Home › News › Local News
Oxnard nursery was the test site for controversial pesticide
State to decide if methyl iodide OK
California is conducting its own evaluation of the controversial pesticide methyl iodide in the wake of the Environmental Protection Agency's decision to approve its use, but the state won't make a decision until late 2008, officials say.
"The EPA's decision has absolutely no effect on California at this time," said Glenn Brank, spokesman for the California Department of Pesticide Regulation.
"Even if a pesticide is approved by the EPA, it still cannot be used in California until and unless DPR approves it to be used."
Methyl iodide is an odorless, colorless gas used to fumigate strawberries and other crops. The EPA this month approved its use for one year "under highly restrictive provisions governing its use," with a provision for re-evaluation at the end of that period. It is being eyed as a replacement for methyl bromide, which has been banned because it depletes the ozone layer. Researchers have been scrambling for a replacement for methyl bromide because California growers risk seeing their crop yields decline without a suitable alternative to control a wide variety of pests.
The Department of Pesticide Regulation tested methyl iodide in September at a previously unidentified farm in Ventura County. State records obtained by The Star through a public records request show the testing took place at Dullam Nursery in Oxnard. Owner John Dullam did not return two telephone calls seeking comment.
According to the records, nearly one acre was treated in mid-September near the ranch's entrance at 3110 Etting Road. Previous reports indicated 10 acres were tested in Ventura County. The fumigation was done before strawberry planting and the crop was approved to enter the general market. A 500-foot buffer zone was used around the treated area, records show.
The EPA cleared the use of methyl iodide despite opposition from 54 of the nation's top scientists and EPA scientists, who voiced concern about the dangers the fumigant poses to human health.
The scientists believe that the agricultural industry had undue influence in the EPA's decision.
Tokyo-based Arysta LifeScience Corp. manufactures and sells methyl iodide under the name MIDAS. Arysta's former president and chief executive officer, Elin Miller, now works as the EPA's Region 10 administrator.
The University of California developed and holds the patent on methyl iodide. It has licensed it to Arysta for commercial use.
"The state of California will get a lot of money from this," said UC Davis researcher Husein Ajwa.
Efficacy data by UC Davis scientists were included in the research considered by the EPA before its decision to register the chemical.
Brian Hill, director of the science department at the Pesticide Action Network North America, or PANNA, finds it troubling that UC has licensed methyl iodide and has "a stake in the outcome."
"This is one of the many reasons why activist organizations like PANNA and many academic chemists are asking for an independent review of methyl iodide's toxicity and carcinogenicity," he said in a statement.
It's up to the state to decide whether to allow the use of methyl iodide on California farms.
The issue is critical to Ventura County, where strawberries are the top money crop, generating $366 million in 2006.
Methyl iodide presents no unreasonable risks to human health, according to the EPA, but critics say it is extremely dangerous.
Last week, the EPA received a petition signed by 10,000 people demanding the reversal of its decision to approve methyl iodide. Organizations asking the public to take action include PANNA, United Farm Workers of America, Farmworker Association of Florida, El Comite de Apoyo a los Trabajadores Agricolas, Organic Consumers Association, Pesticide Education Project, Northwest Coalition for Alternatives on Pesticides, and Beyond Pesticides.
CORRECTION: An A1 story Tuesday about the controversial pesticide methyl iodide contained some wrong information on where it was tested. The testing was not done at Dullam Nursery in Oxnard, but at a strawberry field managed by the owner of the nursery, John Dullam. That site is at 3110 Etting Road on the outskirts of Oxnard.







Posted by gbrank on October 31, 2007 at 11:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)
A couple of clarifications are in order: First, while DPR may wrap up its risk assessment of methyl iodide by late 2008, a final decision on registration might not be forthcoming until sometime in 2010 or 2011, as the Department develops a comprehensive approach to fumigant regulation. Second, the experimental permit allowed a maxium of up to 10 acres statewide, not in Ventura County. Finally, the article inferred that information on the experimental was made available to the Star only after a public records request. No formal request was filed, nor was it needed. DPR routinely provides public records to the press on an expedited basis.
Glenn Brank
Director, Communications
Department of Pesticide Regulation
Posted by 1958boss on October 31, 2007 at 11:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)
ADDITIONAL CLARIFICATION: THE TEST WAS JUST ACROSS FROM MAR VISTA ELEMENTARY, OCEANVIEW JR. HIGH SCHOOL, A CLINIC AND PRE-SCHOOL, AND ANOTHER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, NOT TO MENTION THE HOMES THAT SURROUND IT.
Posted by environmntlst on November 3, 2007 at 10:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The comment by 1958boss was based on a wrong address for methyl iodide application. On November 1st, the Star published the correct address where methyl iodide was applied. This location is miles away from sensitive sites (such as schools). I suggest that the comment by 1958boss be removed becaused it was based on the wrong information. It seems that this report is full of inaccurate information and the readers deserve better than this.
Posted by Will on December 17, 2007 at 1:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I think people should start walking their children to school because it is dangerous to have all those nasty carcinogens coming out of their tailpipes near schools and homes.
(Requires free registration.)
Article discussions on this site are to support community debates of issues related to our stories and editorials.
Discussions should not stray from the subject of the story or editorial.
We do not allow the following:
We reserve the right to delete threads and/or ban users for these or other reasons we deem necessary.
Opinions are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.