|
Agritoxins
- Methyl Iodide
Methyl
Iodide Call to Action!
Methyl iodide, a pesticide toxic to
humans and aquatic life is being "reconsidered" by Governor
Jerry Brown, however, its use has not been stopped.
It is a carcinogen so potent it has actually been used to
induce cancer in animals, so make your opinion known by calling
Governor Brown at (916) 445-2841 or writing him a letter at: Governor
Jerry Brown c/o State Capitol, Suite 1173, Sacramento, CA 95814 and
urge him to immediately reopen the decision of the Department of
Pesticide Regulation and ban methyl iodide use in California.
For additional information about
Methyl Iodide and the Ventura County specific threats it poses, please
read Wishtoyo's November 7, 2011 letter
to Governor Brown asking his administration to ban its
use in California and the California
Coastkeeper Alliance April 29, 2011 comment letter to
the U.S. EPA urging their agency to reconsider its approval of methyl
iodide.

Background
On December 1, 2010, the
California’s Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) authorized the
registration of the pesticide methyl iodide, a fumigant used to
prepare fields for the planting of crops.
The approval follows the international ban on the use of the
pesticide methyl bromide due to its proven hazardous impact to the
ozone layer. The pesticide
will be used for the most part in the growing of strawberries but will
also be used for other high level crops such as nut orchards and fresh
flower nurseries. Regulators authorized registration over concerns
raised from environmental and farmworker groups and a departmental
scientific advisory panel report stating concerns that the improper
application of the pesticide could poison water and air.
Learn more: “Methyl
iodide gains state OK for use on crops,” San Francisco Chronicle
December 2, 2010.

