State Drops Warning Requirement for Common Pesticide : Environment: Administration reverses policy days before it would go into effect. Critics say Wilson bowed to agricultural interests that are big donors.

Acting just days before new environmental rules would have taken effect, the Wilson Administration has decided it will not require growers to notify nearby residents when they apply a widely used pesticide believed to cause birth defects.

Since 1992, state and federal rules have required such warnings when the toxic gas methyl bromide is used to treat houses for termites.

The same warning would have been required when the chemical is used to kill pests on produce or to fumigate strawberry fields and vineyards, but the California Environmental Protection Agency abruptly decided to drop the warnings just days before they would have gone into effect on Jan. 1.

Gov. Pete Wilson, in an interview Wednesday with The Times, said that notification for methyl bromide should “vary depending on how it is being used.” He added, “There is just plainly a common sense difference between using it in the fields under open air, or even using it under tarps, and the kind of clear danger that has existed . . . (in a place) that is enclosed.”

But environmentalists sharply attacked Wilson’s decision, arguing that he had capitulated to pesticide manufacturers and big agricultural interests at the expense of the public. They said it would be challenged in court.

“We have never understood why Pete Wilson would do such a counterproductive thing at agriculture’s bidding,” said David Roe, an attorney for the Environmental Defense Fund. “If it isn’t for campaign financing, it’s a very odd view of what is good for California,” he said, referring to the fact that the governor has enjoyed strong financial backing from agricultural interests in his campaigns.

Roe is a co-author of Proposition 65, the 1986 ballot initiative that requires the governor to develop a list of chemicals known to cause cancer or reproductive problems--miscarriages, infertility or birth defects.

Under the initiative, anyone exposing the public to listed chemicals, even at low levels, must warn them of the possible risk--as do the signs now on prominent display at gasoline pumps. In many cases, manufacturers and others have chosen to stop using the chemicals rather than issue warnings.

On January 1, 1993, the Wilson Administration added methyl bromide to the list of chemicals shown by animal studies or human exposure to cause birth defects. It did so after a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency review of experiments on pregnant rats and rabbits.

While there continues to be debate about the evidence, state and federal rules currently require exterminators treating houses with methyl bromide gas to inform residents in writing that the chemical causes birth defects in animals, although no direct evidence exists that it does so in humans. “Any person, including pregnant women, should avoid unnecessary exposure,” the warning states.

Beginning Jan. 1, 1994, a similar warning requirement would have covered agricultural use. Such warnings would have alerted farm workers, rural residents and large numbers of coastal residents who live near strawberry fields. The state’s strawberry growers use more methyl bromide than any other growers, injecting it into the soil to kill pests that might attack their $500-million-a-year crop.

Chemical manufacturers and growers contend that there is no need for such a dramatic warning for low-level exposures around treated fields or near produce fumigation sheds. And in September, a coalition of industry and agricultural interests asked Cal-EPA’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment to drop methyl bromide from the governor’s Proposition 65 list.

In October, the office’s director, Carol J. Henry, rejected the industry arguments.

But after heavy lobbying from growers and the chemical industry, the Wilson Administration decided this week to exempt agricultural use from the Proposition 65 warning requirements, while keeping the requirement when methyl bromide is used as “a structural fumigant” for termite control.

Bob Vice, a San Diego nurseryman and president of the California Farm Bureau, said, “Our argument was just look at the science of this thing. Under a strict reading of Proposition 65, this should not apply to the uses of agriculture.”

He said that methyl bromide gas is not sprayed on fields but injected into the soil under tarps. “As long as you’re not standing there unprotected right on top of the tarps while it’s being done, the chances of you being exposed to anything harmful are not very great.”

Wilson spokesman Dan Schnur denied that the Administration’s change of policy was influenced by campaign contributions or other political considerations.

“Agriculture is the largest jobs provider in the state of California, and if we can help encourage job creation in that sector without compromising environmental standards, we’re going to do that time after time,” Schnur said. “That’s what we’ve done here.”

But environmental attorney Roe and others contend that Proposition 65 was aimed at warning the public about exposure to chemicals that cause cancer or birth defects, even at low levels. “Proposition 65 doesn’t stop you from using the chemical,” Roe said. Instead growers would have a choice, he said, “Clean up, or fess up, they can do it either way.”

And at least one environmental group, the Natural Resources Defense Council, is already saying that it will sue.

“This is an end run,” said Jennifer Curtis, a senior research associate with the group. She argued that there is no scientific basis for requiring warnings of possible birth defects when methyl bromide is used for termite control, while exempting agricultural use.

Methyl bromide is one of the most widely used pesticides in the world. However, the federal government is requiring a phaseout by the year 2001 because it is known to contribute to the depletion of the ozone layer.