 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
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
Mr. Bill Pauli
Good afternoon Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee. My name is Bill Pauli; I farm in California's Mendocino County producing wine grapes and Bartlett pears. I am president of the California Farm Bureau Federation and a member of the American Farm Bureau's Board of Directors. On behalf of the thousands of Farm Bureau members who use methyl bromide, I thank you for the opportunity to address you today regarding our concerns. Methyl bromide is an essential tool for crop production, grain storage facilities, public health and general pest control. It is a crucial production tool in providing consumers with a safe and reliable food supply. As you are aware, use of methyl bromide in the U.S. is being phased-out in accordance with the Montreal Protocol as incorporated in the federal Clean Air Act. I'm here to make three points: 1. Securing the continued availability of methyl bromide is critical for many U.S. farms and uses. 2. The Montreal Protocol Critical Use Exemption (CUE) process is flawed. 3. Congress must work with the Administration to act to ensure U.S. consumers and farmers receive meaningful, much needed relief from the phase-out. Importance Methyl bromide has two main agricultural uses: fumigation of soil prior to planting and post-harvest commodity treatments. In 1997, USDA's Economic Research Service (ERS) estimated that about 70 percent of methyl bromide used in the U.S. was for pre-plant soil fumigation. A March 2003 USDA-Agricultural Research Service (ARS) report states that 95 percent of strawberry acreage in California and, by Florida Strawberry Growers Association estimates, 100 percent of strawberry acreage in Florida is fumigated prior to planting each year. The strawberry industry will see some of the most significant projected losses due to the phase-out of methyl bromide - a nationwide loss of $131.5 million born by producers. A 1996 study estimates that a complete methyl bromide ban will increase the farm-gate price of strawberries by 18.2 percent - $132.62 more per ton. Methyl bromide is a critically needed pre-plant soil fumigant for other important commodities such as grapes, almonds, tomatoes, peppers and cut flowers. Using methyl bromide means yields improve because the need to hand weed and cultivate is reduced, allowing for the use of drip irrigation. Better yields mean better margins. Pre-plant soil fumigation also controls soil-borne fungal pathogens and various pests contributing to the reduced vigor of newly planted crops. Methyl bromide is an important post-harvest treatment used to meet sanitary standards set by the Food and Drug Administration and importing countries for grains, dry beans, raisins, prunes, figs, dates, almonds and walnuts. These products are typically treated before and during storage, and prior to being packed or shipped. Storage structures, containers and processing facilities are also fumigated to ensure proper sanitation. For most users, methyl bromide continues to be an extremely simple, cost-effective treatment that can be applied within a flexible treatment timeframe - it works every time, all the time. Over the last 10 years, a great deal of effort has been expended to find alternatives to methyl bromide use. Research efforts by registrants, university researchers, private firms, and other government agencies are estimated to have totaled over $120 million. But, problems still exist in finding and developing viable alternatives to methyl bromide. There is no one size fits all replacement or combination of replacements that works as well, as consistently or as cost-effectively as methyl bromide. Previously proposed alternatives have problems, such as possible carcinogenic traits and groundwater contamination, far greater than any posed by use of methyl bromide. Some potential replacements require higher rates of application, or application in conjunction with other products to control all the target pest and diseases. Plus, varying soil types affect the ability of a product to absorb to appropriate soil depths. So far, proposed alternatives have limited real world use due to application restrictions and other concerns. No product comes close to functioning as cost-effectively or efficiently as methyl bromide. Even when potential alternatives are identified, developing all the data necessary to support the product's registration by EPA takes years and requires meeting the conditions of a variety of laws such as the Food Quality Protection Act. And, that's assuming that an alternative's potential use in the market justifies a registrant taking a product through registration. Many uses needing alternatives are "minor crops" representing smaller market shares. There is no guarantee that a registrant could recoup the costs of these registrations while still making the price to producers affordable. As a result, farmers and users are helpless in determining long-term feasibility of their dependence on methyl bromide and planning for the future of their operation. The progression of the phase-out and lack of suitable replacements has caused the cost of methyl bromide to skyrocket. As reported by ERS in April 2003, "The U.S. average price rose from $2.50 per pound of active ingredient in 1999, when the first reduction began, to $4.50 in 2001." At an application rate of 200-250 pounds of methyl bromide per acre, that's an additional $400-$500 per acre in production costs. For most farmers, there is no way to recoup or pass along these added costs. Already, producers of tree fruit and nuts cannot afford to use methyl bromide. Switching to less effective products causes pest pressures to build. It will take a few more years before we know the full consequences on yield, quality and competitiveness from these producers going without methyl bromide applications. To cope with the lack of adequate crop protections, some U.S. producers are even choosing to move large parts of their production to Mexico or elsewhere. The University of Florida, ERS and the National Center for Food and Agricultural policy all recognize that losses are occurring as a result of the methyl bromide phase-out. An ERS and University of Florida collaborative study found that a complete ban on production uses of methyl bromide for annual fruit and vegetable crops in California and Florida would result in estimated losses of "about $200 million annually in gross shipping point revenues, which represented about 20-30 percent of estimated revenues from treated commodities in each state." Without a doubt, the phase-out of methyl bromide will lead to increased imports from China and "developing" countries that can continue to use methyl bromide long after the U.S. and other "developed" nations have been cut off. China and developing nations, such as Chile and Mexico, will have access to methyl bromide until 2015 while the U.S. faces a phase-out deadline of January 1, 2005. Many of these developing nations and China are major competitors with U.S. producers in specialty crop markets such as tomatoes, peppers and strawberries, to name a few. In the end, American consumers will suffer most from the U.S. loss of methyl bromide. The phase-out means the U.S. will increasingly dependence on imported, international food sources that are less regulated, less reliable