Good morning. I'm honored to be here this morning representing ARS Administrator Floyd P. Horn who has been asked by Secretary Glickman to be the Acting Deputy Under Secretary for Research, Education and Economics until the new Administration is in place. In turn, Dr. Horn asked me to serve as Acting Administrator for ARS. Dr. Horn sends his personal regrets for not being here and asked that I express his appreciation for the opportunity for ARS to again co-sponsor, with the Crop Protection Coalition and the EPA, this international conference to discuss our search for methyl bromide replacements.

Today, I want to provide a brief USDA policy perspective on methyl bromide alternatives and to describe some of our research activities underway.

I'm sure many of you who are here from out of town have already cast your absentee ballot for tomorrow's election. Regardless of the election outcome, one of the top priorities for USDA will be to continue to help American farmers maintain competitive status in world trade. And as we know, the impending ban on methyl bromide threatens that status.

Most of you are aware that the Montreal Protocol of 1991 defined methyl bromide as a chemical that contributes to depleting the ozone layer. As a result, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, under the Clean Air Act, expects to phase out use and production of methyl bromide by January 1, 2001. This phaseout is much more restrictive than the one most other countries plan to follow. At a December 1995 meeting in Vienna, parties to the United Nations' Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer agreed to eliminate use of methyl bromide in industrialized countries in 2010. This phaseout date will be preceded by a 25-percent cut in 2001 and a 50-percent cut in 2005. Under the agreement, developing countries will freeze methyl bromide use in 2002. However, these actions will have no bearing on the total phaseout in the United States on January 1, 2001.

We recognize at USDA that methyl bromide is critical to American agriculture. U.S. growers use it extensively to fumigate the soil before planting to control plant pathogens and weeds and to treat harvested crops to satisfy quarantine requirements. It is also used to fumigate structures such as grain warehouses, flour mills and ships carrying agricultural commodities. Deputy Secretary of Agriculture Richard Rominger said last year that unless viable alternatives to methyl bromide are found, U.S. farmers will be at a distinct disadvantage in domestic and international agriculture and trade when the ban takes effect. He stressed that USDA supports legislation that would prevent our farmers from being placed at a competitive disadvantage, yet recognizes that developing effective, economical alternatives to methyl bromide is in the best long-term interest of agriculture.

The Deputy Secretary also said that a major research effort is necessary to ensure that American farmers can continue to raise and market their crops.

In addition to this policy position from the Secretary's Office, the General Accounting Office, a unit of Congress, issued a December 1995 report stating that because methyl bromide is an important pesticide worldwide, a ban that takes effect in the United States before being implemented in other countries could create an "uneven playing field" in international trade for U.S. producers. The need to use more costly and/or less effective alternatives could increase costs and reduce yields for growers of U.S. crops. In addition, some countries require certain U.S. commodities to be treated with methyl bromide as a condition of entry. These markets would likely be lost unless acceptable alternatives could be agreed upon with the importing countries. Here in the United States, we also regularly require a methyl bromide treatment for many commodities imported from other countries.

The ban on methyl bromide will hit Florida and California growers particularly hard. Florida fruit and vegetable growers will lose more than $600 million annually for the winter growing season alone. Total sales loss would exceed $1 billion and more than 13,000 jobs would be lost. These estimates do not include the monetary value of losing methyl bromide as an emergency postharvest treatment to move commodities from a quarantined area in the event of an invasion of fruit flies or other serious pests. Methyl bromide is now the only effective treatment.

Anticipated losses in California are just as overwhelming. University of California researchers estimate that, in the short term, the loss of methyl bromide would reduce net farm income in California by more than $288 million annually. Growers of strawberries, nursery products (such as cut flowers and roses, fruit, vine, nut and strawberry plants) and grapes would suffer the greatest losses. California's fresh fruit and dried nut crops would suffer because any other fumigation method would cost more and take longer. Walnut producers stand to lose about $36.8 million annually; cherry growers, $7.3 million. More holiday walnuts would go from export to domestic markets because alternative techniques could not be used quickly enough for the holiday export market. Similarly, cherry producers export their best fruit; the loss of methyl bromide would divert that market to the domestic market.

