Fw: U.S. seeks to boost production of toxic pesticide

[Guest guest]

" Misty " <misty3

 

Thursday, March 25, 2004 8:10 PM

U.S. seeks to boost production of toxic

pesticide

 

 

> U.S. seeks to boost production of toxic pesticide

>

> http://www.abqtrib.com/shns/story.cfm?pk=OZONE-03-24-04 & cat=II

>

> By JOAN LOWY

> Scripps Howard News Service

> March 24, 2004

>

> - The United States sought permission Wednesday to increase its use of a

> pesticide that erodes the earth's ozone layer and is toxic to humans. The

> request came during international talks in Montreal.

>

> The United States is one of 12 developed nations - including France,

Canada

> and Japan - that have asked to be exempt from a global ban of the

pesticide

> methyl bromide, set to begin Jan. 1, 2005.

>

> The Bush administration says the United States needs to increase, rather

> than decrease, methyl bromide production during the next two years because

> some users - particularly California strawberry farmers and Florida tomato

> growers - have been unable to find cost-effective alternatives.

>

> In 1987, some 180 countries signed the treaty known as the Montreal

Protocol

> to phase out chlorofluorocarbons, called CFCs, and other ozone-depleting

> chemicals, including methyl bromide.

>

> The protocol allows governments to apply for exemptions to produce methyl

> bromide beyond the phase-out date if there are no technically or

> economically feasible alternatives.

>

> Claudia McMurray, deputy assistant secretary of state for the environment,

> said the United States " has been the leader in this protocol, " achieving

or

> exceeding methyl bromide reduction goals for much of the past decade.

>

> " We're really hitting what I call a bump in the road - a patch where we

> can't find the alternatives and bring them on fast enough, " McMurray said.

>

> Part of the problem is EPA's " slow process " for approving pesticides,

> McMurray said. Also, some alternative pesticides " might be good for the

> ozone, " but they pose other environmental problems such as groundwater

> contamination, she said.

>

> Environmentalists, however, accused the administration of putting politics

> ahead of public health. Repeated exposure to methyl bromide can lead to

> cancer. And deterioration of the ozone layer, the part of atmosphere that

> protects the Earth from ultraviolet radiation, leads to other health

> problems.

>

> " This is a very clear-cut case of unmitigated corporate greed, " said Jon

> Coifman, a spokesman for the Natural Resources Defense Council. " This is

not

> one of those environmental issues where you are looking hard at a deep

trade

> off. ... There are large stockpiles (of methyl bromide in the U.S.) and

> good, viable alternatives. "

>

> While other countries also are seeking exemptions, the United States is

> seeking a larger exemption than all the other countries combined,

> environmentalists said.

>

> Human activity during the last 150 years has increased atmospheric levels

of

> methyl bromide by 50 percent, according to a study published in the

Journal

> of Geophysical Research this week.

>

> The treaty is credited with slowing the rate of destruction of the ozone

> layer and most scientists expect recovery to start within the decade.

> Scientists have calculated that implementation of the treaty will result

in

> 20 million fewer cases of skin cancer through 2050, especially among

> fair-skinned people in Northern latitudes.

>

> Exposure to ultra violet rays also has been shown to cause eye cataracts,

> weakened immune systems, reduced plant yields and damage to ocean

> ecosystems.

>

> The United States has cut use of methyl bromide to 30 percent of 1991

> levels, but the administration wants to increase use to 35 percent of

those

> 1991 levels during the next two years and to an unspecified amount after

> that. The administration initially proposed increasing use to 39 percent

of

> previous levels, but lowered their request to 35 percent this week.

>

> The Department of Agriculture has spent $146 million during the past

decade

> on research to develop alternatives to the pesticide, exemption supporters

> noted. However, USDA documents indicate the administration has devoted a

> share of that money during the past two years to support lobbying for

> exemptions, rather than research on alternatives.

>

>

> On the Net: www.unep.org

>

-------

 

>

> (Contact Joan Lowy at LowyJ(at)SHNS.com. Distributed by Scripps Howard

News