Reply to MBTOC Comments of February 2010 1

LIST OF QUESTIONS FO R PARTIES ON POST

- HARVEST CUN’ s : 2010 ROUND

Received from MBTOC February 17 & 18 , 2010

UNITED STATES



### Commodities

1. MBTOC: We observe that problems achieving pest kill efficacy have been demonstrated with SF fumigation at various lower temperatures and depending on pest species. Please indicate if research on SF fumigation in combination with heat or other alternative treatments is planned
and funded for harvest season 2010 and 2011.

USG Response : Gary Obenauf and Spencer Wals e have reported that t he California Walnut

Boar d, California Date Commission, t he California Dried Plum Board, and the California Fig Advisory Board have funded research for the 2010 and 2011 calendar years. An effort will be made to pair sulfuryl fluoride with a potent ovicide (e.g., PPO) to support the goal of circumventing the ovicidal deficiencies of sulfuryl fluoride. Dr. Walse and his laboratory will also begin looking at sulfuryl fluoride fumigant mixtures (and synergists) in “stored product

disinfe stations” under tarpaulins in an effort to combat resistance that is likely to develop as sulfuryl fluoride is commercially applied at sub

- lethal doses.

Dr. Spencer Walse , USDA

- ARS, is providing MBTOC with an excerpt of his study concerning the efficacy of sulfuryl fluoride at lower temperatures by pest species ( Attachment entitled Walse Report )

.

2. MBTOC: However, we note that in dried plum and date sector, the request for MB is the same this year as was granted by the Parties last year. MBTOC rep eats it comment from last year that since plums are heat dried, and heat drying also results in disinfestation. The Party has not demonstrated a strong seasonal market demand for dried plums and so it is difficult to understand why phosphine can not be use d if a post

- drying infestation occurs. Therefore, upon review, and without further substantiation, MBTOC may find the CUN for MB for dried plums to

be not well

- enough supported.

USG Response : Gary Obenauf reports that t he industry acknowledges that drie d plums are free

of insects when they come out of the dryer. However, r einfestation occurs fairly soon thereafter

and thus the reason for the se stored commodity treatment s

. This industry has already transitioned to phosphine where possible. Some treatme nts need to occur around electronic and electrical equipment that prevents the industry from using phosphine. To ship insect infested dried fruit is prohibited by US food safety standards.

3. MBTOC: Does the US believe it is no longer able to furthe r transition dried plum and dates to alternatives? Have some dried plum and date companies entirely transitioned to alternatives and if so how did they accomplish that?Reply to MBTOC Comments of February 2010 2

USG Response : The US believes that until viable options with the registered alterna tives are

further developed, the dried fruit industry has reached the maximum adoption of alternatives

. Obenauf, Keck, and Lindsay, report that p hosphine is already used for the majority of “stored product disinfestations” which shows a commitment by thes e California industries to the requests of MBTOC regarding reductions in methyl bromide use. In addition , the California dried fruit and nut industries continue to financially support research on methyl bromide alternatives for postharvest applications, wh ich suggests that alternatives to methyl bromide will be commercially utilized when they are technically and economically feasible. At this time, there are no technically and economically registered alte rnatives to methyl bromide for rapid field

disinfesta tions below 80°F that are universally effective on the target insects endemic to

California.

Mr. Keck reports that some of the commodity industries are having difficulties in getting permission from their California County Agriculture Commissioner for s ulfuryl fluoride applications . Apparently some counties in the state of California are being more restrictive of sulfuryl fluoride. At this time, there is no explanation for the restrictions. Therefore, state and country regulatory constraints are also impacting this sector.



### Dry Cured Pork

1. MBTOC: We are concerned that the CUN reports that an unnecessarily high dosage rate of MB is sometimes used. We are also concerned that the CUN gives us conflicting information about the dosage rate used. Th e CUN BUNI table states the dosage rate is 13

– 20 g/m3. We note this is an unusually wide range and not in keeping with the use of the lowest effective dosage rate. The CUN page 5 also discussed MB dosage rates by saying, “concentrations lower than 15 g/m 3 could be used to achieve 100 % mortality of all life stages for red legged beetles and levels less than 8 g/m3 could be used to achieve 100 % mortality in all life stages of ham mites at the bench top level (Sekhorn, et al. 2009b; Phillips, 2009).” Addit ionally, in the CUN page 5 also gives conflicting information concerning the dosage rate, “Fumigation levels should be tested at the plant level to determine if levels could be decreased from the 24 g/m3 that is commonly used in the industry”.

