MBTOC SC Questions - US Response March 2011 Page 1

RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS FROM MBTOC SC ON 2011 

CUNS FOR USE IN 2013 – UNITED STATES 

Received from MBTOC February 25, 2011

Regulatory Issues

MBTOC Question 

1. One important and cross-cutting issue raised in all the reviews of postharvest CUNs concerns the 

proposed regulatory change for SF. We fully recognize that this domestic regulatory issue is entirely 

the purview of the USG. MBTOC members have, however, raised numerous questions. Members 

have asked how or if this proposed regulation will become law and when, what is the timeline for 

removing SF from use in various commodities and sectors, the implications for SF use during the

transition period, and the implication to increase MB use. 

USG Response

It is unknown at this time when and if this proposed regulation will become law. However, sulfuryl 

fluoride is currently registered for the post-harvest uses included in this CUN, and therefore remains a 

methyl bromide alternative. 

MBTOC Question 

2. Another concern is what the USG will do when PH3 resistant pests are found in commodities? For 

example, does USG anticipate submitting a CUN based on control of resistant pests?

USG Response

Should data be provided verifying phosphine resistance in stored product pests for the CUE uses, and 

should sulfuryl fluoride not be available, then the USG may adjust the CUE request. 

MBTOC has received some information on these issues from the SF supplier and user groups but really 

they need to hear the information from the government. It is possible that USG might not be able to 

answer these questions at this time, but they were raised, and so I am raising them here. 

MBTOC is also charged with reviewing the economics of battling pest infestations in stored commodities 

and food processing structures and is very concerned about the economics of damage, waste and food 

safety lapses that can be caused by infestation and subsequent affect on the returns to an industry. Thus, 

the proposed loss of SF to this sector is a concern to us. 

MBTOC Question 

3. How will research projects be affected by the proposed SF regulation?

USG Response

The proposed SF regulation would likely eliminate incentive for academic and government researchers to 

solicit federal- and state-financed grant opportunities with research to advance the use of SF on 

foodstuffs. Ongoing research projects, at least with the USDA-ARS in places like Parlier, California, 

would likely rely solely on industry funding and limited appropriated funds. 

MBTOC Question 

4. Additionally, since other Parties have Emergency Use provisions in domestic regulation, MBTOC 

members may assume that this is also true of the US. USG might want to explain the American laws 
MBTOC SC Questions - US Response March 2011 Page 2

and regulations concerning Emergency uses to members. It might affect CUN recommendations if 

members think that Emergency Use provisions might be used, so it would be best if the situation was 

clear. 

USG Response

The US has considered the issue of an emergency rule, but at this time there is no process in place. 

US Commodities CUN

MBTOC notes the significant decrease (-66%) in volume of MB requested for 2013 in transition from 

2012 baseline. 

MBTOC Question 

5. The review team compared the US CUN Table 2 from 2010, versus the US CUN Table 2 from 2011, 

and found differences in the intended dosage rates for all three commodity elements. Appendix A 

shows the two tables for ease of reference. What is the reason for the change in dosage rates, or has 

an error been made in the CUN13 Table 2?

USG Response

MBTOC is correct there were inconsistencies in the tables provided. The U.S. has attached an updated 

table. 

CORRECTED NOMINATION AMOUNT – FOR COMMODITIES

MBTOC Question 

6. The CUN notes that more time is needed to allow transition to the use of alternatives, specifically 

mentioning the need to purchase equipment, build or retrofit fumigation chambers etc (CUN Section 

2, page 4). The 2011 CUN requests MB for 2013, which should mean that there are two intervening 

years for equipment purchases. Please provide details of the annual equipment purchases, building 

or retrofitting of chambers accomplished each year and expected purchases, building retrofitting etc 

is required each year to accomplish total phase out in dried fruit sector particularly. 

