If Gov. Schwarzenegger caves to political pressure, a new pesticide called methyl iodide could replace methyl bromide as the primary pest-fighter used by strawberry farmers. This might come as some relief to environmentalists whove been pushing the phaseout of the ozone-depleting methyl bromide. But theres a catch: its would-be replacement is a highly volatile carcinogen, or cancer-causing agent. And activists fear that California will see a replay of the 2007 Bush administration decision to approve methyl iodide before hearing what the scientific community said first.
According to activists, the pesticide industry has been pressuring the governor to speed up the approval process so that the new pesticide will be available for the next fumigation process, which starts in August. Sources expect the governor to make a decision within a few weeks. The fumigant up for approval is Midas, the commercial form of methyl iodide and chloropicrin produced by the company Arysta.
They are circumventing the scientific process, says Dr. Susan Kegley, a consulting chemist for the Pesticide Action Network, explaining that while the states Department of Pesticide Regulation ordinarily runs its own tests before approval, this time the decision might be made before the Scientific Review Panel reviews the departments risk assessment draft. Kegley says the environmental costs associated with methyl iodide are largely unknown; the EPA has yet to do an environmental study. The effects that methyl iodide has on field mice and birds that dont get out of the way is yet to be determined, says Kegley.
Methyl iodides health effects are better understoodand theyre not good. The draft of the DPRs risk assessment reports in bureaucratese that methyl iodide increases the incidence of cancer, miscarriages and thyroid disease. Kegley, meanwhile, observes that scientists use the utmost care when testing it. Methyl iodide is so toxic that scientists working with it in the laboratory take extreme caution when handling it, using a ventilation hood, gloves and special equipment for transferring it so it does not escape to the air, she says, adding that workers would breathe 100 times the dose found acceptable by state lawand without the protection a lab provides.
However, it is not just the fieldworkers health that is at stake. People in surrounding areas would receive amounts higher than the DPRs acceptable dose, says Kegley, noting that federal scientists, when they accepted the pesticide, didnt account for the prevailing winds throughout much of California. They did not take into serious consideration the people living downwind of the areas, she says. Finally, even though methyl iodide is placed in the soil, it could leach into the groundwater.
To Paul Towers, state director of Pesticide Watch, its a matter of leaping from the frying pan into the fire. As a society we should collectively be moving toward safer practices. New York has taken the lead and rejected methyl iodide as a pesticide, he says. In theory, only the applicators are exposed to pesticides. [But] methyl iodide poses even more potential threats than methyl bromide.
To most of us, there would be little discernible difference between the strawberry farmers of Santa Cruz County using methyl bromide and methyl iodide. From the road, passersby would see the same tarps over the fields that are used for methyl bromide fumigation. The two products work in much the same way. Brett Melone, executive director of Agriculture & Land-Based Training Association (ALBA), explains how. Methyl iodide kills everything in the soil before planting begins, he says, adding that all soil fumigants sterilize the planting area, killing everything from fungi to nematodes.
He also says there are safer ways to fight pests and disease. Its all about managing the soil, he says. More to the point, it is entirely unnecessary, as sustainable and organic farming systems are available now. ALBA has trained hundreds of farmers to grow foodincluding strawberrieswithout chemicals in Monterey, Santa Cruz and San Benito counties. Most of the farmers ALBA works with are former farm workers seeking a healthier environment to grow food.


Comments (7)
Post a comment
neff segal Wed, Jul 15, 2009 - 1:23 pm
Please no more pesticides, we want healthier foods, more natural foods in all groups.
Robert Navarro Wed, Jul 15, 2009 - 1:57 pm
The safety of our migrant workers is an essential duty to our fellow man. I have traveled throughout the central valley of CA twice this year and am saddened by the reduction of work due mainly to the terrible drought. Continuing threats caused by pesticides should be our concern. As a video documentarian, I am seeking additional stories about the plight of the migrants. Feel free to contact me.
Dorothy M. Martin Wed, Jul 15, 2009 - 2:10 pm
There is no excuse for contaminating the earth with chemicals whose effects are unknown. Please use natural methods which are available and will not cause damage to those who are in harm’s way. Stop this now!
lodiza lepore Thu, Jul 16, 2009 - 3:08 am
Stop poisoning us with these chemicals!
jim rothstein Thu, Jul 16, 2009 - 4:58 pm
Thank you for a timely, informative article about possible California approval, use (and dangers) of new pesticide to fumigate strawberry fields before planting. (You beat the Sentinel, too.) As I understand the two articles the new chemical, Methyl Iodide, a replacement for a popular pesticide being phased out for ozone depletion, seems to be on fast-track to California approval without the usual scientific evaluation process, as the EPA did in 2007.
Given the objections to the new pesticide and the sustainable, organic alternatives you cite, I guess I want to ask the obvious: Who is asking for fast-track and why?
Being a simple concerned citizen, non-Californian and non-farmer, I’m also very curious to hear what the farmers objecting to safer organic soil management say about the new pesticide vs. a sustainable, organic solution.
Thanks.
tom obrien Wed, Jul 22, 2009 - 4:02 am
I don’t believe in organic. Organic people are the same people that believe President Obama was not born in the USA,we didn’t land on the moon and the government planned 9/11. You can be a bad farmer and grow organicly or conventionally. Chemical pesticides,herbicides and fertilizers when used correctly are not harmful but hard line organic liberals refuse to recognize this,they have zero tolerance and want to throw the kid out with the bathwater.Organic does not mean quality or safety and we could not feed a third of the US if we went all organic so get real and let responsible growers do their job and quit these conspiricy theories.
jim rothstein Tue, Jul 28, 2009 - 6:07 pm
Tom, I think you make some good points:
“You can be a bad farmer and grow organicly or conventionally.” And, I agree that “organic” is not a guarantee the product is healthy or quality.
In other fields, like practicing law or medicine or writing software or chemical engineering (ex: lead acceptable in gasoline) there are usually certain ‘standards’ called “best practices” that change over time, but are roughly considered the “right” way to handle a given situation, i.e. a rule of thumb.
So I assume, there are a set of best practices for “soil management” and agriculture and that this changes over time. “Best practices” in 1960 or 1920 (or 1600), I am sure is different from today.
What are the “best practices” today?
You feel “Chemical pesticides,herbicides and fertilizers when used correctly are not harmful”
Can you support this statement? Is it a consensus of scientists? Are you including the various environmental issues, toxins, runoffs, etc? What if there is a “rouge farmer” who does NOT use pesticides correctly?
I know some don’t want to listen, but I would like to hear your argument.
jim