Filed under: Agriculture, Farming, Pesticide Use | Tags: agricultural chemicals, Farming, Fumigation, pesticides
By Richard Cornett
Director of Communications
There is a very convincing agrument for the need for fumigants. On Feb. 22, a representative of the California Strawberry Commission told a joint hearing of Assembly committees that an effective alternative to fumigants has yet to be found and “the only economically viable remedy to combat soil-borne disease are fumigants.”
Thus we have the controversy involving methyl iodide, as a replacement for ozone-depleting methyl bromide, and whether it is safe for human health, farm workers and the environment. The crux of the debate is whether methyl iodide, that some allege is one of the most toxic chemicals on Earth and causes cancer, is a rational replacement for methyl bromide.
The fact is that strawberries aren’t the only crops that need methyl iodide — it is useful for cut flowers, nursery crops, nuts and vines, tree fruit and tomatoes and peppers. Years before California registered methyl iodide it had already been used safely on many thousands of acres of real farms. Its usage has been approved in more than a dozen other U.S. states. And, the fact is, methyl iodide has not harmed human health or the environment.
Yet there is a concerted effort under way in California by certain environmental groups to have its approval and registration revoked. Are you for or against this move and why?
