Assessment of potential impacts from the elimination of methyl bromide in the fruit and vegetable trade

HortScience

Volumn 33, Issue 5, 1998, Pages 794-797

  Julian, James W ^a   Sullivan, Glenn H ^a   Weller, Stephen C ^a  

^a PURDUE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0031905532     PISSN: 00185345     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.21273/hortsci.33.5.794     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. Bailey, R.A. 1995. Methyl bromide phase-out and its impact. Agriculture and rural development technical services project. U.S. Dept. Agr., Washington, D.C. (unpublished AID LAC TECH report).
2. Beever, D.J., C.W. Yearsley, and M.G. Hogg. 1985. Effect of post-harvest fumigation on quality of asparagus spears. N.Z. J. Agr. Res. 28:537-543.
3. Chakrabarti, B. and C.H. Bell. 1993. The methyl bromide issue, p. 992-995. In: Chemistry and industry. 20 Dec. 1993.
4. Ferguson, W. and Armand Padula. 1994. Economic effects of banning methyl bromide for soil fumigation. U.S. Dept. Agr. Econ. Res. Serv., Agr. Econ. Rpt. No. 677.
5. Forsythe, K.W. and P. Evangelou. 1994. Cost benefit of irradiation versus methyl bromide fumigation for disinfestation of U.S. fruit and vegetable imports. U.S. Dept. Agr. Econ. Res. Serv., Staff Rpt. No. AGES 9412.
6. Hathaway, J. and J. Giudice. 1996. Methyl bromide replacement strategies. Arizona Dept. Environ. Quality, Phoenix. OFR 96-12. June 1996.
7. McDowell, H. and S. Martinez. 1994. Environmental and sanitary and phytosanitary issues for Western Hemisphere agriculture, p. 73-80. In: Western Hemisphere/WRS-94-2/June 1994.
8. Ross, R.T. and P.V. Vail. 1993. Recent actions taken on methyl bromide under the Montreal Protocol: Their potential economic implications on international trade, p. 139-154. In: Proc. Intl. Symp. on Cost-benefit Aspects of Food Irradiation Processing. Intl. Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, 1993.
9. Sullivan, G.H., R.N. Williams, and V. Salguero. 1996. Leaf miner technical assistance request for infestation in Guatemalan snowpea shipments. USAID IPM CRSP. Washington, D.C. (unpublished IPM CRSP report).
10. Tuszynski, C. and J. Grimes. 1990. Economic impact of losing methyl bromide as a quarantine treatment for nine selected commodities. Natl. Agr. Pesticide Impact Assessment Program, U.S. Dept. Agr., Nov. 1990 (unpublished Policy and Program Development Policy Analysis and Development Staff report).
11. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Animal and plant health inspection service. 1994. Plant protection and quarantine treatment manual, interim ed. U.S. Dept. Agr., Washington, D.C.
12. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Animal and plant health inspection service. 1996. Plant import: Nonpropagative manuals, 4th ed. U.S. Dept. Agr., Washington, D.C.
13. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1995. Alternatives to methyl bromide: Ten case studies. July. EPA430-R-95-009.
14. U.S. General Accounting Office. 1995. The phase-out of methyl bromide in the United States. Dec. GAO/RCED-96-16.
15. White, J. (ed.). 1994. After methyl bromide: No easy answer. California Agr. 48(3):7-9.
16. Yarkin, C., D. Sunding, D. Zilberman, and J. Siebert. 1994. Canceling methyl bromide for post harvest use to trigger mixed economic results. California Agr. 48(3):16-21.