|
|
|
| Current Issue |
|
|
| Resources |
|
|
|
Fallout from a Pending Phaseout
| Article
# : |
10241 |
|
|
Section : |
NATURAL SCIENCE
|
| Issue
Date : |
8 / 1993 |
3,537 Words |
| Author
: |
Linda And Bill Bonvie
Linda and Bill Bonvie are New Jersey-based free-lance writers who have been researching the subject of methyl bromide for the past four years. |
It was with very little fanfare this past January that William K. Reilly, departing director of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), ordered U.S. production and importation of the pesticide methyl bromide phased out by the year 2000.
Though not totally unexpected, Reilly's edict has nonetheless shaken agribusiness to its core. That's because many of those involved in food production and processing--including officials of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)--have come to regard this widely applied, highly lethal neurotoxin as an indispensable weapon in the war on pests.
Despite its broad range of uses, methyl bromide had managed, until recently, to escape the kind of intensive public scrutiny being given to far less hazardous substances. Then, literally from out of the blue, this colorless, odorless fumigation gas, which is more than three times as heavy as air, was implicated as a threat to stratospheric ozone by the Montreal Protocol of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).
Under the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, any chemical having an Ozone Depletion Potential, or ODP, higher than 0.2 must be designated as a Class 1 substance and ultimately phased out. When methyl bromide's ODP was set at 0.7, three environmental groups first petitioned, then sued the EPA to initiate a phaseout--actions that led to Reilly's order.
Although methyl bromide was a relative newcomer to the list of ozone-depleting chemicals, in all probability it would have been slated for "accelerated phaseout" by the end of 1995, along with chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and others, if it were not for the unique place it holds in American agriculture and international commerce.
Its status was perhaps best summed up in a letter sent last year by former Secretary of Agriculture Edward Madigan to domestic policy adviser Clayton Yeutter. "We believe the proposed action by EPA is premature," he wrote. "Further, methyl bromide is a very important chemical needed to sustain production and trade in agricultural commodities worldwide. It is the only broad-use fumigant approved for use in post-harvest pest control, food processing, agriculture, and public health; it is effective against a variety of pests and can be easily and economically applied to both small and large quantities of agricultural commodities. Its loss would virtually stop international movement of many agricultural commodities."
...
Read Full Article
Look for this article in Ask.com
|
|
