Will Sound Science Save The Day?

The Food Quality Protection Act was written to establish a new standard for evaluating the pesticides used to protect our food and our structures. But there has been much debate surrounding the EPA’s efforts to implement this law in the close to 20 months since it has been enacted.

Rumors have swirled regarding how the EPA has indicated it would proceed with regard to implementation. Early in 1998, industry insiders say, the EPA suggested removing two of the oldest pesticide classes, organophosphates and carbamates, from the market. This would be one way, after all, to implement the law while also appearing to be environmentally friendly.

“The leadership of the Agency has often said it wanted to get the ‘old’ products off the market and bring new, ‘safer’ products on the market,” said Allen James, executive director of Responsible Industry for a Sound Environment (RISE), “but those are political policy statements, not scientifically based statements.”

It has also been argued that the EPA has tended to use overly conservative default assumptions about pesticide use and exposures when making decisions about the law. Many groups around the industry have expressed their concern with this type of implementation strategy. “We’d like to see decisions based on sound science,” said Dave Scott, pesticide administrator with the Indiana State Chemist. “We don’t think it’s appropriate to use default assumptions just because it’s an easier way out, so we’ve tried to stress to them that we want them to consider new data.”

The first wave of reassessments, which will include organophosphate and carbamate pesticides, is set to be accomplished by August of 1999. This first wave will likely set the tone for the reassessment of the more than 6,000 other tolerances that must be analyzed in the next eight years. Because of this, individuals within the structural pest control industry fear that the industry stands to lose a substantial number of important tools, depending on how decisions are made regarding pesticides. If the Agency adopts methods or policy based on anything other than sound science on OPs and carbamates, it is likely they will push forward with the same stance for other chemicals.

A CALL FOR SOUND SCIENCE. Early efforts to implement the FQPA seem to have been driven by artificial timelines, rather than realistic data and sound methodology. However, they seem to be moving in a more steady direction today, and the EPA will have to consider a wide range of viewpoints. This was called for in a recent request by Vice President Al Gore. Concerned that the EPA was not implementing the law as it was designed, Gore sent a memorandum to the EPA and to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The memo asked USDA Secretary Dan Glickman and EPA Administrator Carol Browner to change their implementation policy of FQPA.

Specifically, the Vice President urged the agencies to work together to ensure that new regulatory steps, in accordance with the Food Quality Protection Act, are supported by sound science, transparent decision making, effective public participation and reasonable transition rules for agriculture.

To answer these requests, the EPA and USDA recently created a committee, staffed with individuals from a broad array of interest groups, as well as from the USDA and the EPA, to help with implementation of the law. This EPA-USDA Tolerance Reassessment Advisory Committee (TRAC), established on April 30, 1998, is expected to provide a forum for a diverse group of individuals representing a broad range of interests and backgrounds from across the country. The committee is charged with consulting with and making recommendations to both the EPA and the USDA on how to approach tolerance reassessments, especially with regard to organophosphate and carbamate pesticides.

The committee is composed of approximately 50 members, representing a variety of interested parties and stakeholder groups. Members were selected based on their relevant experience and diversity of perspectives on organophosphates pesticide/food safety issues. Various groups are represented, including public interest groups; the pesticide industry and user groups; the medical and academic communities; government officials; and public health organizations. Some of those nominated to the committee, for example, include Marion Moses of the Natural Resources Defense Council, Dan Botts of the Florida Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Association, Mike Friedman of the Food and Drug Administration, and Bob Rosenberg from the National Pest Control Association.

The committee is co-chaired by the deputy administrator of EPA, Fred Hansen, and deputy secretary of agriculture for the USDA, Richard Rominger and will meet four times during the next three months. The meetings are open to the public, and interested individuals may file comments before or after the meetings, as well as make statements during the meetings.

On a large scale, TRAC is expected to recommend policies for deciding if existing scientific information is adequate, develop common sense strategies for reducing risk while retaining valuable pesticides, and foster improved communication and understanding among all stakeholders regarding tolerance reassessment decisions. The group is also charged with assuring appropriate public participation in decision-making, and with helping the Agency find ways to improve the transparency process.