USG Respons e : Dr. Schilling reminds MBTOC that t he text information on page 5 is reporting recent research results. However, b enchtop test results may not correspond to real world applications. These studies are still in progress and the researchers have started n egotiating with some producers to conduct trials in their facilities. However, the researchers would like to remind MBTOC that there are many details that needed to be addressed before commercial level investigations can begin. The typical rate for comme rcial applications of methyl bromide is 20 g/m3. As per the MBTOC request t he BUNI will be changed to reflect this rate.

2. MBTOC: The CUN reports structure volume of 250,000 m3, but ham volume and ham stowage factors* have not been reported. There fore, MBTOC can not calculate how much MB might be necessary and in keeping with Decision IX/6.Reply to MBTOC Comments of February 2010 3

USG Response : According to Dr. Schilling, h ams are stored in aging rooms (hung a couple feet apart from each other on racks). Hams can be stored this way fr om 40 days to one year depending on the product and desired flavor

. Ham volume and stowage is similar to Spain. The U.S. production is approximately 3 to 5 million hams per year that may get fumigated

. Hams range from 10

- 12 kg each. The stowage is 150

- 180 kg/m3. When the middle ranges for weight and stowage are used the structure volume results in a range of about 200,00 0 to 250,000 m3

.

3. MBTOC: So, we either need to know ham volume and ham stowage factors (which might be
difficult information t o obtain at this point), or we need to know that Government of United States has a program or regulatory or inspection method to ensure that cured pork sector

- users of MB will make facility improvements to ensure that only the lowest effective dosage will be used. (Based on the research cited in the CUN, the lowest effective dosage seems to be 15 g/m3.) In other words, we need to know how the Government of the US will ensure that only < 15g/m3 is used to treat cured pork hanging in storage facilities.

USG Response : Dr. Schilling reminds MBTOC that t h e research cited was conducted on the benchtop and needs to be verified at the plant level. The benchtop level efficacy research may have very different results than what might happen in a ham aging room. Af ter the commercial level tests are conducted, the rate of methyl bromide will be adjusted to reflect the results.

4. MBTOC: Additionally, we would like to know if the US cured pork research program has
identified the incidence of the red

- legged beetl

e? This information would impact the amount of MB needed because according to the CUN, levels less than 8 g/m3 MB could be used to achieve 100 % mortality in all life stages of ham mites.

USG Response : Dr. Schilling: The US cured pork research program h as identified the

incidence of red

- legged ham beetle. The incidence of the red legged beetle is approximately 50

- 60 % of the plants that have reported infestations. The incidence of mites is approximately 60

- 70 %.

Again, MBTOC should note that the low er amount of methyl bromide for 100% mortality of ham mites is from a benchtop laboratory experiment and is not recommended for use in commercial level facilities until those investigations are completed. It would not be advisable to use less than 20 g/m3 until tests are conducted at the plant level to ensure that lower concentrations could be used. The only reports of 8 g/m3 being effective against mites are in 3.7 L jars with no refugia

.

5. MBTOC: Could you please confirm whether the USDA CREES cure d pork study is still ongoing?

USG Response : The USDA CSREES cured pork study is still ongoing and an additional proposal w ill be submitted to the USDA. While p reliminary results are promising

, further

research is critically needed.Reply to MBTOC Comments of February 2010 4 

### NPMA

1. MBTOC : We are also concerned that no research or results of commercial trials

-- directly pertinent to the processed food facilities and sector included in this CUN

-- has been presented for several years. There has been no heat treatment research or trials pr esented to try to resolve the concerns presented about using SF as an alternative. The research presented in the CUN detailing the Kansas State Mill trials of MB, heat and SF trials do not seem relevant to the
facilities included in CUN. If the five

- story Kansas State mill is representative of the processed food facilities included in this CUN that information should be documented (processed food facilities are normally flat constructed).

USG Response : NPMA reports that t he US ha s invested a substantial amount of money into research that is directly “pertinent” to processed food facilities included in this CUN. Within the U.S. we are fortunate to have great research institutes, facilities and more importantly individuals with the know how to objectively carry out the work. Research by USDA Agriculture Research Service and grants funded through USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture support these investigations. Much of the post

- harvest research is conducted in Kansas. USDA has their

Center for Grain and Animal Health located in Manhattan, KS. Many of the university researchers that investigate post

- harvest issues are now located at Kansas State University (KSU) . Kansas is a major wheat producer in the U.S. and consequently the focus of these

laboratories tends to focus on wheat and its products

.

