California’s Approval of Pesticide Ingredient Challenged
A coalition of pesticide watchdogs and farm workers has filed a petition in a
California state court seeking review of a Department of Pesticide Registration
(DPR) decision to allow the use of pesticides containing methyl iodide despite
evidence that the chemical is highly toxic. Pesticide Action Network N. Am. v.
Cal. Dep’t of Pesticide Regulation, No. RG10553804 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda
Cty., filed December 30, 2010).
The chemical is allegedly used in fumigants intended to sterilize soil before planting crops such as strawberries, tomatoes, peppers, fruit and nut trees, grape vines, and ornamentals. The petitioners claim that breathing the chemical causes nausea, slurred speech and vomiting, permanent damage to the lungs, liver, kidneys and central nervous system, as well as fetal miscarriage. They also claim that direct contact with skin causes burns and that the chemical is listed as a known carcinogen under Proposition 65. The petition contends that exposure occurs through the air, soil and groundwater.
According to the petitioners, the risk assessment that DPR conducted when considering whether to register pesticides containing methyl iodide relied on numerous assumptions which OEHHA, the agency with Proposition 65 oversight, criticized on a number of grounds. The petitioners also allege that a DPR scientific review committee disputed many of the agency’s assumptions and questioned the safe exposure level the agency established. Still, DPR decided to register methyl iodide for use in California, establishing “a regulatory target level of 32 parts per billion (ppb) averaged over a 24-hour period for bystanders, and 96 ppb averaged over an 8-hour period for workers.” According to the petitioners, these target levels “are more than 100 times greater than many of the reference concentrations established in the final risk assessment, including the reference concentrations for fetal death.”
Alleging violations of various state laws, the petitioners seek a declaration that
DPR’s decision to register methyl iodide and a related emergency regulation
designating the pesticide as a restricted material were unlawful, a stay of the
registration decision, a temporary restraining order, and permanent injunctive
relief.
