Methyl Bromide Ban Essay, Research Paper

Methyl Bromide Ban

Under the recently passed U.S. Clean Air Act, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has prohibited the U.S. production and importation of methyl bromide starting January 1, 2001. Methyl bromide is an odorless, colorless gas essential to the farming, storage, transportation, trading and processing of more than 100 American crops including fruits, grains, vegetables, cut flowers, wood products and cotton. Methyl bromide plays a key role is ensuring the safety and adequacy of the American food supply. Eliminating methyl bromide altogether would result in severe economic injury to numerous sections of the agricultural economy throughout the U.S. Despite years of effort and millions of dollars of public and private research, safe, cost-effective alternatives simply do not exist for most uses of methyl bromide. Extending the phase-out of methyl bromide beyond the year 2001 and assuring the continued availability of methyl bromide where it is needed because of the lack of acceptable alternatives is an absolute necessity.

Methyl bromide is used as a soil fumigant. As a soil fumigant in agriculture, methyl bromide is used as both a pre-plant and post harvest fumigant to protect crops from harmful pests and diseases which can attack the roots and thus, destroy and kill the plants (Rauber 20). As a pre-plant treatment, methyl bromide is injected into the soil once per year for annual crops. This will effectively sterilize the soil, killing the vast majority of soil organisms. Examples of crops that rely heavily on methyl bromide as a pre-plant soil fumigant are tomatoes, strawberries and grapes (Gushee 4).

In the late 1980 s, the U.S. joined with 160 other nations in a treaty called the Montreal Protocol to end the use of chemicals believed to harm the earth s protective ozone layer ( Montreal Protocol ). Methyl bromide has been assessed to have an ozone depleting potential of 0.6 by the 1994 Science Assessment of Ozone Depletion. Therefore an agreement on the chemical methyl bromide was reached which requires developed (industrialized) nations to begin a series of reductions in the use of methyl bromide beginning January 1, 1999, and ending with a complete 100% phase out by January 1, 2005 (Gushee 10). Under the same agreement developing (non-industrialized) nations, often our direct competitors may use it until the year 2015.

However in the United States, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) passed the U.S. Clean Air Act which requires that all substances with ozone depleting chemicals to be phased out of the United States. Starting January 1, 2001 under the U.S. Clean Air Act, the EPA has prohibited the U.S. production and importation of methyl bromide (Gushee 5).

According to the Pesticide Action Network, a San Francisco based international association promoting sustainable agriculture stated that alternatives already exist for 90 percent of the current methyl bromide applications (Hagmann 9). One possible alternative for the use of methyl bromide as a pre-plant fumigant in agriculture is by the process of steaming the soil. Another alternative would be the use of a combination of two chemicals, Telone C-17 and Tillam. A third possible alternative to the problem of methyl bromide would be to extend the phase out date until a viable alternative is found.

Steaming the soil can be a viable alternative to methyl bromide for soil and growth media in greenhouses and some small-scale field nurseries. Steam is also a highly effective control for soil-borne pests in greenhouse nursery crops. Steam soil sterilization effectively kills soil organisms by heating the soil to high levels that cause enzyme inactivation or protein coagulation of the soil.

The advantages of steam sterilization are that it can be a highly efficient, cost effective process for the control of soil-borne organisms, pests, and weeds. Steam eliminates the need of tarps and fumigants. It can be a neat, clean, and easy-to-use process, leaving no toxic residues or fumes and therefore less harmful to other crops and growers. In addition, steam requires little aeration time. .Steamed soils can be planted as soon as they cool, whereas chemically treated soils can have a relatively long treatment and aeration period (Crop Protection Coalition 5).

However, it should be noted that while there are a number of positive aspects to using steam as a pest control tool, there are potential pitfalls. This method does not currently appear to be operationally feasible for large outdoor crops due to slow application speed as well as high energy and capital investment costs. Due to limited steam penetration in the field, surface application may not reach pests in deep-rooted trees or crops. It is also a very inefficient method when soils are very wet. In addition, steam that is too hot may increase soil aggregation and destroy soil structure (Crop Protection Coalition 5).