However, t he fact that most of the research has been carried out in flour mills does not make the research irrelevant to food handling facilities in this CUN. It is research that to some degree is directly applicable to any food handling facility, whether it is a mill or finished processing facility. The biggest difference between the 5 story flour mill at KSU and most food processing facilities found in the U.S. is not the height of the structure, but the sanitary design that was incorporated into the newly built mill at KSU . M any mills in the U.S. are twice the height of this mill, at around 9 to 11 stories high. Warehousing and distribution sections of flour mills are typically no more than 1 s tory tall. Food handling facilities included in this CUN tend to have very large 1 to 3 story areas for processing and packaging, but they can also have section s up to 5 or more stories tall that utilize gravity for moving dry ingredients, very similar in designs used in

flour mills. (NPMA)

NPMA reports that s anitary design is a critical component for managing stored product pest, and is the big challenge for food handling facilities. Some facilities may only have 1 story high processing sections, but th e ceilings of those areas can be over 30 feet high, with structural support systems, processing lines and conveyer systems running throughout that have not been designed to be cleaned or accessed. Consequently, research results from KSU's flour mill

exper iments are applicable to all structures, including those of NPMA's CUN.

2. MBTOC: There is relevant research on facilities for processed foods in this field, for example, research on pasta facilities done by Dirk Meier, now at Kansas State but former ly at Purdue University. There is also relevant commercial experience which has not been assessed for this CUN. In fact, the Kansas State heat treatment workshop (May 2009), included numerousReply to MBTOC Comments of February 2010 5

American participants from pasta and snack food sector who repor ted successful use of heat

treatment.

USG Response : NPMA reports that s ome food processing facilities have been able to take up heat as an alternative, either for the entire facility or as a spot treatment of bins, equipment or rooms. Where practical this alternative fits nicely as treatments on a smaller scale can be carried out while other parts of the facility are in production. However, not all facilities are candidates for this alternative due to structural design and other considerations. Heat can also not be u sed to

treat many commodities . Field trials for heat as commodity treatment were carried out at one

U.S. facility on organic pasta. Heating of the interior of the commodity packaging could not be achieved in an effective manner and compr omising product integ rity was a concern. The trails

were determined to be unsuccessful.

3. MBTOC: While we understand that there are no alternatives for infested cheese in storage facilities, we need to see reports of research or commercial efforts done to avoid the infestation, and other information demonstrating that progress is being made in this sector.

USG Response : Since the pests of cheese are identical to the pests of dry cure pork products,

the researchers have included cheese in their r esearch proposal.

4. MBTOC: In Herb and Spice sector, growing commercial experience with spot heat in other regions is an indicator that this alternative needs to be tried and adapted and reported on for this CUN. MBTOC has indicated for several year s that spot heat should be considered a viable alternative for this sector. It is not sufficient to just indicate concerns with alternatives and not include written reports documenting that the concerns are justified.

USG Response : NPMA reports that s o me food processing facilities have been able to take up heat as an alternative, either for the entire facility or as a spot treatment of bins, equipment or rooms. Where practical this alternative fits nicely as treatments on a smaller scale can be carried out while other parts of the facility are in production. However, not all facilities are candidates for this alternative due to structural design and other considerations. Heat can also not be utilized to treat commodity. Field trials for heat as commo dity treatment were carried out at one

U.S. facility on organic pasta. Heating of the interior of the commodity packaging could not be achieved in an effective manner and compromising product integ rity was a concern. The trails

were determined to be unsu ccessful.

5. MBTOC: The facilities in the processing sector are not sufficiently described. For example, we do not know how many pasta facilities are included, versus facilities that are largely baked processed foods (such as cookies and crackers). We do not know how many facilities are included in the CUN, nor their volume. We do not know how many and which types of facilities have product warehousing integral to the processing rooms which can not be separated off during SF fumigations. The CUN impl ies that some facilities are insufficiently sealed to allow treatment by other means, but this means they should not be MB treated until they are properly sealed and improved by other means.Reply to MBTOC Comments of February 2010 6

USG Response : I nformation concerning this industry and its s tructures was submitted to MBTOC in 2005. While the food being produced is not available per facility, the estimates of

volumes were . Roughly, one third of the facilities have product warehouses that are unable to be separated from the production areas a nd are therefore, not available for sulfuryl fluoride fumigation. The CUN reported facilities that could not sufficiently seal between the two areas, but since methyl bromide is labeled for "all processed foods" it is legal to expose these food products t o methyl bromide. The facilities are sealed to retain fumigants and reduce leakage from the buildings.

