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

PRESS RELEASE
State Pesticide Agency Appeals Court Decision Meant to Protect Public Health
Court Had Sided with Citizen Groups and State Health Agency Asking for Strict Standards on Highly Toxic Fumigant

The Office of the Governor and the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) have appealed a State Superior Court decision that would have forced DPR to develop more stringent rules on the use of methyl bromide, a highly toxic fumigant, in order to better protect public health.

In December, 2004, a State Superior Court judge in San Francisco sided with the Environmental Defense Center (EDC), California Rural Legal Assistance (CRLA), and California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation (CRLAF) in ruling that DPR had violated the law when it failed to follow recommended health standards of the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) in issuing methyl bromide field fumigation regulations.

"Citizen groups, a state health agency, and the courts all agreed that better standards were needed to protect the health of agricultural communities," stated Linda Krop, Chief Counsel for the EDC. "Unfortunately, instead of agreeing to protect the public, DPR has shown its true colors in siding with the chemical industry."

Methyl bromide is a fumigant applied to soil before the planting of crops such as strawberries. Overexposure can cause long term neurological problems. It is a central nervous system depressant which can cause seizures, tremors, convulsions, and coma 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.

-MORE-
"We had urged DPR to do the right thing and take steps to immediately implement the health protective measures mandated by the Courts," stated Mike Meuter, Migrant Unit Director for CRLA. "They had their chance, but once again chose to delay the inevitable by appealing the Court's decision."

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. In 2004, the latest year for which data is available, methyl bromide ranked 7th out of California's top 100 pesticides, with over 7 million pounds used.

"Methyl bromide is the way of the past," said Ms. Krop. "It's a shame that DPR is stuck in the past, ignoring the phase out, ignoring recommendations of a sister agency, and ignoring the fact that the public will ultimately prevail."

The original lawsuit filed by EDC, CRLA and CRLAF 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 had 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 allowed 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.

Other provisions regarding air monitoring, respiratory protection and County discretion over buffer zone sizes had also been found to be too vague to be properly implemented for the protection of farmworkers and the public. In response, the judge ordered DPR to modify its regulations in compliance with state law within one year. Instead, DPR appealed the decision.

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.