Home > U.S. Farmers Use Pesticide Despite Treaty

U.S. Farmers Use Pesticide Despite Treaty

by Open-Publishing - Tuesday 29 November 2005
5 comments

Edito Agriculture - Fishery - Animals Environment USA

A sign, required by law, warns of a pesticide application of methyl bromide on a field near Watsonville, Calif., Aug. 12, 2005. The pesticide is used to fumigate the soil as preparation for strawberry planting. The U.S. continues to permit the methyl bromide to be used despite signing an international treaty that banned its use by 2005. Its survival demonstrates the difficulty of banishing a chemical that is a powerful toxin but that also helps deliver abundant, pest-free and affordable produce for farmers and consumers. (AP Photo/Rita Beamish)

Shoppers rifle through store shelves brimming with succulent tomatoes and plump strawberries, hoping to enjoy one last round of fresh fruit before the Western growing season ends. There is no hint of a dark side to the blaze of red.

Strawberries are a painful subject for Guillermo Ruiz. The farm worker believes his headaches, confusion and vision trouble stem from a decade working in the fields with methyl bromide, a pesticide that protects the berries with stunning efficiency.

Cheri Alderman, a teacher whose classroom borders a farm, fears her students could inhale a dangerous whiff of the fumigant as it drifts from the adjacent strawberry field. "A little dribble of poison is still poison," she says.

The concerns stretch globally.

Other nations watch as the United States keeps permitting wide use of methyl bromide for tomatoes, strawberries, peppers, Christmas trees and other crops, even though the U.S. signed an international treaty banning all but the most critical uses by 2005.

The chemical depletes the earth’s protective ozone layer and can harm the human neurological system, an increasing concern as people settle further into what was once just farm country.

Methyl bromide’s survival demonstrates the difficulty of banishing a powerful pesticide that helps deliver what both farmers and consumers want: abundant, pest-free and affordable produce.

The Bush administration, at the urging of agriculture and manufacturing interests, is making plans to ensure that methyl bromide remains available at least through 2008 by seeking and winning treaty exemptions. Also, the administration will not commit to an end date.

The administration’s "fervent desire and goal" is to end methyl bromide’s use, said Claudia McMurray, deputy assistant secretary of state.

The amount of the fumigant that the administration requested under treaty exemptions for the next two years is lower than in 2005. Golf course sod, for instance, won an exemption this year but not next.

"I can’t say to you that each year the numbers (of pounds used) would automatically go down," she said.

The reason is that farmers who each year grow Florida tomatoes, California strawberries, Georgia peppers and North Carolina Christmas trees worth billions of dollars are struggling to find a suitable replacement. Alternative organic techniques are too costly and substitute chemicals are not as effective, growers say.

"We’re not totally clueless. We’ve seen this train coming. We’ve tried every alternative and put every engine on the track, but none of them run," said Reggie Brown, manager of the Florida Tomato Committee.

Odorless and colorless, methyl bromide is a gas that usually is injected by tractor into soil before planting, then covered with plastic sheeting to slow its release into the air. It wipes out plant parasites, disease and weeds. It results in a spectacular yield, reduced weeding costs and a longer growing season.

Workers who inhale enough of the chemical can suffer convulsions, coma and neuromuscular and cognitive problems. In rare cases, they can die.

Less is known about the long-term effects of low levels of contact, said Dr. Robert Harrison, an occupational and environmental health physician at the University of California, San Francisco.

The U.S. signed the Montreal Protocol treaty, committing to phase out methyl bromide by 2005 as part of the effort to protect the earth’s ozone layer.

A provision allows for exemptions to prevent "market disruption." The U.S. has used it to persuade treaty signers to allow U.S. farmers to continue using the chemical.

That exemption process leaves the U.S. 37 percent shy of the phaseout required by 2005, with at least 10,450 tons of methyl bromide exempted this year. While that compares with about 28,080 tons used in 1991, this year’s total is higher than it was two years ago.

U.S. officials are heading to a Montreal Protocol meeting in Senegal on Dec. 7 to begin negotiations on exemptions for 2007 and are preparing requests for 2008.

That is not what the treaty envisioned, said David Doniger, senior attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council. In the 1990s, he worked on the protocol as director of climate change for the Environmental Protection Agency.

"Nobody expected you would use the exemptions to cancel the final step of the phaseout or even go backward," Doniger said.

With methyl bromide probably sticking around for several years, the EPA is re-examining its health and safety standards.

