Good morning. It is an honor to be invited to speak to you on a topic of great importance to U.S. agriculture. I want to express my appreciation to the Crop Protection Coalition (CPC) for organizing this important conference. I am pleased that the USDA can again this year be a co-sponsor with the CPC and the Environmental Protection Agency.

During my 10-month tenure as Deputy Under Secretary for Research, Education and Economics, I had the opportunity to meet with affected industries in California and Florida to discuss, first-hand, the impact that the loss of methyl bromide could have on large segments of the agriculture industry. But this is not just a problem restricted to these two States. Methyl bromide is used all over this country. I will mention a few of the uses to illustrate the complexity of finding alternatives, be they other pesticides, other types of technology or procedures, or combinations thereof. These examples will make it clear that there will be no one single solution to replacing methyl bromide. First, let us consider preplant soil fumigation.

Vegetables

The 24,000-acre strawberry industry in California produces fruit from the end of January to November. This, plus the 5,000-acre industry in Florida, which produces fruit from late November to March, provides a year-round supply of strawberries for the United States. Virtually all of this acreage is fumigated with methyl bromide, or mixtures of other fumigants and methyl bromide, before planting each year. The current methyl bromide-based production system has seen yields increase 5-to-10 fold over the last 30 to 40 years. Maintaining these yields is possible only if these plants can be kept free of soilborne diseases and pests. Results from field trials done during the last 3 years show that there will be an estimated loss of 35% to 45% during the first year without the use of methyl bromide. In addition, there will be a breakdown of the IPM-based cultural system that depends on a healthy, vigorous root system. This will result in increased use of water, fertilizer, and other pesticides to control pests attacking plants weakened by a poor root system.

Not as obvious, but probably more important than methyl bromide use in strawberry production fields, is its use by the strawberry nursery industry. Several years are required for a nursery to produce enough plants of a new variety for transplant to production fields. It is essential that these plants be kept free of soilborne diseases during this time. Soil fumigation with methyl bromide is currently the only way to do this.

The Florida winter vegetable production industry relies heavily on methyl bromide to produce tomatoes, peppers, eggplant, and strawberries. For these crops, methyl bromide now controls soil pathogens, nematodes and weeds, particularly nutsedge. It is estimated that without methyl bromide, yields would decrease by up to 30%. Vegetable production in Florida currently faces extreme competition from the Mexican vegetable industry with its ready access to a cheap labor force. Methyl bromide is an important tool for Florida growers to compensate for differences in labor costs between the U.S. and Mexico. In fact, University of Florida economists recently predicted that the methyl bromide ban will result in the loss of much of the Florida winter vegetable industry to Mexico if practical, economically viable alternatives are not found. Complicating the search for alternatives in Florida is the high water table which limits pesticide options because of the possibility of water contamination.

Deep Rooted Plants

Another important use of methyl bromide is in the production of tree seedlings for reforestation. Seedlings are transplanted into a generally inhospitable environment where good seedling vigor is essential to survival. Experience has shown that seedlings grown on non-methyl bromide treated soil experience high mortality when transplanted due to plant pathogens contracted in tree nurseries.

Likewise, in the fruit and nut production industry, if diseased trees or orchards are replaced, good orchard practice dictates fumigation of the soil with methyl bromide to prevent reinfection of the new trees by the same soilborne pathogens.

Methyl bromide is the only effective treatment for oak wilt, a disease which is fatal to almond trees. Spores of the oak wilt fungus can live in the soil for decades. Therefore, before almond trees can be planted in areas where oak trees have grown, the soil must be treated with methyl bromide.

Similarly, before replanting grape vineyards, soil often is fumigated with methyl bromide to kill diseased grape roots remaining in the soil from the previous vineyard. These old roots can live for several years after the tops have been removed, may be located several feet beneath the soil surface and serve to infect newly planted vines by grafting to the new grape roots.