and less safe. A perfect example: recent outbreaks of Hepatitis A in U.S. consumers from eating imported strawberries and cantaloupes. Any environmental benefits and protection of the ozone layer achieved by American agriculture's reduced usage of methyl bromide is negated by the increasing usage in other countries not yet subject to the phase-out. According to a 1991 United Nations report, China's consumption of methyl bromide alone was expected to increase ten-fold by 2002 to 4,000 tons. Regardless of whether farmers believe the accuracy of the science used to justify the phase-out of methyl bromide, agriculture has drastically reduced its use of methyl bromide while searching for alternatives. We've adjusted application rates and looked at using different combinations of products. Over the last 10 years, commodity groups have made significant contributions to researching alternatives and participated in field trials. Yet, readily available alternatives have still not been identified. Production agriculture has reduced the use of methyl bromide to the bare minimum, but we have come to our breaking point on further compliance with the phase-out. The CUE process as the answer to providing meaningful relief to American agriculture, Commodity groups committed significant time, expertise and financial resources in working with EPA to prepare individual CUE request applications. Producers attended workshops to better understand the CUE application process and provided EPA the vast amounts of data requested to build a strong case for CUEs. But, to no avail. The Protocol's Technology and Economic Assessment Panel (TEAP) has recommended that the Parties approve less than 10 percent of the U.S. government's full CUE nomination request for pre-plant treatment use (831 long tons), while, the EPA-prepared U.S. nomination requested that agriculture retain 39 percent of the 1991-established baseline, about 9,942 long tons. To put this in perspective: 831 long tons is about 1.8 million pounds. At an average of 200 pounds of active ingredient per acre, that allows fumigation of 9,000 acres nationwide. Over the last three years alone, California averaged 25,000 acres of strawberries; Florida averaged 35,000 acres of tomatoes. Keep in mind this is just two commodities in two states and does not include other crops, states or any post-harvest uses. Montreal Protocol is Flawed Despite the U.S. government's position that that the methyl bromide exemption request is necessary and justified due to the lack of feasible alternatives and the threat of economic disruption of American agriculture, TEAP determined that the U.S. had not submitted sufficient information to substantiate our request. In a letter to EPA, TEAP did not even articulate the additional information that would be needed to re-evaluate the U.S. request. This international decision - or lack thereof - comes after thousands of man-hours, expertise of U.S. government and industry scientists, agricultural economists and EPA's commitment to put together a "rigorous" nomination to the United Nations. Further, the TEAP response unjustifiably ignores the reams of data compiled from the millions of dollars of agricultural research conducted by USDA/ARS and commodity groups. Many individuals and groups have questioned the legitimacy and objectivity of the CUE process. The recommendations of TEAP issued this month on the U.S. government CUE request confirm that the international process is not objective, transparent or science-based. According to its own recent report, TEAP, during the review process, developed "new" criteria for evaluating CUE requests. These "new" criteria were not presented or discussed with the applicant nations before submitting their nominations. Among the "new" criteria: TEAP used the amount of money the U.S. has given to developing third world nations under the UN Environment Program (UNEP) multilateral fund for researching third world alternatives to methyl bromide as a guide for determining the economic feasibility of alternatives in the U.S. This type of criteria has nothing to do with the any alternative's feasibility or economic impact in the U.S. attributable to the phase-out of methyl bromide. This process is yet another example of the international community - many our direct market competitors - establishing U.S. agricultural policy without accountability or consequence, and without concern for the severe impacts on our farmers, consumer and economy. This so-called "technical review" process is extremely politicized. Looking at the recommendation, it's interesting that the U.S. received our post-application use grain requests, but in the commodity markets in which we are most competitive with developing nations - fruit and vegetables, we didn't fare so well. Interestingly, the committee should notice that in comparison, other developed nations like France fared quite well. TEAP recommended that France receive about 80 percent of its CUE request, compared to the U.S. recommendation of less than ten percent. Farm Bureau and many others in agriculture strongly believe that it is the intention of TEAP and the international community effectively makes planting decisions for American farmers that threaten our competitiveness and enforce their political grudges against the U.S. economy. It is very hard to imagine that the U.S. government simply did not do its job properly in submitting its CUE request, as TEAP would have us believe. Rather, UNEP's action makes it clear that its international members are predisposed to not approve most U.S. uses of methyl bromide, particularly for pre-plant soil application. Farm Bureau does not believe there is any hope that the CUE process can be relied on to protect American consumers or farmers. Relief Needed Farm Bureau respectfully requests that Congress urge the Administration to either take the steps necessary to renegotiate the Montreal Protocol as soon as possible or provide a legislative fix freezing the phase-out. We ask you to ask of them, what do they intend to do between now and November? What is their strategy to ensure American farmers' continued access to methyl bromide? We also need your guidance and assistance to ensure that in the final months of the CUE resubmittal process, the Administration, specifically EPA, advocates on our behalf to their fullest ability. Once final CUE decisions are made by TEAP, how does EPA intend to allocate the exemptions among farmers, commodities and states? Administering the exemptions will be a nightmare and producers need more information for planning future years' production. Although American farmers are drastically reducing use of methyl bromide, other countries, some parties to the Protocol and some not, continue increasing their usage and production of methyl bromide. Will Congress and the Administration continue to let the American economy, consumers and farmers struggle or will the U.S. take our fate back into our own hands? Will the American government allow its consumers to access to U.S. food produced using less methyl bromide or compel them to consume less regulated imported food produced with the unrestricted use of methyl bromide? I thank you for the opportunity to address the subcommittee today regarding this complex issue and voice our concerns over the incredibly flawed process governing the phase-out the use of methyl bromide.
|
|||||||||||
|