 California 

Dried Plum 

Board 

 California 

Walnut 

Commission 

 California Date 

Commission 

 Sector Total / 

Average 

Quantity Requested for 2012: Amount (kgs) 3,317 527 1,063 4,907

Quantity Recommended by 

MBTOC/TEAP for 2012 :

Amount (kgs) 829 527 1,063 2,419

Amount (kgs) 829 527 1,063 2,419

Volume (1000 m3) 36 11 51 98

Rate 23 48 21 31

Transition from 2012 Baseline 

Adjusted Value

Percentage (%) -66% -66% -66% -66%

Amount (kgs) 282 179 361 822

Volume (1000 m3) 12 4 17 33

Rate 23 48 21 31

Quantity Required for 

2013 Nomination:

Quantity Approved by Parties for 

2012:

SECTOR

COMMODITIES
MBTOC SC Questions - US Response March 2011 Page 3

USG Response

As MBTOC has indicated any equipment purchases for the transition of commodities to alternatives will 

take place in 2012 and 2013. The USG hopes that applicants will make this information available in the 

coming years. At this time no specific information on anticipated equipment purchases is available. The 

USG hopes that during a public comment period on sulfuryl fluoride that this information will become 

available.

MBTOC Question 

7. Is the research of Dr. Walse on pest control with SF in dates ongoing? (See also question on research 

in regulatory questions above.)

USG Response

Research on postharvest methyl bromide alternatives for pest control is ongoing in Dr. Walse’s 

laboratory. Work continues with SF on dates, dried fruit, and walnuts with a specific focus on 

overcoming ovicidal deficiencies and understanding residue formation. Work also continues with “Horn” 

phosphine on dates, fresh and dried fruits, nuts, rice, and a variety of other stored products with focus on 

filling the void in efficacy data for US pests, shortening exposure times, and enhancing the overall 

toxicity/minimizing resistance. 

MBTOC Question 

8. Aside from the regulatory issues mentioned above, we have heard that the EU has either changed or 

revoked the tolerance for F residues resulting from SF use on in-shell walnuts. We do not know if 

this is having, or will have, repercussions for the use of SF on walnuts for shipment to the EU holiday 

market. Could USG please inform us if the EU has changed F residue tolerances and whether this 

has impacted the demand for MB by the walnut sector?

USG Response

USG notes the recent EU Directive but does not know if the EU has changed the tolerance levels of 

fluoride at this time, nor what the impact on future trade will be. It is possible that these uses fall under 

QPS. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2010:154:0021:0023:EN:PDF

MBTOC Question 

9. Additionally, members have raised examples where there may have been mistakes in the CUN, and the 

USG may want to fix these to improve our ability to understand the CUN. For example (1), last para 

on page 9 repeats "four hours for fumigation" when we think you mean 4 hours for fumigation and 4 

hours for ventilating, off gassing, unloading and reloading chamber. (Correct?)

USG Response

MBTOC is correct that the document should have listed 4 hours for fumigation and 4 hours for 

ventilating, etc. 

MBTOC Question 

10. Example (2), table 6 has two lines for production, the one in MT shows 464,270 equaling 

349,284,269 kg. 

USG Response

MBTOC is correct there were inconsistencies in the tables. The corrected table is shown below. 

Table 6. Summary information on dried fruit industry and methyl bromide

Production and Value 

Commodity Metric Tons Produced per Year 1 448,370
MBTOC SC Questions - US Response March 2011 Page 4

Commodity Kilograms Produced per Year 448,371,500

Total Annual Gross Revenue 2 $ 535,434,200

MeBr Granted 

MeBr Granted by Parties 2012 (kg) 829

Commodity Treated with 2012 Granted MeBr (cu m) 3 34,502

1 Four year average from USDA NASS, 2005-2008.

2 Based on four-year average of combined total crop values, 2005-2008

3 Based on use rate of 1.5 lbs per 1,000 cubic feet, 24 kgs per 1,000 cubic meters.

MBTOC Question 

11. Example (3), line 13 of table 7 shows the cost difference vs MB is (3,716) [13,646 - 17,363 from line 

12] for SF corresponding to a lower cost for SF. So why is the phosphine value 3,932 also in 

parentheses which indicates a cost savings when the calculation is a higher cost compared to MB? 

