Salinas forum sparks fumigant debate State officials solicit opinions on chloropicrin - and get plenty (pt. 1)

Jun. 13, 2013, The Californian.com 

State pesticide officials can be certain of two things as they continue to unveil their plan to further regulate a widely-used agricultural fumigant in the Salinas Valley: Environmentalists and farmworker advocates will likely claim the finished product lacks teeth while growers will argue it’s too restrictive and costly.

Not an enviable position to be in but that was the overarching message delivered on Monday and Tuesday as officials from the state Department of Pesticide Regulation held regional forums — including two in Salinas — that solicited comments about its plan to increase safeguards around the use of the fumigant chloropicrin.

Though the chemical has multiple uses, 70 percent of the applications are made to sterilize soil prior to planting strawberries. It is a gas that is effective against insects, nematodes and some weeds, and is often used in combination with other fumigants. It is an extreme skin and lung irritant and can only be applied by licensed contractors. It is listed as a restricted pesticide under both federal and California laws.

DPR representatives delivered a Power Point presentation to more than 100 participants Monday evening at the Monterey County Agricultural Center on Abbott Street in Salinas, outlining proposed changes to current regulations governing chloropicrin. The lion’s share of the changes focused on expanding the buffer zones around fumigated fields and adding new requirements to emergency preparedness and response planning.

Monterey County is the second largest user of chloropicrin in the state, with an annual application of nearly 1.7 million pounds, which accounts for 26.6 percent of all use of the chemical in the state, according to the DPR. Only Ventura County — also a huge strawberry region — had higher usage, accounting for 28.2 percent of the chloropicrin used in the state.

The argument over its use boils down to two positions. Farmers say there is still no financially viable alternative while environmentalists and farmworker advocates say the toxic fumigant should be phased out entirely, as the European Union has done.