After years of pressure from environmental groups, Tokyo-based pesticide manufacturer Arysta LifeScience agreed on March 20 to yank a controversial strawberry pesticide containing methyl iodide out of the American market.
“This is a tremendous victory, where scientific integrity has outweighed pesticide industry pull when it comes to food and farming,” Paul Towers, spokesman for the Pesticide Action Network, said in a prepared statement. “This decision is born of the tireless work of farmers, farmworkers, rural high school students, and mothers who are keeping strawberries safe.”
The California Department of Pesticide Regulation approved methyl iodide, a soil fumigant, for use by farmers in 2010 as an alternative to methyl bromide, an ozone-depleting chemical. The action came despite concerns from numerous scientists, who claimed methyl iodide could cause late-term miscarriages in humans and contaminate groundwater. The chemical is registered by the state as a known carcinogen, and while registered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, it’s been banned in Washington State.
Before being pulled, the chemical—under its brand name MIDAS—was applied on 15,000 acres in California, including on two strawberry plots in Santa Barbara County. In 2011, Santa Barbara County Agricultural Commissioner Cathy Fisher issued the county’s first-ever permit for its application to G&S Farms near Guadalupe. After Earthjustice and other environmental groups challenged the permit, the pesticide was eventually applied to about five acres of strawberries. A second methyl iodide fumigation occurred at Glad-A-Way Gardens east of Santa Maria in December, Fisher said.
In January, new permits for the chemical’s application were put on hold as environmental groups sued the state and manufacturer Arysta in an Alameda County courtroom. Alameda County Superior Court Judge Frank Roesch ordered the state to prove they’d considered other alternatives to methyl iodide prior to approval, and appeared ready to rule in favor of the plaintiffs, agreeing state regulators had broken state law during the process. The judge’s final opinion and decision on whether or not to dismiss the case is expected May 1.
In a prepared statement, ArystaLifeScience spokeswoman Amy Yoder said the company’s decision to pull the pesticide came not as a result of an imminent defeat in court, but “as part of an internal review of the fumigant and based on its economic viability in the U.S. marketplace.”
“The company would like to express its gratitude to growers, researchers, business partners, and supporters who helped MIDAS achieve U.S. EPA registration and registration in 48 states,” Yoder said. “LifeScience will continue to support the use of iodomethane [methyl iodide] outside of the U.S. where it remains economically viable.”
On March 15, newly appointed DPR Director Brian Leahy announced plans for a research partnership with the California Strawberry Commission, investing $500,000 to find alternatives to strawberry fumigant pesticides over the next three years.
This article appears in Mar 29 – Apr 5, 2012.