Postharvest

Methyl bromide is also critical for postharvest fumigation. Banning ethylene dibromide in the mid-80's left U.S. agriculture with two postharvest fumigants: phosphine and methyl bromide. Phosphine is primarily used to fumigate grain and some durable commodities such as nuts and dried fruit. Methyl bromide is the only U.S. registered fumigant with wide applicability for fresh commodities. Fast acting (typically 2 to 4 hours), it causes little or no damage to most commodities, is very toxic to insects or other arthropod pests and can kill pests located inside the fruit. Methyl bromide is used to disinfest imported commodities and preserve quality during storage. At ports of entry, plant quarantine officials use it to disinfest commodities found to be infested with quarantined pests. The United States, and many of our most important trading partners, require methyl bromide treatment as an absolute condition before importing many commodities from areas of the world that have particularly dangerous pests.

It is the only emergency fumigant to allow movement of susceptible commodities from a quarantined area because of an introduced pest. Mediterranean fruit flies (MFF) and other pests have frequently been accidentally introduced into the U.S. These introductions have resulted in quarantines to prevent spread of the pest while eradication efforts were underway. If MFF, which can infest over 200 commodities, were to invade the San Joaquin Valley or the vegetable production area of Florida, movement out of the quarantined area of scores of commodities would be forbidden unless they were fumigated with methyl bromide. Absence of an emergency fumigant for fresh commodities is an invitation to disaster. Past history assures us that quarantines will occur and emergency treatments will periodically be needed.

There are many examples where methyl bromide is critical to movement of commodities in international trade. Finding methyl bromide alternatives for some of these uses maybe the most difficult task of all. Recognizing this, the framers of the Montreal Protocol exempted quarantine uses from regulation. The following three examples illustrate commodity quarantine uses.

About a year and a half ago, the U.S. gained Japanese approval for a quarantine treatment that allows apples from Washington State to be sent to Japan. The first apples were actually shipped late last year. The quarantine pests of concern are two insect pests, codling moth and lesser apple worm, and fire blight, a bacterial disease. The combination treatment that Japan approved requires methyl bromide fumigation. The United States has tried to ship apples to Japan for over 2 decades. An ARS scientist at our Yakima, Washington, laboratory has worked on this issue intermittently for his entire 30-year career. This illustrates the point that quarantine issues usually take years and sometimes decades to resolve. I don't need to remind you that we only have a few years to find and develop alternatives and have them approved by the importing country.

Oak logs from the Appalachian region must be methyl bromide fumigated before export to Europe to kill the oak wilt organism. This is the same disease organism that I referred to earlier when I talked about almond plantings. This is a very important market for the United States, but is one of the largest postharvest users of methyl bromide.

Grapes and stone fruit from Chile are examples of the many imports which would be impacted by an methyl bromide ban. Chile is the main source of winter grapes and stone fruit for the United States. Some 40 million, 40-pound boxes of grapes enter the United States from Chile each year. The U.S. requires that all be fumigated with methyl bromide to keep out a serious mite pest. Several million boxes of stone fruit from Chile are fumigated as well. There is presently no other effective treatment against this pest that guarantees exclusion from the United States.

The foregoing examples serve to point out the scope and complexity of the problem. Although there is international activity to find replacements for methyl bromide, the U.S. has undertaken the largest research effort. The reason for this may stem from the provisions of the U.S. Clean Air Act, which imposes more severe methyl bromide restrictions on U.S. agriculture than the Montreal Protocol imposes on other countries.

We at USDA have made developing methyl bromide alternatives one of our highest research priorities. At the outset of the methyl bromide crisis in 1992, there were no research projects in the Agricultural Research Service (ARS), the USDA's in-house research organization, specifically focused on replacing methyl bromide. However, many projects in preplant soil and postharvest research were focused on finding alternatives to pesticides in general. An inventory of these projects indicated that about $7.1 million in base research was applicable to methyl bromide replacement. Congress approved a budget increase in FY 1994 of $1 million for additional methyl bromide alternatives research, and ARS redirected $5 million more in base funding in FY 1995. The FY 1996 ARS budget of $13.85 million includes a $750,000 appropriation increase. In addition, in the last 3 years, ARS has provided about $750,000 to university scientists for cooperative methyl bromide research. The 38 presentations that will be made at this meeting by ARS scientists as well as papers by State cooperators working with partial ARS funding demonstrate that the research investment is paying off.

