Fourteen years ago, as chemicals gobbled up the Earth's ozone layer, an international treaty ordered a phaseout of a popular pesticide for strawberries and other high-value crops. Now, U.S. officials are poised to replace it with a new pesticide -- one that is highly toxic and has been declared a cancer-causing chemical by the state of California.
The Environmental Protection Agency is expected to approve a new fumigant, methyl iodide, as it eliminates methyl bromide, which damages the ozone layer. With few options for killing diseases and insects in soil, the EPA is faced with a decision that could exchange one toxic hazard for another.
California -- particularly Ventura and Santa Cruz counties -- and Florida have the most at stake. California is the leading producer of strawberries, valued at more than $1 billion a year, and strawberry growers alone could use 3 million pounds of methyl iodide annually to replace methyl bromide.
Fumigants, used to sterilize soil before planting, are considered particularly risky among the hundreds of agricultural pesticides in use today. Because methyl iodide is a gas, it can evaporate from soil and drift into nearby areas.
Last month, based on tests in California and Florida fields, EPA toxicologists concluded that unprotected farmworkers could breathe harmful doses and that low concentrations could drift off fields. But they also determined that the workers would be safe if they wore respirators and that people near the fields would breathe such small amounts that they would face no known health risk. Also, no residue remains in the strawberries or other crops.
The EPA will accept public comments on methyl iodide through Tuesday, with a decision expected possibly as soon as next month.
If the chemical does clear the federal hurdle, it still faces a tougher challenge in Sacramento. The state Department of Pesticide Regulation is conducting its own review of methyl iodide to determine whether it is safe. Imposing the nation's strictest standards on pesticides, the state agency has in the past rejected some EPA-approved chemicals, and often imposes tighter safety controls.
"It doesn't matter what EPA says, it has to pass muster in California," said Glenn Brank, a spokesman for the state pesticide agency. "The registration decision by U.S. EPA will have no bearing on our process."
Methyl iodide "is highly toxic," Brank said, and there are "a number of areas of concern -- reproductive and developmental toxicity as well as carcinogenicity." On the other hand, although "fumigants clearly are problematic, they also are essential, given the lack of alternative soil treatments at present."
For four years, the EPA has been considering a request from pesticide company Arysta LifeScience to register methyl iodide, also known as iodomethane, as a soil fumigant under the commercial name Midas. If approved, it would be injected into soil, mostly in strawberry fields, but also on fields growing tomatoes, peppers, ornamentals, grapes and several other crops, at a rate of about 175 pounds per acre.
Methyl bromide was the pesticide of choice for these crops until recently. In 1987, the United States and other developed nations signed the Montreal Protocol, which gradually banned a variety of chemicals destroying the ozone layer that blocks the sun's harmful radiation. Methyl bromide was added to the pact in 1992.
Since then, use of methyl bromide has dropped dramatically. All use was supposed to end last year, but the United Nations granted "critical use" exemptions, amounting to about 15 million pounds in the United States this year, or 27% of the amount used in 1991. Florida uses almost half, with California ranking second.
In testimony before a House committee Wednesday, EPA Acting Assistant Administrator William Wehrum said that the "EPA has made the registration of alternatives to methyl bromide its highest registration priority" so that it can eliminate the ozone-depleting chemical. Wehrum said it is the EPA's responsibility "to help identify, register and implement safe and effective alternatives."
But environmentalists say that methyl iodide and other fumigants are too dangerous and that human exposure would be inevitable and could raise the risk of cancer.
"This is an archaic, unsustainable approach," said Susan Kegley, senior scientist at the San Francisco-based Pesticide Action Network North America, which is leading a campaign against the registration of methyl iodide. "EPA should be helping farmers move into the future by expanding the use of new integrated pest management techniques, not replacing one deadly chemical for another."
Unlike methyl bromide, methyl iodide poses no threat to the ozone layer, but it can be dangerous if inhaled.
