Organic Consumers Association


Previous Page

Click here to print this page

Make a Donation!


Bush Team Push for Continued Use of Ozone Depleting Ag Chemical

U.S. to Seek Further Waiver For Ozone-Harming Pesticide

By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post
July 13, 2004

The United States plans to seek a waiver in international talks this week
that would allow American farmers to continue using methyl bromide, a
pesticide slated to be banned in 2005 because it contributes to destruction
of Earth's protective ozone layer.

The pesticide, which has also been linked to prostate cancer in farm
workers and neurological problems in people exposed to large quantities, was
scheduled to be phased out in 2005 under the Montreal Protocol, the 1987
treaty struck under the Reagan administration to restrict the use of
ozone-destroying chemicals. The pact, which has been updated several times
and signed by more than 160 nations, is widely considered the most
successful international environmental treaty in history.

The treaty allows petitions for "critical use" exemptions to the methyl
bromide ban, and the Bush administration has already secured a one-year
reprieve for 2005 at the behest of U.S. growers of tomatoes, strawberries
and other produce.

The administration's repeated push for waivers has been a source of
controversy abroad: negotiations on the issue broke down late last year,
though treaty participants reached a compromise this March. The U.S.
exemption for 2005 is twice as large as the combined 11 waivers obtained by
other treaty signers.

The pesticide -- a fumigant injected into the soil to kill insects, weeds
and disease -- remains popular with farmers because it is highly effective.
It is also used to fumigate food processing and storage areas, such as grain
bins and flour mills, to kill insects and rodents.

Although U.S. growers have cut their use to 30 percent of 1991 levels,
thousands of farmers still use methyl bromide across the country, said
Rebeckah Freeman, congressional relations director for the American Farm

The U.S. exemption allows consumption to rise to 35 percent next year, and
State Department officials will be seeking to raise the waiver to 37 percent
of 1991 levels in 2006.

Administration and agriculture industry officials say the United States
cannot afford to comply with the impending ban.

"This particular chemical, methyl bromide, is a tough one," said Claudia A.
McMurray, deputy assistant secretary of state for environment, who is
leading the U.S. delegation to treaty talks in Geneva this week. "What we
have to do is balance our desire to aggressively phase out all ozone
depleting chemicals with the fact that our farmers need this chemical."

But environmental and farm worker advocates question this assertion, arguing
that alternatives exist and that methyl bromide use is dropping.

Ozone, a form of oxygen, is a harmful pollutant at ground level, but high in
the atmosphere it forms a thin layer that blocks dangerous ultraviolet rays
from the sun. In the 1970s, scientists discovered that several man-made
chemicals were filtering into the upper atmosphere and thinning the ozone
layer over Antarctica, allowing through more ultraviolet radiation that
increases the risk of skin cancer and kills key ocean organisms at the base
of the food chain. In recent years the size of the southern "ozone hole" has
reached historic proportions, and ozone thinning has also appeared over the

"This is a dangerous chemical that stands in the way of the healing of the
ozone layer," said David Doniger, policy director for the Natural Resources
Defense Council's climate center. "It's being phased out for a reason."

Doniger said Environmental Protection Agency figures, obtained by the NRDC
under a Freedom of Information Act request, show that U.S. consumption of
methyl bromide -- counting domestic production, imports and quantities taken
from existing stockpiles, minus exports -- meets the current Montreal
Protocol mandate. In other words, he said, farmers do not use as much methyl
bromide as they are seeking in the waiver talks starting today.

A key unknown is the amount of methyl bromide in stockpiles held by U.S.
producers, distributors and users. The EPA has not released this data, in
part because there is just one significant methyl bromide manufacturer,
Indiana-based Great Lakes Chemical Corp. James Nicol, Great Lakes' business
manager for agricultural products, said the size of its inventory is
confidential business information.

EPA officials said its figures on methyl bromide consumption are an
estimate, and actual use may be well above 30 percent of the 1991 levels.
"It captures the bulk [of use] but not 100 percent," said Adam Sharp,
associate assistant administrator of the EPA's Office of Prevention,
Pesticides and Toxic Substances.

Sharp noted that agricultural interests initially asked for an exemption to
60 percent of 1991 levels for 2006, rather than the 37 percent the United
States is now seeking. "We really pared it back," Sharp said.

The Agriculture Department has spent $150 million on research into methyl
bromide alternatives over the past decade, but growers say they have yet to
find an acceptable substitute. Terry Kelley, a horticulturist at the
University of Georgia's extension service, said a total methyl bromide ban
would cost farmers in that state $100 million to $140 million a year.

"We don't have what you call economically and technologically feasible
replacements for it," Kelley said. "It's not for lack of effort."

But some farmers and pesticide distributors say the agricultural community
could adjust if necessary by rotating crops and using other fumigants.
Indiana-based Fumigation Service and Supply has started using two other
chemicals to kill pests in food processing warehouses, said general manager
Patrick Kelley.

"Realistically, someone with an open mind who's willing to learn [can find]
there are viable alternatives," he said.

© 2004 The Washington Post Company