This illustration is applied the full investment cost of phosphine chambers in one year. At that rate it 

would take 9 years to recover the additional investment cost for phosphine chambers. USG may wish 

to comment. 

USG Response

MBTOC is correct there were inconsistencies in the tables. The corrected table is shown below. This 

analysis only applies to commodity treated with methyl bromide, as part of the CUE, therefore the time 

would not be nine years. It is assumed the $20,000 investment could be made in one year. 

Table 7. Analysis of transition to alternatives for dried fruit treated with methyl bromide 

 

 

Methyl 

Bromide 

Sulfuryl 

Fluoride 

Phosphine 

1 Cubic meters treated with 2012 granted MeBr 1 34,502 34,502 34,502

2 Capacity of fumigation chamber (cu m) 1 125 125 125

3 Time available to fumigate (days) 2 365 365 365

4 One day capacity of each chamber (cu m) 3 na na 31

5 Total chambers needed 3 0 0 4

6 Total Cost of Fumigation Chambers (@ $5,000 each) 1 $ - $ - $ 20,000

7 Cost difference between MeBr and alternative $ - $ 20,000

8 Total gas for cubic feet needing fumigation (kgs) 1 829 1,105 138

9 Price of fumigant gas ($ / kg) $ 20.94 $ 12.35 $ 9.37 

10 Total cost of fumigant gas ($) $ 17,363 $ 13,646 $ 1,295

11 Cost difference between MeBr and alternative $ (3,716) $ (16,068)

12 Total cost of fumigation space and fumigant $ 17,363 $ 13,646 $ 21,295

13 Total cost difference between MeBr and alternative $ (3,716) $ 3,932

14 Cost difference as % of revenue 0.00% 0.00%

1 See notes for this Line from Table 5. 

2 Assumes that fumigation occurs year-round; no time constraint.

3 No chambers are needed for methyl bromide and sulfuryl fluoride because they can be used in existing 

storage facilities. Chambers are only needed for phosphine because it is corrosive to electrical equipment. 
MBTOC SC Questions - US Response March 2011 Page 5

US CUN Structures

MBTOC Question 

12. The CUN nominates 4.665 tonnes for pet food facilities. While acknowledging a very laudable 66% 

reduction for the 2013 nomination over the 2012 amount, MBTOC was surprised to have any 

nomination for pet food at all. Correspondence obtained last year between the US NPMA and 

USEPA explaining a new interpretation on inadvertent fumigation during SF fumigation seemed to 

result in the withdrawal of the NPMA from the CUN process. We assumed that pet food facilities 

were essentially the same and that the interpretation and new guidance for inadvertent fumigation 

would also apply to them. 

USG Response

The Pet Food industry has received specific guidance from the EPA on the use of sulfuryl fluoride that 

they should avoid any uses that might lead to inadvertent residues. The EPA reply to NPMA did not 

address the use on pet food. 

MBTOC Question 

13. Could USG please explain the differences between food processing and pet food processing facilities 

that results in the need for pet food facilities to continue to nominate MB? MBTOC notes the CUN 

(page 5) cites Holcomb and McLean (2010) showing 5 yr pest control success with IPM without 

fumigation. 

USG Response

There is little difference between food processing facilities and pet food processing facilities with regards 

to computer and manufacturing equipment and the pests. However, pet food is not a commodity that may 

be directly fumigated on the ProFume® label, therefore, that industry has more legal constraints when 

using that alternative. While the CUN cites the success of Holcomb and McLean as presented at the 2010 

MBAO, the USG is not aware of other consultants having their level of success with IPM. In addition, 

USG is aware that facilities need fumigations after major weather events such as flooding and the 

resulting large influx of insect pests. 

