USDA History of Using Irradiation as a Phytosanitary Treatment

1. USDA History of Using Irradiation as a Phytosanitary Treatment Alan Green IAEA Forum Lima, Peru November 27-30, 2012

2. Phytosanitary Treatments • Agricultural commodities may become infested with plant pests and carry these pests across borders. • Strategies to mitigate the risk from pests include field measures, inspection, and phytosanitary treatments. • Treatments include: • Fumigation– methyl bromide • Heat – hot water, steam, hot air • Cold treatment • Irradiation

3. Irradiation is a Promising Treatment • It is effective against a wide range of pests. • It has little impact on the commodity quality. • Together, these provide: • A great alternative to the use of methyl bromide. • An excellent treatment for commodities for which no treatment exists. • A simple alternative to complex systems approaches. • An attractive option for commodities that are damaged by other treatments such as heat.

4. USDA is Facilitating the Use of Irradiation • Supporting research. • Developing regulations, policies, agreements, and standards. • Establishing programs in the US and overseas.

5. Regulations • October 23, 2002: Overall requirements for irradiation as a quarantine treatment (Closely followed ISPM 18) • January 27, 2006: Established generic doses for all insects (400 Gy) and for fruit flies (150 Gy). • 2007-Present: • Approval of importation of irradiated fruit from several countries. • Establish pest specific doses.

6. Relative Tolerance to Irradiation • High tolerance • Apple, cherry date, guava, longan, cantaloupe, nectarine, papaya, rambutan, raspberry, strawberry, tomato • Medium tolerance • Apricot, banana, cherimoya, fig, grapefruit, kumquat, loquat, litchi, orange, passion fruit, pear, pineapple, plum, tangelo, tangerine • Low tolerance • Avocado, cucumber, grape, green bean, lemon

7. Regulations: Required Doses (Gy)

8. Policies and Agreements: FEWP • Irradiation Treatment Framework Equivalency Workplan (FEWP). • Establishes a bilateral agreement between importing and exporting country. • Sets fundamental requirements to allow the use of irradiation for phytosanitary treatments. • Requires implementation of regulations for irradiation of agricultural commodities. • Provides for reciprocal trade in irradiated agricultural commodities. • 10 Countries have signed the Framework Agreement.

9. Countries That Have Signed the FEWP • Peru • Philippines • India • Thailand • Viet Nam • Malaysia • South Africa • Mexico • Pakistan • Laos

10. Other documents required by USDA • Operational (preclearance) work plan • Field pest risk mitigations (good agricultural practices) • Preclearance inspection procedures • Dosimetry systems • Treatment verification process • Post treatment safeguarding • Product labeling

11. Operational Programs Preclearance– Treatment of foreign origin commodities in the country of origin. Port of entry– Treatment of foreign origin commodities in the U.S. • Key program components: • Inspection • Dose validation • Treatment oversight • Safeguarding • Documentation

12. Program History • 2000 Hawaii: • Hawaii Pride facility opens on the Island of Hawaii. • Papaya, Sweet Potatoes, Longans, Carambola, etc… • 2007 India: • KRUSHK facility certified in April 2007. • Alfonso Mangoes. • 2007 Thailand: • Thai Irradiation Center (TIC) certified October 2007. • Isotron Thailand certified March 2008. • Mangoes, Mangosteens, Lychees, Longans, Rambutans, Pineapples.

13. Program History (cont) • 2008 Viet Nam: • Son Son Corporation certified August 2008. • An Phu Irradiation JSC certified July 2009. • Dragon Fruit. • 2008 Mexico: • Sterigenics certified Sept 2008. • Benebion 2011 • Guavas, Mangoes, Citrus, Chile Manzano, etc… • 2009 Mainland US: • Sadex certified November 2009. • FTSI certified March 2011. • Various commodities for import and export.

14. Regulations: Eligible Commodities

15. Program Highlights • More than 40 million Kg of fruit treated to date. • Products have been well received, no known cases of consumer rejection due to treatment. • Opened new markets for at least 12 commodities. • No treatment failures. • No pest finds.

16. Export Volumes: 2010

17. Export Volumes: 2011

18. Export Volumes: 2012

19. Program Highlights: Mexico • Mexico has led the programs in treatment volumes. • Steady increase over time. • Key reasons for success: • Well established fruit industry. • Multiple commodities. • Good logistics. • Low transit costs to the US. • Well managed irradiation facility. • Good market for the fruit in the US. • Lower USDA program costs.

20. Future Expansion of Programs • First Port of Entry Program: Mangoes from Pakistan began June 2011. • Import/ export facilities in the US: • Gulfport, MS– Expected 2013. • US / Mexico border – several potential facilities. • Preclearance programs expected: • South Africa • Malaysia • Peru, Brazil, Philippines soon???

21. Export Program Future: USA Peaches to Mexico • Peach growers in the Southeast U.S. have been looking for an effective mitigation for export of peaches to Mexico for several years. • USDA worked with the peach growers, irradiation industry, and Chapman University to conduct quality and feasibility studies. • Peach quality was minimally impacted after irradiation at 1000 Gy. • Peach exports to Mexico expected to begin in June 2011.

22. Looking Forward: Challenges and Areas for Improvement • Inefficient supply chain/ logistics. • Lack of economy of scale. • Commodity Output • Cost of USDA programs. • Regulatory restraints. • Fruit quality.

23. Logistics and Handling Improvements • Locate irradiation facilities near ports and commodity growing areas. • Design and build product specific facilities to meet the needs of the fruit industry. • Standardize packaging to minimize costs associated with repeated dose mapping. • Create centralized commodity inspection centers.

24. Increase Program Scale • Program costs should be considered on per unit basis: Cost per box or cost per Kg. • The more fruit treated, the lower the cost per unit. • Increase the number of commodities eligible for treatment. • Increase the volume of fruit treated. • Condense shipping season based on seasonality of fruit

25. Potential Programmatic Changes • USDA programs can be expensive: • By law, full cost recovery for inspector to be stationed overseas is required. • Use Foreign Service Nationals or officers of the plant protection organization of the country of origin. • Delegate some oversight responsibilities to facilities. • Accreditation of third party inspectors or auditors. • Treatment in the U.S.

26. Next 10 Years– Big Picture Ideas • Multilateral agreement that replaces current FEWP and workplan structure. • Harmonization of program requirements. • Oversight by country of origin NPPO or accredited entity • Mutually accepted training. • Increased trade in irradiated products between parties. • New or Re-fitted irradiators in US cities like Newark, Chicago, Seattle, or near the Mexican Border

27. Conclusions • USDA support the use of irradiation for phytosanitary treatments! • Use of irradiation has increased steadily in the last 10 years and is expanding at an ever increasing rate. • Opportunities for improvement exist, USDA is working with the fruit and irradiation industry to take advantage of these opportunities. • We welcome input and suggestions for improvement.