Pesticide Hearing Expected to Draw Hundreds

Hundreds of farmers, environmentalists and farm worker advocates are expected to descend on the Ventura County Fairgrounds today to sound off on proposed restrictions for the use of the controversial soil fumigant methyl bromide.

A public hearing--the second of four being held across the state--will center on a proposal by the state Department of Pesticide Regulation to expand what are already the nation’s most comprehensive methyl bromide controls.

It is a high-stakes showdown, with growers squaring off against anti-pesticide advocates in an escalating battle of dueling studies and opposing objectives.

Environmentalists and others have long fought to ban use of the popular cropland fumigant, saying it is potentially harmful to children, farm workers and people who live near fields where it is applied. They want the state to adopt even stricter controls.

“We’ve seen a massive failure of political will in phasing out this chemical,” said Bill Walker, California director of the Sacramento-based Environmental Working Group. “California uses more of this stuff in closer proximity to more people than anywhere else in the country and it should be the leader in terms of protection.”

But Ventura County growers have launched a counteroffensive, having grown tired of being portrayed as having little regard for the health and safety of their neighbors.

They want the public to know that the current restrictions are the toughest in the nation and maintain the current rules are more than adequate to protect public health. They say stricter controls would put them at a competitive disadvantage with growers in other states, causing them to lose money and lay off workers.

“What they are basically trying to do is outlaw the way we do business,” Oxnard strawberry grower Daren Gee said. “We are fighting for our economic lives.”

*

Championed by growers as a potent pest killer, the colorless, odorless gas is injected into the soil to cleanse it of insects, mite presence, rodents and weeds before planting.

The pesticide is used on about 70 crops, but is especially popular in the strawberry industry, where it is used on more than 90% of the commercial acreage in California.

But the fumigant has long been targeted for elimination by anti-pesticide advocates because it is highly toxic and depletes the Earth’s ozone layer.

Their campaign has had some success. Under terms of an international treaty, methyl bromide production is to be reduced 25% this year, 50% in 2001, 70% in 2003 and banned altogether by 2005.

The proposed state regulations, released earlier this year, were largely born of a lawsuit brought by environmentalists who accused state officials of endangering public health by failing to sufficiently control the use of methyl bromide, even as it is phased out.

The regulations call for new requirements such as minimum buffer zones--100 feet in most cases--around application sites and work plans from growers as a condition for obtaining approval to use the chemical.

They also call for neighbors to be notified of a farmer’s request to use methyl bromide and for neighbors to receive copies of fumigation schedules if they wish. The rules would also enhance protections for schoolchildren by banning applications while classes are in session.

Growers contend the proposed regulations are too severe, saying their economic livelihood is threatened by over-regulation of a pesticide that has never caused a death in agriculture and has only been linked to one farm worker poisoning in Ventura County since 1992.

“This is not really about protecting children, it isn’t really about protecting farm workers,” said Rob Roy, president of the Ventura County Agricultural Assn. “They simply want to get rid of this chemical no matter what the cost to the agricultural community.”

By some measures, those losses could be staggering.

The National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy estimates annual losses of as much as $450 million for U.S. producers of crops treated with methyl bromide.

Those losses would hit California and Florida growers hardest. And in California, the strawberry industry would be hit the hardest of all.

One survey predicts a potential 10% loss in strawberry production the first year without methyl bromide, 20% the second year and 30% to 40% in subsequent years due to the buildup of soil-borne diseases.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture puts the potential net impact to the strawberry industry at $131.5 million a year, losses that would persist until more effective and cost-efficient alternatives are found.

In Ventura County--where the $176-million strawberry industry is the second-largest in the state--growers have been trying to find replacements for the potent pest killer.

*

But they say they need to be allowed to operate under existing restrictions until 2005 to ensure an adequate substitute can be tested and approved.

“We’re being portrayed as the bad guys out there and our backs are up against the wall,” said fourth-generation strawberry farmer Christopher Deardorff.

Under the proposed restrictions, Deardorff estimated losses of more than $100,000 on just one of his sites because expanded buffer zones would not allow him to farm some of his land and new regulations would slow the application process.

“This methyl bromide issue is only the start for the environmentalists. They don’t want us using anything out there,” he said. “Even if we abide by the current regulations, we still won’t consider this a victory. We feel we’ve been pushed too far and this is where we draw the line.”

While acknowledging growers could suffer some losses, anti-pesticide advocates say some of the growers’ arguments are disingenuous.

Eileen McCarthy, an attorney with California Rural Legal Assistance, said growers who complain they wouldn’t be able to use land because of expanded buffer zones assume that acreage would lie fallow when it can be treated with nontoxic alternatives or planted with another crop altogether.

Moreover, McCarthy said a recent study by the National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy concluded a ban on methyl bromide would actually boost growers’ revenues, because higher prices would offset lower yields.

But even if growers were to lose revenue, McCarthy said tighter controls on methyl bromide would still be in order.

“We’re talking about something so serious here that you have to balance in favor of risk-reduction,” she said. “The stakes are too high.”

Ultimately, McCarthy and others say, they want state regulators to impose 1,000-foot buffer zones between residences and fumigation sites and require growers to notify residents within a 1-mile radius that methyl bromide application will be taking place.

Those restrictions are especially important locally in light of a recent report that concluded large quantities of the fumigant are used near more students and more schools in Ventura County than anywhere else in the state, said Lynda Uvari, a board member for Ventura-based Community and Children’s Advocates Against Pesticide Poisoning.

“The proposed methyl bromide regulations currently under debate . . . do not protect our children, they do not protect us,” Uvari said Friday at a news conference to boost support for today’s hearing.

FYI

The California Department of Pesticide Regulation will hold a public hearing at 1 p.m. today on proposed restrictions for the use of the soil fumigant methyl bromide. The hearing will be at Seaside Park (fairgrounds) in Ventura, 10 W. Harbor Blvd.