MBTOC Question 

14. The CUN, Section 2, pages 4-5 are essentially the same as Section 2, in the 2010 CUN (with the 

exception of the SF regulatory note). What is the percentage breakdown of the adoption of SF versus 

heat treatment or other treatments in each sector? What is the rate of adoption of alternatives in 

each sector? Can USG provide data on the percentage of adoption of alternatives achieved by each 

sector per year? What barriers remain to the continued adoption of alternatives in each sector? This 

will assist us to understand transition rates and requirements.

USG Response

The USG does not track the adoption of specific methyl bromide alternatives for these uses. 

MBTOC Question 

15. As noted in the Regulatory Issues section above, MBTOC is concerned about the possible effect of the 

proposed phase out of SF in this sector. Section 2, Page 5 of the CUN notes that 25% of flour mills 

are thought to be unable to use heat treatment due to wood construction. Is more information 

available about the number of mills and mill volume that are wood construction? Does USG contend 

that this 25% of mills constitutes an eventual baseline of MB use in this sector?

USG Response
MBTOC SC Questions - US Response March 2011 Page 6

No more information is available concerning the number of wooden mills and their specific pest control 

procedures, volume, or production. At this time the USG does not know if this would constitute a lower 

bound on the use of methyl bromide. More information may be received during the public comment 

period for sulfuryl fluoride.

CORRECTED NOMINATION AMOUNT – FOR STRUCTURES – FOOD PROCESSORS

US CUN Cured Pork

MBTOC appreciates the detailed reporting and analysis of research in this sector and notes that ensuring 

ongoing research is key to both supporting a CUN and resolving the difficult problems faced by the cured 

pork sector.

MBTOC Question 

16. IPM enhancements may be the only avenue available to controlling pests in this sector. Research 

that focuses on an evaluation of practical IPM enhancements may be needed to allow reductions in 

MB use. Most meat processing facilities would incorporate pest control in a HACCP plan, so, the 

term IPM is not commonly used in meat processing. But, Southern cured pork seems to be a different 

scenario. MBTOC wants to know specifically what IPM changes have been tried and found to be 

ineffective in this sector. 

USG Response

IPM has been incorporated into the pest management programs of meat processing facilities for a number 

of years. IPM is a part of the decision-making process that requires the country ham manager to have a 

thorough knowledge of the commodity, structure and pest situation such that pest levels and commodity 

quality can be monitored regularly, and then decisions can be made when "control" is needed. Their goal 

has been to find an efficacious and realistic substitute for the country ham industry once there is 

absolutely no methyl bromide to use to control mites.

MBTOC may recall the discussions by the researchers regarding sanitation in and around aging houses 

from the 2006 MBAO. While optimizing sanitation appears to increase the time period between 

infestations, it has been ineffective at preventing infestations. One other IPM note, facilities are now 

fumigating only when infestations are present. Some plants used to schedule fumigations at different 

 Rice Millers Pet Food 

Institute 

 North American 

Millers 

 Sector Total / 

Average 

Quantity Requested for 2012: Amount (kgs) 14,511 13,722 107,066 135,299

Quantity Recommended by 

MBTOC/TEAP for 2012 :

Amount (kgs) 7,256 13,722 53,533 74,511

Amount (kgs) 7,256 13,722 53,533 74,511

Volume (1000 m3) 726 745 8,459 9,930

Rate 20 18 19 19

Transition from 2012 Baseline 

Adjusted Value

Percentage (%) -66% -66% -66% -66%

Amount (kgs) 2,467 4,665 18,201 25,334

Volume (1000 m3) 123 259 958 1340

Rate 20 18 19 19

SECTOR

Quantity Approved by Parties for 

2012:

STRUCTURES

Quantity Required for 

2013 Nomination:
MBTOC SC Questions - US Response March 2011 Page 7

times throughout the year to ensure that there were no infestations even if they did not see any pests on 

the product. Now, plants fumigate only when they see pests on their product.

