PAN to EPA: Phase Out Fumigants

Four highly toxic fumigant pesticides—chloropicrin, methyl bromide, methyl isothiocyanate and Telone®—are in the final evaluation stage of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Fumigant Cluster Assessment review. (EPA also is evaluating for registration a new fumigant pesticide called methyl iodide. Methyl iodide, a carcinogenic chemical, could replace methyl bromide, which EPA refused to register last year.) The re-registration of older pesticides is mandated by the federal Food Quality Protection Act of 1996. The process was to have been completed by August 2006.

The EPA is well aware of the dangers posed by these fumigants. Fumigants have been responsible for serious poisoning incidents of farmworkers and communities across the U.S. and around the world.

In 2005, EPA staff met with two agricultural workers in Monterey County, California, who had been exposed to methyl bromide fumigant.

Jorge Fernández and Guillermo Ruiz began to suffer breathing problems after placing and removing large, plastic field tarps used to contain the fumigant close to the soil. Both men are now unable to work, have difficulty breathing and speaking and are ashamed that they can no longer provide for their families.

“Fumigation with toxic chemicals is deeply entrenched in our agricultural system,” says PAN Staff Scientist Brian R. Hill. But these dangerous chemicals are also being used beyond the fields. Some are used to kill structural pests (homes are tented or buildings are sealed and filled with the fumigant). Another common application is as “commodity fumigants”—typically pumped in gas form over grain, nuts, produce and timber stored in warehouses or shipping containers. Proponents argue that fumigation prior to shipping and storage extends the life of commodities and prevents the spread of pests to the commodities’ destinations.

But, Hill explains, there is no justification for this practice since “safer alternatives for commodity fumigation—such as treatment with heat, or alternating vacuum with pressurized carbon dioxide—are not only known, they have progressed well beyond the research phase, are economically competitive, and are ready for widespread use.” Unfortunately, requirements for the integration of these nontoxic alternatives were “conspicuously absent” from EPA’s proposed re-registration decision.

Chemical fumigants are injected or dripped into the soil in large quantities (typically 100–400 pounds per acre) to kill pathogens such as fungi, nematodes, weeds and other pests prior to planting potatoes, strawberries, tomatoes, vegetables and other crops. After application, a large fraction of the fumigant can volatilize from the soil and be transported by air and winds.* This pesticide drift poses a health risk to farmworkers, their families, and residents of adjacent communities—all innocent bystanders. Even people living a mile or more from the site of application may be exposed.

Also, fumigants can contaminate groundwater by percolating downward. Fumigants are substantial contributors to volatile organic compounds (VOCs) that react with oxides of nitrogen (NOx) to form ozone, a ground-level air pollutant that can cause respiratory problems and worsen existing health conditions.

In 2005 and 2006, as part of the fumigant cluster process, EPA released preliminary risk assessments and requested public comments on chloropicrin, methyl bromide, telone, and methyl isothiocyanate (a gas produced by metam sodium and dazomet). In both letters and meetings with EPA officials, PAN and several partner organizations have expressed opposition to the continued use of these toxic chemicals and have asked the agency to:

1. Begin a permanent phaseout of all highly volatile soil fumigants,
2. Stop registration of any new toxic and volatile chemicals as replacements,
3. Set numerical targets and timelines for the phaseout of fumigant pesticides,
4. Expand research, implementation and transition programs for non-chemical methods of pest control and soil/pest management and,
5. Develop outreach programs for farmers to facilitate their transition to safer non-chemical methods of pest control.

PAN also proposed concrete actions and mitigation measures for the phaseout period, including use of more protective buffer zones, low-emission application techniques, limited application amounts and 48-hour advance notifications to all affected parties before applications are to occur.

In the coming months, EPA will determine whether to continue permitting the use of this dangerous, antiquated technology and, if so, whether to issue proposed new regulations on their proper handling. After the final assessment documents are released, EPA will accept comments and hold stakeholder hearings in Florida, California and Washington State.

Now is the time to tell EPA to do their job of protecting human health from dangerous chemicals and stop taking the lead from the chemical industry. The stakeholder hearings in Florida, California and Washington will provide an opportunity to tell EPA that we don’t want these poisons used in our communities. It is an opportune time to push for a national phaseout of fumigant pesticides. In the months ahead, it is crucial to mobilize our communities to attend the hearings and let EPA know of the personal effects fumigants have had on individuals and families, as well as the damage they are doing to our ecosystem.

The hearings are a chance to share our local experiences with fumigant drift and worker exposures—valuable information EPA officials will not hear from the chemical industry or from growers who have not yet made the switch to more sustainable farming. It is imperative to let EPA hear the message that the health of our children, families, and environment matter more than corporate profits.

* SK Papiernik et al., “Effect of Application Variables on Emissions and Distribution of Fumigants Applied via Subsurface Drip Irrigation,” Envi. Sci Tech. 38 (2004) 5489, http://pubs.acs.org/cgi-bin/abstract.cgi/esthag/2004/38/i21/abs/es049064q.html.