Methyl Bromide
A briefing paper on
Methyl Bromide
July 2004
- The continued availability of methyl bromide is very important to the production and sanitation of many U.S. foods. This tool helps make U.S. agriculture competitive. It also helps assure that public health and plant quarantine problems can be effectively dealt with for a wide array of foods and nursery products.
- There are 3 principal uses of methyl bromide. 1) Pre-plant soil treatment to control a wide range of plant pests which will otherwise adversely affect crop yields and/or quality. 2) Post-harvest treatment to kill various plant and human pests, thereby preventing the spread of such pests with the treated food or article. 3) Structural treatment to kill pests in structures such as flour mills and other food processing facilities. This is to assure that foods can move in commerce in accordance with various health and sanitary requirements established by the FDA.
- Under the United Nations Montreal Protocol, developed countries are to phase-out the use of the chemical, leading to a complete elimination on January 1, 2006. Developing countries such as Mexico and China, among others, have the chemical available at least until 2015. Northern European countries led the effort under the Montreal Protocol to eliminate the product, but these nations have little need for the compound because they are not major food producers. Southern European countries, e.g., Greece, Spain, and Italy continue to have a strong need for the product.
- More than $140 million has been spent by the USDA alone to find alternatives for the many uses of methyl bromide, with very little success.
- Some potential alternatives have been identified, but for a significant range of uses, technically and economically viable alternatives do not exist. EPA and USDA have acknowledged this in submissions to the Parties of the Montreal Protocol. In fact, after an exhaustive objective review by government and university scientists, EPA confirmed that almost 40% of the baseline uses of methyl bromide do not have viable alternatives.
- Most methyl bromide is produced naturally (70%) mostly from the oceans and biomass burning. Man contributes a relatively small amount of methyl bromide. EPA's web site states “Anthropogenic (man-made) methyl bromide has contributed a total of about 4% to ozone depletion over the past 20 years. Of this, about 2.5% can be attributed to agricultural fumigation activities.” (http://www.epa.gov/ozone/mbr/qa.html#q1)
- Under the UN Montreal Protocol there is a “critical use exemption” (CUE) process whereby access to methyl bromide may be available. Yet the U.S. cannot issue a CUE even if it believes that exemption is warranted, but must receive approval from the United Nations. American agriculture is justifiably skeptical about fair treatment from the United Nations for the following reasons:
- EPA committed
millions of dollars and thousands of
man-hours comprehensively reviewing and
analyzing the CUE applications from American
food producers. It utilized dozens of PhD's
in the review. But, the Methyl Bromide
Technical Options Committee (MBTOC) of the
Montreal Protocol spent only a few days
considering the US application along with
those of all other counties submitting CUE
nominations.
- In the end, the
UN approved less than 10 percent of the
amount of methyl bromide requested by the
U.S.
- The UN approval process is agenda driven and highly politicized. Ultimately, the U.S. CUE application that is recommended by EPA to the nations of the Montreal Protocol will be determined behind closed doors by a handful of individuals unaccountable to US taxpayers. Consequently, our Nation's interests will be directed by individuals are from foreign countries that are agricultural competitors of the US, and are not likely to give up this competitive advantage that has been handed to them.
Read more
Read the testimony of Jim Bair, July 21, 2004
Read the testimony of Rick Siemer to encourage Congressional action to extend the use beyond 2004 of methyl bromide as a food safety and sanitation tool by the flour milling and food processing industries.
Read the testimony of Mark Norton, July 13, 2000
NAMA calls on Congress and Administration to save fumigant important for food cleanliness, June 2, 2003
NAMA Calculates Impact of Methyl Bromide Ban to Exceed $60 Million Annually - Sept. 23, 2002
Back to Top