Answers Needed on a Deadly Toxin : How risky is use of methyl bromide on produce? State growers seek another phaseout delay
There’s no question that exposure to the pesticide methyl bromide can dangerous, even fatal, to agricultural workers applying it in the field. But how dangerous is the use of methyl bromide on strawberries, tomatoes and other crops to consumers? Unfortunately, neither Gov. Pete Wilson nor the Legislature seem in any hurry to find out.
Methyl bromide is used on more than 60 crops in California alone. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency classifies this pesticide as a “Category I acute toxin”--EPA’s category for the most deadly substances--because overexposure can immediately lead to irreversible damage to the brain, liver and kidneys, even death. Methyl bromide also contributes to ozone depletion.
Under the Birth Defects Prevention Act of 1984, makers of methyl bromide and many other chemicals were required to present data by 1991 on the long-term health effects of exposure to their products. Compounds determined to cause birth defects and such chronic health problems such as sterility or cancer must be phased out. The required studies on many substances have been completed--but not on methyl bromide.
As part of the 1984 law, growers and pesticide manufacturers set 1991 as the date by which they would complete health studies on methyl bromide or they would stop using it. By 1991, when they had not completed those studies, the growers and pesticide manufacturers asked for and received a five-year extension, through this March.
Those studies are still incomplete and growers want another delay in the methyl bromide phaseout, this time through 1997. Still to be completed is a study measuring the long-term effects on animals of methyl bromide residues. The manufacturers have argued it was diffcult to design this evaluation because, unlike many pesticides, methyl bromide is often applied as a gas. But after 10 years, this explanation, along with the apparent lack of progress, sounds like just one more excuse, one more tactic to delay.
While growers rightly insist that no single chemical can replace all methyl bromide’s uses, a variety of available pesticides and practices could be used as substitutes. Research is proceeding on other substitutes.
Rather than embrace those more expensive and less convenient alternatives, growers pushed for another reprieve last session. But when lawmakers did not move quickly enough to suit them, they prevailed upon Wilson to call a special session of the Legislature just to deal with this. In that session this week the growers may well prevail. If so, perhaps the Legislature will muster enough concern for the health and welfare of Californians to insist that the studies be completed to answer questions about methyl bromide’s effects in the dosages now used on much of California’s produce.
