Written by Tara Alley
I’ve always been fanatic about healthy living, and am rather blessed to typically enjoy and prefer healthier food options even more so than the so-called “treats” most people crave. If given a choice between a bowl of ice cream or a bowl of fresh fruit, I’d choose fresh fruit every time. But, as a Montana girl who didn’t have the best access to fresh produce, I craved a sunnier home. So, for many reasons, sunshine and fruit at the top of the list, I packed my bags 8 months ago and voyaged off to California. Since then I have been a frequent to local farmers markets and every supermarket in a 20 mile radius expects to see me when their California strawberries go on sale. Is there anything better than a California strawberry? I’m just not sure.
But what I am sure of is that I’m not impressed with the latest news about the latest pesticide that’s in the works to be doused upon my lovely Californian strawberries. If you haven’t heard about this yet, jump on board with me for a second. I think you’re going to want to get involved too, as it’s quite possibly going to effect the very strawberries you eat, regardless of where you live since California is currently responsible for about 90% of the strawberries in the U.S.
The bottom line is that in the very near future there’s a good chance that your fresh, healthy bowl of vine ripened juicy red strawberries are going to come with a side of cancer causing carcinogens. Yummy? The culprit is, not surprisingly, a pesticide.
The one that has most commonly and traditionally been used on strawberries: methyl bromide, is now proven to deplete the ozone layer, which makes international requirement to phase it out seem like a very good thing. However, it doesn’t seem like nearly such a brilliant idea when put side by side with its replacement: methyl iodide, a chemical that many scientists and doctors claim to be a definitively cancer-creating carcinogen. In fact, according to Doctor Paul Blanc of the University of California San Francisco and the scientific study he worked to test the effects of methyl iodide on mice, it was proven to be cancer causing. Not only that, it’s also known to cause late term miscarriages and to damage the nervous system.
At the moment, methyl iodide has been legalized in 48 different states, although so far only six have jumped on board and started using it. California, the main producer, hasn’t become number 7 yet, but according to most sources, it’s just on the verge of making the switch.
Fortunately, the people around here aren’t about to sit by aimlessly while the strawberry fields bordering their houses and schools are on the brink of being doused in these “cancer-creating carcinogens,” and neither are the scientists. On May 7th, a letter sent to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) included the voices and opinions of 39 scientists, including three Nobel laureates in Chemistry, who stated methyl iodide to be “one of the more hazardous chemicals used in research labs and in the chemical industry, and it seems counter-intuitive that EPA would work on one hand to prevent and document relatively small releases of methyl iodide in research and chemical manufacturing, while permitting what will likely be millions of pounds to be used annually in agriculture near homes, schools and workplace.”
Not convinced? They summed their letter up with the punch line: “rigorously conducted analysis indicates that methyl iodide cannot be used safely as a soil fumigant and serves as a sound scientific basis for US EPA to cancel all agricultural uses of methyl iodide.” That about does it, right? Organizations like Earthjustice have been especially bold: “Our opinion is that the EPA can’t just ignore this evidence that we’ve put in front of them…so rarely do you have a situation when scientists are so unanimous.” But of course, there’s always a second side, and according to the Tokyo marketer of the product, Arysta LifeScience Corp., the scientists doing the reviews for California simply “just got it wrong.”
So how do things stand now? EPA’s time period to comment closed on May 13th. At the moment, the federal government is allowing methyl iodide to be used, and workers to be exposed to it at 150 parts per billion. California only allows for 96 parts per billion, but if you talk to the scientists weary of its cancer causing effects, you’ll hear that .8 parts per billion is what the limit should be – a very far cry from both 96 or 150.
But, what about the farmers like Jim Cochran of Swanton Berry Farm who claims “It’s certainly possible to grow commercially-viable and ecologically sound strawberry crops without using methyl iodide or any other chemical pesticides.” Could it be possible that the EPA could rethink their position and not allow methyl iodide to be used, or at least not at such high exposure? And could more farmers take an organic approach and benefit not only the environment but the safety and health of the workers and the consumers? And if so, would you be willing to pay the price increase?
Author Tara Alley is a freelance writer trying to stay on top of sustainability in California. Her current research at the moment is primarily focused on the effect a portable air conditioner will have on the ozone.
Sources:
Felix-Romero, Jessica. “Keep Strawberries Safe: EPA Urged to Ban Methyl Iodide.” Harvesting Justice. Retrieved 17 May, 2011. http://www.harvestingjustice.org/
Staff. “Neighbors, farmworkers ask EPA to ban use of fumigant in California strawberry fields.” Washington Post. Retrieved 17 May, 2011. http://www.washingtonpost.com/
Staff. “New Pesticide Could Pose Serious Health Risks.” KTVU. Retrieved 17 May, 2011. http://www.ktvu.com
Wozniacka, Gosia. Neighbors oppose strawberry farms’ fumigant use.” Business Week. Retrieved 17 May, 2011. http://www.businessweek.com/
