Aug 19, 2010 11:03 AM, By Gabriele Ludwig, Associate Director,
Environmental Affairs, Almond Board of California
The California Department of Pesticide Regulation’s (DPR) pending decision to
approve methyl iodide as a soil fumigant replacement for methyl bromide has
received considerable public attention in the media in recent months. The
fumigant, already approved federally by EPA in 2007 and used on more than 15,000
acres in the U.S., mostly in strawberries and vegetables in the Southeast, is
awaiting final registration at the state level this summer.
IN A REPLANT TRIAL by Dr. Mike McKenry, Nematologist and Extension y Specialist at the UC Kearney Agricultural Center, young almond trees in the foreground were planted in untreated soil while the almonds in the background were planted into fumigated soil.
Led largely by a campaign spearheaded
by the Pesticide Action Network, a public advocacy group based in San Francisco,
DPR received an unprecedented 50,000 comments and e-mails from the public during
a recent 60-day public comment period ending June 29.
Much of the controversy surrounds
the risk of exposure to applicators, workers and the public. There is no
argument that fumigants by their nature carry risks when not handled properly.
What is often ignored, however, are the great lengths to which registrants and
state and federal agencies go to mitigate those risks. Balancing a compound’s
risk against its benefits of use and the ability to mitigate those risks is an
important function of the registration process. Years of data and review go into
that equation for every pesticide labeled for agricultural use.
DPR’s proposed state label for
methyl iodide goes well beyond already onerous restrictions on the use and
application of methyl iodide at the federal level. State requirements would set
maximum exposure levels for professional applicators at half the federally
allowed level and just one-fifth the federal standard for field workers and
neighbors. The state is also proposing large buffer zones ranging from 100 feet
to a half-mile, along with reduced application rates and application limits on
treated acreage to protect ground water. Compare that to Japan and Australia,
where methyl iodide is being used with no buffer zones at all.
Return to "In the News - 2010"