This morning I'm doing my normal Sunday morning routine, which is a cup of tea, some toast, and the Sunday paper. I'm reading and then I get to this article:
EPA approves new pesticide despite scientists' concerns
The new pesticide, methyl iodide, is designed for growers, mainly in California and Florida, who need to replace methyl bromide, which has been banned under an international treaty because it damages the Earth's ozone layer.
In a letter sent last month to EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson, 54 scientists, mostly chemists, warned that "pregnant women and the fetus, children, the elderly, farmworkers and other people living near application sites would be at serious risk."
Methyl iodide is a neurotoxin and carcinogen that has caused thyroid tumors, neurological damage and miscarriages in lab animals.
But EPA officials said Friday that they carefully evaluated the risks and decided to approve its use for one year, imposing restrictions such as buffer zones to protect farmworkers and neighbors.
"We are confident that by conducting such a rigorous analysis and developing highly restrictive provisions governing its use, there will be no risks of concern," EPA Assistant Administrator Jim Gulliford said in a letter sent Friday to the scientists.
Growers, particularly those who grow strawberries and tomatoes, have been searching for 15 years for a new soil fumigant to replace methyl bromide. Fumigants are valuable to growers because they can be injected into the soil before planting to sterilize the field and kill a broad spectrum of insects and diseases without leaving residue on crops.
But fumigants are among the most potentially dangerous pesticides in use today because the toxic gas can evaporate from the soil, exposing farmworkers and drifting into neighborhoods.
Methyl iodide will be manufactured by Tokyo-based Arysta LifeScience Corp. and marketed under the name Midas. Its use will be allowed on fields growing strawberries, tomatoes, peppers, ornamentals, turf, trees and vines.
California growers can use the new pesticide only if it is also approved by the Department of Pesticide Regulation. The state agency often imposes tighter restrictions than the EPA, and last year its top officials expressed concerns to the EPA about methyl iodide.
"We are conducting our own risk assessment of methyl iodide, and we expect that process to continue for several months before we make a decision whether or how it can be used safely in California," said Glenn Brank, a spokesman for the state Department of Pesticide Regulation.
Robert Bergman, the Gerald E. K. Branch Distinguished Professor at UC Berkeley's chemistry department, led the effort by scientists to persuade the EPA to reject methyl iodide.
Among the signatories were five Nobel laureates: Robert H. Grubbs of the California Institute of Technology; Roald Hoffmann of Cornell University; Williams S. Knowles, formerly of Monsanto Co.; John B. Fenn of Virginia Commonwealth University; and Richard R. Ernst of the Swiss Federal Polytechnic Institute.
Many of the chemists -- who use small amounts of methyl iodide in their laboratories to attach molecules and are careful to avoid exposure -- said they are shocked that the EPA is allowing its use as a pesticide because it can drift into neighborhoods and pollute groundwater.
"It is potentially really toxic, and it's certainly very reactive. From what we know about its chemistry, we know this stuff reacts with DNA. It mutates it. So it's prudent to be as careful as you can with it," Bergman said in an interview Friday.
Bergman said he was disappointed, but not surprised, by the EPA's decision because top officials there seemed unswayed in discussions with him and two other scientists earlier this week.
The scientists had asked for an independent review by the National Research Council, but the EPA rejected that because its own scientific advisory panel already had reviewed it.
"If they're right, they shouldn't be afraid of an independent review," Bergman said. "I don't know what the motivation is to get this stuff approved so fast. If there is any possibility that it would be dangerous, do you not approve it, or do you approve it and then decide, after something happens, to change your mind? There is serious potential for accidents."
This is what happens when you appoint non-scientists and people not interested in the environment to the EPA. I can't believe that they thought use of this product was acceptable.
I'm actually really upset about this. And I think I'm going to start writing letters about this. If you're as pissed off and disguisted as I am, please join me. I'm going to research addresses and post them in a future post.