|
|
|
 |
From the Deputy Under Secretary for Research, Education and
Economics
Since coming to the Under Secretary's office several months ago, I have
become acutely aware of the significant impact the loss of methyl bromide
will have on U.S. agriculture if practical, effective alternatives are not
found. I recently spent time in California and Florida listening to
concerns
from a wide range of agricultural interests regarding a methyl bromide
ban.
We have given and will continue to give high priority to finding
alternatives
to this chemical.
In June 1993, USDA brought together 250 Federal and State scientists and
representatives of the agricultural community to evaluate existing and
potential
methyl bromide alternatives and identify research needs and priorities.
The proceedings of that conference have guided subsequent USDA research
decisions.
In 1993, the methyl bromide research program of the Agricultural
Research Service, our in-house research agency, totaled about $7
million.
This resulted from our long-standing policy to reduce agriculture's
reliance
on pesticides. In FY 1994, Congress increased the ARS effort to $8
million.
In FY 1995, Congress instructed ARS to increase that amount to the present
$13 million by redirecting $5 million from lower priority research areas.
ARS has provided more than $850,000 in cooperative agreements in the past
3 years to support research programs of university scientists on methyl
bromide preplant alternatives. This effort was primarily directed to
California
and Florida, the two States most directly affected by the proposed
ban.
USDA, the Crop Protection Coalition, and the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency sponsor an annual conference on the
latest research results, an outgrowth of the June 1993 meeting.
A technical committee with members from EPA and USDA meets regularly to
review and resolve registration issues for methyl bromide replacement
chemicals.
USDA is also working with foreign government officials to try to ease
methyl
bromide requirements now placed on U.S. commodity exports.
Prospects for increased funding are uncertain for research on methyl
bromide
alternatives. The House provided ARS with an additional $2 million, but
the Senate provided no increase. The funding situation will not be known
until after the conference committee meets.
The impending ban of methyl bromide presents very complex problems. More
than 100 crops depend on methyl bromide in some way. Differences in soil
types, weather, importing country requirements, and other factors
complicate
the issue.
Good communications and coordination are essential to achieving maximum
positive effect from our research efforts. We hope this quarterly
newsletter
will provide a link between the research and agricultural communities,
help
define agricultural problems and communicate possible solutions.
If we are to solve these problems, all players--private, State, and
Federal--must
pull together. USDA will continue to place high priority on working with
you, our partners, to find practical and effective alternatives for methyl
bromide.
Floyd P. Horn
Deputy Under Secretary
[October 1995 Table of Contents]
[Newsletter
Issues
Listing]
[Methyl Bromide
Home
Page]
[ARS Home Page]
[USDA Home Page]
Last Updated: October 25, 1996
|
|
|
|
|
Last Modified: 01/30/2002
|
|
Printable Version
E-mail this page
