Pam’s Commentary

February 18th, 2006

RE: Poison of Choice (story below my commentary)

 The strawberry “corporations” are switching from one poison (pesticide) to another potentially more toxic chemical. There’s nothing baffling about the corporations twisting science and creating propaganda in order to sell their products. The corporations have a great deal of money and can influence the EPA to do whatever it is they want. I would have a tough time trusting the safety of almost any synthetic chemicals sprayed on crops. Admittedly, some may be safer than others, but still…how honest is their testing?

 You can react to these stories by becoming an activist. Scientists may confront the EPA or the corporations about their data. How far have we come? Have any of these strategies ever really worked? Who can you trust? Ultimately, it’s up to you to realize that it’s hard to trust science since, frequently, it’s funded by the corporations themselves. Once you understand the lie, you can then learn the truth.

 Here, the truth is that, in order to resolve this issue, buy the bulk of your food from small, local farms. Small farms usually don’t have the money to buy expensive pesticides. They may not be organic, but they may be a better choice than foods coming from the large corporations.

 The other solution would be to buy organic. Currently, many people are questioning organic standards, but, putting all of that aside, I would still choose organic over conventional.

 When I read these types of stories, I feel helpless. I know I can’t influence the EPA like the corporations can (and do)….all I can do is to buy my food from the best source possible…small, local farms. One by one, as we change our shopping habits, we may be able to improve our food along with our health.

Poison of Choice

EPA looks to beef up ban on methyl bromide and replace it with another pesticide.

Feb 16, 2006

http://www.montereycountyweekly.com/issues/Issue.02-16-2006/news/Article.news1

By Michelle Caldwell

Killer Gig: California farmers like these Prunedale men (seen helping a methyl bromide tractor apply pesticides from up close) may bear the brunt of a switch to methyl iodide.

Methyl iodide causes cancer. Some scientists say this pesticide fumigant is more dangerous than methyl bromide, another chemical which was supposed to be phased out years ago. But now, as it scrambles to find a replacement for methyl bromide, the US Environmental Protection Agency appears determined to approve the more toxic methyl iodide for use on local strawberry fields, and elsewhere.

“Methyl iodide is not an ozone depleter like methyl bromide,” says Susan Kegley, a senior scientist at Pesticide Action Network. “But that’s the only nice thing I can say about it.”

On Sept. 16, 1987, the US joined 23 countries and the European Economic Community in Montreal, Canada to sign the Montreal Protocol, an agreement to abolish the use of ozone-depleting chemicals, including methyl bromide. Developed nations pledged to cure themselves of their addiction to the pesticide by Jan. 1, 2005. The US vowed to do better: to ban the use of methyl bromide in California by 1997, and to ban its import and production nationwide by 2001.

Things didn’t go according to plan.

In 2001, California farmers used 6.6 million pounds of methyl bromide. By 2003, that number had skyrocketed to nearly 7.4 million pounds.

Monterey County’s track record is better, with the exception of a 2003 spike in use. Local wine grape growers have cut their use most drastically. Some vineyards—like Frey, Fetzer and Kendall-Jackson—have quit using methyl bromide altogether.

Still, as the US continues to receive thousands of “critical use” methyl bromide exemptions from the now 183 signatories of the Montreal Protocol, the EPA needs to find a substitute. So it’s pushing methyl iodide through the pesticide approval process. The EPA is currently accepting public comment on whether to approve the fumigant.

Under California’s Proposition 65, the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, methyl iodide is listed as “known to the state to cause cancer.”

“With methyl iodide, growers will also have to worry about groundwater contamination and increased fieldworker exposure,” Kegley says.

David Chatfield, executive director of Californians for Pesticide Reform, is baffled by the notion of replacing methyl bromide with methyl iodide. “It’s like jumping out of the kettle and directly into the fire,” he says. “It’s six times more acutely toxic than methyl bromide. If it touches the skin, it’s absorbed rapidly. It can’t be contained like methyl bromide. It’s going to drift. A lot.”

Still, the EPA continues to push methyl iodide onto the “approved” list, concluding that methyl iodide is “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans” at low doses. The EPA used only a single study to come to this conclusion, and points out that 62 to 66 percent of the rats in both the control and high-dose groups died during that experiment.

Still, experts agree there are solutions that don’t include methyl iodide.

“There are farmers statewide who took the ban seriously and started researching alternatives that weren’t chemical,” Kegley says. “They’ve found techniques that work, like rotating their crops and using more resistant varieties.

“We don’t want to penalize farmers who might have to take a risk to their economic viability. We’d like to see these farmers get incentives via subsidies. Only then can we start thinking about farming without chemicals.”

THE EPA’S PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD ON METHYL IODIDE ENDS FEB. 21. E-MAIL COMMENTS TO: DOCKET@EPA.GOV AND REFERENCE “DOCKET #EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0252-0002, EPA PUBLIC DOCKET.”