Idaho Press
August 4, 2009

It's understandable why officials with the Idaho Conservation League were skeptical about Monsanto's recent decision to support regulation of mercury. Just five months ago, Monsanto stood vehemently opposed to stricter mercury regulations. But now it appears Monsanto is making a sincere effort to be a good neighbor.

On Wednesday, the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality ruled to support a joint petition filed by Monsanto and the ICL requiring large mercury use and technology available to curb mercury emissions. That's terrific news when one considers both the extreme health threat posed by mercury and the scope of the emissions from Monsanto's phosphorus production plant in Soda Springs.

Mercury is a potent neurotoxin that can severely diminish health and can lead to learning disabilities and motorskill problems in developing fetuses. Currently, 22 sites in Idaho have active mercury advisories. Locally, anglers are cautioned to limit consumption of fish caught in the American Falls Reservoir and the Portneuf River due to concerns about mercury concentration.

Monsanto's plant near Soda Springs reports emitting between 400 and 700 pounds of mercury per year — the most recent data shows the company emitted 489 pounds in 2007. The plant is by far the largest point source for mercury in the state. The second largest for 2007 was the Ash Grove Cement Plant in Inkom, which emitted 8 pounds of mercury that year and has since scaled back its operations.

The key to reconciling the seemingly polar differences between Monsanto and the ICL, explained Justin Hayes, the program director for the Boise-based conservation organization, was nothing more than open-minded communication. "We fought so hard with them five months ago. After that, what we discovered was we actually agreed on a lot of things, but the way I was focusing on it and the way they were focusing on it, it was too easy to focus on our disagreements," Hayes said.

The fact that Monsanto and the ICL somehow managed to find common ground illustrates the importance of public-comment periods and processes intended to foster dialogue about projects with the potential to adversely affect the environment.

Another strong point of the joint mercury proposal is that it's flexible and will be applicable into the future. The language merely states that the best technology available must be used — the regulation evolves as technology improves.

It's uncertain how much Monsanto will have to spend to implement the best available technology, or how much doing so will help to reduce emissions. But we can all rest assured that they'll be doing everything under their power to make sure public health isn't slighted in favor of their bottom line.

One problem with the proposed regulation is that it doesn't define a large mercury emitter. The J.R. Simplot Co., which emitted about 1 pound of mercury from its Don Plant in Pocatello in 2007, has taken notice of this ambiguity and has been one of the most steadfast opponents of the mercury regulations.

Wisely, Hayes urged the DEQ not to pass on an opportunity to enact a good plan that addresses the state's largest emitter in order to approve a perfect plan that addresses them all. Too much progress has been made to allow a plan that would be so good for the environment to be derailed by an all-or-nothing approach.

That said, Simplot's response begs the question: Why not use the best technology available when public health is on the line?

If a technology exists to protect the public from the harmful effects of mercury — and any environmental toxin for that matter — corporations that emit pollution into our air and streams have a moral obligation to make the necessary upgrades.