Format Dynamics :: CleanPrint :: http://www.thecalifornian.com/article/20110521/OPINI...
Page 1 of 4
Point/Counterpoint:
Methyl Iodide
2:06 AM, May. 21, 2011|
"Pro: Science, government give a
thumbs up," by Jim Sims
As I watch the latest saga of methyl iodide
unfold, I have to ask myself: How could
everyone have gotten it wrong?
In short, they didn't. Here's why:
When my colleagues and I first began
researching methyl iodide as a soil
fumigant in the early 1990s, we had no
idea our work would lead to the fray of
recent months and years. Last week, a
public comment period on a petition before
the Environmental Protection Agency to
suspend all registrations of methyl iodide
for use in agriculture drew to a close. The
petitioners spent the better part of the past
decade decrying the very thought of methyl
iodide use. They make widespread claims
that it is a known carcinogen, a neurotoxin
so potent no amount is safe and a certain
threat to our nation's groundwater
supplies.
Never mind that methyl iodide doesn't even
make the cancer-causing-chemical lists of
the world's leading agencies for cancer
research.
Never mind that methyl iodide is a naturally
occurring compound present in the sea and
air and on land.
http://www.thecalifornian.com/fdcp/?unique=1305985183284
Never mind ongoing research
demonstrates time and again that methyl
iodide does not get into groundwater
supplies.
And never mind that methyl iodide has
been used on thousands of acres in the
United States without a single negative
impact to human health or the
environment.
In 2007, the EPA approved methyl iodide
for use following a five-year review it
described as "one of its most
comprehensive." Over that period, dozens
of scientists developed state-of-the-art
toxicological and environmental studies
according to internationally accepted
protocols. At the end of their review, these
scientists concluded methyl iodide could be
used safely under the strictest label in the
fumigant industry.
Three years later, the California
Department of Pesticide Regulation arrived
at the same conclusion following its own
thorough review. CDPR even added its own
Advertisement
5/21/2011
Format Dynamics :: CleanPrint :: http://www.thecalifornian.com/article/20110521/OPINI... Page 2 of 4

additional safety precautions to methyl thoroughly studied and approved methyl

iodide use. iodide didn't get it wrong. They got it right.

In the meantime, six other countries
approved methyl iodide as a soil fumigant.
And yet, a small group of well-organized
activists whose goal is eliminating all use of
crop-protection tools still purport that
methyl iodide is an immediate threat.
These are the same activists who propose
to feed the world's booming population
with organic, locally grown food —
essentially mandating we all live by the
model of rural Africa, where millions are
starving.
ª Jim Sims is a professor of plant pathology
and chemist emeritus at UC Riverside. As
the patent-holder for methyl iodide as a
soil fumigant, Sims spent more than 30
years researching the chemical in the lab
and in the field.
"Con: We can live without this
carcinogen," by Paul S. Towers
How could it come to this: cancer-causing
pesticides pushed into our strawberry
fields instead of cutting-edge green
agriculture?

An all-natural, chemical-free world sounds
utopian. But the population is not
dwindling. In fact, countries are scrambling
to figure out how they will feed an
expected 9 billion mouths by 2050.
Perhaps The Economist put it best when it
stated organic farming is a "luxury of the
rich."
That's what happened late last year when
one company, Arysta, successfully
convinced then-Gov. Arnold
Schwarzenegger to allow the use of methyl
iodide in California, instead of investing in
forward-thinking agriculture.
The company was successful, despite

Advertisement
Meanwhile, California's food producers
must find the right tools to sustain a
multibillion-dollar industry. Amid water
shortages, increased regulation and rising
production costs, providing farmers with a
tool that helps ward off diseases, pests
and weeds is the least our government can
do.

When I review the science and compare the

facts to the frantic claims of activists, the
truth is clear. The EPA, CDPR and the
scientists from around the world who have

http://www.thecalifornian.com/fdcp/?unique=1305985183284 5/21/2011
Format Dynamics :: CleanPrint :: http://www.thecalifornian.com/article/20110521/OPINI... Page 3 of 4

findings by world-class scientists convened schools and workplaces."

by the state to review methyl iodide, calling i
t "one of the most toxic chemicals on Patent-holder Jim Sims and pesticide
Earth." And under pressure, state manufacturer Arysta, the most outspoken
regulators approved the use of methyl methyl iodide promoters, stand to benefit
iodide at levels 120 times greater than most from the sales of the chemical.
scientists consider safe.
What do you do when painted into a
corner? Arysta's response: wage a public
Corporate pesticide interests want us to relations war to tarnish the reputations of
ignore the fact that methyl iodide is so scientists and community leaders that
reliably carcinogenic that it is used in the oppose methyl iodide. So the pesticide
lab to create cancer cells. manufacturer hired Bush Administration
strategist J. Scott Jennings at Peritus Public
Corporate pesticide interests want us to Relations to influence government officials
ignore the fact that Washington state to ignore independent science and secure
denied the use of methyl iodide based on approval for methyl iodide.
California's scientific review.
Corporate PR efforts notwithstanding, facts
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on the ground speak for themselves.
heard these concerns and asked for input
about whether it should prohibit the use of Strawberry production has grown, even as
methyl iodide across the country. More other soil fumigants are being phased out.
than 200,000 members of the public In spite of the pesticide manufacturer's
submitted comments to EPA last week frantic claims that agriculture will go under
urging the agency to prohibit the use of without methyl iodide, farmers aren't
methyl iodide. convinced. In the three years it has been
Advertisement
Additionally, 39 distinguished scientists,
including three Nobel Laureates in
Chemistry, submitted a letter last week to
the EPA noting that methyl iodide is: "one of
the more hazardous chemicals used in
research labs and in the chemical industry,
and it seems counterintuitive that EPA
would work on one hand to prevent and
document relatively small releases of
methyl iodide used in research and
chemical manufacturing, while permitting
what will likely be millions of pounds to be
used annually in agriculture near homes,

http://www.thecalifornian.com/fdcp/?unique=1305985183284 5/21/2011
Format Dynamics :: CleanPrint :: http://www.thecalifornian.com/article/20110521/OPINI... Page 4 of 4

registered in other parts of the U.S., less

than 1 percent of the acres that could
potentially be treated with methyl iodide
were actually treated. The European Union
grows a quarter of the world's
strawberries, almost equal to the United
States' output, without the use of methyl
iodide and most other fumigants.

Scientists, doctors and public health

professionals all warn of the profound
impact methyl iodide will have on the
health and safety of residents in the Salinas
Valley.

Unfortunately, farmers, farmworkers and

neighboring communities will bear the
greatest costs of methyl iodide use, that is,
until we can convince government leaders
to support our communities and invest in
safe, green and visionary agriculture.

ª Paul S. Towers is state director of

Pesticide Watch Education Fund, where he
works with Californians to prevent pesticide
exposure, promote local farming and build
healthier communities.
Advertisement

http://www.thecalifornian.com/fdcp/?unique=1305985183284 5/21/2011