Despite global treaty, toxic pesticide still is in widespread use in Calif

[nosmokes]

original

treaty? we don't need no stinkin treaty. and what really gripes my ass is when you have a professor at a state university like the one quoted in the article that is merely a schill for the agro-chrm industry, saying if you don't let the farmers use this dangerous toxin then they'll start using other dangerous toxins they aren't as familiar with and that will be even more dangerous! how about this professor - how about a more sustainable method of agriculture to start with, huh? let's think about that for a while, ok?

--###--

h1]Despite global treaty, toxic pesticide still is in widespread use in California

By Mike Lee
UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER

December 14, 2005

Each spring, flower fields planted by Mellano & Co. turn North County hillsides every color of the rainbow and the family-owned business ships its bright harvest around the globe.

Like legions of other farms in California, Mellano relies on the highly effective pesticide methyl bromide. This chemical is the undisputed champion in the pre-planting ritual of killing virtually every seed and pest in the soil.




But the colorless, odorless gas has a destructive side effect: It eats away at the ozone layer that shields Earth from excessive solar radiation. Federal regulators say it is the most powerful ozone-depleting substance that remains in widespread use.

An international treaty has sharply decreased the use of methyl bromide in developed countries. One unintended consequence, though, has been the rapid jump in use of similar pesticides across California, raising new health and environmental risks.
~snip~
.
.
.
--###--
complete article here

[yellowcanine]

1. Yes Methyl Bromide is still being used but only for exempted uses

approved by an international working group (See Open-Ended Working Group) that is implementing the Montreal Protocols. EPA has to apply to the working group for the exemptions. The U.S. is not ignoring the treaty.

Link here:

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/mbr/

[nosmokes]

2. and exempted uses are bullshit

over 100 thousand pounds used in san diego county on tomatoes alone. what makes tomatoes exempt? clout, connections, money, whatever. it's a fact you don't need methyl bromide to grow tomatoes.

[yellowcanine]

3. The exemptions are granted by the international working group. It

is part of the treaty. Why don't we let the people with access to the data decide what is "bullshit"? Maybe they have more information and knowledge about the subject? These exemptions aren't just handed out on request. They have to be justified with data. An individual producer or even a grower's association can't just apply for an exemption. The application has to be done by university or USDA scientists and supporting data must be provided.

[nosmokes]

4. because the USDA and the EPA are largely nothing

more than puppets for the agro-chem industry, and all of the data can be trumped by the economic necessity/feasability clause. and that claise is played more often than the race card was in OJ's trial even though the industry receives millions in subsidies from the government. methyl bromide is bad, bad shit. why are you defending it so? we need to be getting rid of it and all the rest of the poisons we're dumping all over the planet. it is not sustainable.

[yellowcanine]

5. You really don't know what you are talking about. Have you ever even

seen an application for a special local needs registration or emergency section 18 pesticide permit? I am defending it because I am an agricultural educator/researcher and I know that pesticides are necessary just as antibiotics are and no chemical company is paying me to say that. I work for a university and get paid by the taxpayers. Not having food to eat is not sustainable either. Like it or not, we are not going to feed the world strictly on organic production.

[nosmokes]

6. i may not have a degree, but i have a working knowledge

and i do know of studies that show organic/sustainable practices can feed the world just fine, tyvm. organic farming is just as effecient as so called conventional agriculture, especially if the price of oil continues to rise, and if the subsidies stop, we'll see just what happens to conventional farmers. and wtf is 'conventional' about pouring poison all over what i'm gonna put on my family's plate? as for how easy it is to get exemptions, you realise that we're talking agriculture in san diego county where it's nigh impossible to not be a successful grower? and we're talking flowers? i loke flowers as much as anyone, but it's an emergency? pesticides are necessary only because of poor decisions we've made. we need to get rid of them.

