BERKELEY, California, June 19, 2008 (ENS) – Both sides are claiming victory in a lawsuit over construction of a gymnasium complex next to UC Berkeley’s California Memorial Stadium that has had tree-sitters occupying a grove of oaks on the site for the past 18 months. The activists have been living in the Memorial Oak Grove to protect it from destruction while awaiting a court decision.

An Alameda County Superior Court judge ruled Wednesday that further environmental review is required before the University of California-Berkeley can build the gym, so the trees will remain standing – for now.

Judge Barbara Miller decided that three features of the planned gym violate the Alquist-Priolo Act governing construction on or near earthquake faults. The current stadium, which is adjacent to the oak grove, stands on the Hayward earthquake fault. She rejected the university’s argument that the law does not apply to it.

One of the tree-sitters in the Memorial
Oak Grove at UC Berkeley
(Photo courtesy IndyBay)

The judge also ruled that the approval of the gym by the University of California Regents did not adequately consider earthquake risks and noise and traffic from special events planned at the university.

One of the attorneys suing the university, Stephan Volker, called the judge’s ruling as a victory for his clients, the Panoramic Hill Association.

But Judge Miller upheld most of the university’s arguments, and UC Berkeley officials said Wednesday night that the campus has prevailed on virtually every challenge in legal action that sought to halt construction of the planned Student-Athlete High Performance Center.

“We are thrilled that the judge concluded that state seismic law will allow the Student-Athlete High Performance Center to be built on the site” adjacent to California Memorial Stadium, said Vice Chancellor for Administration Nathan Brostrom. “This is a major victory for our students.”

But a year and a half of direct action and coordinated support of protection for the Memorial Oak Grove nearly ended in tragedy Tuesday when about 40 University of California police officers, and a crew of privately contracted arborists with cranes began to cut cables and remove tree-sitters’ gear and structures just below Memorial Stadium in anticipation of a court ruling favorable to the university.

Oak supporters implored the arborists through bullhorns to not engage in the reckless and life-threatening removal of the tree-sitters.

Reporter Richard Brenneman of the “Berkeley Daily Planet” saw one of the cranes brush a support line, from which a treesitter was suspended between two evergreens at least 50 feet apart.

The suspended treesitter “screamed in terror,” Brenneman wrote, when the arborists placed a saw next to the line on which she was suspended.

The suspended treesitter, known as Millipede, was brought down and arrested several hours later,

“As they maneuvered a large basket crane into position, the extractors banged into her several times. Her screams could be heard all over the grove as more than a hundred supporters watched below,” wrote the “Berkeley Citizen.” She was “wrestled onto the platform” and lowered to the ground.

This incident took place although Mitch Celaya, UC Berkeley’s assistant police chief, had said no one would be forcibly taken from the trees.

Tree-sit supporter confronts UC police.
(Photo courtesy IndyBay)

“While we will not be forcibly removing any of the protesters, we are moving to bring this illegal occupation of university property to a safe but certain end,” said Celaya. “We expect that today’s action and future steps will make it far more difficult to sustain the protest. It is unfortunate that we have been forced to take this action, but the protesters leave us no choice.”

“Crews also revved up chainsaws at least five times on Wednesday, sending large branches crashing to the ground, “absolutely in violation of the court’s injunction,” said attorneys for the protesters.

Some of the trees in the Grove were planted in 1923 as part of a World War I Veterans Memorial. The tree-sitters remain aloft as both sides analyze the court’s ruling.

A preliminary injunction granted by Judge Miller in February 2007 remains in place. It constrains the university from making any physical alterations on the project site – including cutting of the oak trees.

Karen Pickett of Bay Area Coalition for Headwaters, a nonprofit group that supports the tree-sitters, said, “This ruling sends the university back to the drawing board on their project, or into appeals, but unable to proceed forward immediately, which is clearly what they intended to do.”

View This Story On Eco–mmunity Map.

