Methyl Bromide
Testimony
of
James A. Bair, Vice President
North American Millers' Association
before the
House Committee on Energy and
CommerceSubcommittee on Energy and Air Quality
Methyl
Bromide: Update on Achieving
The Requirements of the Clean Air Act
And Montreal Protocol
July 21, 2004
Thank you Mr. Chairman and
members of the Subcommittee. I am Jim Bair, vice
president of the North American Millers' Association.
NAMA is the trade association representing 46
companies that operate 169 wheat, oat and corn mills
in 38 states. Their collective production capacity
exceeds 160 million pounds of product each day, more
than 95 percent of the total industry production.
In Congressional hearings and briefings over the years, grain milling executives have discussed with you how methyl bromide is used to meet government regulations, and consumers' expectations, for clean and wholesome food.
They have testified that methyl bromide is easily the most technically and economically effective tool available to protect grain processing facilities and the food produced in them against insect pests.
They have described how, even in advance of the Montreal Protocol phase-out, the industry cut its usage of methyl bromide by more than 60 percent over the last decade.
You have also heard that food and agricultural uses of methyl bromide are of little environmental significance since, according to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), “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.”
But there is another point upon which I will focus my remarks today. It is this:
The Montreal Protocol process to eliminate methyl bromide is broken. Its penchant for secrecy and undemocratic decision-making is irrational and unfair to U.S. farmers and food processors.
Congress ratified the Montreal Protocol treaty with an understanding about the details of the agreement. Yet, year after year, Montreal Protocol committees have acted to change the rules, significantly altering the original intent of the treaty.
When Montreal Protocol changes are debated, the debates usually take place in secret meetings. There is no chance for affected parties to even sit and observe.
When changes are adopted, the changes are never voted upon. The chairman simply declares that there is, in his view, a consensus and he declares the outcome.
When the U.S. attempts to suggest changes to make the Protocol better, developing nations rise in protest. Why? Because the Protocol allows them an additional 10 years to comply with it, an advantage of huge economic value. Those countries, the U.S' agricultural competitors, have made it abundantly clear that their first objective is maintaining an ill-gotten economic advantage, not in fine-tuning a treaty to address an environmental goal.
When the U.S. asked for a simple accounting of the many millions of dollars, much of it from U.S. taxpayers, spent in developing countries for demonstration projects, there was outright refusal and indignation.
Is Congress willing to sit by and watch U.S. sovereignty be diminished by bureaucrats at the Montreal Protocol and competing nations?
American agriculture is justifiably skeptical about fair treatment from the United Nations. The Montreal Protocol approval process is agenda-driven and highly politicized. Ultimately, the fate of the U.S. Critical Use Exemption (CUE) applications that are recommended to the parties of the Montreal Protocol are determined by a handful of individuals unaccountable to U.S. taxpayers, behind closed doors, despite the hours and expertise EPA committed to this process.
Some of the U.S.' critics in the Montreal Protocol negotiations are from countries that have no significant agriculture or food processing industries and therefore never used much methyl bromide to begin with. So it's easy for them to say it ought to be banned.
Others are from countries that are agricultural competitors of the U.S., and they are unlikely to surrender the competitive advantage that has been handed to them.
If agriculture and food processing uses of methyl bromide are very harmful to the environment, then it should be banned globally on the same date, and the sooner the better. But banning methyl bromide in the U.S. while allowing our competitors to continue using it merely shifts jobs and economic activity to those competitors with no real gain to the environment. That is a false choice and the U.S. should not be pressured to make that choice.
It is our view that rule changes implemented since Congress ratified the treaty have drastically changed the intent and operation of the treaty. It is further our view that there is no chance of reforming it to return it to its original intent. Therefore, we endorse the bill HR 3403 introduced by Representative Radanovich and co-sponsored by Chairman Hall and 42 other Members of Congress. The bill, if passed, would simply recognize the expertise of the EPA in granting or denying exemption applications, and thereby return to the U.S. the sovereignty to make decisions affecting the viability of an industry of strategic national importance.
That concludes my testimony, Mr. Chairman. I would be happy to answer any questions you or other committee members may have.
Read more
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