[yellowcanine]

7. Uh huh. Believing it, however fervently, isn't going to make it so. What

the heck is a "working knowledge"? And you didn't answer my question. Do you know what kind of information is needed to get a special local needs pesticide registration or a section 18 emergency pesticide permit? If you don't, then I say you don't know what you are talking about. Have you ever grown anything on a commercial scale either conventionally or organically? If you have I will concede you might have some "working knowledge" without the degree - that's what it means to me. Your statement about "nigh impossible to not be a successful grower" tells me you don't really know much about agriculture. There is no place on earth where it is "nigh impossible" to be successful at farming. It is always quite possible to fail.

[nosmokes]

8. spent part of my youth on a farm

still have an interest in and was an co- operator of an organic farm and orchard in nocal a few years back.

so yes, i have some idea of what's involved in getting permitted, and i'm also well aware that the chem companies will do much of the footwork and if they don't the local farm buruea will. but if you're on the other end of the coin and you have a problem with drift or overspray you just plain outta luck.

i'm no expert, i'll be the first to admit, but i do know that we are poisoning ourselves and our home and that it can't continue. and i've been looking very hard at the alternatives and they work, they show lots of promise and there is room for improvement in bio intensive methods. if you're an agricultural educator/researcher, that's what we need to be putting our resources into. of course, i'm just an ignorant prole, wtf do i know.

[yellowcanine]

9. Well it is not true if "you have a problem with drift or overspray you

just plain outta luck". You keep making these statements that makes me think you are talking off the top of your head. I didn't say you were ignorant - those are your words. I do think you haven't kept up on these issues by the kind of statements you keep making. Any farmer who has drift from his application going unto a neighbor's land is absolutely liable and it is not that difficult to prove with the sophistication of chemical analysis we have now. We talk about this issue all the time in our pesticide applicator classes and we teach farmers how to minimize drift. Furthermore the farmer has to keep records of the applications and if he doesn't and there is a complaint and he doesn't have the records he is up shit creek because that is the first thing the state inspector asks to see. The other thing that I object to in your arguments is that you lump all pesticides into the same bucket. They are not all equally bad and some of the ones allowed for organic production have problems as well - in fact, some of the organic pesticides have some of the highest levels of acute toxicity of any pesticides.

[nosmokes]

10. would that it were that simple in the real world

first of all you have problems inherent in dealing with a gov't bureaucracy in scheduling, delay and cost, and if you're organic certed by a 3rd agency there is the problem of the state saying you're clean nd the 3rd party saying you don't meet their standards. of course this is why many growers and producers now call themselves no-spray or bio-intensive instead of organic. as for organic pesticides, yes, they may have an acute toxicity that can equal or exceed(briefly) that of some synthetics but they quickly break down in the environment and do not render the soil or water sterile, as does methyl bromide. regarding the different classes of pesticides i am not well versed because i don't use 'em. granted, some aren't as deadly as others, but that's hardly a ringing endorsement for putting something on food or into the earth which eventually gets into the groundwater.

look, i'm not a conspiracist, but as a general rule the agricultural establishment as it exists now doesn't wish to see any substantiative change to the way it operates. right now the organic sustainable methods movement is merely a thorn in the side, but it's digging in deeper and it seems to me instead of truly investing in ways of making organic farming easier and more accepted, they're looking more and more to synthetics. i liken it to detroit and the first energy crisis, and the big three's refusal to accept reality that fuel economy is a reality and alternate energy sources would pay off. every toyota prius that's gonna be made next year is already sold.

are we in violation of the treaty? you say technically we aren't because of the exemptions, but clearly by using the exemptions we're bypassing the intent of the treaty. methyl-bromide is not necessary for tomatoes in san diego county (or anywhere else) and certainly not over 100 thousand pounds of it. that certainly is in violation of the gist of the treaty which is to get rid of the chemical and protect the ozone. and my worry is that since we continue to use it how can we expect developing nations to not use it, and they are more likely to use it recklessly.