SACRAMENTO, California, June 10, 2008 (ENS) – California Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. has filed a lawsuit against companies that manufacture or distribute body care and household cleaning products that have tested highest for the carcinogenic chemical 1,4-dioxane. The lawsuit was filed May 29 in the Alameda County Superior Court.

Named as defendants are Avalon Natural Products, which makes the Alba brand products; Beaumont Products which makes VeggieWash and Clearly Natural brands; Nutribiotic, which makes grapefruit seed extract personal care products; and Whole Foods Market California, Inc., which sells the Whole Foods 365 brand.

The lawsuit seeks an injunction and civil penalties to remedy defendants’ failure to warn consumers that cleaning products such as body washes and gels and liquid dish soaps containing l,4-dioxane sold by defendants expose consumers to chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer.

Some natural personal care products
contain a known human
carcinogen, California alleges.
(Photo credit unknown)

Under the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, Health and Safety Code section 25249.6, usually called “Proposition 65,” businesses must provide persons with a “clear and reasonable warning” before exposing them to such chemicals.

The chemical 1,4-dioxane was listed under Proposition 65 as a chemical known to the State of California to cause cancer on January 1, 1988.

The California attorney general alleges that each defendant has known since at least May 29, 2004 that the body washes and gels and liquid dish soaps contain l ,4-dioxane and that persons using these products are exposed to the chemical.

In addition to violating Proposition 65, the lawsuit alleges that each defendant has engaged in unlawful business practices which constitute unfair competition.

The defendant companies face maximum fines of $2,500 per day for each violation.

The defendants’ products were tested in a study commissioned by the Organic Consumers Association, OCA, and released in March. The study analyzed “natural” and “organic” brand shampoos, body washes, lotions and other personal care products for the presence of 1,4-dioxane.

Results for all products tested is online here. http://www.organicconsumers.org/bodycare/DioxaneResults08.cfm

A reputable third-party laboratory known for rigorous testing and chain-of-custody protocols, performed the testing, the Organic Consumers Association says.

The chemical at issue in the lawsuit, 1,4-dioxane, is typically produced as a byproduct when ingredients are processed with the petrochemical ethylene oxide, which has become standard practice for many cleansing and moisturizing products.

“The OCA’s 1,4-dioxane study elevated the issue of fake ‘natural’ and ‘organic’ brands that utilize petrochemicals in their formulas in March, and now we are seeing labeling enforcement on a scale never seen before,” says the association’s National Director Ronnie Cummins.

“We used an independent laboratory and found that numerous ‘natural’ and ‘organic’ brands tested positive for 1,4-dioxane, a cancer-causing contaminant resulting from the petrochemical ethylene oxide being attached to one or more ingredients,” Cummins said.

Last week, the Organic Consumers Association sent a letter to the four companies named in the lawsuit asking if they are planning changes to their labeling or product formulations. Only one company responded.

In a letter to the association Beaumont Products of Kennesaw, Georgia wrote, “Upon being notified that there was a problem with our product, we verified that the problem existed, then took immediate action.”

Beaumont says they have reformulated their products to remove the problem ingredient.

“These companies need to stop treating the inclusion of cancer causing chemicals in their products as business as usual and reformulate before consumer confidence in the natural products and organics industry is permanently damaged,” says consumer activist David Steinman, who conducted the OCA study and exposed the presence of 1,4-dioxane in baby bubble bath products in his book “Safe Trip to Eden.”

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services considers 1,4-dioxane as “reasonably anticipated” to be a human carcinogen.

Few studies are available that provide information about the effects of 1,4-dioxane in humans. Exposure to very high levels of 1,4-dioxane can result in liver and kidney damage and death. Eye and nose irritation was reported by people inhaling low levels of 1,4-dioxane vapors for short periods up to several hours.

Studies in animals have shown that breathing, ingesting, or skin contact with 1,4-dioxane can result in liver and kidney damage.

View This Story On Eco–mmunity Map.