"
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=315
(2000 article)
The problem with monocultura grape plantations is they cannot exist without depending on the petrochemical pesticides and fertilizers that lead to cancer and contaminated ecosystems. The intrusion of the grape vinyards into oak woodlands can have ill effects on the remaining trees also..
There is some evidence that diseases like "sudden oak death" are in fact a result of overexposure to pesticide/herbicide contamination from wind drift. Overwatering near oak trees can also encourage fungi and root rot. The oaks have evolved with the dry Mediterranean summers of the valley/foothills and cannot tolerate overwatering as grape plantations are notorious for. The oak tree is a living being that can suffer from a toxic chemical exposure similar to humans. A weakened immune system in oak trees from airborn herbicide exposure could result in increased susceptibility to standard diseases like "sudden oak death". The grape belt around Sonoma is one of the locations where sudden oak death initially emerged..
Oaks were and are a food staple for thousands of years to present for indigenous Californians. Acorn bread from blue or valley oaks can be enjoied by anyone, just gather some acorns and soak them to remove tannic acid, then peel the shells, soak again, grind into flour and add something to make bread. Is really tasty, healthy and also free!!
Having a few grape vines growing amongst the oak woodlands would improve the quality of life for everyone. Some extra moisture from the trees via deep taproot transpiration would keep the grapes from getting so thirsty. Horizontal oak branches could be included in the trellis framework. A communal oak/grape woodland vinyard could provide people with fair trade food/drink crops for trade and barter minus the pesticide/herbicide toxicity currently employed by Gallo..
We need to challenge the claims of land ownership Gallo corporation makes on large tracts of oak woodlands. how did Gallo come into "owning" half the county land, and who were the initial stewards of the land (Pomo) and where are they now?
These current Gallo monocultura vinyards can be returned to oak woodlands easily (easy physically, not easy boreocratically). Gallo's corporate occupation of oak woodland habitat needs to end..
love, peace and anarchy,
luna moth
article below from Beyond Pesticides website;
"Take Action: Boycott Gallo Wine
(Beyond Pesticides, July 19, 2005) On June 14, 2005, the United Farm Workers, AFL-CIO (UFW) launched its second boycott of Gallo wine in 32 years and the union’s first major nationwide boycott in more than two decades. With contract negotiations set for July 21, 2005 in Santa Rosa, CA, UFW is stepping up its boycott of Gallo wine with supporters gathering today in 19 cities across the U.S. to distribute boycott appeals online. The Washington, DC event will be hosted by Beyond Pesticides. The first National Day of Internet Organizing for “No Gallo!” will be followed by similar events held in the U.S. and in some of the other 85 other countries where Gallo wines are sold.
According to UFW, farmworkers have been trying to negotiate a new contract at Gallo's high-end winery, Gallo of Sonoma for nearly two years. Gallo of Sonoma hires the majority of its farm workers through labor contractors but wants to deny them the health benefits and contract protections provided to direct hires.
The Gallos deny the majority of their Sonoma County vineyard workers benefits and grievance rights. UFW says that the Gallos abuse, cheat and deny these workers benefits, job protections and humane living conditions in the heart of California’s fabled wine country. The Gallos say they have no responsibility for the miserable conditions endured by their vineyard employees because they are “temporary workers.” Gallo is a multi-billon dollar company yet pays less than other Sonoma County wineries.
Farmworkers who are exposed to toxic pesticides on an ongoing basis are at greater risk for cancer, birth defects, depression and other diseases, as well as work-related injury. Under current U.S. pesticide law, farmworkers are not treated as equals with the rest of society. Pesticide cancer and other disease risks are permitted to be ten times higher for farmworkers than the general population.
Farmworkers have marched, sent letters and petitioned the company to negotiate a fair contract. With no progress on negotiations, they turned to people of goodwill nationwide to boycott all Gallo products.
Gallo wines sell under the following brand names (sometimes the back label will say Gallo):
Anapamu, Andre, Ballatore Spumante, Bartles & Jaymes Coolers, Bella Sera, Black Swan, Boone's Farm, Bridlewood Winery, Burlwood, Carlo Rossi, Cask & Cream Caramel Temptation, Cask & Cream Chocolate Temptation, Copperidge, Da VINCI, E & J Gallo Twin Valley, E&J Cognac, E&J Gallo Vineyards, E&J VS Brandy, E&J VSOP Brandy, Ecco Domani, Ernest & Julio Gallo Twin Valley Vineyards, Frei Brother, Frei Brothers Reserve, Gallo Estate, Gallo Fairbanks, Gallo Livingston Cellars, Gallo of Sonoma, Gallo of Sonoma County Series, Gallo of Sonoma Estate Series, Gallo of Sonoma Single Vineyard, Gallo Sheffield Cellars, Gallo Vermouth, Gossamer Bay, Indigo Hills, Indigo Hills Blanc de Blancs, Liberty Creek, Livingston Cellars, Louis M. Martini, MacMurray Ranch, Marcelina, McWilliams Hanwood Estate, Mirassou, Napa Valley Vineyards, Peter Vella, Rancho Zabaco, Rancho Zabaco Winery, Red Bicyclette, Redwood Creek, Tott's, Turning Leaf, Turning Leaf Coastal Reserve, Whitehaven, Wild Vines, and William Wycliff.
TAKE ACTION: Join the boycott of Gallo wines. SIGN THE PETITION! For background information, sample letters and to sign the online petition, visit http://www.gallounfair.com. If you are in the Washington, DC area and would like to participate in the email action lunch, contact John Kepner at jkepner [at] beyondpesticides.org. About the event: While the boycott officially began about a month ago, the purpose of this event is to spread the word and make the campaign "go viral." Join other activists in sending email alerts to your friends, family and colleagues during the email-action lunch. Sure, you could spread the word from your office, but the idea is to get together, show support for the farmworker community and have lunch and a glass of non-Gallo organic wine with other campaign supporters. We will provide sample text, which you will be able to customize for your audience. To participate, you may: a) bring your laptop and connect to our wireless network, b) bring your email list on CD or floppy disk, or c) email your email list in advance to jkepner [at] beyondpesticides.org."
above info at;
http://www.beyondpesticides.org/news/daily_news_archive/2005/07_19_05.htm
Sad to say that labor unions of today are not always up to facing the challenge of corporate intrusions on indigenous land. Still a remnent of industrial agriculture, the UFW is attempting to operate in a system of farming no longer desireable. It would be best for Gallo corporation to completely disappear instead of pretending that some form of compromise is possible. However, UFW still has some good info on the health effects of pesticide on workers..
UFW Pesticide info;
http://www.ufw.org/pesticides.htm
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$260.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network