Contacts:
EDC: Linda Krop, Chief Counsel (805) 963-1622
Karen Kraus, Staff Attorney (805) 963-1622
CRLA: Mike Meuter, Attorney (831) 757-5221
CRLA Foundation: Anne Katten, Industrial Hygienist (916) 446-7901, x19

Court Rules State Pesticide Agency Failed to Adequately Protect Public and Farmworkers from Dangerous Pesticide

Environmental and Farmworker Advocacy Groups Prevail in their Challenge to DPR's Methyl Bromide Regulations

In response to a lawsuit filed by the Environmental Defense Center (EDC), California Rural Legal Assistance (CRLA), and California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation (CRLAF) in December 2004, a State Superior Court judge in San Francisco has ruled that the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) failed to follow recommended health standards of the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) when it issued methyl bromide field fumigation regulations.

"The Environmental Defense Center, California Rural Legal Assistance, and California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation have achieved a significant legal victory that will protect farmworkers and the public from exposure to methyl bromide," stated Linda Krop, Chief Counsel for the EDC. "Hopefully, this ruling will not only result in lower exposure to this toxic pesticide, but will also encourage farmers to use safer alternatives."

"We urge DPR to do the right thing and take steps to immediately implement the additional health protective measures that the Court has stated farmworkers and rural residents are legally entitled to," stated Mike Meuter, a Director of Litigation, Advocacy and Training for CRLA.

Anne Katten, CRLA Foundation Work Health and Safety Specialist, noted that "We are very concerned that the existing regulations allow methyl bromide exposure 8 and 9 fold higher than the limits recommended by OEHHA for protection of public and worker health."

Methyl bromide is a fumigant applied to soil before the planting of crops such as strawberries. Overexposure can cause long term neurological problems including seizures, tremors, convulsions, and coma. It is a central nervous system depressant and is listed on California's Proposition 65 list as a chemical known to cause reproductive harm. Recent studies have found an elevated risk of prostate cancer among methyl bromide applicators and farmworkers.

The lawsuit centered on a conflict between DPR and OEHHA, a State agency whose specific mission is to evaluate risks posed by hazardous substances, and which, along with DPR, is charged with responsibility for developing regulations related to pesticide and worker safety. OEHHA recommended that seasonal (or subchronic) exposure levels of methyl bromide should not exceed 1 part per billion for children and 2 parts per billion for adults. In contrast, DPR's adopted regulations allow seasonal exposure levels of this highly toxic pesticide to reach 9 parts per billion for children and 16 parts per billion for adults, an 800% and 900% increase, respectively, over OEHHA's recommended levels.

The Court held that DPR must follow OEHHA's recommendations and that DPR violated the law when it ignored the recommendations of OEHHA scientists and failed to jointly develop the methyl bromide regulations with OEHHA.

The Court also found that a provision allowing County Agricultural Commissioners to deviate from carefully developed buffer zone parameters based on unspecified "other information" is invalid because the regulation does not adequately inform people affected by such deviations - including farmworkers and members of the general public living near, working near, or passing by fields where methyl bromide is sprayed - of the basis for changing the buffer zones. Other provisions regarding air monitoring and respiratory protection were also found to be too vague to be properly implemented for the protection of farmworkers and the public.

The judge ordered DPR to modify its regulations in compliance with state law within one year. Until then, the current regulations will remain in place.

Widely used throughout California, the production and use of methyl bromide was scheduled to be banned by developed nations under the Montreal Protocol because of its potential to deplete the Earth's protective ozone layer. Although scheduled for phase-out in 1988, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has allowed for "exemptions" from the phase out requirement each year.

Nearly 7.5 million pounds of methyl bromide were applied in California in 2003, and it ranks 4th in the top 100 chemical pesticides used in California. The current lawsuit brought by EDC, CRLA and CRLAF is part of an ongoing struggle against DPR to force its adherence to State law and adopt pesticide regulations that are protective of public health. In 1998, environmental groups successfully sued DPR for failing to issue regulations governing the use of methyl bromide by the legal deadline. This is the second time since then that EDC and CRLA have sued DPR to ensure adequate compliance with state law and protection for workers and neighbors exposed to methyl bromide.

Decision available upon request, and is also available on EDC's website at http://www.edcnet.org/docs.htm

EDC is a non-profit, public interest environmental law firm serving Central Coast communities for over 25 years. EDC works to protect the environment, health and quality of life for Central Coast residents by providing legal services, advocacy support and education on a wide range of issues.

CRLA is a non-profit law firm that has advocated for farmworkers and other low income people throughout the State for 40 years. CRLA's priority areas of emphasis include labor and employment, including occupational safety issues such as pesticides, housing, education, civil rights and public benefits.

CRLA Foundation is a non-profit organization which as provided advocacy and educational assistance to California's farmworkers and other rural poor to improve social, health and economic conditions for the past 25 years.

-###-