|
Growers await chemical decision
By Jim Wasserman
In a fourth floor state office overlooking
Sacramento City Hall, Mary-Ann Warmerdam must make a
contentious choice about how farmers grow one of
America's favorite foods – the strawberry.
In classic
California fashion, her decision as head of the
Department of Pesticide Regulation, or
DPR, represents an environmental showdown being watched
nationally, even globally.
Warmerdam, chief farm chemical regulator in a state that grows nearly 90
percent of
That's the controversial new substitute for methyl bromide, an effective
but notorious soil sterilizer being phased out across the globe for
depleting the
ozone layer. Long employed by
California strawberry growers to rid soil of insects and
pests, the use of methyl bromide has dwindled to less than half the
state's 37,000 strawberry acres, and none in the capital region,
industry sources say.
But strawberry and nursery stock growers are hankering for a
replacement, and what's being proposed – methyl iodide – may be just as
bad or worse, environmentalists and some scientists now contend. They
say methyl iodide will potentially contaminate groundwater even as it
removes a threat to
Earth's ozone layer.
A panel of eight scientists assigned to review
DPR's evidence left no doubt about its consensus in a report
last month: methyl iodide's environmental track record is too short to
take chances. Farmworker advocates also express fears for those who will
handle the fumigant, and for those who live nearby.
"This will be loaded into the groundwater amid a population that has no
health insurance," said
Martha Guzman, a lobbyist for
California
Rural Legal Assistance, at a recent state Senate hearing.
Methyl iodide is a colorless liquid that can be injected directly into
dirt below the ground surface or absorbed into soil through
drip irrigation.
The liquid kills weed seeds that compete with the crop and eliminates
worm-like organisms called nematodes that attack roots and plants. It
also eliminates soil pathogens that spread disease and rot in plants.
Tests have linked inhalation of the toxic liquid to fetal death in
pregnant rabbits and degeneration of nasal tissue in rats. The U.S.
EPA mandates respirators for workers who come into contact
with it. But the
DPR's scientific review panel fears that predictable human
error will make the substance difficult to control and expose the public
to risk.
Citing environmental studies, Arysta LifeScience Corp. says its product
leaves no detectable residue in soil, doesn't impact groundwater quality
when used properly and isn't transmitted to plants or food.
Despite the controversy over its potential use here, 47 other states
(the other exceptions are
Washington and
New York) and the federal government have given a green light
to methyl iodide.
The product is already in use on 15,500 acres in the
Backers of methyl iodide fear a rejection in
California could prompt the Obama administration to review
and cancel the
EPA's 2007 Bush-era approval, and even suspend the chemical's
use in states like
Florida.
"We've been watching what's going on in
California," said
Dan Botts, a senior executive with the
Florida Fruit and
Vegetable Association. "We do think it will impact our
ability to use the product in the future down here."
Botts, like methyl iodide's manufacturer,
Tokyo-based Arysta, contends the product has proved effective
and safe when handled properly. Arysta's
Mike Allen, global business development manager, said, "We
are roughly in our second full year of fumigation and there have been no
reported incidents or issues with the product in handling and safety."
But a wide range of environmental groups, such as the
Pesticide Action Network, have condemned methyl iodide as a
toxic newcomer and threatened lawsuits to block its use in
California. State Sen.
Dean Florez, D-Shafter, who chairs the
Senate Food and Agriculture Committee, firmly opposes
registering the new farm chemical.
|