Your article "Fumigant fight" points out that, "without an effective replacement (for methyl bromide), growers could face lower yields, costing an estimated $100 million per year" (HCN, 7/25/11).
However, the purchase and application of methyl iodide is not free. Farmers are interested in net profitability, not merely revenues. Perhaps, the real negative impact on pre-tax profits of farmers not using methyl iodide is even less.
Of course, let's not forget the well-being of farmworkers and nearby residents. What of their health and peace of mind? What about cost for treating them for potentially related illnesses? The risk-reward ratio is appalling.
Methyl iodide is a loser -- a dangerous loser.