6. MBTOC: This CUN does not report actual MB use in cheese sector, yet previous CUNs have indicated that MB fumigation of cheese only takes place u pon the demand of government inspectors. In that case, we think there would be written documentation of the requirement to fumigate, the pests identified and the amount of MB used.

USG Response : The U.S. food supply is one of the safest in the world. P revention is the keystone of an effective, proactive food defense. Preventive measures must be built in from the start of domestic and international food production processes. The Food and Drug

A dministration (FDA) conducts inspections to determine compl iance with the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the Act) and implementing regulations contained in Title 21, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 133 (21 CFR 133). FDA has food safety oversight of cheese products, however, dairy products such as cheese that are part of the US government commodity purchase programs are subject to the fee for service grading and inspection service of the Dairy Program within the USDA Agricultural Marketing Service. If a plant were to fail an inspection, the impact to the producer would be substantial which may even result in the loss of the product. The records of failed inspections are not available to the public

.

7. MBTOC: Although our previous reports and correspondence have asked for documentation reporting the t

arping of commodities to see if that would provide sufficient barrier during SF facility fumigations, no documentation has been provided to show that this has been done. Additionally, the CUN indicates this sector has an environmental concern with the use of SF. Please document this concern with, for example, written customer demands, regulatory requirements or other evidence of an inability to use SF on environmental grounds.

USG Response : In the U.S. pesticide re

- registration is required every 15 years. Sulfuryl fluoride is in the early stages of product re

- registration, with a projected completion of the process in 5

- 6 years. At this time it is too early in the process to know what final label language

will be or what commodities will be listed on the label. Current labeling clarification from the

US EPA states “that the label would require all finished product and the majority of the bagg ed ingredients to be removed from the premises. NPMA hope s that the future label will allow

commodities not label ed for direction fumigation could remain in the treated space if they are under tarps or otherwise protected by packaging. ”

In the U.S. the pesticide "label is the law" and the sulfuryl fluoride label does not list tarping of commodities as an option in a facility under fumigation. However, s ome food processing facilities have transitioned to SF where processing areas can be safely segregated from areas thatReply to MBTOC Comments of February 2010 7

contain commodities that cannot be treated. In other facilities the ability to safely segregate areas is very difficult due to large open oven lines that merge into packaging, warehousing and

distribution areas.



### Structures

– Food Processing Plants

1. MBTOC: We acknowledge that the CUN provided a new flour mill research study conducted

at the Kansas State flour mill. The Kansas State study reported there were some pest survivors in some cages. But, it was also acknowledged that dosage and temperature were inadequate in at least one of those studies. In its Progress Report of 2007 (TEAP, May 20 07) MBTOC reported that both the correct dosage rate and temperature must be achieved to obtain zero survivor results in test cages. It is not acceptable to think that a few survivors in a trial means that the sulfuryl fluoride is not an effective alternat ive; with the results of this trial, adjustments could be made in dosage rate and temperature to ensure it worked the next time. The need to adapt and learn from trials in mills was also emphasized in the May 2007 Progress Report and by all commercial expe rience with alternatives to date.

USG Response : The North American Millers' Association response is:

The Kansas State University research (KSU) is the ONLY such academic analysis comparing methyl bromide and sulfuryl fluoride (SF) (and heat)

in the wo rld, so far as we are aware. We are willing to, and expect to, learn

from the research. But the research is not yet complete. Therefore we believe it is unfair to criticize the milling industry for not having moved

faster when the research isn’t even finis hed. It is also unfair to criticize the milling industry for not adopting whatever research findings that have

resulted when those findings were not favorable to SF.

It is also unfair to criticize this industry with the dismissive statement that

all that needs to be done to make SF work better is to correct “the dosage rate and temperature to ensure it worked the next time.” The fact that the SF dosage rate is highly temperature sensitive, and requires a dosage rate more than 400 percent greater than MB is exactly the point we’ve been trying to explain for years, with little apparent effect.

If the mill needs to be heated up prior to an SF fumigation, that is not a

head

- to

- head comparison, since MB fumigation does not require such heat. In a legitimate he ad

- to

- head comparison, if the mill is heated for one treatment, it must be heated for all treatments. In such a situation MB would work even better and require even less than is customary.

We have never claimed SF doesn’t kill insects. Of course it does. What we have said, and the KSU research supports, is that SF requires far greater quantities to do the same job. As an industry we are attempting toReply to MBTOC Comments of February 2010 8

minimize pesticide usage whenever and wherever possible. Sustainability goals

– ours and those of our cust omers

– require that.

In a MB fumigation, a CT (concentration x time) product of 180 is typical.

