To its credit the AP broke the story, yet to move much beyond Florida and California, despite being a case study of how the EPA operates. One fact missed by AP, but included by the LA Times is that EPA turned down the scientists’ request for an independent review by the National Research Council,. Also that the EPA hired the manufacturer Arysta LifeScience Corp's former CEO Elin Miller. The precise timing is missing even from the Times article: Miller started at the EPA in October 2006 after the EPA backed down from approving the fumigant in April due to objections from the United Farm Workers, environmental groups and California pesticide officials. The Times goes no further to delve into the revolving door between industry ... More »

The Environmental Protection Agency permits the use of a new agricultural pesticide, despite health concerns expressed by more than 50 chemists and other scientists. The pesticide -- Methyl iodide, also known as iodomethane -- will be allowed to control soil pests "under highly restrictive provisions governing its use." But given what we have seen over the past six years, can we trust the Bush Administration's EPA?

An excellent example of Bush math. 1 yes vote from special interests pandering Bushies vs 50 votes from eminent scientists and chemists = a complete victory for special interests. Profits, yes! Public health, nay!

This is a story that raises the alarm (that's a good thing) but is so one sided that it doesn't present the views of the EPA scientists (that's a bad thing). I believe that the EPA under both Democtratic and Republican administrations has a history of allowing "ideology" to trump science but that doesn't justify lazy journalism.

Story fails to include information on the Bush Administrations interference with science in its agencies. Thus the reader who is new to the story has no way of judging what risks EPA considered in approving this chemical.

One can only hope that this is a sign of more rigorous coverage of the Bush administration's lack of attention to scientists. This story would give a bigger picture if it mentioned the numerous other occasions when the EPA went counter to the advice of prestigious scientists.

I get very tired of AP stories written by those who don't understand science, the scientific method, nor the rules for using science in regulatory situations. I don't see *anywhere* what the *other* EPA scientists who reviewed this pesticide thought. All we get are the 'deniers' side. Perhaps there is a 'consensus' among the other scientists about safety. Funny how much differently this story is reported from 'Global Warmng'. These dissenters are given much more credence. I wonder why. This is a pathetic excuse for reporting.

It is good journalism but the article should have added the information about the dangerous agent called: Iodomethane which is a highly toxic. vollatile compound and can cause cancer. Just the fact that one should even handle this dangerous chemical is enough for me to know that it should not be in OUR soil. Please consult this link http://physchem.ox.ac.uk/MSDS/IO/iodomethane.html

This story is fairly well done. It would have been nice to have a quote from one the scientists or the letter that the scientists wrote to the EPA.