Regular readers of this column will know that I have long urged regulators to move faster and be bolder when it comes to approving new, effective, environmentally friendly solutions. The agricultural and phytosanitary industry desperately needs access to these alternatives to move away from unsustainable solutions, which are harmful to both people and planet – and sometimes do a lousy job overall.
But every now and then, a curmudgeon like me has a day of celebration when I see decision makers taking the mantle and moving the industry forward. In late August, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) registered our product, eFUME®, as a new treatment for use on various food products. Whilst this approval only covers fresh fruit and vegetables for now, eFUME® is approved in other countries for use on grain and other soft commodities which means there is light at the end of the tunnel. Exciting stuff! This is not just a major milestone in our mission, but a key approval in the world’s largest market.
This marks an important step in giving the industry alternatives to replace one of the worst legacy products out there, methyl bromide, which is still widely used in the US and elsewhere despite staggering environmental costs. Scientists estimate that just 1kg of methyl bromide can destroy an estimated 4.2 tonnes of ozone. So damaging was it that the 1987 Montreal Protocol banned its use – yet exemptions remain for phytosanitary treatment. The UN Environment Programme reckons that, in 2022, the US used more than 1200 tonnes of methyl bromide for this purpose.
Given the American use of methyl bromide, this decision is not just an approval of a new product, but a clear rejection of an old, polluting one. The registration of our product by the EPA is great news for the US phytosanitary and agricultural industries, for whom it could be a game-changer. But, in other jurisdictions, and despite the known environmental damage done by methyl bromide, many food producers, exporters, and agricultural supply chain operators have no choice but to use it. Major agricultural economies, including China, India and Australia, continue to use huge volumes of methyl bromide each year. This not only harms the ozone layer but also poses a risk to the logistics workers exposed to the chemical.
The US EPA is clearly listening to the industry and is not afraid to take concrete steps that lead to tangible change. But there are still too many jurisdictions where regulators need to take notes of and step up. Firms providing essential agricultural and phytosanitary services must have access to cost-efficient, safe, and highly effective products which also reduce their impact on the environment. It looks like I may have to continue the haranguing for a little longer!
