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?
3 Comments so far
Leave a comment
I agree that fumigation is a highly necessary options for several, high value, specialty crops. Methyl iodide is a good option to replace methyl bromide because it does not have the ozone depletion effects. The anti-fumigant forces are not taking into consideration the exposure side of this question. Even a highly toxic material can be used safely if exposure risk is minimized. Methyl iodide is also something that reacts and then is gone after application in a way that is better than some of the other alternatives.
The high value crops like strawberries, lettuce and broccoli all depend on fumigation either prior to planting or a limited number of seasons before. Without these valuable land uses, the forces of urbanization could well eliminate the unique production areas for those crops in the Salinas Valley and Central Coast. The anti-fumigant groups need to explain how they would deal with that issue.
Comment by Steve Savage August 8, 2011 @ 7:03 pmSteve:
Comment by Western Plant Health Association August 8, 2011 @ 7:21 pmGreat, insightful comments regarding the importance of fumigation, and specifically, the use of methyl iodide. I even took the issue a step further and interviewed the co-owner of a commerical nursery near Sacramento who addresses the importance of fumigation, including the actual tarping and application of chemicals to kill pesky nematodes. You can watch this at http://www.healthyplants.org.
Methyl iodide is just the most recent in a string of activist-targeted products subjected to hyped and false claims. Today, media announced that the US EPA’s study of BPA (Bisphenol A, a compound found in plastics, canned foods, and other items) by Justin Teeguarden at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory found it was virtually impossible for BPA to cause human harm–even in massive ingested oral dosage, it remained undetectable in blood and urine samples drawn from the body. Too bad that the false claims left bankrupt companies, costly lawsuits, and embarrassed senators (including Dianne Feinstein) in the activists’ wake.
The fact is, methyl iodide is a naturally occurring organic compound found widely in the oceans, the atmosphere, and on land. Had a biologist in a field coat dipped kelp from between the feeding sea otters in Monterey Bay and extracted it from his or her samples, then declared it a miracle organic cure for cleaning disease-infected and pest-infested soils, how much different the story might have been.
Who pays for the false claims made by these activists? Despite repeated calls, they provide no scientific evidence for their claims. Farmers and everyone in the production chain from the field to the consumer pay the price for their ego and hubris.
Comment by Robert Dolezal August 8, 2011 @ 10:27 pm