In recent studies, the combination of the pesticides Telone C-17 and Tillam has achieved yields similar to those obtained by fumigation with methyl bromide. These chemicals when used together, can achieve control over soil organisms, weeds, and a variety of diseases at levels comparable to those achieved with methyl bromide (Blank 20). Telone C-17 and Tillam are applied in a manner similar to the application of methyl bromide. As a pre-plant treatment used for soil sterilization, they are also injected into the soil once per year for annual crops (21).

One of the advantages to using Telone C-17 and Tillam are that they are environmentally safe. Although they are still toxic pesticides, they do not deplete the Earth s ozone layer like the fumigant methyl bromide. A study conducted at the University of Florida found that a 16-24 percent increase in the crop yields were achieved with the use of Telone C-17 in conjunction with Tillam compared to those achieved with methyl bromide (Blank 21).

There are many disadvantages to using the pesticides Telone C-17 and Tillam. One of the disadvantages are the cost per acre to use is more for the combination of Telone C-17 and Tillam than it is for methyl bromide. To fumigate an acre of land using Telone C-17 and Tillam costs about $2500. To fumigate an acre of land using methyl bromide costs about $1400 (Blank 21). When a farmer is farming on a large scale, the cost to use is almost double for Telone C-17 in conjunction with Tillam. When using the two pesticides, they bring up another problem. The time involved in applying the two pesticides is much longer than methyl bromide because each pesticide must be applied separately, weeks apart from each other (21). Therefore, Telone C-17 and Tillam require more man-power to actually put on, and there is a longer down time before the farmer can get it and farm his or her land. Telone C-17 is also only available on a limited basis due to limited manufacturers. Many of those manufacturers are in countries overseas (22). Consequently, that would lead to more imported products and it would take away from the American economy.

The final alternative for using methyl bromide would be to extend the phase out date of methyl bromide beyond the January 1, 2001 deadline because of the lack of acceptable alternatives. But what is a true, acceptable alternative? A true alternative must work, it must be effective, and it must be safe (environmentally sound) and cost effective. It must also be made commercially available and remain available for farmers to use.

The advantages to extending the phase out date of methyl bromide would be to give the U.S. government along with the rest of the world time to come up with a viable alternative to the essential fumigant. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) lists many potential alternatives for methyl bromide and says they will likely be in place and available by the year 2001 (Gushee 6). The EPA says they will likely be in place, but they are not positive they will be in place and available by the year 2001. The Crop Protection Coalition states, Despite years of extensive and continuing research by university and USDA scientists, there is no single, economically viable substitute for methyl bromide (8). Teresa Thorne communications director of the California Strawberry Commission has also stated, We are leaving no stone unturned. But so far we have never found anything that works as efficiently as methyl bromide. The problem is that we ve got to replicate the results. What works this year might not work next year. If one fumigant works if Watsonville, it doesn t mean it will work in Salinas. Testing potential alternatives takes years of research and consistent results may take years before they can be made into acceptable alternatives (Hagmann 11). In order to find an acceptable alternative for methyl bromide that works, researchers will need more time to perform more long-term tests that can put out reliable results. Therefore, the 2001 phase out deadline is not enough time to achieve that goal of finding an acceptable alternative. Paul Kohatsu is a Salinas strawberry grower who is in the process of testing methyl bromide alternatives. We have about 300 different tests going on. We test everything from microbial (pest) control to alternative fumigants. So far the results have been discouraging. There are plenty of alternatives, but they all increase the labor intensity for the crop. I have yet to find an alternative that can produce the same yields as methyl bromide. Sure alternatives such as Telone C-17, steam, hot water and crop rotation sound like good ideas in need of more development. But, no grower would bet the farm on them (11). I feel farmers would use an acceptable alternative instead of using the controversial chemical methyl bromide if it were really available as the EPA says. I think if there really were so many alternatives out there for methyl bromide, there would not be so much controversy every year over the use and phase out of methyl bromide, and there would be a lot more farmers out there using those alternatives today.

