 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
Prepared Witness Testimony The House Committee on Energy and Commerce
Status of Methyl Bromide under the Clean Air Act and the Montreal Protocol.
Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality
Dr. Jack Norton
Good afternoon. I am Dr. Jack Norton, and I manage methyl bromide alternative research for Interregional Research Project Number Four (IR-4). IR-4 is a federal-state partnership program between USDA and the state land-grant institutions to develop data to support the regulatory clearance of chemical and biological crop protection products by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for use on high value, specialty crops. These crops that are valued over $40 billion annual are also known as minor use crops. For the most part, these crops offer very little economic incentive to the agricultural chemical industry to develop the supporting data to meet the regulatory data needs of EPA. IR-4 has a long history of facilitating registration of safe and effective crop protection solutions for the domestic grower of fruits, vegetables, herbs, and ornamental crops. In fact the IR-4 Program is celebrating its 40th anniversary this year. During this time, the Project has been extraordinarily successful, with over 6000 food use clearances, 9100 ornamentals clearances and 220 biopesticide clearances to its credit. Over the past eight years the program has concentrated almost all of our research efforts on new technology or pest management tools defined as "Reduced Risk" by EPA. Collaborations are the strength of the IR-4 program. Input is sought continually from the growers and commodity organizations, researchers including scientists at land grant universities and USDA, cooperative extension, as well as input from the crop protection industry, and federal/state regulators. This input allow IR-4 to identify the most important pest management needs and quickly develop the supporting data to support the registrations of the solution. Food crop projects are the largest part of the IR-4 work plan. However, in 1977 the Ornamentals Program was added for nursery and floral crops, forest seedlings, Christmas trees, woody ornamentals and perennials. In 1982, IR-4 expanded to include a Biopesticide Program to support research and registration activities on biological based pest control agents. In 1998, IR-4 organized a Methyl Bromide Alternatives Program. Since the establishment of the methyl bromide alternative objective, IR-4 has been actively working with the agricultural chemical industry, USDA's Agriculture Research Service and university scientists, EPA's Office of Pesticides Programs Registration Division, and California Department Pesticide Registration in exploring product uses and combinations that may be useful in replacing methyl bromide when it is scheduled for full phase out in 2005 under the provisions of the Montreal Protocol. IR-4 involvement in this research arena was deemed necessary by our stakeholders because methyl bromide is a product that has been widely used in numerous minor crops. In fact, for many minor crops it has been the dominant soil fumigation product for control of nematodes, soil-borne diseases and weeds. Beginning in 1998, IR-4 has conducted large-scale field programs with potential methyl bromide replacements. The research program consisted of eight studies each year. Research on tomatoes and strawberries were conducted in California and in Florida at two sites per crop per state. These field trials involve many acres and are conducted on commercial farms so as to duplicate conventional applications and agronomic conditions. And all the trials have been replicated so as to provide scientifically valid data. The results and protocols of the IR-4 programs are available for public viewing at www.cook.rutgers.edu/~ir4. These data-intensive programs compared all aspects of methyl bromide alternative applications against the methyl bromide standard - aspects such as efficacy against pests, yield and crop quality. Collecting all the data enabled us to make economic assessments about the alternative programs Our assessment, derived over the five-year period, is that for tomatoes and strawberries, there are products currently registered that can be used in combination as technically and economically viable alternatives for the nematode, disease and weed control provided by methyl bromide. For other fruiting vegetables such as peppers and eggplant and cucurbits such as cucumbers, melons and squash, alternative programs require further testing but are showing promise. This is especially true for the fruiting vegetables where much of the knowledge gained from tomato can be applied to pepper and eggplant. For other crops, especially cut flowers, we have not seen any alternative program that is acceptable. Much of our research has involved soil fumigants containing 1,3-dichloropropene, sold under the brand name Telone or InLine. These products have shown nematode control comparable to methyl bromide. When chloropicrin is combined with 1,3-D, we have seen disease control comparable to methyl bromide. Weed control has been an issue, but over the five-year testing period we have seen that weeds can be managed effectively. Metam sodium (trade name