MBTOC Question 

17. Are there elements of the multi-state cured pork research plan which test and evaluates IMP elements 

specifically designed for cured pork establishments? Please also refer to comments in Research CUN 

concerning cured pork sector.

USG Response

The USG has received information to indicate that future research funding requests will include IPM 

along with development of commercial-scale fumigation of ham houses with PH3. There has been a great 

deal of work with trapping and other pest monitoring in post harvest systems other than dried meats, and 

this would be a logical next step.

CORRECTED NOMINATION AMOUNT – FOR DRIED, CURED PORK PRODUCTS

US CUN Research Amounts – Cured Pork element

MBTOC Question 

18. This CUN nominates 1.220 tonnes of MB for research in cured pork sector. This nomination 

represents an additional 32% of the total CUN for cured pork (3.730 tonnes). This nominated volume 

is so high that MBTOC feels certain it must be a mistake of at least one decimal point or more. Could 

USG please check the nomination and correct it?

USG Response

The correct amount is 45.5 kg.

MBTOC Question 

19. Regardless of the nominated volume, this CUN is unsupported by a research plan for the use of the 

MB and it must be supported before MBTOC can consider it. The citation of Decision IX/6 is 

insufficiently supportive of this CUN. MBTOC cannot proceed with an evaluation of the research 

CUN without information on the research plan. Will this research be part of the multi-state research 

program that has been ongoing in this sector?

USG Response

 Gwaltney of 

Smithfield 

 National 

Country Ham 

Association 

 Nahunta Pork 

Center 

 American 

Assoc. of Meat 

Processors 

 Sector Total / 

Average 

Quantity Requested for 2012: Amount (kgs) 726 709 91 2,204 3,730

Quantity Recommended by 

MBTOC/TEAP for 2012 :

Amount (kgs) 726 709 91 2,204 3,730

Amount (kgs) 726 709 91 2,204 3,730

Volume (1000 m3) 56 42 5 110 213

Rate 13 17 18 20 17

Transition from 2012 Baseline 

Adjusted Value

Percentage (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Amount (kgs) 726 709 9 1 2,204 3,730

Volume (1000 m3) 56 42 5 110 213

Rate 13 17 18 20 17

SECTOR

HAM

Quantity Approved by Parties for 

2012:

Quantity Required for 

2013 Nomination:
MBTOC SC Questions - US Response March 2011 Page 8

The U.S. researchers are very active and have planned to conduct 3 trailer size tests in 2011 to see if 

phosphine can control pests as mites and skippers. 

In 2012 and 2013, research will progress in two phases. 

In Phase One, methyl bromide will be applied in shipping containers (most likely at Universities) to 

compare its effectiveness to phosphine and other potential alternatives against ham mites, red-legged ham 

beetles or other arthropod pests. The shipping containers will be approximately 100 cubic meters, so 

about 2-3 kg per fumigation will be required.. 

In Phase Two, dry cured ham plants will be fumigated if it has been determined that an alternative could 

possibly be effective at the plant level. At this stage, methyl bromide and the potential alternatives will be 

applied in different aging rooms in plants to compare their effectiveness against pests and their effect on 

quality and safety of the product. Larger spaces than shipping containers will be fumigated. Three 

replications twice per year or twice over two years are anticipated, depending on results.

MBTOC Question 

20. It might help if MBTOC understood what will happen to the remaining amount of MB if 

Parties were to grant the US an amount of MB for research, and the MB is not used for 

research in cured pork.

USG Response

EPA does not believe this will be a concern given the corrected amount requested for research. 

However,u nder the USG allocation process any amount of methyl bromide that is not used in a 

given calendar year is subtracted off from the amount of new production from the following 

year.