In the KSU SF fumigation in May 2009, a CT of 941 was targeted, a 423 percent increase. Still, there were surviving insects.

MBTOC must not understand modern food manufacturing demands, sustainability or economics when it says it is “unacceptable” to consider

SF not to be an “effective alternative” when using more than 4x still does not give complete control.

There is another critical issue which is not discu ssed in the MBTOC letter,

but is relevant to the adoption rate of sulfuryl fluoride

– the label wording. This has consistently been an impediment since SF was approved. There have been multiple label changes, but Dow AgroSciences acknowledges it

is still d eficient and needs further changes. NAMA and other user group representatives have met with Dow AS many times to discuss this, as recently as January 7, 2010. We discussed how the label could be refined to add greater clarity to the conditions under which SF can be legally used. Dow AS has agreed to propose even more changes in the label. Until these changes are proposed by Dow and approved by EPA, it is unfair to criticize the milling industry for not adopting SF more quickly. Apart from

any economic or te chnical consideration of SF as a viable alternative, the

label must remove doubts about the conditions of legal use, not add to them as is currently the case. Said another way, regardless of technical merit, a potential user will not adopt the compound so long as questions remain about legal liability. Any expectation to the contrary is unrealistic.

2. MBTOC: The Kansas State research is not directly pertinent to pet food facilities and rice mills. There does not seem to be a research program directly r elevant to the pet food and rice milling facilities included in this CUN. Pet food facilities and rice milling establishments seem to have stalled in their adoption of alternatives, and no new information on trials has been given for several years.

USG R esponse : Funded research by Kansas State has focused on flour mills for several reasons: 1) wheat is a very abundant crop in Kansas, 2) flour mills are more numerous than rice mills, and 3) flour mills use more methyl bromide . Therefore because there are budgetary constraints the

flour mills are the main focus of research

. However, t hat does not mean that the in formation gleaned in flour mill research is not applicable to rice mills or pet food facilities.

The US Rice Federation replies: " There have b een several tria ls of rice mills in the last 8 years, but the trials were not conducted by USDA or University researchers, so are not publishable

. That said, USG does have some information on those tests. In 2007, a trial of a 650,000 cu 3 rice

mill used sulfuryl fluoride. The effective dosage of sulfuryl fluoride was 1,900 lbs vs 550 lbs of methyl bromide. Although the price of methyl bromide and sulfuryl fluoride, pound for pound,Reply to MBTOC Comments of February 2010 9

is essentially the same the difference in amount needed is problematic f or several businesses. Another mill has been alternating between sulfuryl fluoride and methyl bromide trying to gain experience and assess effectiveness of the fumigants. Some mills are using sulfuryl fluoride when fumigation occurs during the summer. T he higher temperatures allow for a volume of sulfuryl fluoride to be the same as a methyl bromide fumigation. Unfortunately, not all pest infestations and consequently fumigations take place in the summer.

A rice mill is cooperating with USDA Grain Lab in Kansas in a pheromone trap study. As part of another study an "in house" fogging system has been installed. This allows for fogging separate, or all, areas within a processing facility. The U.S. Rice industry is attempting this approach in an effort to reduce the need fo r annual structural fumigation. This program began approximately 18 months ago and sufficient data are not yet available

.

On a nonstructural note, one rice mill has conducted 4 trials with sulfuryl fluoride on FINISHED

GOODS in co ntainers. These trials have been jointly conducted with another company and the registrant. These trials have discovered that sulfuryl fluoride by itself does not give a successful kill on the eggs of rice weevil insects therefore a new trial with a mix of sulfuryl fluoride and

p hosphine is being conducted . The gas application has been completed and the trial insects (all three stages of rice weevil and flour beetle) are current ly in incubation for 60 days. "

The Pet Food Institute replies: "W hile the re search was not conducted in a pet food facility, the evaluation of the efficacy of ProFume is directly relevant to the matter under consideration. Generally ProFume is a less effective fumigant than methyl bromide in part because it does not kill insect eg gs as readily. What the Kansas State research revealed is the impact of temperature on the effectiveness of ProFume. The target temperature for the research within the fumigated facility was around 87°F, an unrealistic temperature target for many facilitie s for much of the year unless additional heating equipment is used. In the study the temperature in the facility was about ten degrees lower (77°F). The impact of this temperature variance was that insufficient ProFume was on hand to successfully fumigate the facility within the target efficacy. A significant increase in ProFume would have been needed to achieve anticipated lethality targets.