California, which grows more than 85 percent of the nation’s strawberries and other methyl bromide-dependent crops, launched regulations last year to improve its strictest-in-the-nation protections for farmworkers and others.

The increased protections are not enough for Alderman, a teacher at Pajaro Middle School in the California agricultural belt south of the Santa Cruz beaches.

Kids chase balls across the grassy playing field. Opposite a chain link fence, just beyond the range of an errant baseball, is a field where strawberries grow.

When air monitoring detected elevated methyl bromide levels four years ago, Alderman joined the outcry. County officials say they pressed the grower; this fall he used a different chemical on the fields nearest the school.

Alderman, however, remains concerned because government scientists say methyl bromide seeps into the air. "We have that nice ocean breeze that blows it all this way," the teacher said.

Even California’s required buffer zones and ban on applying methyl bromide within 36 hours of school time is not enough, she said. The school draws youngsters on weekends too, and families live nearby. "It’s ridiculous to think that as long as we don’t do it on school days, then were OK," she said.

The American Association of Pesticide Control Centers logged 395 reports of methyl bromide poisonings from 1999 to 2004. A national total remains elusive because farmworkers often do not seek medical care.

Advocates for farmworkers contend in a San Francisco Superior Court lawsuit that even California’s exposure limits to protect neighbors are too lax. State regulators lately have emphasized stricter enforcement and tougher penalties.

Ruiz and Jorge Fernandez, two California farmworkers, say they saw plenty wrong in the strawberry fields they worked, starting with the dogs, birds and deer that lay lifeless when the workers arrived to remove plastic sheeting from fumigated fields. "That’s how we knew this was a dangerous chemical," Ruiz said.

His own symptoms added concern. "My eyes watered. I threw up. It gave me headaches," he said.

Ruiz and Jorge Fernandez say they developed nervousness and depression by the time they stopped working in 2003. They saw the plastic come loose in high winds or leak when animals punctured it. Other workers had symptoms, they said, but kept silent because they feared for their jobs.

The two are in a disability dispute with their former employer, who denies allegations that workers were forced to remove plastic sooner than required.

Growers feel hamstrung. Despite millions of dollars spent on research, no alternative addresses all soils and pests as well as methyl bromide, they say.

"It just works so good and just does so many things so well," said Mike Miller, a strawberry grower in Salinas, Calif.

He and other farmers believe the fumigant is safe when used correctly.

"I’m comfortable working with the product and educating our personnel," said Jim Grainger, a fourth-generation farmer who grows 700 acres of steak tomatoes in Florida.

Among those pushing for continued exemptions are financial heavy hitters such as the family of Floyd Gottwald, vice chairman of methyl bromide producer Albemarle Corp. of Richmond, Va. The Gottwalds contributed more than $420,000 to President Bush’s campaigns and to national Republican Party organizations over the past six years.

The size of the U.S. inventory of methyl bromide inventory is secret. The EPA refuses to disclose how much, saying the figure is confidential business information. Doniger’s group says in a suit against the agency that the amount exceeds 11,000 tons.

Its continued use makes people such as Lynda Uvari uneasy.

In her Southern California neighborhood of Ventura, people thought they had the flu a few years back. Then they noticed that their illness coincided with fumigation of a nearby field. They settled a suit with the strawberry grower.

Now Uvari wonders about methyl bromide’s legacy, even whether it could be linked to her son’s endocrine problems.

"That’s in the back of our minds all the time," Uvari said. "You always question."

Forum posts

  • You wouldn’t believe what they are allowed to put in the meat. In Texas the medicate cows with hormones and antibiotics, once you have eaten this, you may have the chance that antibiotics work on you. U.S. customers getting the lousiest local produce imaginable.

    What is law good for, if it is not enforced. Or everything which give profit is allowed in the States.

    Do we expect that people who voted for Kim Il Bush have brains.

  • I had a farm for over 15 years and eventually had to sell out because of taxes and development. I cannot begin to tell you the horrors of farming and the control that the government exerts through alliances with large corporations. Text book fascism.

    For example, my farm with was slightly over 40 acres was considered a "farmette" — another word sometimes used for farmily farms.

    Each year, we were basically told what to grow and what pesticides to use — down to the strain of seeds we were to use. If we did not abide by that, then we were on our own. Which meant that you could not get another pesticide nor another type of seed for the area from any of the seed companies. Now, one could say that we could go out of the area and get these but that meant getting another license for pesticide application and then finding the grain elevators to accept the crop. Thus, after the harvest we’d have to take the crop outside of the area where they were accepting it. All adding to the cost and troubles and all the while you are at the mercy of nature.

