Methyl bromide. It’s a chemical that residents of the Santa Maria Valley have heard a lot about, especially if they pay attention to the news. Most recently, it’s being tossed around in discussions about combating the “charcoal rot” fungus in local strawberry fields.
The pesticide-that-could is back in the news—and has been back in court—since the California Court of Appeal ruled on July 15 that the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) failed to use recommended health standards from the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) when it issued methyl bromide field fumigation regulations.
Methyl bromide is a pesticide routinely used on strawberry fields. It’s used so often, in fact, that the California Strawberry Commission, along with the Alliance of the Methyl Bromide Industry, filed its own appellate brief on this case. The chemical is applied to the fields before planting and, according to the EPA, overexposure can cause long-term neurological damage, birth defects, seizures, coma, and death.
At the core of the lawsuit, according to the Environmental Defense Center and the California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation, was the claim that the DPR regulations ignored advice from OEHHA that stated that seasonal exposure of methyl bromide shouldn’t exceed one part per billion for members of the public and two parts per billion for adult workers. Instead, the adopted regulations allowed exposure levels to reach
nine parts per billion for the general public and 16 parts per billion for workers.
The state appelate court ruled against the DPR after the Superior Court also ruled against the agency on the same case in March of 2006. The original lawsuit was filed in 2004.
“The Environmental Defense Center, California Rural Legal Assistance, and California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation have achieved a significant legal victory that will protect farm workers and the public from exposure to methyl bromide,” Linda Krop, chief counsel for EDC, said in a press release. “Hopefully, this ruling will not only result in lower exposure to this highly toxic pesticide, but will also encourage farmers to use safer alternatives.”
The DPR is a branch of the Environmental Protection Agency, or EPA, and so is OEHHA. The OEHHA is the risk assessment branch of the EPA and determines the scientific basis for the risk management decisions that regulatory branches, such as the DPR, use to make decisions.
At stake in the appeal was the question of whether or not the DPR had to work with the OEHHA when making a decision on matters such as pesticide exposure, or if the agency could obtain the OEHHA’s comments and recommendations and then choose whether or not to follow them. The court found that the DPR does have to consider the findings of the OEHHA when forming regulations about the safety of methyl bromide.
It’s unclear whether this is the end of the case, said Karen Kraus, staff attorney for the EDC. She said that they wouldn’t know for sure until the DPR decided whether or not to appeal. The state agency has until
the end of August to make a decision. If it does appeal, the case would go to the State Supreme Court for a final verdict.
“We haven’t made a determination on what steps to take next,” said Glenn Brank, spokesperson for the DPR. “Obviously we all want to do the best we can to protect the health and safety of the public.”
Brank described the lawsuit as more of an internal matter between the two agencies.
“It’s really a fairly narrow technical issue,” he said.
The EDC sees it differently. Krause said that although there aren’t likely to be any immediate effects of the ruling, she hopes that in the future any regulations involving exposure levels for methyl bromide will be safer for everyone involved.
“What we’re hoping for is more rules in place to protect farm workers and people who live near the fields,” she said.
Contact Sports Editor Sarah E. Thien at sthien@santamariasun.com.
This article appears in Jul 31 – Aug 7, 2008.