A Scientific Perspective

[Guest guest]

A Scientific Perspective: Expert Voices Opinion on Phytosanitary

Challenges And Standards

http://www.palletenterprise.com/articledatabase/view.asp?

articleID=1900

By Chaille Brindley

Date Posted: 3/1/2006

Ashland,VA

Several years ago, most pallet companies and lumber producers

had never heard of the word, " phytosanitary. " Now, it is hard to

escape it for those dealing with solid wood packaging. Plant health

and the concern over invasive species have led to the development of

a voluntary international standard.

The science behind current plant health standards is anything

but easy. It requires in-depth knowledge of biology, entomology and

treatment methods. Then you throw in economics and international

diplomacy. All of this creates

a potentially difficult situation, but scientists, governments and

industry around the world appear to be rising to the occasion.

One of the scientific minds in the middle of the issue is Dr.

with the Pacific Forestry Centre in Canada. Dr. has

been involved as a member of the International Forestry Quarantine

Research Group. He has helped pioneer the development of current

heat treatment requirements and is researching issues that will

impact the next generation of phytosanitary standards.

Staff from the Pallet Enterprise had the pleasure of meeting Dr.

in , British Columbia at the recent Interpal meeting.

A full scale interview was conducted over the phone. It covers

issues like the legal challenges to the U.S. standard, emerging

technologies, the debarking debate, and the scientific basis for

current treating methods. Enjoy the following insights from one of

the most thoughtful scientific voices on the global phytosanitary

issue.

Pallet Enterprise: Environmental groups and state government have

criticized the current approved treatment methods claiming that they

are not 100% effective. I understand that you were particularly

involved in developing the 56/30 heat treatment standard. Please

respond to the critics of the current methods and explain how

scientists came up with them.

: Scientists developed the heat treatment standard for

wood packaging after looking at literature about various processes

and conducting additional research. There is never enough

information when it comes to science. But the body of evidence

substantiated that we would be able to kill most insect and fungal

species with the 56 degrees Celsius for 30 minutes (56/30) heat

treatment standard.

The purpose of the standard was never to kill everything but to

reduce risk. There is a balance achieved between treatment

effectiveness and economic concerns. And of course, if a treatment

method is improperly applied, it will

not be as effective as if it were done

correctly.

What is a good enough job? Well, the adopted standard

significantly reduces the risk of pests moving around the world.

This includes the major pest risks, such as the pinewood nematode

and the Asian longhorned beetle.

Pallet Enterprise: Critics of the current standard claim that some

pests can deep burrow into the wood and survive despite treatment.

Is this a significant concern?

: Remember, 56/30 is the temperature to be reached in the

core of the wood. The outer body of wood is treated at a higher

temperature for a longer period of time to get the core to the

correct temperature. So the bug can't escape us. The 56/30 treatment

method completely solves the problem of deep wood boring organisms.

When it comes to fumigation with methyl bromide, the chemical

penetrates well to about four inches from the outside of the wood.

Therefore the maximum effective size of lumber is 8 inches thick,

but most wood packaging is of a much smaller dimension.

Pallet Enterprise: Has anyone developed ways to get around the

environmental concerns associated with methyl bromide?

: Brazil has developed fairly sophisticated methyl

bromide recovery systems. The chemical is collected, reused and not

released to the outside environment. Methyl bromide fumigation has

become fairly commonplace in South America. The industry down there

has worked to pioneer safer technologies for methyl bromide since it

depends on chemical use so much.

Pallet Enterprise: What makes the global phytosanitary issue so

difficult to manage?

: Invasive species is a global problem. Because it is a

global problem, you have to have a global solution for it. The wood

packaging issue is a test case for developing truly global standards

on a complex economic and scientific issue. I have been trying to

think of things in the world that are standardized, and there aren't

that many. The measurement of time is in global use, and thankfully

there are well accepted international standards on commercial

aircraft!

Pallet Enterprise: What are some emerging treatment enhancements or

new technologies that may impact the market in the future?

: Scientists and researchers have been looking at a broad

range of emerging treatment technology. These include:

radiation/microwave, additional fumigants, and modified atmosphere.

Researchers in Italy are doing experiments with microwaves that look

very promising right now.

The International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) is the

regulatory body for global plant health standards. And it has

created a technical panel to develop criteria for evaluating

emerging technology. You can't just say that this treatment method

kills this one pest and so it will kill everything. Tree species

have different densities. You have to test to prove that a method is

effective against many different pests in various tree species.

While you can't test everything, experts are trying to decide what

must be proven before a treatment method can be approved by the IPPC.

Pallet Enterprise: Some in the industry have raised the issue of

mold on wood packaging. Is mold a phyto­sanitary issue worth being

considered when it comes to invasive species?

: Mold is a point of confusion among some people. The

phytosanitary standard deals with plant health risk and most mold

fungi are of little to no risk to plants and trees.

Lumber is susceptible to colorization of mold fungi. This is a

quality or appearance issue that wood has to deal with, but it is

not necessarily a phytosanitary concern.

Pallet Enterprise: What is your opinion on the bark issue? What is

likely to happen?

: There are at least ten studies going on right now

around the world on this issue. The main concern is whether or not

wood with bark can be re-infested after treatement. Actually, this

is a misnomer; it should be called secondary infestation because re-

infestation assumes that the wood packaging was infested originally

before treatment. This is difficult if not impossible to prove.

The International Forestry Quarantine Research Group (IFQRG) met

in December to review the available scientific data and arrived at

two main conclusions. Simply put, wood with bark treated under ISPM-

15 requirements could be infested by pests that are of phytosanitary

concern. However, when wood packaging at ports was examined, a

relatively low percentage of treated material with bark was found to

harbor pests. More details of this analysis are posted on the IFQRG

website (www.forestry-quarantine.org). The research group also

considered additional research that could help clarify the debarking

issue.

Pallet Enterprise: Why has there been so much controversy over the

science involved in the debarking debate?

: Studies have been done in a range of different

conditions from outside in forested areas to lab settings. Research

is limited by time, money, biology and other factors. None of the

studies were done using solid wood packaging sitting in a barren

dockyard. Some have criticized the research because it does not

reflect real world conditions. Well, those who outright dismiss

these studies could miss valuable lessons that we could learn from

them.

You can always find something that doesn't seem adequate in

scientific research.

Pallet Enterprise: Does the debarking issue really come down to a

matter of science or politics?

: I don't know the answer to this. Who really decides

what happens? I guess that countries decide what to do and then

negotiate with each other. There is no judge and jury.

Scientists met in December to evaluate the scientific data on

the debarking issue. We have attempted to provide a summary of

scientific info and not provide clear-cut phytosanitary advice or

develop policy. That job is left to the National Plant Protection

Agencies of individual countries. The big-picture analysis of the

debarking question will also be looked at by the Technical Panel on

Forestry Quarantine, an official panel of the International Plant

Protection Convention.

The scientific method is the best option we have if

used properly. You don't just guess and try to attach scientific

reason to your assertions. Anyone who goes into a research project

trying to prove something is running the risk of biasing their

interpretation of the results. That is a dangerous way to do

science. The key is to start out asking the right questions.