Pondering The Food Quality Protection Act

One of the most pressing issues this industry is now dealing with is the implementation of the Food Quality Protection Act. It’s an important piece of legislation that could drastically affect this industry.

This April I was able to sit in on an important meeting regarding the FQPA. Specifically, it was a meeting of the Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee, a special advisory committee set up by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to help the organization implement the FQPA, as well as other regulatory policies pertaining to pesticides and the environment. Represented on the committee are a number of groups and industries, including the pesticide industry, user and commodity groups, public health organizations, congressional state offices and public interest groups.

For example, now serving on the committee are the NPCA’s Bob Rosenberg, Dan Botts from the Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association, Dr. Andy Anderson from the Association of State and Territorial Health, Bob Lake from the Food and Drug Administration, and Dr. Sheldon Wagner from the National Pesticides Telecommunications Network, among many others. Heading up the meeting were, of course, some of the highest ranking officials from the Agency: Dr. Lynn Goldman, assistant administrator of the Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, and Marcia Mulkey, director of the Office of Pesticides.

Considering the broad interests represented, I expected to hear a lively and even contentious debate about how the EPA is implementing the Act, and how the various groups believe it should be implemented. After all, I had heard through the grapevine that the EPA, upon preparing to reassess the tolerances for organophosphate chemicals, was not listening to arguments from many of the interested parties. That the Agency would most likely find some pesticide uses that have to be dropped. That the pest control industry would probably be the first to lose products. And that this would occur even though the Agency may not have the appropriate data to make such a far-reaching decision.

This, after all, is the way things were headed as early as February, when at NPCA Legislative Day, hundreds of PCOs took to Capitol Hill to spread the word among elected officials: “Urge EPA to use sound science in implementing FQPA. Ask them to use their authority to secure the data they need.”

But as it turned out, the Dialogue Committee meeting was not all that contentious. Part of the reason for that may be the decision by Vice President Al Gore to examine FQPA implementation. Just days before the meeting, he had submitted a memorandum to U.S. Department of Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman and EPA Administrator Carol Browner, asking them to cooperate, use sound science in implementing the law, and be sure their decisions are transparent.

And it appears the effects of that letter were already becoming evident at the committee meeting. Committee members with a broad range of interests were asked for their input. Both Mulkey and Goldman listened intently to what the representatives had to say. They offered little, if any, resistance to any of the viewpoints presented. They made ample time for public comment. They took everything under advisement. They didn’t do much talking.

The question that remains now is how will the EPA proceed? Gore’s letter seems to have made an important difference, and the EPA appears to be receptive to ideas and comments. This is a window of opportunity for the industry. It’s time to participate in the dialogue. Write your congressional representatives. Assist in providing research data. Read the public comments that have been submitted, and add your own. The ball is in your court.