    Seed crops on one farm being different meant that it could also be suceptable to the pestcide that your neighbours were using — if they chose to stay with the local program. Farms as far away as 9 miles using a certain pesticide can effect this "outside" seed/crop — because of waterflows, air currents, aquifer tables, etc. It’s a no win situation.

    For you people who think they are buying orgainic foods and are eating healthy — you are completely mistaken. For example, a farmer might grow orgaincs but his neighbor does not; meanting the neighbor’s pestcide reside will find it’s way to the "orgranically grown" crop. This is no excaping it.

    When I use to apply the pesticides, there were many, many rules to follow, in mixing, in applying on days when there was no wind and to wear a breathing mask and wear special clothing. This clothing was then to be burned after each use. It was like being an EPA person dresses when mixing and filling the sprayer tanks.

    Even if all of this is to stop today, it would take years and years for the residue to cycle out of the environment.

    The story is much more involved and complecated than what I can write here but there is just no escaping these things. It is as though life is the last thing anyone really worries about.

    • You made absolutely the point. Hope that people get that.

    • Thanks for the compliment... But I did notice some typos... Lest you think a farmer is not educated and/or otherwise lame... 8)

      I had to have another job in order to maintain my farm. But in the end it got to be too much. Part of this as I have said were the taxes and development. The small town that my farm was close to came under the influnce of people who moved out here from the city. There were laywers and bought out lands as the farmers in the area were very old. (Just as an aside, the average age of a farmer in the US is 57 years. There is very little new blood coming in to farming).

      As to why I continued or why others still do is hard to explain. Farming is sort of in the blood, there is something about it that calls to a person. The appeal of the work or the friendly nature of the other farmers. The rural culture... But is is not at all helped by others. All they see is dollars tied up in the land and how easy it is to steal it from the owner. And they do.

      These people had all kinds of connections with the state and soon they were incorcopating the farmlands into the town — there are many ways they can do this, without the approval of the farmer. Soon, land that was taxes as "ag" became "Business" or "residential" and was taex accordingly. But it still was a farm. This often meant that the taxes went up 100% or more. There was simply no way of paying these taxes. Then the developers would come in and offer for the land — this caused adjcent tracks of land to be taxed higher and so on.

      In some cases a few houses were put up and the families started complaing of farmers disturbing their sleep and the smell of the fertilizers. (A farmer has to work as the time and weather allows... He cannot wait until 9:00 to start his combining or planting.) Putting additional pressures as to when the farmer can "farm" — all kinds of rules were passed and life became more and more difficult.

      As it turns out there are much more troubles with family farms as well and with crops using the "biotech" (BT) or as Europe call them Genetically Modified (GM) seeds.

      The last few years we were told to use a particular seed strain from a company to grow feed corn. This is a type of corn that is used for animal feed and for sweetners but cannot be consumed by a human. Almost 90% of the corn grown in the U.S. is feed corn. The rest is called "sweet corn" and it is what you see in the grocery stores.

      One could see on the farms that were growning this strain that there were no butterflies at all. And the sounds of creatures in the morning and evenings were little or completely absent. For you city folks, farmers like to drive around and check out other crops and farms and get pleasure in seeing crops grow. They then like to talk shop at breakfast at the local cafe in town. They also like to travel to shows in other neighbor states and check out those farms and crops and compare. In any event, all of the farms in the area that used this strain of seed had little or no butterflies. So, I can tell you from what I know, that the area’s wildlife has been impacted. No butterflies means no birds who feed on them and one can only imagine what it is like below the food chain of the butterfly. I can tell you that the environment has been radicaly changed in the area where I used to farm.

      My last year farming was the worst — the soil was no longer rich with nematodes. It was like powdered cement. It is a wonder that anything grew at all on that land.

      In time I expect to see many sicknesses in the population, and at the same time I expect big pharma to counter these with more pills.

      There is much more that I can write about but I am afraid that people will not nderstand and simply get bored of the talk of a ex-farmer.

  • To anyone interested here is a link to a report put out by a Canadian farm lobby group...the information pertains to Canadian agriculture but the bottom line is the influence by the Agribusiness giants....their dominance puts your food safety and security at risk. www.nfu.ca/briefs/corporate_profits.pdf