Delivering on the Food Quality Protection Act

by Brian R. Hill

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is in significant internal turmoil. Recently, EPA sources quoted in the online magazine InsideEPA stated that the Agency has completed risk assessments, conducted a thorough public process, and driven a lot of new science examining almost every pesticide mandated by the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA). According to these sources, the EPA has completed 99% of the work required to meet FQPA’s ten-year schedule for implementation by the deadline of August 3, 2006. [1]

EPA scientists have a different story to tell. Through their unions, they have written a letter stating that in the rush to meet FQPA’s deadlines, many steps in the risk assessment and risk management process have been abbreviated or eliminated, that offi cials are besieged by the pesticide industry, and that the Agency has lost sight of its regulatory responsibilities in trying to reach consensus with those that it regulates. [2] To unravel the controversy that is unfolding as the August deadline approaches, it is necessary to understand the intent and requirements imposed on the EPA by this critical law. [3]

Until 1996, EPA standards for the amount of “acceptable” pesticide residues on crops were derived by sampling crops that had been grown using pesticides according to the information printed on pesticide labels. Multiple samples of a crop were used and a margin for normal variation added to arrive at a “tolerance” for the pesticide. For each crop that the pesticide was used on, a different tolerance was calculated. Even the same crop might have different tolerances if it were processed differently. For example, the fungicide fenarimol has a different tolerance for raisins than for the grapes from which they were made. EPA’s tolerances for pesticide residues on food are important since they set the standard based on which the U.S. Department of Agriculture classifi es food as either safe for consumption or “adulterated.”

This process for setting tolerances had more to do with the application procedure allowed for a pesticide than with any analysis of how much and what types of foods the general population was likely to eat. It didn’t account for potential health impacts from cumulative pesticide intake or the interaction of pesticides with each other (as is likely to happen in the real world). Most importantly, this process disregarded the risks to particularly vulnerable subgroups, such as children, who typically ingest more pesticide per pound of bodyweight than adults, and are more vulnerable due to their rapid growth.

The FQPA designated multiple requirements to correct this historical failure of the regulatory process in estimating the total dietary intake of pesticides. The fi rst thing FQPA required is that protection from pesticide residues in food be improved tenfold, to refl ect an understanding emerging at the time the FQPA was written, of the effects of neurotoxic pesticides such as organophosphates (OPs) and carbamates on the developing nervous systems of children. This tenfold improvement is known as the “child protection factor” or the “FQPA factor.” Of course, a tenfold protection factor is somewhat arbitrary. When scientifi c studies become available that can help refi ne the child protection factor, the FQPA allows the EPA to choose other values. For example, in a study of forty OP pesticides, the EPA greatly reduced or completely eliminated the tenfold child protection factor for twenty-nine of them. In their letter, EPA scientists argue against this, stating that both statutory language and sound science require that as a precaution the Agency continue to retain the tenfold child protection factor for all the OP and carbamate pesticides whose tolerances remain to be finalized.

The second significant requirement of the FQPA is that EPA re-evaluate all pesticides registered before 1984, because of refi nements and standardization that had occurred since that date in studies used in EPA risk assessments. The FQPA gave EPA ten years to complete this re-registration process for all of the older pesticides. This meant that all of the OPs needed to be re-registered by August 3, 2006.

A fi nal critical requirement of the FQPA addresses the many chemically-related pesticides that may have a “common mechanism of action.” Groups of such chemicals are required to undergo a risk assessment where the “cumulative” effect of the group is estimated. A cumulative risk assessment was performed for the OP pesticides in 2002.

If all of the FQPA requirements were implemented objectively by EPA, using the best available science, and the precautionary principle was applied whenever the available science was inadequate, it would provide some confidence in the safety of our food supply. At the very least, proper adherence to the FQPA’s mandate by the EPA would have demonstrated the Agency’s serious desire to execute the will of the U.S. Congress.

However, in their letter of May 24, 2006, EPA union members detailed failures in the application of the FQPA and pressure to weaken scientific rigor. They made specific recommendations for how to put FQPA implementation back on track (see “Government Scientists Revolt”on page 4). Their letter states that “EPA could betray the public trust by violating the intention of the Food Quality Protection Act,” and goes on to express concern that “the integrity of the science upon which Agency decisions are based has been compromised. Our colleagues in the Pesticide Program feel besieged by political pressure exerted by Agency officials perceived to be too closely aligned with the pesticide industry and by former EPA officials now representing the pesticide and agricultural community.” [4]

PAN North America supports these courageous public servants in their struggle to bring back objective scientific standards in assessing the quality of our food supply. We support their recommendation that dangerous groups of pesticides with a common mechanism of action, including the OPs and the carbamates, be re-evaluated. We agree that the tenfold child protection factor should be re-instituted wherever it was reduced or eliminated without adequate study.

A truly precautionary approach to environmental protection would focus on assessing alternatives rather than accepting public exposure to hazardous chemicals as necessary. This is a standard that goes beyond the FQPA. But even at a minimum, we have a right to demand risk evaluations that live up to the Food Quality Protection Act. It is the least we should expect for ensuring the safety of our food and the health of our children.

Brian R. Hill, Ph.D, is Staff Scientist at PANNA and works on technical engagement with regulatory agencies and on pesticide analysis tools developed by PANNA.

References

1. EPA Claims It Will Meet Most Deadlines for Setting Pesticide Safety Limits, InsideEPA, June 23, 2006. http://www.insideepa.com

2. Letter from locals of the American Federation of Government Employees, the National Treasury Employees Union, and the Engineers and Scientists of California to EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson. May 24, 2006. http://www.panna.org/resources/documents/epaScientistsFqpa.pdf.

3. The Food Quality Protection Act of 1996. http://www.panna.org/resources/documents/fullTextFqpa.pdf.

4. May 24, 2006 letter, above.