Regarding USDA research, a major effort is well underway at 18 ARS laboratories throughout the country, where we have about 41 scientist-years devoted to the methyl bromide issue. Of the $14.7 million Congress appropriated for ARS methyl bromide research in fiscal year 1997, $7.1 million (48%) is allocated for soil fumigation work and $7.6 million (52%) for postharvest. These totals include a $1 million increase received this year which is being used to expand our research in California and Florida on preplant fumigation alternatives for soilborne diseases of strawberries, vegetables, and perennial crops, including grapevines, fruit trees, and nut trees.

Since the beginning of our methyl bromide research program in 1993, ARS has invested more than $1.5 million to support research by university scientists seeking alternatives to methyl bromide.

Because we believe no single alternative technology will likely replace methyl bromide, we are making progress on a broad front in order to develop a portfolio of choices and combinations tailored for specific needs.

As alternatives to soil fumigation, we're working on biocontrol, host-plant resistance, alternative chemicals, and cultural practices to control soilborne pests and diseases. Examples of recent progress:

Soil Fumigation

• Identifying increased uses for SoilGard^TM, now commercially available to fight soilborne fungal diseases



• Developing non-pathogenic Fusarium isolates that show promise in managing disease caused by pathogenic Fusarium

• Progressing on work to genetically build in nematode and pathogen resistance in plums, grapes, peaches, and other crops



• Developing transgenic tomatoes containing genes that interrupt nematode feeding



• Getting ready to release pepper varieties containing nematode resistance found in pepper germplasm

• Using methyl iodide successfully as an effective alternative in several systems



• Getting good control with other combinations of registered chemicals

• Controlling weeds in vegetables effectively with solarization

Heretofore-unidentified problems will probably develop when methyl bromide is withdrawn. In many cases, finding alternatives while we're still using methyl bromide is complicated because we're not sure what disease problems will arise when it's no longer available. However, we've made important progress in identifying what may be expected for diseases of almonds, carrots, strawberries and apples when replanted.

For 50 years USDA has used the somewhat arbitrary statistical standard called Probit 9 to define the acceptability of a technology to achieve quarantine security. Probit 9 requires a pest kill rate of 99.9968 percent. However, a treatment based on Probit 9 may be too severe for commodities that are not heavily infested with a pest insect or disease, and may be too rigid, impractical, and unnecessary in many cases. ARS has been working with APHIS policy officials and representatives of foreign governments to develop alternative standards based on pest risk rather than the rigid, prescriptive requirements for quarantine security of Probit 9. We're considering a holistic approachproduction to consumptionrather than focusing entirely on postharvest treatment. This approach, combined with a sliding-scale concept, allows a more realistic evaluation of pest risk and pest risk management options. It also provides many more opportunities to identify new treatments and innovative approaches to treatment.

One of those opportunities involves ARS scientists in Hawaii using irradiation as an alternative for achieving quarantine security for papaya, carambola, and litchi. Working with APHIS, we have proposed several amendments to the requirements for irradiation procedures and facilities and the handling of treated and untreated fruits and vegetables. This would speed interstate movement of papaya, carambola, and litchi from Hawaii while continuing to protect other parts of the United States from Hawaiian pests.

• Using gamma irradiation to effectively disinfest exotic fruits and blueberries



• Completing a forced hot-air quarantine protocol for medfly in California grapefruit and other citrus



• Using phytotoxic dyes to control fruit flies



• Transferring a highly competitive new strain of medfly to APHIS for sterile release control program.

ARS is committed to ever strengthening our relationship with industry and university partners in our search for methyl bromide alternatives. We've been working closely with the California Strawberry Commission and other members of the Crop Protection Coalition and the University of California in a validation project in California testing possible alternatives to methyl bromide at field-scale crop production levels. In Florida, our collaborators on similar field-scale research are the Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association and the University of Florida.

