Another pesticide coming near you, courtesy of the EPA
Aug 27 '09
The Bottom Line Sign a petition or write your congressman. Help keep methyl iodide out of the fields!
Being a practicing chemist, I have learned over the years that any chemical substance has its own toxicity, and that the ability to cause adverse effects in humans is not limited to man-made substances (also improperly called “chemicals” by lay people), but extends to natural substances.
When it comes to pesticides, however, although I am not philosophically opposed to their use, I have developed a lot of concern lately upon perusing the (shoddy) scientific rationale for determining their maximum allowable residues in food products, as well as the frequent discovery of lots containing unallowably high levels of pesticides. Among the offending countries of origin, the US and some EU countries (Spain is the worst, followed by the UK) top the list. In addition, I have learned that some fruit-derived products, among them fruit juices, are not routinely tested for levels of pesticide residues, yet random checks show extremely high levels. Often, we have learned of these dangers through reports published by environmental organizations like Greenpeace, instead of the governmental agencies that are supposed to protect us.
I have been pleased, therefore, by initiatives like the Pesticide Action Network in Europe, which has an aggressive agenda consisting of pesticide phase-out (just last year, 8 existing pesticides were banned in Europe). Also, the need to label all produce as to its origin has allowed the European consumer to exercise more choice over his purchases.
In this regard, I have followed with considerable dismay the ongoing saga of the approval of a new pesticide for the US market: iodomethane, more often inappropriately called methyl iodide, was approved by the EPA over a year ago and is meant to replace methyl bromide, an ozone-depleting gas. See:
http://pubs.acs.org/cen/government/86/8643gov2.html
Methyl iodide is a low-boiling liquid, is extremely toxic and causes cancer. Although it is a useful chemical reagent, we in the pharmaceutical industry would not use it in the manufacturing process of a drug, for two reasons: the hazard to plant operators, even if they are dressed in full protective equipment, and the need to demonstrate that even traces (to the ppb levels) of the poison are absent in the purified active principle. So stringent are the demands of our regulators. We typically have the choice of a number of less toxic analogs at our disposal.
Imagine my amazement when I found out that US farmers are beginning to pump millions of pounds of this carcinogenic, poisonous substance into the soil. A group of 54 concerned US chemists (including 5 Nobel laureates) wrote to the EPA, urging them not to approve the compound. Highly unusual to see a group of chemists so dead set against the use of a chemical. But this is really a special case. The strategy did not help. Although methyl iodide has caused cancer in lab animal, EPA calls it a “potential human carcinogen”. Potential because of lack of data. Well, the EPA may soon have its data!
Among the many disturbing tidbits of information, one finds out that one of the EPA top officials is the former CEO of Arysta, the corporation marketing methyl iodide. Can one expect objectivity from him? Does he still have stock options or stock at Arysta? We do not know. He is apparently not required to disclose it. The development of the story – as narrated by Chemical and Engineeign News – also reveals a pattern of deception, including internal EPA emails that required workers not to disclose details of the approval process to state Pesticide Review Boards, and which were leaked anonymously by alarmed EPA scientists. They were posted on the website of the Center for Science in the Public Interest. This triggered a widespread outrage, including the intervention by the top chemists.
Not all chemists are concerned about methyl iodide, however. A cheerleader of the product is Dr. James Sims, retired professor and holder of the patent Arysta bought. He stands to make a fortune from royalties. This fellow claims methyl iodide is a great replacement for methyl bromide, because it is heavier, more persistent, and does not make it to the stratosphere. Its higher toxicity is a plus because – he explains – you need so much less. How much less? The methyl iodide approved coverage level is 175 lbs per acre! Imagine living near a strawberry field where the soil has been injected with thousands of pounds of the poison. Yes, a low dose, really….
It’s hard to imagine that field workers, even if correctly wearing full space suits, will not be exposed to large amounts of the toxic material, and will not develop serious side effects. It is also hard to imagine that people living in the vicinity will be protected by the 50 feet mandatory distance from the field of application, or that people or animals will not unwittingly wander around the poison-releasing field. Can you ask methyl iodide vapors to seep from the soil without moving sideways? Has anyone ever heard of gas diffusion, of winds, of aquifers?
US states have their own Departments of Pesticide Regulation, which need to approve the product. New York refused to do so, but luckily for Arysta Florida did, simply requiring to report all poisoning incidents. They may have a pile of reports in short order. Now the ball is in California’s court, in a decision that could make or break the product. If CA, the biggest fruit producer in the US, bans the pesticide, the product may well go down and be taken off the market. Europe has not approved the pesticide, although Spain is running some limited tests. Arysta is looking at the Asian and South American markets. Defenders of the product claim that there are no alternatives to methyl iodide for strawberries, tomatoes, and peppers, if one wants to eliminate ozone-depleting methyl bromide.
But many critics of Arysta and of other unethical agricultural giants (like Dow and Frankenstein-food producer Monsanto) are sick and tired of the absurd reasoning that US agriculture cannot survive as such without newer and more toxic pesticides. If that is the case, it is time to redesign the entire US agricultural system, and hopefully away from its pesticide-requiring, fertilizer-based mass production of unlabeled, genetically modified produce. I totally agree.
If you are interested in the story, simply google “methyl iodide and EPA”, and you’ll find plenty of details on the story. If you want to help stop methyl iodide’s approval in CA, sign a petition and send it out TODAY. Here is the web address:
http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/642/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=27632
You can also help by boycotting all Florida produce. Just eat local, organic produce. It is good for the environment too. If you live in Florida, write your representatives and tell them to take methyl iodide out of your produce and stick it you know where!
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Epinions.com ID:
vicfar
|
|
Location: Antwerp, Belgium and Aachen, Germany
Reviews written: 203
Trusted by: 86 members
About Me:
There's a crack in everything. That's how light gets in (L. Cohen)
|
|
|
© 1999-2009 Shopping.com, Inc.