Methyl Bromide Safe and Necessary, Experts Say
Steve Longoria with Aanko Technologies Comments on Methyl Bromide
(PRWEB) September 18, 2007 -- It is 20 years after signing the Montreal Protocol banning chlorofluorocarbons, we now recognize that banning methyl bromide was a mistake. Explains Steve Longoria with Aanko Technologies, a homeland security and preparedness expert, "methyl bromide has far less impact on the ozone layer than we believed a decade ago." At the same time, he adds, "it is environmentally safe and there is no alternative that is nearly as effective in fumigating agricultural products."
In 1987 the international community adopted the Montreal Protocol to prevent further depletion of the ozone layer, which protects human beings from excessive UV radiation. At the time scientists over-estimated methyl bromide's atmospheric life, and thus its harmful impact.
Under the Protocol's Critical Use Exemption farmers are entitled to use methyl bromide until a reasonable and economic substitute becomes available. But the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has sharply restricted use of the chemical, limiting both its application and the quantity available.
According to Longoria, methyl bromide is "essential as fumigant," killing bacteria and fungi. This "helps guarantee an adequate supply of food at reasonable cost." Eliminating methyl bromide would not only decrease the available supply of fruits and vegetables, but the loss of methyl bromide would also result in higher losses post harvest in both fresh fruits, vegetables, as well as grains, and dried fruits and nuts. Farmers would lose export markets as well as domestic sales, since the chemical is used to protect the commodities in transit as well as processing and warehousing.
Methyl bromide also is essential at a time when we must worry about bioterrorism. The chemical kills Anthrax spores, meaning it would play a critical role if the U.S. ever suffers a large-scale Anthrax attack.
Industry and government have spent nearly $200 million dollars to develop an alternative fumigant, without success. Without methyl bromide, crop yields will drop and crop losses will mount.
This is not just a problem in wealthy nations like America. The socialist government of Zimbabwe has complained about the harmful impact of eliminating use of the chemical.
Ironically, man-made supplies account for just one-fourth of the total natural production of methyl bromide, which is released in marshes and oceans. Thus, even eliminating human sources would have only a small impact on total emissions.
The United Nations is hosting an anniversary celebration for the Protocol this week in Montreal. Instead of toasting their handiwork
thus far, the UN delegates should reconsider their approach to methyl bromide. The continued use of the product at 2004 levels poses no real harm to the ozone layer. In the meantime some farmers are protesting having to use an alternative that has a carcinogen warning as part of the label.
As Longoria concludes, "it is important to protect the environment. But people are part of the environment." The rules of the critical exemption use, as written in the Protocol should be followed. This would allow continued use of methyl bromide. You can reach Steve Longoria at steve.longoria@aanko.com.
Contact:
Steve Longoria
415-408-8004
steve.longoria@aanko.com
www.aanko.com
###
Post Comment:
Trackback URL: http://www.prweb.com/pingpr.php/SG9yci1DcmFzLUhhbGYtTWFnbi1UaGlyLVplcm8=
Bookmark -
Del.icio.us |
Digg |
Furl It |
Spurl |
RawSugar |
Simpy |
Shadows |
Blink It |
My Web
|
Share The News
Submit this press release easily to any of these major bookmarking and social media sites.