USDA Won't Pay Claims After Poisoning Idaho Cattle

Back in 2006, the USDA discovered the potato cyst nematode, a devastating roundworm that lives on and destroys the roots of plants in the potato family. The USDA, as it does in times like this, stepped in and treated infected fields with a pesticide. This is common; a pest like the potato cyst nematode can easily spread from field to field, and it’s important to quarantine it as efficiently as possible.

The USDA used methyl bromide, a substance that has been largely banned internationally since the 1987 Montreal Protocol, which was designed to help phase out substances that can impact the ozone layer and human health. Most countries have attempted to lessen their use of methyl bromide, but not really the United States: millions of pounds of it are still used as a pesticide, especially in California on crops like strawberries.

Methyl bromide is highly toxic; its use, even in the US, is heavily regulated due to its danger. The USDA’s attempt to cut off the potato blight in Idaho might be a perfect explanation why. The use of methyl bromide in Idaho stopped in 2014, after farmers complained of high mortality rates in calves, low birth rates, and “oozing lesions” on adult cows.

Tests done by one Idaho family, referred to by the Associated Press as the Eldredge-Kelley farm, revealed that hay fed to their cows had sucked up large quantities of the methyl bromide. The loss of cattle was a struggle for them; along with one other nearby farm, the Eldredge-Kelleys estimate that they paid about $450,000 in veterinary and health bills.

The Eldredge-Kelley farm made a claim on the USDA, asking for remuneration for the bills that had to be paid thanks to the use of methyl bromide – a pesticide that, the claim says, the USDA did not perform due diligence on to make sure of its safety. This week the USDA denied the claim, insisting that there’s not proof that methyl bromide is the culprit, and that even if it was, that’d be the purview of the EPA, not the USDA. That claim denial has the effect of forcing the farmers to take the government to court. The cost of suing the USDA would be so high, the families said, that it could well put them out of business, regardless of the decision.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.