California Defied Own Scientists With Pesticide Approval

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/oldrebel/3595440838/">Donald Lee Pardue</p>/Flickr


Earlier this year, several environmental groups sued the State of California for approving the agricultural use of methyl iodide, a harmful pesticide. Methyl iodide is known to cause miscarriages, thyroid dysfunction, and cancer, and it’s applied to crops like strawberries and peppers. Public outcry has been growing: just this week, farmworkers and environmentalists stood on the steps of the state capitol demanding Governor Jerry Brown make good on his promise to reconsider the substance’s approval. While farmworkers are worried about their health, scientists should be concerned too: new documents released by court-order due to the lawsuit show the state cherry-picking data to back up weakened restrictions for the chemical.

The state’s Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) is at the center of this mess: the department has been without a head since the previous one resigned in spring. DPR management chose to cherry-pick data (some of it from the department’s own scientific reports) to support smaller buffer zones and higher concentrations of methyl iodide. The problem: the data was from different scenarios using different variables. In a memo with the subject line “Potential Misinterpretation of Methyl Iodide Risk Assessment,” a DPR supervising toxicologist wrote: “It is not scientifically credible to select a value or assumption from one and combine it with a value or assumption from another.” The DPR toxicologist said the data were “not interchangeable” and called management’s approach “mix and match.”

DPR management’s mixing and matching was used to show that fields sprayed with methyl iodide would require smaller buffer zones. The highest level of protection scientists investigated would have required buffer zones of several hundred feet to several miles around affected fields. DPR acknowledged in the new documents that this level of protection “was recommended by scientists” but still chose to reduce the buffer zones, saying that such requirements would be “excessive” and cause hardship on methyl iodide manufacturer Arysta “due to its economic viability.” “Homes and schools are literally 25 feet away from these fields,” said Paul Towers. Towers is a spokesperson for Pesticide Action Network, one of the parties to the lawsuit against the state. “This puts rural communities at risk.”

In addition to reducing buffer zones, California’s DPR chose to outright ignore warnings from its own scientists regarding methyl iodide’s effects on pregnant women, children, and infants. This risk assessment report notes several times that the department had not tested methyl iodide for neurological damage to fetuses. DPR scientists recommended that “an additional ‘safety factor’ of 10 is needed to take the post-natal neurotoxic effects into consideration, since the rabbit studies delivered some live pups at the end of gestation but no neurotoxicity studies were conducted.” In the end, DPR scientists recommended that California set its limit for methyl iodide at 2 parts-per-million in order to reduce chances of miscarriage. This level was published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal without incident. However, the EPA and Arysta chose to allow 10 parts-per-million, citing the rabbit studies. These rabbit studies, importantly, measured miscarriages as a percentage of fetal death per litter. Rabbits have up to 15 offspring in each litter, while humans usually only gestate one fetus at a time.

Due to the dangers of methyl iodide, both Washington state and New York have refused to allow its use, even though the EPA has approved it. If documents like these keep coming out of the state, maybe methyl iodide will be pulled from California just as quickly as it was approved in the first place.

OUR NEW CORRUPTION PROJECT

The more we thought about how MoJo's journalism can have the most impact heading into the 2020 election, the more we realized that so many of today's stories come down to corruption: democracy and the rule of law being undermined by the wealthy and powerful for their own gain.

So we're launching a new Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption. We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We'll publish what we find as a major series in the summer of 2020, including a special issue of our magazine, a dedicated online portal, and video and podcast series so it doesn't get lost in the daily deluge of breaking news.

It's unlike anything we've done before and we've got seed funding to get started, but we're asking readers to help crowdfund this new beat with an additional $500,000 so we can go even bigger. You can read why we're taking this approach and what we want to accomplish in "Corruption Isn't Just Another Scandal. It's the Rot Beneath All of Them," and if you like how it sounds, please help fund it with a tax-deductible donation today.

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our newsletters

Subscribe and we'll send Mother Jones straight to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate