Unaddressed Concerns Over a Pesticide
In 2006, more than 50 scientists and doctors — five nobel laureates among them — wrote an urgent letter to the EPA warning of the dangers of the pesticide methyl iodide. In 2007, the agency approved its use.
According to Pesticide Action Network, a group opposed to the use of methyl iodide, exposure to the substance “causes late term miscarriages, contaminates groundwater and is so reliably carcinogenic that it’s used to create cancer cells in laboratories,” posing a serious threat to farmworkers and those who live near treated fields. A panel of independent scientists convened by the state of California concluded that exposure would be “difficult, if not impossible” to prevent.
So why is methyl iodide now approved for use? The chemical was initially welcomed as a savior to the agricultural industry. Years ago the EPA saw it as an alternative to another pesticide, methyl bromide, which was barred because it depleted the ozone layer. As for the controversy that has followed, look to the revolving door between industry and regulatory agencies. –ARK
Wait, before you go…
The US government’s official opinion on methyl bromide has been: We can’t fully ban it until we find a suitable alternative. And the agrichemical industry has been scrambling to find a Montreal Pact-friendly alternative for years.
Here’s where we get back to methyl iodide. In 2006, the Japanese chemical giant Arysta presented it to the EPA as the perfect candidate to replace methyl bromide. The pitch: It works just as well on nematodes, but it doesn’t harm the ozone layer. As for farmworkers, well…
Arysta had friends in high places while the EPA pondered methyl iodide: In 2006, then-EPA director Stephen Johnson appointed Elin Miller, then-CEO of the North American arm of Arysta, to a high post within the agency. Before her stint at Arysta, Miller had worked at Dow Chemical, “overseeing the company’s public affairs, global pest management, and Asia Pacific operations,” according to an an EPA press release.
If you're reading this, you probably already know that non-profit, independent journalism is under threat worldwide. Independent news sites are overshadowed by larger heavily funded mainstream media that inundate us with hype and noise that barely scratch the surface. We believe that our readers deserve to know the full story. Truthdig writers bravely dig beneath the headlines to give you thought-provoking, investigative reporting and analysis that tells you what’s really happening and who’s rolling up their sleeves to do something about it.
Like you, we believe a well-informed public that doesn’t have blind faith in the status quo can help change the world. Your contribution of as little as $5 monthly or $35 annually will make you a groundbreaking member and lays the foundation of our work.Support Truthdig
There are currently no responses to this article.
Be the first to respond.