The Kansas State research documents very real drawbacks of ProFume over methyl bromide both in terms of efficacy un der real world conditions and cost. Certainly portable heaters could have been used in the test facility, but that would have resulted in a less valid comparison because of the difference in environmental conditions. Use of heaters in a facility treated wi th

P roFume would result in increased cost of treatment. However it is worth noting that less methyl bromide would be needed in a heated facility, as methyl bromide would become even more effective under such conditions. "

3. MBTOC: For several years now pet food facilities have been stymied by lack of registration for pet foods treated by sulfuryl fluoride. But there has been no documentation submitted which shows that the sector is trying to circumvent this problem by trialling and adopting either full

- site or spot heat, by developing methods to segregate products or other means. Although our previous reports and correspondence have asked for documentation reporting the tarping of commodities to see if that would provide sufficient barrier during SF faci lity fumigations, no documentation has been provided to show that this has been tried. The CUN discussesReply to MBTOC Comments of February 2010 10

concerns about the logistics and costs of tarping commodity to allow SF fumigation. But what is the sector doing to circumvent this problem, other than continuing to rely on methyl bromide? Has the sector investigated asking EPA for an exemption for pet foods, tarped off from an SF fumigation, as an inadvertent residue as described in FFDCA section 201q (as amended by FQPA). Noting the persistent problem s reported with SF, it is imperative that the sector show progress adopting other alternatives to methyl bromide.

USG Response: The Pet Food Institute replies: " Use of ProFume in a pet food facility is hampered by the need to remove all finished produ ct and a significant portion of ingredients, particularly animal by

- products and meals. Many pet food plants operate continuously throughout the year with little down time for the entire facility. The down time required to halt production and to remove f inished product and ingredients could be prohibitive, particularly if a warehouse adjoins the manufacturing area, as occurs in most efficient manufacturing facilities.

In the U.S. pesticide re

- registration is required every 15 years. Sulfuryl fluoride is in the early stages of product re

- registration, with a projected completion of the process in 5

- 6 years. At this time it is too early in the process to know what final label language will be or what commodities

will be listed on the label. Current label ing clarification from the US EPA states “that the label would require all finished product and the majority of the bagg ed ingredients to be removed from the premises. The hope is that the future label will allow commodities not labeled for direction

fumi gation could remain in the treated space if they are under tarps or otherwise protected by packaging. ”

In the U.S. the pesticide "label is the law" and the sulfuryl fluoride label does not list tarping of commodities as an option in a facility under fum igation. However, s ome food processing facilities have transitioned to SF where processing areas can be safely segregated from areas that contain commodities that cannot be treated. In other facilities the ability to safely segregate areas is very diffic ult due to large open oven lines that merge into packaging, warehousing and

distribution areas.

Tarping off the manufacturing area may be effective at preventing ProFume from entering the

warehouse area. However this practice poses two problems. First , insects could migrate from the manufacturing area into the warehouse, making the fumigation less effective. Second, and perhaps more significant, according to the EPA letter of 2005 ( Attachment Letter ) , ProFume

cannot be used in the section of a pet foo d facility where fumigation may be needed most, in a

warehouse containing finished product. Tarping off finished pet food would defeat the purpose

of the fumigation. If effective at preventing penetration by ProFume, tarping also would prevent

exposure to insects under the tarp that are on, around or between packages of finished products. "

PFI states: The suggestion that the PFI work with EPA for an exemption of pet food is inconsistent with the manner in which uses of pesticides are approved within the United States. PFI has no legal standing to request such an exemption. Only Dow AgroSciences, as the owner of ProFume, and consequently the owner of its label, has the legal standing to petition EPA for

an expansion of the approved uses on its label

. D ow AgroSciences is well aware of its ProFume label problems, and is hopefully working to resolve these issues.Reply to MBTOC Comments of February 2010 11

4. MBTOC: Several pet food and rice milling companies have transitioned to alternatives; inadequate detail is given to document why the rem aining companies can not reduce their MB usage. O ther pet food and rice milling structures in the US use SF and heat treatments. How do they isolate pet food, ingredients, and other food stuffs with no tolerance for SF. Are the

structures of different vin tage, scale, and design so that materials can be isolated and tarped or removed from the structure at an "acceptable" cost?

