February 21, 2010
A scientific panel has raised serious concerns about the use of methyl iodide on California farmland, saying the highly potent chemical poses significant health risks to workers and the general population.
The report from the state-appointed group of experts comes as a blow to farmers and the makers of the fumigant -- the Tokyo-based Arysta LifeScience Corp. -- who have been fighting for more than a year to get the chemical approved in California.
At stake for farmers is the loss of a potential replacement for methyl bromide, which was phased out by the federal government in 2005 because it damages the Earth's protective ozone layer.
"The products that we have just don't do the job," said Barry Bedwell, president of the Fresno-based California Grape and Tree Fruit League.
The federal EPA and virtually every other state has approved methyl iodide. But the eight-member committee reviewing the chemical for use in California found that the risk of using methyl iodide, a known carcinogen, is too great, especially for workers whose protections are commonly "inappropriate, inadequate or inaccessible."
"Due to the potent toxicity of methyl iodide ... adequate control of human exposure would be difficult, if not impossible," wrote John Froines, chair of the review committee and a UCLA professor of environmental health sciences.
Listed by the state as a carcinogen, methyl iodide can cause thyroid cancer, respiratory tract lesions and neurological effects in laboratory animals.
Mary-Ann Warmerdam, director of the Department of Pesticide Regulation, will review the panel's findings and her own department's research as she decides if farmers can use the chemical and if so, under what restrictions.
A department spokesman said Warmerdam is expected to make a decision soon.
In California, fumigants are an effective tool for clearing the soil of pests, diseases and weeds and are widely used in the strawberry industry, commercial nurseries and in the planting of new trees and vines.
Farmers have tried other alternatives, such as telone or metam sodium, but many believe methyl iodide comes closer to achieving the same results as methyl bromide.
Environmentalists praised the panel's review, saying the scientists confirm what they have been saying for months: methyl iodide is too dangerous.
"Ultimately the decision rests with DPR," said Paul S. Towers, state director of Pesticide Watch in Sacramento. "They can either choose to ignore the science and move forward with a serious toxic chemical or listen to the science and community concerns and look for safer, long-term solutions."
Advocates also have threatened the possibility of suing the state if methyl iodide is approved.
"If they don't make a decision that is protective of California, there are other routes we can take," said Susan Kegley, a consulting scientist with Pesticide Action Network North America.
Supporters of the fumigant say that despite the panel's report, they hope the state agrees to register the chemical for use in California.
"All chemicals are toxic at some level, and a lot depends on the dosage and concentration," said Robert Dolezal, executive vice president of the California Association of Nurseries and Garden Centers in Sacramento. "But the key here is mitigating measures that you have on the label for any soil fumigant. And there are protections for methyl iodide."
Arysta officials have said that methyl iodide can be used in lower quantities, reducing the total amount used in the field. The company also requires fumigant applicators to undergo special training.
In a recent statement, Arysta officials said they were disappointed with the panel's finding and blasted the experts for ignoring scientific research that helped methyl iodide gain registration from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in 2007. The fumigant can be used with restrictions, and 47 states also have approved its use.
"The panel has ignored solid science and taken an extremely conservative position that ignores the weight of scientific evidence supporting EPA's risk assessment," the Arysta statement said.
Bedwell worries that environmentalists are pushing farmers to be pesticide-free, and that is unrealistic.
"As much as I wish we could do that, we can't provide food at the level that consumers demand from agriculture and be sustainable," Bedwell said. "Fumigants, including methyl iodide, are part of that equation."
Posts