The disadvantage to extending the phase out date of methyl bromide beyond January 1, 2001 would be the continued depletion of the ozone layer. The longer we put off the phase out of methyl bromide means the longer it has to do damage on the Earth s ozone layer.

There is a simple solution. Legislature must protect our consumers and farmers by extending the phase out date of methyl bromide in the United States beyond the year 2001. Without the essential chemical methyl bromide, the United States would experience direct revenue losses and the loss of many jobs. In 1997 a study was prepared using data compiles by researchers at the University of California at Berkeley. The study concluded that California farmers alone would be placed at an economic disadvantage if it were to lose methyl bromide. Major findings included the loss of up to $346 million in revenue to California s state economy and 9,894 full-time jobs annually (Department of Food and Agriculture 1). These calculations of expected losses have only been calculated for California, it does not calculate the expected losses for the entire United States, which would be much greater. Two years ago, Representative Dan Miller, a Republican from Florida, and Democrat Representative Gary Condit of California introduced the House Bill, H.R. 2609. This bill would halt the phase out of methyl bromide until viable alternatives are found, and it would match the U.S. schedule for phase out with that of other countries. According to the bill, growers do not have effective, commercially available alternatives to methyl bromide. Already some 70 other members of the U.S. House of Representatives have joined Rep. Miller as co-sponsors of the bill. They continue to work hard to encourage support for H.R. 2609 and passage of the bill later this year (Pisculli 39). Legislature, state and federal representative need to be made aware of the importance of methyl bromide. For instance, United Group (a supporter of methyl bromide) organized a trip last March taking key Congressional staff to a produce wholesale distribution center and port operations in Philadelphia so they could have a first hand view of the importance of methyl bromide to our industry. Subsequently, Senator Larry Craig a Republican from Idaho introduced a companion bill in the Senate in early April and efforts are under way to develop Senate support for his bill (39). Getting involved and letting the public know the importance of methyl bromide can play an important role in the broad effort to save the use of methyl bromide. One way to get involved and to make legislature, state and federal representatives aware of the importance of methyl bromide is to contact them. You could write or fax your local congressman a letter. You could contact them over the phone, or you could go to one of their local offices and explain to them the importance of methyl bromide agriculturally and economically.

I think amending the U.S. Clean Air Act to extend the U.S. phase out date of methyl bromide beyond the year 2001 is an absolute necessity. Safe, cost effective alternatives simply do not currently exist for most uses of methyl bromide. The U.S. economy as well as the safety and adequacy of the American food supply depend on the use of methyl bromide. Phasing out methyl bromide all together would only hurt agriculture and the economy. Public involvement and government awareness is a key factor in amending the Clean Air Act and extending the phase out date of this essential chemical.

Blank, Christopher. Constant Pressure. The Grower October 1999: 18-19.

Crop Protection Coalition. Questions and Answers About Methyl Bromide. Washington

DC, 1999.

Department of Food and Agriculture. News Release. Sacramento, 1999.

Gushee, David E. Montreal Protocol Negotiations. Congressional Research Service

(1994): 16 pag. Online. Internet. 1 Nov. 1999.

Hagmann, Michael. Methyl Bromide Band Has Growers Worried. The California

Agriculture Newspaper 19 May 1999.

Kohatsu, Paul. Personal interview. Lack of Acceptable Alternatives. 2 Nov. 1999.

Montreal Protocol. The New Encyclopedia Britannica. 1999.

Pasculli, Nick. Hanging By a Thread. Western Fruit Grower Nov. 1999: 38-39.

Rauber, Paul. Poisonberries. Sierra Aug. 1996: 40-41.