Florez says state should slow approval of methyl iodide

Senator endorses use of methyl bromide as a fumigant until further test results become available

By WES SANDER
Capital Press

SACRAMENTO -- State Sen. Dean Florez, D-Shafter, said the state should stall its registration process for the fumigant methyl iodide.

The state Department of Pesticide Regulation is concluding its extended public-comment period on the chemical's registration, saying the process should wrap up by year's end.

The chemical is being considered by state officials to replace methyl bromide, which has been phased out under international agreement to reduce ozone-depleting substances.

At a June 17 hearing of the Senate Food and Agriculture Committee, chairman Florez asked DPR Director Mary-Ann Warmerdam whether the state could delay the process, suggesting that a new administration next year might approach the issue differently.

Warmerdam said the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is pushing California to complete the process as soon as possible, with the goal of eliminating the United States' use of methyl bromide by 2015.

Pesticide-watchdog and farmworker groups have argued against methyl iodide's approval, while farmers have predicted losses to foreign competition without a broad-spectrum fumigant.

Warmerdam said the process could conclude by autumn at the earliest, once the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency approves a California-specific label. She called the methyl iodide review "arguably the most extensive, robust, comprehensive in the history of the department.

"We had to assure ourselves of our ability to use this material safely in California," Warmerdam said.

DPR published its proposed rules for applying methyl iodide in April. They include restrictions that are stronger than those imposed by U.S. EPA, which registered the pesticide in 2007. Most states do not conduct their own registrations, instead adopting EPA's rules.

Warmerdam said that despite the "particularly challenging" urban-rural boundaries in California, the rules -- involving buffer zones, application limits and local control in tailoring rules to specific regions -- would protect people and groundwater from exposure.

The agency conducted a risk assessment, a step taken only in a few cases. The document was then peer-reviewed by state and federal environmental agencies, as well as a panel of university researchers. The researchers released a report in February saying that although the state's conclusions were sound, methyl iodide could not be controlled in the field well enough to prevent worker exposure.

DPR doubled the required 30-day comment period for its proposed rules, extending it to June 30. The state will further take "some limited" public comment on the chemical's use restrictions, Warmerdam said.

In response to Florez's questioning, Warmerdam said registration "is not a fait accompli." Public comments will still be taken into account, she said.

Florez decried a situation in which one chemical is swapped for a more-toxic one. He argued that the state should continue using methyl bromide-- until alternatives to chemical fumigants can be developed.

"It is a very unfortunate ... situation to be put in," Florez said. "I wish we could wait 10 years for this."

Florez also took testimony from five of the university researchers from the science-review panel commissioned by DPR.

During legislative hearings and the panel's public sessions, farmworkers told of past experiences with chemical exposure while laboratory researchers described the substance as one of the most toxic they handle -- it is used for inducing cancer in lab specimens -- and said it poses serious risks in the field.

But crop researchers have said the chemical presents little danger if applied according to guidelines. Arysta LifeScience, the company that submitted the application to sell the chemical in California, says its applicator-training program is the most rigorous in existence for handling a commercial chemical.

Jeff Tweedy, Arysta's head of business management, estimated the state would suffer $1.5 billion in farmgate losses without a broad-spectrum fumigant to replace methyl bromide.

http://www.capitalpress.com/california/ws-methyl-iodide-062510