USG Response : PFI: A vast majority of pet food facilities have transitioned away from use of methyl bromide as part of their ro utine pet management program. Companies that have completed the transition away from methyl bromide either view their pest management programs as proprietary or as a competitive advantage, so we are unable to share specifics on those alternative programs. We can suppose that such programs utilize techniques such as microsanitation, spot heat treatment, insect growth inhibitors, and fumigation treatment with Vapona ULV fogging, phosphine and ProFume. Vapona has limited penetration capabilities, so

its limita tions in a pet food facility are significant. Phosphine, as described in CUE submissions, is highly corrosive to electronic equipment. Pet food facilities widely utilize electronics to

control and monitor the manufacturing process. Such equipment would hav e to be protected prior

to fumigation with phosphine, which reduces its application as a practical alternative to methyl

bromide.

Most often pet food companies seek to use methyl bromide as a final option to eliminate a pest infestation when other practic es have proved ineffective. However the pet food industry is experiencing difficulty obtaining sufficient quantity of methyl bromide for use in emergency

situations as described.

While the number continues to shrink, there remains a number of older pet fo od facilities in the United States for which methyl bromide is an important component of the pet management

program.

US Rice Federation : S ince 2005 one company has reduced their MB usag e 48% (60% from 1999) through better cleaning and increased usage of Insect Growth Regulators (IGR) applied in space/fog treatments. USG assumes other mills have also improved sanitation and is using fogging or space treatments to reduce fumigations.

US Rice Federation : There are various degrees of rice milling that de pend upon the market/customer. Some rice facilities mill specifically for pet food. Some companies mill rice and bulk ship. Some mills formulate and package processed meals using ingredients they must have onsite for that purpose. Most of these finishe d products are not listed on the sulfuryl

fluoride label. Some mills may also believe, incorrectly, that they can legally fumigate certain ingredients /products , not realizing that these food products are not on the label for sulfuryl

fluoride

. So, some r ice mills are using sulfuryl fluoride even though the final product is not on the label and other mills continue to fumigate with methyl bromide, but have increased sanitation and space treatments do so less often.

US Rice Federation : H eat treatments a t o ne rice milling company have all been abandoned due to increase cost (3 times over MB fumigation costs) and stress on facility structures. RegardingReply to MBTOC Comments of February 2010 12

SF fumigations, the company plans to not include areas with ingredients, since they are not on
the SF l abel, in future SF fum igations.

US Rice Federation: Eighty percent of one rice company’s finished product is packaged in plastic jars and these plastic jars cannot withstand the heat that they would be subj ected to during

heat treatment. These products and materials would need to be relocated to an outside warehouse during the heat treatment at a cost of over $6M per treatment. This cost is in addition

to the cost to re

- skin/re

- roof the facility to ensure it will hold the required temperature to achiev e the kill.

US Rice Federation In some cases a single rice milling structure is of different vintage, scale, and design since they are decades old. There is no single design for all mills though, so not every mill can cost effectively isolate materials.

Tarping of non

- labeled products and ingredients is not listed on the label as an allowed method for protection during fumigation. For pesticide products in the U.S., “the label is the law.”

5. MBTOC: There is a complete dearth of information about th e need for MB and adoption of alternatives in rice mills. Most of rice milling has converted to alternatives and inadequate detail is given to document why the remaining companies can not reduce their MB usage.

USG Response : US Rice Federation responds : " One company reports that MB is easier and more cost effective to use than SF. Both fumigants will kill insects, but you have to do much more preparation work for SF to be effective and it is much easier to lose the concentration of SF gas before it kill s the insects than it is with MB. As far as the heat treatment, it tends to be more expensive and it warps or ruins various pieces of equipment in the mill when used.

Another company has a facility that is of metal con struction; very old and porous. Af ter extensive sealing of joints and visible leak sources, they conducted a fumigation test using sulfuryl fluoride. The building leaked too much to maintain th e required concentration level. In order to effectively use sulfuryl fluoride, the company need s to re

- skin/re

- roof the facility at a cost of over $1 million. The company has not been involved in any other research to identi fy

other alternative solutions. Instead, they are planning to relocate to a new and larger fa cility within the next 5 years. Their plan is to build a new facility that can support sulfuryl fluoride and possibly heat treatment. "

The US Rice Federation disagrees that “most” rice mills have converted to alternatives? Is MBTOC referring to companies, individual milling structur es, or capacity? O ne large rice company fumigat es over 22 million cubic feet of space annually. A fumigation has to be done correctly the first time because the cost of redoing a fumigation is extreme.

6. MBTOC: What percent of US plants in rice m ills, pet food formulators, and flour millers are covered by this CUN? What are the specific differences between the facilities that have

converted to alternatives versus the facilities which have not converted? How do those
differences result in the inabi lity of the remaining facilities to convert to alternatives?Reply to MBTOC Comments of February 2010 13

USG Response : The consortia included in this sector: NAMA, PFI and US Rice Federation

, represent the majority of their respective industries, about 85

– 95% of the companies belong.

