AP
"The Environmental Protection Agency gave the go-ahead for one-year
use of a new agricultural pesticide Friday, saying its own scientific
review overrides health concerns expressed by more than 50 chemists and
other scientists. Methyl iodide, also known as iodomethane, will
be allowed to control soil pests "under highly restrictive
provisions governing its use," the EPA said in a statement.
"When used according to EPA's strict procedures, iodomethane is not
only an effective pesticide, but also meets the health and safety
standards for registering pesticides," the agency said.
Methyl iodide was developed by Tokyo-based Arysta
LifeScience Corp. as an alternative to the widely used fumigant methyl
bromide, which has been banned under an international treaty because it
depletes the ozone layer. Like methyl bromide, the new product, to be
sold under the name MIDAS, kills off weeds and soil pests before
planting a wide variety of fruits and vegetables. The EPA said its
decision was based on four years of risk assessment studies,
constituting "one of the most thorough analyses ever completed by
the agency for a pesticide registration action."
"The agency concluded that there are adequate
safety margins and the registration of iodomethane does not pose
unreasonable risks," the agency said. Last week, however, a group
of 54 scientists, including six Nobel Prize winners, sent a letter to
EPA urging that the pesticide not be registered for use because of the
potential danger to pregnant women and children, the elderly and
farmworkers. California's Department of Pesticide Regulation lists
the chemical as a carcinogen and also had expressed objections.
Officials have said that whatever EPA's action, use of the new product
in California would not be possible before the state concludes its own
review in a year or so.
The approval brought immediate reaction from critics.
It "will put farmworkers, farmers and rural families at risk,"
Erik Nicholson of the United Farmworkers of America said in a statement
with the Pesticide Action Network of North America. He said the EPA
instead should "focus on alternatives that don't view us as
disposable human beings who can risk cancer and miscarriages in the name
of supposed economic gain."
Robert Bergman, a University of California chemistry
professor who was the lead author on the scientists' letter, called the
EPA's decision outrageous. "I think its pretty clear these
guys never had any intention of taking our concerns seriously," he
said. "They have intended to approve this stuff from day one and we
were just a bump in the road." In a letter Friday to Bergman,
EPA Assistant Administrator Jim Gulliford said the EPA's scientific
analysis had taken into account their concerns and the agency concluded
that its risk assessments "are realistic and demonstrate adequate
protection for the most sensitive individuals."
Gulliford said the one-year registration will allow
for re-evaluation of methyl iodide after new safety measures are put in
place for other agricultural fumigants currently under review by the
agency. EPA scientists spoke this week by telephone with Bergman
and two other signers of the letter, who repeated concerns about the
lack of specific tests evaluating danger to the developing brains of
fetuses and infants.
Conditions the EPA is imposing for use of the product
include use of government-approved respirators for workers applying the
fumigant, buffer zones around the fields to protect bystanders and
five-day restriction on anyone entering the fields after the chemical is
applied. Friday's action came after the government postponed a
decision last year and again held off last week after receiving the
scientists' letter. Farmers who grow crops such as strawberries,
tomatoes and peppers have been struggling to find alternative products
that work as well as the banned methyl bromide. Critics said use
of methyl iodide is complicated by its combination with chloropicrin,
another soil fumigant that sickened some 125 farm workers who breathed
it last week near Reno, Nev
