Cookie Control

This site uses cookies to store information on your computer.

Some cookies on this site are essential, and the site won't work as expected without them. These cookies are set when you submit a form, login or interact with the site by doing something that goes beyond clicking on simple links.

We also use some non-essential cookies to anonymously track visitors or enhance your experience of the site. If you're not happy with this, we won't set these cookies but some nice features of the site may be unavailable.

By using our site you accept the terms of our Privacy Policy.

(One cookie will be set to store your preference)
(Ticking this sets a cookie to hide this popup if you then hit close. This will not store any personal information)

Judge: Onus on CA to Prove It Considered Methyl Iodide Alternatives

"The lawsuit over California's approval of a controversial pesticide may hinge on a seemingly straightforward question: Did regulators ever ask themselves what would happen if they didn't approve methyl iodide?"



"In an Oakland courtroom today, Alameda Superior Court Judge Frank Roesch presided over a one-day trial about the pesticide, a fumigant approved by state regulators in December, 2010.

Environmental and farm worker groups sued the state, along with Arysta LifeScience, which produces methyl iodide, in January, 2011, contending that the chemical puts farm workers at risk of cancer or miscarriage. They said the state used bad science in approving the chemical, and ignored the concerns of its own scientific advisers."

Amy Standen reports for KQED January 12, 2012.

Source: KQED, 01/13/2012