As to differences between facilities that can convert to alternatives and those that have not the

main reason is primarily size. The US Rice Federation reports that t he 2

- 3X dosage of SF compared to MB, create s an exponential cost increase. (e.g. A facility t hat uses 11,000 lbs of

MB would require a potential 33,000 lbs of SF to fumigate the same space. Cost comparisons for material alone would average $88,000 versus $231,000, respectively.) Also of importance in

transition to alternatives is a ge. Newer tig hter mills with more piping can use SF more thoroughly and cost effectively than older mills. Construction design is also important . Wooden versus concrete or metal siding, and roofing are all variables to consider.

The US Rice Federation reports that c o sts are a significant factor in the ability to convert to

alternatives. Smaller mills with fewer resources are compelled to continue a practice that is

affordable to their situation and still gets the pests under control

.

7. MBTOC: The CUN indicates t his sector has an environmental concern with the use of SF. MBTOC is aware of the findings regarding the g lobal warming potential of SF. Please document the concern with using SF by providing, for example, written customer demands, regulatory requirements or other evidence of an inability to use or customer pressure against using SF on environmental grounds.

USG Response : According to PFI: In the United States, retailers are putting increased pressure

on manufacturers to reduce their environmental footp rint. For example, on February 25, 2010

Wal

- Mart announced that it wants its suppliers to eliminate “20 million metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions by the end of 2015.” Considering that scientists have determined that ProFume is 4,800 times more potent a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, use of ProFume could easily eviscerate any reductions in carbon emissions that pet food makers are able to realize (see attachment: article ProFume as a greenhouse gas ). In fact use of ProFume could potentially expand a company’s carbon footprint. Such a situation is likely to be viewed by retailers and consumers with much disapproval.

According to the Rice Federation: The rice industry is currently being market driven by

international and some national customers tha t are designing sustainability plans for their own needs and sending those down the food supply chain. One of the most basic requirements is to reduce the carbon footprint in every step of the chain. Rice producing fields are currently at a

severe disadv antage for their inability to mass

- utilize no

- till practices, and the production of GHGs. Adding another product in the same supply chain that is a climate change contributor is counterintuitive and contrary to customer requirements of reducing the carbon footprint and controlling global warming.

8. MBTOC: Our reviewers have also noted dosage rate inconsistencies in the MB request. The MB application rate for the millers in the BUNI is given as 13 g/m 3 for 2011, but as 19 g/m 3 for

2012. It is not clear why there is this difference. Also, for 2011 the nomination the rate was 19 g/m 3 when the approved rate was 17g/m 3 for the flour milling. Why does the dosage rate varyReply to MBTOC Comments of February 2010 14

across sectors and year over year? Why is the dosage rate for rice milling and pet food facilities higher than for flour milling?

USG Response : The BUNI should have been 20 g/m 3 as the rate for all structural fumigations

, and should not have changed over the years

. The dosage rate should not be higher for rice mills and pet food faciliti es. As per MBTOC's request the BUNI will be changed to reflect their request (Appendix A).

9. MBTOC: In short we find this CUN to be deficient in that the information presented is not directly relevant to pet food and rice milling, and the informatio n presented on flour milling does not recognize that sulfuryl fluoride can be effective if the dosage and temperature are correct. In fact there is considerable commercial use of SF in US flour milling sector already.

USG Response : USG disagrees with MB TOC. Although the majority of research has been

conducted in Kansas in flour mills does not mean that the information is not applicable to the other structures included in this sector. Research is expensive, and resources are limited, especially in these economic times. Many of the post

- harvest researchers are at Kansas State University and USDA has laboratory facilities located there as well. Kansas is a wheat growing state. In addition, flour mills are the bulk of this sector's request for methyl bro mide. It makes sense to conduct research in this area first. However, that does not imply that members of the pet food institute or rice millers are not also pursuing their own solutions to methyl bromide.

That said, there has been much progress to th e alternatives of methyl bromide. Alternatives are

n ot only sulfuryl fluoride, but also heat and microsanitation. The use of fogging, space, and crack and crevice treatments has greatly decreased the number of times structures are fumigated.

However man y companies desire to retain the ability to utilize methyl bromide in the event of a

difficult infestation. Eliminating such an infestation is essential to the continued food companies. Retailers and consumers would accept their products no other way than pest free.Reply to MBTOC Comments of February 2010 15

Appendix A . Revised BUNIs