[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 2]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 1923]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                      STATEMENT ON METHYL BROMIDE

                                 ______
                                 

                        HON. DENNIS J. KUCINICH

                                of ohio

                    in the house of representatives

                      Wednesday, February 15, 2006

  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I gave the attached statement, in support 
of the banning of methyl bromide on February 15, 2006.

   Statement of Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich, Subcommittee on Energy and 
 Resources, House Committee on Government Reform: Hearing on ``Methyl 
Bromide: Are U.S. Interests Being Served by the Critical Use Exemption 
                               Process?''

       I was dismayed when I learned that today we would be 
     discussing efforts to perpetuate--and possibly increase--the 
     use of methyl bromide. Continuing to allow it to be 
     manufactured and used is bad for the environment, bad for 
     human health, bad for international relations, bad economics, 
     and is simply unnecessary.
       Methyl bromide has been responsible for a significant 
     amount of the degradation of our protective ozone layer. In 
     2005, the size of the resulting hole in that layer over the 
     Antarctic reached 9.4 million square miles, an area almost as 
     big as the combined areas of the U.S. and Canada, according 
     to NASA. Current estimates say that it will take another 50 
     years for the hole to repair itself.
       Too much UV-B, which is filtered by the ozone layer, causes 
     cataracts and suppresses our immune systems, making us more 
     vulnerable to viruses and bacteria. It also contributes to 
     skin cancer. It was this threat to human health that was a 
     major reason that the international community agreed to ban 
     it. It was a display of unprecedented cooperation in the face 
     of an environmental threat.
       Methyl bromide puts our own workers and consumers at risk 
     too. When it is injected into the soil, it kills almost every 
     living thing in the soil. It is no wonder that it also causes 
     chronic health problems for the workers who apply it and the 
     nearby communities who are also exposed to it. Exposure has 
     effects on the neurological system including functional 
     impairment, lethargy, twitching, tremors, and paralysis in 
     extreme cases. It has also been linked to prostate cancer and 
     birth defects in some studies.
       Continuing the manufacture of methyl bromide is bad 
     economics. Since the international community agreed to phase 
     out methyl bromide, companies who play by the rules have been 
     planning for its phaseout. They have incurred real financial 
     costs by investing in alternatives, anticipating the phase-
     out required by the Montreal Protocol. Failing to adhere to 
     the U.S. promise to phase out methyl bromide puts these 
     companies who were playing by the rules at an unfair 
     competitive disadvantage. Those who do the right thing and 
     obey the law should be rewarded for their good faith efforts, 
     not punished.
       Consider the international relations implications as well. 
     An attempt to let the U.S. allow methyl bromide to be used 
     without going through the specified channels--like other 
     countries are required to do--would further harm our standing 
     in the international community. It sends a signal to other 
     countries that we will only honor our agreements until we 
     change our mind. It harms negotiations on future agreements. 
     It furthers the stereotype of the U.S. as the bull in the 
     proverbial global china shop.
       The EPA is currently trying to address the methyl bromide 
     issue by substituting chemicals, like methyl iodide, that 
     aren't as harmful to the ozone layer but are still highly 
     toxic. Instead, we need to look to alternatives for pest 
     control that not only preserve the ozone layer but also 
     protect worker health, community health, consumer health, and 
     ecological health. In fact, that's exactly what Americans 
     want.
       One of the biggest growth industries right now is organic 
     food. According to the Congressional Research Service, ``The 
     annual rate of market growth since 1990 has remained steady 
     at about 20%.'' When given a choice between food grown with 
     toxic chemicals or food grown organically, people choose the 
     latter, especially when the price is comparable, which is 
     increasingly the case as economies of scale become more 
     prevalent.
       One of methyl bromide's biggest uses is for strawberry 
     crops. Jake Lewin, director of marketing for California 
     Certified Organic Farmers says ``. . . strawberries can be 
     grown without pesticide. We've got 60 growers who don't use 
     (methyl bromide) . . . The bottom line is small and large 
     growers have successfully produced strawberries without 
     pesticides.''
       So we are talking about yielding to the management of 
     chemical producers and agribusiness--who by the way rarely 
     have to apply the toxic pesticide themselves or live in the 
     adjacent communities--at a drastic cost to our health and 
     that of the earth. It speaks to a systematic deference to 
     corporations at the expense of the biological systems on 
     which we intimately depend for life. It is unwise and 
     unnecessary. I call for the immediate and permanent phase-out 
     of methyl bromide.

     

                          ____________________