Pesticide Flap Threatened Crucial Deal : NAFTA: Kantor’s ‘misleading’ letter to growers put accord with Florida delegation in jeopardy. The issue riled environmentalists.

In the final hours before the roll was called on the North American Free Trade Agreement, senior Clinton Administration officials scrambled to defuse an uproar over a powerful pesticide before the controversy could unravel a key deal with members of Congress.

The last-minute flurry over the chemical methyl bromide--one of the most widely used agricultural pesticides and a potentially serious contributor to destruction of the ozone layer--provides a window into the sometimes messy process by which deals are cut between the Administration and members of Congress. The incident also illustrates how quickly, in the highly charged atmosphere of a legislative battle, even obscure issues can threaten to become major political embarrassments.

The methyl bromide battle began last week when U.S. Trade Representative Mickey Kantor said in a letter to Florida fruit and vegetable growers that “there will not be any restriction on the manufacture or use” of the chemical until the year 2000. The promise was part of an overall package that the Administration offered the fruit and vegetable growers to win the state delegation’s votes for the trade agreement.

The letter did not come to light until Tuesday when officials of the agricultural group met with members of the delegation.

Then the brouhaha began.

Under the so-called Montreal Protocol, which is designed to eliminate ozone-threatening chemicals, the government is pledged to freeze production of methyl bromide at 1991 levels beginning in January and to eliminate use of the chemical after the year 2000. Kantor’s letter seemed to many, including the growers, to suggest that the production freeze, at least, might not happen.

By Wednesday morning, the environmentalists were in full battle cry. Greenpeace and others accused the Administration of selling out a major environmental agreement for the sake of winning votes. The fact that methyl bromide is manufactured in Arkansas only added more fuel to the fire.

As fax machines hummed across town, lobbyists for the environmentalists, the growers and the chemical industry hastened to call reporters. Administration officials, fearing that they were about to be accused of having betrayed the environment, spent much of the day trying to figure out what had happened, then did their best to back away, insisting that they had not meant to change the policy.

EPA chief Carol Browner personally called leaders of environmental groups to promise them that nothing had changed, while other officials called reporters in an effort to quell the uproar.

The letter, Kantor’s spokesman Anne Luzzatto said, was “an awkward attempt” to explain the Administration’s position. It was “admittedly misleading,” she said, but actually “there was absolutely no attempt to do anything.”

Methyl bromide is a fumigant widely used to clear both fungus and bugs from land before crops are planted. It is also commonly used to fumigate the holds of ships and the containers of trucks before fruits and vegetables are loaded off them. In 1990, the chemical was the third-most applied pesticide in California, according to Richard Wiles of the Environmental Working Group. It is also heavily used in Florida by growers of tomatoes, strawberries, cucumbers and other vegetables.

Unfortunately, methyl bromide also has a powerful effect on ozone--the compound that serves as a filter in the upper atmosphere to screen out cancer-causing ultraviolet radiation. Because of its danger to the ozone layer, the United States and other nations agreed in the Montreal treaty to eliminate use of the chemical by the end of the decade.

Methyl bromide also can be toxic and is suspected of causing both cancers and reproductive damage in humans who are exposed to it--primarily agricultural workers--and for that reason it is also subject to a separate phase-out order by the state of California.

Last March, the EPA issued a proposed rule to eliminate methyl bromide in accordance with the provisions of the Montreal agreement. Growers hotly objected, complaining that they have no available substitute. Agriculture Secretary Mike Espy and others weighed in on the growers’ behalf and the proposed rule is now being reviewed by the White House Office of Management and Budget.

Last month, the EPA settled a lawsuit brought by the Natural Resources Defense Council by promising to issue a final rule on methyl bromide by the end of this month.

That was where matters stood when Kantor’s deputy, Rufus Yerxa, began negotiations with the Florida growers.

The growers sought reassurances on a host of issues--from imports of tomatoes and bell peppers to the appointment of their members to seats on little-known government advisory panels. Among their complaints was the proposal to eliminate methyl bromide.

Kantor’s letter was the answer. Officials at the White House and Kantor’s office insisted that the letter was merely an attempt to outline existing policy--that the chemical would be eliminated after 2000 and not before. There is no contradiction between planning to freeze production and promising no “restriction on the manufacture,” they said, because current production is below 1991 levels already.

And why would the growers want a letter that promised nothing the Administration was not already planning to do? “Lots of times, all people really want is a promise that you will do your best,” a senior White House official said.

As for the growers, what they really wanted, said spokesman Michael O’Hara, was another part of Kantor’s letter that promised federal money to support research into finding a substitute for methyl bromide.

“We don’t object to the fact that methyl bromide is going to be phased out,” O’Hara said. “We just want some protection.”