Hometop nav spacerAbout ARStop nav spacerHelptop nav spacerContact Ustop nav spacerEn Espanoltop nav spacer
Printable VersionPrintable Version     E-mail this pageE-mail this page
United States Department of Agriculture Agricultural Research Service
Search
 
 
Educational Resources
Outreach Activities
National Agricultural Library
Archives
Publications
Manuscripts (TEKTRAN)
Software
Datasets
Freedom of Information Act and Privacy Act Reference Guide
 

Molecule

Great Britain: Calculating the Loss of Methyl Bromide for Nonsoil Uses

“Some small companies could go out of business,” reported Robert W. Taylor. “Methyl bromide is extremely important to some businesses in the United Kingdom, and its ban will create problems in our economy. An accelerated program, which is currently being considered by the European Union, with a phaseout in 2001, could cause considerable trade disruption.”

Taylor is an insect control specialist with the Natural Resources Institute in Chatham, Kent, United Kingdom. He spoke at the Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions in Orlando, Florida, December 7–9, 1998. His research was funded by the UK Department of the Environment, Transport, and the Regions, and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries, and Food.

According to Taylor, 40 percent of the 1.12 million pounds (approximately 500 tons) of methyl bromide used for fumigation in Great Britain goes for nonsoil uses. “Fumigation of flour mills accounts for about 38 percent of our methyl bromide use, followed by use on commodity imports, preshipment exports, buildings, and ships. We also use it on quarantine imports such as timber and plant cuttings, on aircraft, and for other unspecified uses,” he said.

Taylor and economist colleagues did a cost compliance study of what effect the loss of methyl bromide would have on these industries. They surveyed 30 pest control companies (21 responded), food manufacturers, millers, commodity importers and exporters, government agencies, shipping agencies, museums, and airlines. Telephone and fax were the primary means of gathering data, but personal visits and mail were also used.

“This survey produced some interesting results,” Taylor said. “Our larger milling organizations and food manufacturers have already reduced the use of methyl bromide. Improved sanitation practices and localized pest control are the primary alternatives for mills and structures.”

Sourcing of noninfested commodities from producer countries is being targeted by larger companies. Phosphine use is being extended but its use is constrained by low winter temperatures and a much longer exposure period. However, no alternative fumigants are yet registered.

Taylor noted that the flour mills in Great Britain vary greatly in age and design and in their capability to phase out methyl bromide quickly. Cost of switching to something other than this chemical depends primarily on whether heat is likely to be used, either alone or as part of a combination treatment.

For imported commodities—such as cocoa, coffee, rice, dried fruits, and nuts—principal problems are ineffective fumigation and commodity management practices in producer countries. Often, refumigation of a high proportion of these commodities, particularly cocoa, is necessary on their arrival in the UK. Better commodity management practices in producer countries and improved fumigations with phosphine could greatly reduce this need to refumigate, Taylor said.

“Loss of methyl bromide as a fumigant could also result in loss of some of our export markets,” he said. “Some of our commodities are exported to Australia and New Zealand where methyl bromide is specified. Plant cuttings that we export require a phytosanitary certificate to show that they have been treated with methyl bromide. And, we fumigate used clothing that is primarily exported to Africa.”

With the loss of methyl bromide, major pest control servicing companies that have not yet done so will likely diversify activities. The effect of the phaseout will depend on how dependent they are on methyl bromide.

“But diversification will likely be more difficult for small pest control companies that rely exclusively on methyl bromide. Several of these companies indicated in our survey that their business will cease once methyl bromide is no longer available,” Taylor reported. “Small commercial companies that import chrysanthemum cuttings expect to go out of business. Exporters of new plant varieties expect that business will be halted with some countries when methyl bromide is no longer available.”

[January 1999 Table of Contents] [Newsletter Issues Listing] [Methyl Bromide Home Page]
[ARS Home Page] [USDA Home Page]

Last Updated: January 12, 1999

     
Last Modified: 08/02/2002
ARS Home | USDA.gov | Site Map | Policies and Links 
FOIA | Accessibility Statement | Privacy Policy | Nondiscrimination Statement | Information Quality | USA.gov | White House