With regard to residential uses of pesticides, the group is expected to discuss such issues as how the EPA should consider residential exposures when making tolerance reassessment decisions during the “interim period” while additional data are under development. The committee will also examine how residential exposure estimates should be combined with dietary exposure estimates in formulating aggregate risk. And the committee will consider such controversial topics as when it is appropriate to use default assumptions, what type of data is available, and how the 10x safety factor for children should be used.

Experts around the pest control industry view the creation of the TRAC committee with cautious optimism, and are hopeful it will help both the EPA and the USDA in determining how to best conduct tolerance reassessment. Still, questions remain about how effective the group will be in reaching its stated objectives.

Scott believes the TRAC Committee has the potential to serve a very important, beneficial purpose in the coming months. He points out that, considering the group includes representatives from industry, government and consumer groups with a wide range of opinions, a healthy debate will likely be encouraged.

And RISE’s James calls the formation of the committee a positive step for EPA. “We believe that this committee has the potential to redirect the Agency in a more constructive way toward implementation of FQPA,” he said. “There is more hope the Agency will take a more reasonable approach, and that it will be more scientific and data-driven, and not politically driven.” While the committee may not generate the answers for EPA, James added, it should help the Agency to find the answers.

RECENT ACTIONS. To date, the Agency has taken no actions of consequence regarding the FQPA. There have been some tolerance reassessment decisions made, but most have occurred under Section 18 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act. (This section authorizes EPA to allow states to use a pesticide for an unregistered use for a limited time if the Agency determines that emergency conditions exist.)

However, the Agency has recently made available $800,000 in grants to the various EPA regions, set aside for implementation of FQPA. Four EPA regions will each receive $200,000, and a new full-time position to perform FQPA-related activities. The new personnel would promote alternative pest management strategies for canceled pesticides.

RISE’s James points out the funding outlay does not bode well for the industry, but is a sign that EPA expects there will be some cancellations. “The money needs to be used for the review of registrations,” he said. “The expense of that money is one more indication of the leadership’s bias against certain pesticides.”

Meanwhile, several outside groups have already petitioned the Agency to consider their concerns. For example, the National Resources Defense Council, an anti-pesticide lobbyist group, has written to EPA in favor of the controversial “10x” safety factor. If used, it would mean the Agency would apply a minimum limit of 10 times less than previously allowed exposure levels, to protect infants and children. The previous safety factor is already 100 times less than the no-effect level indentified in the most sensitive individuals. In its petition, the NRDC asked that the Agency apply the additional safety factor to all pesticides unless there are complete, actual and reliable data available.

In response to this petition, an industry coalition that includes RISE, the American Farm Bureau and 15 other agricultural organizations, petitioned the EPA to establish rules regarding the EPA’s position on common mechanism of toxicity, the tenfold safety factor and aggregate exposure.

WHAT THE INDUSTRY CAN DO. To assist the EPA in implementing FQPA fairly, the best thing PCOs can do, experts say, is to continue their grassroots letter writing campaign to Congressional representatives, the White House and EPA. “If PCOs have already written a letter, it’s time for a phone call,” James said, “calling for the fair and scientifically based implementation of FQPA.”

In their letters and phone calls, PCOs need to inform elected officials why pesticide products are so beneficial for the safety and health of consumers. Dr. Joe Yoder, director of R&D for Turf and Ornamental Products with Novartis Crop Protection, recommends that PCOs send handwritten, as opposed to typed, letters because they seem to have a greater impact on legislators. And Bob Rosen-berg, government affairs director of the National Pest Control Association, points out that PCOs need to stay informed about FQPA implementation to make sure the Agency continues to use sound science in the process, as the law could dramatically change the business of pest control.

“The FQPA did set a very tough standard,” he said, “but if EPA plays fairly, has an open process and allows stakeholder involvement, it’s a largely achievable standard.”

More information on the developments within EPA’s TRAC Committee can be found on the Web at www.epa.gov/pesticides/trac/. PCOs can find out how to contact their members of Congress through the Zipper at www.voxpop.org/zipper/.