From EPA

"It is clear that it will take numerous pest control strategies to substitute for the wide array of uses that methyl bromide currently and so effectively covers," stated Daniel M. Barolo, with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Director of EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs, Barolo spoke at the San Diego Conference about the need for all those affected by the loss of methyl bromide to work together.

"Since Congress, by way of the Clean Air Act, has prohibited the production and importation of this multi-purpose fumigant after January 1, 2001, it is critical that government, industry, pesticide users, and the agricultural research community work together to advance alternatives."

Barolo stated that the role of EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs is to help by giving priority to evaluating and registering viable alternatives to methyl bromide.

"We are mandated to require and process data to evaluate whether methyl bromide may continue to be used, regardless of activities under the Clean Air Act or the Montreal Protocol," he said. Under amendments to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), all pesticides registered before November 1984 (which includes methyl bromide) must be reviewed for reregistration, and data supporting registration must be brought up to current scientific standards. The pesticide will be suspended and/or canceled if registrants fail to supply necessary data and pay required fees essential for reregistration.

"Methyl bromide is currently being supported for reregistration, although some uses are likely to be dropped," Barolo said. "User groups and registrants are developing required data. The last data required by EPA to reregister methyl bromide are expected to be submitted to us in late 1997."

A decision on whether or not EPA will reregister the compound is expected sometime in the fall of 1998.

"This past July, I signed a pesticide regulation notice formally announcing EPA's commitment to expedite review of potential methyl bromide alternatives," Barolo said. "In cases where all requirements have been met, we plan to have a decision for registering biological pesticides within 8 months, for new food uses of registered pesticides in 6 months, and for new active ingredients in 12 months."

He mentioned that there are regulatory, information, and economic barriers that may hamper adoption of methyl bromide alternatives. Some countries now specify methyl bromide for quarantine treatment. Also, there is no consensus among our States or with other countries on efficacious chemical or nonchemical alternative substitutes for controlling pests.

One area that Barolo touched on was the cost of alternatives. Cost, he said, may be an important factor in securing acceptance of alternatives, particularly in the developing world.

"It is in our best interest to not only develop potential alternatives, but to work hard at gaining their international acceptance," he said. "We've already received one application to register a product as a potential alternative to methyl bromide as a preplant fumigant. And we've had discussions on the possible registration of a new active ingredient that could be a potential methyl bromide alternative."

Barolo said that EPA is fostering the development of alternatives and also studying ways to reduce risks from methyl bromide emissions. Under FIFRA's Section 18--which covers emergency exemptions--EPA requires that State and Federal pesticide regulatory agencies seeking emergency exemptions for methyl bromide do the following:

* Document the steps taken to find an appropriate alternative

* Include a commitment to pursue work on alternatives

These requirements are essential and will accelerate the development and trial of alternatives.