Vapam) applied as a bed top treatment at low rates after the soil fumigation has shown control of annual weeds comparable to methyl bromide in California. We have also seen better consistency of control from metam sodium as we learn better the optimum conditions for application. Frequently statistically equivalent control of nematodes, weeds, and fungal pathogens have been obtained from full use rates of metam sodium compared to methyl bromide when properly applied. Weed control in Florida, however, has been a problem, especially for control of yellow and purple nutsedge. However, new herbicide registrations promise to address those limitations. Recently halosulfuron (trade name Sandea) has been registered for use on a number of crops, including tomatoes, asparagus, cucumbers, melons, pumpkins, squash, eggplant and peppers. This is an excellent control of purple and yellow nutsedge and can be used in combination with soil fumigants such as 1,3-D and chloropicrin to address the critical need for nutsedge control. In peppers, Sandea is registered only for use in row middles, however metolachlor (trade name Dual Magnum) can be used in peppers to provide in-row control, rounding out the methyl bromide alternative program for that crop. Another promising herbicide, trifloxysulfuron sodium (trade name Envoke) is receiving an expedited review by the EPA. These products, which IR-4 has evaluated in our field programs, provide nutsedge control comparable to methyl bromide and hold promise to solve the weed control issues that have made peppers a crop of concern as methyl bromide phase-out nears. Another product that is not yet registered has shown control of all three pest types - nematodes, diseases and weeds - comparable to methyl bromide. The product is iodiomethane, trade name Midas. Depending on how the product is priced, once it is registered it could be a drop-in replacement for methyl bromide. Other non-registered products also are showing promise in IR-4 trials. These include fosthiazate for nematode control and dazomet (Basamid) for weed control on bed tops. For broad spectrum pest control, SEP-100 (sodium azide) has shown promise, as have propylene oxide and MULTIGUARDT PROTECT + VAPAM HL followed by post-transplant applications of MULTIGUARDT PROTECT. While currently registered products have shown they are a viable alternative to methyl bromide, there is a potentially limiting factor in that the use of 1,3-D and chloropicrin is subject to regulatory requirements such as buffer zones and limits on how much can be applied in a given township in California. In some cases, these regulatory restrictions could limit the use of these otherwise viable alternatives to methyl bromide. It is my understanding that these issues are being addressed. In addition to our work with crops, I would also like to mention that IR-4 has been evaluating post-harvest fumigation needs as well. Through our work with registrants and the EPA's Registration Division, propylene oxide and sulfuryl fluoride are now registered and effective post-harvest uses with stored agricultural commodities providing control equal to methyl bromide in many situations. Five years ago, the task of replacing methyl bromide seemed very daunting. Each year, however, we have learned more about how existing products can be used in a cocktail approach as effectively as the industry standard. It should be pointed out that methyl bromide went through a similar history when it was introduced. Until research showed how to use it most effectively, it was not a cure-all. We are learning more every year about how to use the alternative programs. Not just researchers, but growers also are learning to use the products in a prescription approach. As methyl bromide prices have gone higher, an increasing number of growers have begun to use programs based on 1,3-D , chloropicrin and metam sodium. While they might prefer to continue with the methyl bromide program they know, they are demonstrating that they can move away from the standard if issues - in this case pricing - force them to. They are demonstrating what five years of IR-4 data have shown - that phase-out of methyl bromide will not be doomsday for tomatoes, strawberries and peppers. To summarize, based on five years of extensive in-field research at sites in Florida and California, the results of IR-4 studies indicate that some of the currently registered products, when used in combination, deliver pest management results that are comparable to methyl bromide treatments in strawberries, tomatoes and peppers. These three crops account for most of the methyl bromide use in fruit and vegetable production. Furthermore, products that likely will be registered in the near future and several other products in earlier stages of development have shown great potential to expand the effectiveness of alternative programs in these crops. The EPA has been very responsive to the crop protection chemicals that show promise in the IR-4 research. EPA has given fast-track registration review attention to these products that promise to fill efficacy gaps in methyl bromide replacement programs. Thank you for hearing my presentation today. And I reinvite you to visit the IR-4 website, where all of our written reports are available.
|
|||||||||||
|
