By KEVIN WALKER
Michigan Correspondent

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — Recently the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (CDPR) signaled it would move to deregulate iodomethane, a soil fumigant that’s sometimes billed as a replacement for methyl bromide.

At the same time, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has suggested it might re-review its 2007 restricted approval of iodomethane, also known as methyl iodide. Last week, the public comment period for California’s review and proposed approval of iodomethane ended.

“We received approximately 50,000 comments, mostly by e-mail,” said Lea Brooks, a spokeswoman for the CDPR. “We suspect it will be several months before a final decision. Our restrictions are more stringent than the EPA’s.”

Brooks said Arysta Life Science – the company that developed the brand name chemistry with the active ingredient iodomethane – now has to go back to the EPA to get a California-only label for the product. Even after that, the CDPR will have to review and approve the label.

Last September the EPA participated in California’s review of iodomethane and gave its current position on the chemistry. A spokeswoman for the EPA recently reiterated the agency’s position. The agency said depending on the outcome of California’s external peer review and final risk assessment, EPA may choose to “initiate reevaluation” of iodomethane.

Iodomethane has been used and tested most extensively in Florida. According to the EPA’s report, presented during the California review, in recent years iodomethane has been used on about 17,000 acres of land in Florida. This included 425 applications of the soil fumigant.

Out of those, there were no reported “incidents” related to its use. According to Brooks, however, media outlets in California have distorted EPA’s comments, sometimes deliberately.

“It doesn’t mean that they won’t do a review in the future, but they aren’t doing it right now,” Brooks said. “EPA’s position has been mischaracterized. There are changes being made to all fumigants, but that’s different than reviewing methyl iodide.”

In a fact sheet generated and disseminated by the CDPR dated June 17, the state agency just a few weeks ago received verbal confirmation from EPA officials that the EPA is not planning to reevaluate its registration decision on methyl iodide “at this time.” Brooks said the fact sheet was specifically meant to counter the media distortions.

According to Carissa Acree a spokeswoman for Arysta, an external scientific review panel in California found iodomethane was not safe to use; however, she said there were problems with the review panel’s objectivity.

She said the EPA originally set out to eliminate the use of methyl bromide by 2005. Its new target date is 2015 and the agency restricts use of the product more and more every year, she said.
Acree acknowledged that iodomethane is probably a little more expensive than methyl bromide, but also stated it isn’t as cheap as it used to be because it’s becoming less common in the marketplace. Methyl bromide is still used in Michigan nurseries as well as on turf grass and as a cleaner in some businesses, but a special permit from the EPA is required.

Dave Peck, owner of Manvanita Berry Farms in Santa Barbara, Calif., is a strawberry grower. He said he’s had good luck with iodomethane, but isn’t sure how expensive it’s going to be because he’s used it as part of tests and research only.

“I think it’s going to be at least as expensive as methyl bromide even at its current elevated prices,” Peck said. “It works very well. All the things that work with methyl bromide work with (iodomethane), also.”

Peck added it’s easier and cheaper to apply iodomethane than methyl bromide. “There are some savings on that end of it,” he said.