Why
was the authorization of Methyl Iodide
being proposed?
Methyl
bromide, a pesticide currently used in the United States in fields
which grow strawberries, has been phased out internationally and is in
the process of being phased out in the United States by the U.S. EPA
due to the environmental drawbacks of the pesticide, the most
significant of which being its detrimental effects on the earth’s
ozone layer. Since the phasing out of methyl bromide there has
been pressure in the agricultural community to develop an alternative
and Arysta LifeScience, the largest, privately held agricultural
company in the world is making a strong push for methyl iodide to
serve as the replacement. The campaign is currently focused in
California because the state is largest market in the country for the
pesticide.
Traits
of the Chemical
Methyl
iodide is a fumigant which is pumped into the soil of a field before a
particular crop is planted. Its purpose is to kill all harmful
substances in the ground and prepare the soil for planting. The
pesticide can be used for a variety of crops but will be used mostly
in fields which grow strawberries. Studies have shown that the
pesticide has an extraordinary ability to react with electron-rich
molecules as well with biomolecules, such as DNA, and has been shown
to cause mutations by altering the structure of molecules. The
noted benefit of methyl iodide over methyl bromide is that it is not
expected to have the same affects on the ozone layer. However, despite
claims that methyl iodide will not have the similar affects of methyl
bromide, the pesticide is still known to be a volatile organic
compound that can contribute to ground water contamination and is
extremely harmful if inhaled. This poses serious risks due to
the fact that it is a drift-prone chemical which reacts with air and
water before it is transported into the ozone layer.
Downsides
of the Pesticide
Methyl iodide is an
acutely toxic chemical which is known to affect the nervous system,
lungs, liver and kidneys. A
report
by the Scientific Review Committee on methyl iodide to
the DPR stated that “there is little doubt that the compound
possesses significant toxicity” and the Ventura
County Star reports that California state regulators
are appalled and “dumbfounded” that the DPR is seeking the use of
methyl iodide since it has been known to cause cancer (and has even
been used to induce cancer), neurological damage, brain and cervical
tumors, and birth defects in laboratory animals.
Other findings by the
scientific panel found that the pesticide has such a high level of
toxicity that adequate control of human exposure to the chemical would
be difficult if not impossible to achieve.
The Pan North America Pesticide Action Network has reported
that any anticipated scenario for agricultural use of the pesticide
will have significant adverse effects on public health.
Yet this pesticide was
approved because the DPR believes proper precautions have been taken
to prevent the harmful effects of the pesticide.
The proposed precaution of increased and wider buffer zones
would include restrictions more strict than is currently required by
the U.S. EPA. The hope is
that stricter regulation will lead to lower exposure levels to the
pesticide. However, Ed
Loechler, a biology professor at Boston University, was quoted as
saying that the proposed exposure level is still one hundred and
twenty times higher than what his own data suggests is safe in order
to avoid significant risks. The
DPR asserts that the proposed regulations are health protective and
will allow for safe use of the pesticide.
Read the entire report for the Scientific
Review Committee.
Impacts
on Water Quality
Methyl
iodide’s reactive qualities make it prone to react with groundwater
before it dissipates into the air. One of the more alarming
things reported by the Scientific Review Committee was that there was
no reliable data on the potential to contaminate groundwater and model
calculations performed by the committee indicated that the potential
exists for unacceptable high levels of iodide to accumulate in water
supplies should the pesticide be used over a long period of time.
Studies done by the Pan North American Pesticide Action Network
likewise show that the continued use of methyl iodide in soils will
have a cumulative, negative effect.
Are
there Viable Alternatives?
On
September 1, 2010, the peer-reviewed online journal PLoS ONE published
a scientific study comparing organic strawberry farming versus
conventional chemical farming in California. The study was conducted
by esteemed multidisciplinary team from Washington State
University, including agroecologists, soil scientists, microbial
ecologists, geneticists, pomologists, statisticians, sensory
scientists, and food scientists. The study, Fruit
and Soil Quality of Organic and Conventional Agroecosystems,
is the most comprehensive of its kind on the issue of
organic versus chemical farming.
The
study analyzed 31 chemical and biological properties, nutrition, soil
DNA and taste on three varieties of strawberries grown on 13
conventional and 13 organic strawberry fields in California.
California was chosen because ninety percent of the nation’s
strawberries come from the state and it has become the epicenter of a
raging debate on the use of Methyl Iodide as a commercial fumigant.
Among the study’s findings are:
·
Organic
strawberries had a longer shelf life;
·
Organic
strawberries were higher in antioxidants, ascorbic acid (i.e., Vitamin
C), and phenolic compounds;
·
Independent
consumer taste tests found organic “Diamonte” strawberries to have
a better taste (sweeter) and appearance than their chemically grown
counterpart;
·
Organically
farmed soils were richer in carbon and nitrogen, had “greater
microbial biomass and activity, and greater functional gene abundance
and diversity;” and
·
Organic
strawberries were smaller by 13.4%, but had more “dry matter”
(less water and more berry).
The
study provides strong evidence that organically grown commercial
strawberries in California are of a higher nutritional quality,
producing berries that last longer, can taste and look better, leaving
richer and healthier soil, and paradoxically result in a strawberry
plants with “significantly longer survival times than conventional
strawberries” for fungal post-harvest rot.
For
further reading on the proposed approval of Methyl Iodide and its
overall affects on the environment, visit the following links:
·
California
Watch, August 25, 2011 - “Memos
show staff questioned rationale for pesticide approval”
·
Ventura
County Star, August 24, 2011 - “Groups
call on governor to ban use of methyl iodide”
·
Ventura
County Star, March 23, 2011 – “Brown
will take a ‘fresh look’ at methyl iodide decision”
·
California
Watch, March 22, 2011 – “EPA
opens public comment period on strawberry pesticide”
·
Earthjustice,
March 22, 2011 - “"As
Embattled CA Pesticide Chief Steps Down, Feds Consider Petition to ban
cancer-causing pesticide"n to
Banancer-Causing Pes
·
LA
Times – November 25, 2010 – Strawberry
Pesticide Targeted by Environmentalists, Farmerworkers
·
Orange
County Register (AP) - September 13, 2010 – California
Pesticide Opponents Deploy Florida Report
·
Washington
State University – Fruit
and Soil Quality of Organic and Conventional Agroecosystems
·
Science
Daily – September 2, 2010 -
Commercial
Organic Farms Have Better Fruit and Soil, Lower Environmental Impact
Study Finds
·
For
additional information on Methyl Iodide: Pesticide
Action Network
·
Mercury
News – August 20, 2010 – Pesticide
Regulators at a Decision Point: Prioritize Health Protection (Opinion)
·
Los
Angeles Times – June 28, 2010 – A
Closer Look: Pesticides in Strawberry Fields
·
Ventura
County Star – June 17, 2010 – Scientists
Tell State Regulators Methyl Iodide is too Toxic to be Used on Fields
·
Pesticide
Watch News Release –
February 2010
·
Report
of the Scientific Review Committee on Methyl Iodide to the Department
of Pesticide Regulation
·
California
Department of Pesticide Regulation: About
Department of Pesticide Regulation’s Proposed Decision to Register
Methyl Iodide

|