In California, a team of experts including scientists, extension personnel and growers has been assembled for strawberries and for perennial crops. These teams will test cropping systems that have the best chance of becoming alternatives to methyl bromide. On small test plots, research has shown 1,3,D/chloropicrin to be an effective replacement for methyl bromide fumigation. To test this under a range of grower conditions, field plots will be set up in the Watsonville/Salinas area, Santa Maria, along the southern coast, and in the central valley. Most of the commercial strawberry production in California is along the central and southern coast. We'll repeat the field validation experiments on the same plots for 3 years to minimize effects from past use of methyl bromide. Alternative application methods that can result in reduced chemical use and emissions--such as bed fumigation and alternative plastic mulches--will also be used to determine practicability, acceptability, and cost.

Other practices being tested in these California field studies include alternative fumigants and reduced rates and application methods, improved mulching practices, crop rotations and fallow, and improved water and fertility management.

In Florida, we have used two plastic mulches that suppress nutsedge, one of the 10 most common and troublesome weeds in vegetable crops. Few chemicals other than methyl bromide are available to control nutsedge. Both photoselective infrared transmitting mulch films and silver mulch films were used in both greenhouse and field experiments and significantly suppressed purple nutsedge. We don't know yet just how these mulches work with respect to their effects on the photochemistry of the weed plant, but more research is planned.

USDA's Forest Service (FS) has responded to the methyl bromide crisis by re-establishing nursery research programs at Athens, GA, and St. Paul, MN. Scientists there are working on integrated pest management programs that will produce high-quality tree seedlings. Along with the Foreign Agricultural Service and APHIS, FS researchers have successfully negotiated to get U.S. heat- treated coniferous wood accepted into Europe and kiln-dried lumber into Korea. In the past, methyl bromide has been the treatment used for quarantine pests of logs and other wood products.

We're also meeting with EPA to review and resolve registration issues for potential chemical replacements for methyl bromide. One concern is: Will companies come forward to register these new chemicals? And, is an alternative "viable" if it hasn't been registered with EPA or if there are no prospects for registration? We're discussing these issues as well as updates to recent legislation such as modifications to FIFRA or other laws that affect recapturing, recycling or reducing the release of methyl bromide into the environment.

In addition to our work with EPA, Dr. Horn has been personally involved in fostering the establishment of a joint U.S. partnership with Israel. Under this venture, the United States and Israel are each offering $600,000 for competitive grants research that will benefit both countries in the quest to find alternatives to replace methyl bromide, reduce or contain emissions, and improve application of the fumigant. Through collaboration, we found that Israel has problems with the loss of methyl bromide that are very similar to those in the United States. Scientists at the Volcani Center in Israel are conducting research to improve the technology of soil solarization. They're also trying to reduce emissions of methyl bromide by using gas-tight films and seeking improved ways to administer the chemical. One of the most promising approaches being tried in Israel is the use of microorganisms, like Trichoderma andnonpathogenic strains of Rhizoctonia, to biologically control soilborne pathogens.

On the U.S. side, this grants program is being administered by the U.S. Department of Commerce. A Request for Proposals (RFP) has been published and details are available on the Internet as well as in the October 1996 issue of the USDA Methyl Bromide Alternatives newsletter. Applications for support under this venture must be made by December 31; funds will be awarded by the middle of February 1997. An important note is that research selected for funding must define a plan for commercialization within 48 months after the work begins.

The USDA Methyl Bromide Alternatives newsletter is now online. In fact, we have a poster session tonight to demonstrate our methyl bromide research web site as well as all five issues of the newsletter, including the new October 1996 issue. Incidentally, this new issue was mailed out last week. As you know, we started this newsletter last year to keep the agriculture community up to date on what researchers are doing.

In closing, let me reaffirm USDA's dedication to help find a practical way to keep agriculture alive, worldwide, with acceptable methyl bromide alternatives. I hope this conference represents another important step in that direction. Many of the research approaches and reports of progress that I only briefly mentioned today will be discussed in much more detail by other speakers over the next three days.

Thank you once again for inviting me to share USDA's perspectives with you.