From the Deputy Secretary

This issue marks the fourth anniversary of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Methyl Bromide Alternatives Newsletter. In our first issue, I explained that our intention was to use this newsletter as a vehicle to keep you abreast of the developments in the methyl bromide alternatives research area and to serve as a link between researchers and agricultural producers, marketers, and consumers. I hope we are fulfilling our purpose and that you have found the newsletter useful. In this anniversary issue I would like to address some current methyl bromide issues and activities.

The search for methyl bromide alternatives remains a high priority concern for the USDA and the administration. There is an ongoing, intensive research effort by Federal, state, university, and private industry experts to develop practical, effective, economical, and environmentally acceptable methyl bromide alternatives for growers and other methyl bromide users. Alternatives have been found for some important methyl bromide uses, but much remains to be done.

This was brought home to me during a recent meeting I had with California cut-flower growers to discuss the methyl bromide issue. These growers produce several hundred different crops (with a farm gate value of $360 million) in a climate of intensive competition from abroad and shrinking profit margins. The great number of crops involved, the relatively small acreage associated with each, and the reluctance of pesticide companies to register pesticides for use on cut flowers because of product liability issues have resulted in few registered, practical, and effective methyl bromide replacements for this industry. In other industries, the problems involving the loss of methyl bromide might vary, but the consequence is the same—no available alternative to methyl bromide.

Back in 1993, I recognized that USDA’s research and the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) registration programs would have to be closely coordinated if acceptable methyl bromide alternatives were going to be found. EPA Administrator Carol M. Browner and I established the USDA/EPA Methyl Bromide Working Group to accomplish this goal. That group has been especially busy this year working to inventory and resolve regulatory issues that prevent currently registered chemicals from being used to replace methyl bromide. The status of that activity is presented elsewhere in this issue.

In addition to research, which is vital, there are several other steps involved with bringing a methyl bromide alternative to the marketplace. First, a registrant must come forward to assemble the toxicological and environmental safety package to be reviewed by the EPA, a process which costs many millions of dollars. If registration is successfully accomplished, the registrant must manufacture and market the product in sufficient quantity to satisfy market needs. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, growers and other users must accept and use the product. If any one of these steps is missing, then alternatives will not be forthcoming. USDA and EPA are working closely with registrants to expedite this overall process.

An important development to note is the modification of the U.S. Clean Air Act, which the President signed into law last year. It extends the complete phaseout of methyl bromide until 2005 for the United States so as to make the schedule the same as for other developed countries. It also includes important quarantine and preshipment exclusions, as well as provisions for critical use and emergency exemptions where viable alternatives have not been found for methyl bromide uses. Also, for FY 2000, the administration has proposed a new grants program supporting commodity-specific methyl bromide transition projects. These funds will be competitive and will be available to growers and other eligible stakeholders for field trials and demonstration projects. The Senate has approved this new program and I am hopeful that the House and Senate conferees will continue to support this important initiative as the budget process draws to a close for the year.

With best wishes,

Richard Rominger,
Deputy Secretary,
United States Department of Agriculture

Last Updated: October 1, 1999