I also want to emphasize my personal commitment to working with industry organizations such as the CPC to ensure that ARS research is targeted at solving real industry problems and that our scientists are pursuing research approaches that are likely to contribute to those solutions. We believe that a cooperative relationship involving ARS, university, and industry scientists will result in a synergism that leverages everyone's research efforts.

A wide range of approaches is being investigated to replace methyl bromide for soil fumigation. This is evident from the titles of research presentations in your meeting program. I think it is clear that scientists believe that for most methyl bromide uses, no one approach is likely to satisfactorily replace methyl bromide. A combination of approaches packaged into a "system" will be necessary. To facilitate the integration of approaches for soil uses, ARS will fund at a rate of $550,000 per year, field scale validation tests and related research in Florida and California. A senior ARS scientist has been designated in each State to manage and coordinate this undertaking. ARS program leaders met yesterday with representatives of impacted commodities and State and Federal scientists to discuss details of this undertaking. This is a large effort that will require considerable cooperation between the public and private sectors, but it is a crucial step in implementing alternatives to methyl bromide. The demonstration of efficacy and practicality on a field scale is vital if we expect growers to adopt new cropping strategies.

Other USDA agencies have also responded to the methyl bromide crisis. The USDA Forest Service (FS) has re-established nursery research programs at Athens, Georgia, and St. Paul, Minnesota. At both locations, FS scientists together with university, State and other Federal cooperators, are finding new ways and improving old ways to deal with pests in forest tree nurseries. The goal is to develop integrated pest management programs that will ensure high quality seedlings. In the postharvest arena, the Forest Service, in conjunction with Foreign Agricultural Service and the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, has been successful in negotiations to get U.S. heat-treated coniferous wood accepted into Europe and kiln-dried lumber into Korea in lieu of fumigation with methyl bromide.

The Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service, which administers the National Research Initiative (NRI) Competitive Grants Program, has funded research on biological control of soilborne disease organisms for several years. University or Government research with the potential to provide alternatives or reduce the dependency of U.S. agricultural industries on methyl bromide is eligible for support in at least nine of its 31 programs. Combined, these programs represent $31.5 million or about 30% of the funds available to the NRI.

In 1993, the USDA's National Agricultural Pesticide Impact Assessment Program conducted an important economic assessment on the short-term impact of a methyl bromide ban on U.S. agriculture. Subsequently, this program has funded more detailed studies by economists in Florida and California on long-term effects of such a methyl bromide ban. I referred to the results of the Florida study in my earlier comments on Florida winter vegetable production.

I will close by mentioning a few recent methyl bromide-related initiatives at the USDA.

In an effort to leverage scarce monetary resources, the USDA has proposed a cooperative methyl bromide research project with Israel through the U.S./Israel Bilateral Commission. Israel is facing some of the same methyl bromide issues as the U.S. and has expressed an interest in cooperative research.

In an effort to improve coordination and communication among all concerned, the USDA appointed a USDA Departmental Methyl Bromide Coordinator and established a quarterly newsletter. Copies of the first issue are available here today.

Finally, the USDA National Agricultural Library, in conjunction with ARS and the CPC, is exploring a computerized database on methyl bromide to keep scientists and agricultural interests better informed about the current state of domestic and international research directed toward methyl bromide alternatives.

As I look across this audience this morning, I see representatives from all aspects of American agriculture. Again, we welcome you. We also welcome the many participants from other countries. We're here because the methyl bromide issue affects us all. As I have said before, if we're to find practical and effective alternatives for methyl bromide, we must do it together.

Thank you.