Environmental Protection Agency issues new rules on fumigant pesticides

The Environmental Protection Agency issued new rules today governing fumigant pesticides, which are used to sterilize soil before the planting of strawberries, tomatoes and other crops throughout the country.

Many of these new rules are not groundbreaking to Californians -- the state already has some of the country's strictest regulations governing fumigant use under the Department of Pesticide Regulation. But nationwide the proposals are significant and include creating buffer zones, monitoring air quality around fields, creating fumigant management plans and training emergency responders and applicators.

"This stuff is pretty much what we've been doing in California for years," said Rob Roy, president and general counsel for the Ventura County Agricultural Assn., which represents more than 150 major farming organizations.

"If anything, what it's going to do is level the playing field. California farmers are not going to be the only ones stuck with these rules. All farmers that utilize fumigants will be affected by this rule making ... that just adds to the cost per acre for production."

The new rules cover chloropicrin, dazomet, metam sodium/potassium, methyl isothiocyanate and methyl bromide and are the result of a nearly four-year reassessment of soil fumigants. (Apparently the EPA is at the tail end of its 15-year process of reviewing all pesticides registered before 1984. Officials said last year that they started the new 15-year cycle to review all pesticides registered as now in use.)

Almost everyone -- farmers, manufacturers, environmentalists and government officials -- seemed at least OK with the changes. In fact, most seemed pleased. Activists were happily surprised that the EPA placed much of the burden for these changes on the manufacturers of the fumigants.

"This is putting responsibility where it belongs," said Susan Kegley, a senior scientist with Pesticide Action Network North America.

Western Plant Health Assn., a trade organization representing manufacturers in California, Arizona and Hawaii, said its members had worked with the EPA and others on developing the guidelines.

"We believe these guidelines are reflective of standards already in place in California," said the group's chief executive and president, Renee Pinel, in a statement. "WPHA supports product use standards that provide for the safe use of crop protection tools, while allowing growers the flexibility to use these tools in an agronomically sound manner."

Nonetheless, representatives of the Pesticide Action Network said they had hoped that the new measures would include larger buffer zones. Under the proposal, buffer zones will range from 25 feet to half a mile, depending on the size of the field being fumigated and other factors. Around schools, nursing homes and other sensitive sites, this zone must be at least a quarter of a mile.

"We don't like buffer zones at 25 feet -- that's just nothing, that's just across the street from your house," Kegley said. But EPA officials said their risk assessments studies showed that 25 feet would be more than enough of a buffer in certain situations.

In California buffer zones are already used for methyl bromide-injected fields. Methyl bromide has been banned by an international treaty because it damages the ozone layer and is being phased out. It is allowed only for uses considered crucial.

Fumigants are viewed as a "silver bullet" approach to killing pests, far more effective than most other pesticides and easier than methods such as crop rotation. They allow year-round strawberry farming in Ventura County, for example. Fumigants are applied by large tractors that drag their spikes deep into the soil, injecting the gases. A tarp is then placed atop the soil for several days, after which it is removed and eventually planting can begin.

Fumigants are among the most potentially dangerous pesticides in use. Toxic gas can evaporate out of the fields, exposing farm workers and wafting into neighborhoods. Fumigants, some of which are carcinogens, have been linked to acute respiratory and other health problems.

California's Department of Pesticide Regulation uses EPA regulations as a "floor" for many of its rules, said Glenn Brank, a spokesman for the agency. The agency has been reviewing current regulations and will probably have modifications out in the next couple of years, he said.

"Whatever we do will at least be equivalent to the EPA, if not provide a greater margin of safety for workers and the public," Brank said. "But there's no question that whatever they do is going to be the law of the land."

It's not clear to what extent the new rules will affect California's existing regulations, which differ on a more nuanced level. For example, the state has a system in place that deals with training emergency responders; however, under the new proposal, registrants, or manufacturers, would be responsible for this.

"Our decision requests a registrant be aware of what the state is already doing ... to coordinate with us and the state so we complement each other and do not create a redundancy," said Steve Bradbury, director of the special review and reregistration division of the EPA. "For some states, this will be new."

Cynthia Cory, director of environmental affairs for the California Farm Bureau Federation, said she would be taking a closer look at the proposed rules, which she had not had a chance to review.

"The devil's in the details," Cory said. "... We want to make sure we can continue to use fumigants safely and we're not trying to re-create something we're already doing here."

The rules will be published in the Federal Registry on July 16, which will kick off a 60-day comment period. Under the EPA's timeline, the new rules will begin to take effect in 2009, notably those involving training and community outreach. Fumigant-specific rules will probably take effect in 2010 when they are expected to be printed on product labels.

To see the abbreviated print version (for space constraints), click here.

-- Tami Abdollah

Photo: Workers pick strawberries near Camarillo. Credit: Al Seib / Los Angeles Times

Comments

[Ahmad Mahdavi]

Bridging the gap between South and North for pesticide/ chemical regulations and research
The situation of pesticide and chemical market, advertising, transportation and distribution, labeling, worker protection and in general regulatory activities in developing countries is very bad and need immediate support from international scientific community and also from international regulatory agencies to prevent more misuse. Due to the lack of regulatory bodies and enforcement in these countries and specially lack of proper labeling and distribution and finally lack of knowledge in final consumer many cases of suicide using pesticides happens every year in each of these countries. Pesticides are sold in food stores and sometimes in open containers with no labels. Reading the labels before use rarely happens due to lack of ability for reading. In most of these developing countries there is absolutely no enforcement power (if there is a written regulations at all) and licensing procedure for agricultural worker protection and these workers do their spraying with any type of equipment that they can find with no protecting clothing.
Role of local governments and politics: Due to the unstable situations of governments in many of developing countries some very important tasks like pesticide/ chemical regulations and enforcement are ignored and in most cases they only exist on paper. In some of these countries mafia like groups are clearly involved in pesticide marketing and distribution and they also cover some government agents. Unfortunately the recent Global political problems and also the very recent food and environmental crisis are adding to the problem by widening the gap between North as the provider of these compounds and also the place of research bodies and regulatory agencies and South as the receiver of these compounds (sometimes as gift!) and as the blind consumer. Perhaps the worst part of governments and political roles in this bad scenario in developing countries is that all of international conventions that deal with Global pesticide/ chemical problems are in the hand of governments in developing countries and in absolute control of them and this is a big problem. These governments simply and rudely send their political and in most cases non-scientific agents to these international conventions like Stockholm, Basel, IFCS etc. and in surprise these international conventions accept these governmental agents instead of genuine scientific people. Now in the 21 Century it is the time that those people involved in international conventions give more opportunities to representatives of NGOs from developing countries, to the real academic/ scientific people from developing countries instead of only dealing with governments.
Role of scientific/ academic research: Unfortunately academics and those scientists employed by these governments cannot do so much to solve the problem. In most of these developing countries research funds are not available or if it is, is not distributed correctly to reach the real final scientist to conduct the research. Due to the lack of local research on pesticide/ chemicals in these countries scientists use those regulations provided by researchers from developed World and also from Global regulatory agencies and this in part makes more problems. For example regulations written for developed countries are not suited for developing countries due to the lack of proper infrastructures and also different consuming/ eating habits. In oil producing developing countries allocation of the research money is not correct and is never distributed according to the need and according to the country’s problem but unfortunately the money is simply allocated to unnecessary programs and in most of these countries to research on military etc.
Consumer lack of knowledge in developing countries: One big difference between consumers in Northern and Southern countries is level of knowledge of final consumers. In developed countries not only most of people are more scientifically educated as compared to the people in developing countries but also many other factors help the final consumer in developed World about compounds like pesticides. In developed countries many NGOs and community workers are working to make the people aware about what they consume and eat but in developing countries not only the existence of NGOs is under threat but also there is no community work.
With best regards,
Ahmad Mahdavi,
PhD, pesticide environmental toxicologist,
Sustainable agriculture and environment,
Guelph, Ontario.,
bugmahda@yahoo.com and biomahda@gmail.com.