GOVERNMENT
Administration Seeks Tighter Curbs On Exports of Unregistered Pesticides • Concerns over safety of imported foods, ability of developing nations to safely use pesticides spur push for stricter controls David J. Hanson, C&EN Washington A fter more than a decade of debate / ] ^ over the so-called circle of poiJ L J L son, Congress has done little to restrict exports of pesticides that have never been registered for use in the U.S. or whose use has been severely restricted here. The Clinton Administration, however, has come up with a series of tough proposals to control such trade that could have a significant impact on the nearly $2 billion in U.S. pesticides exported yearly. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Carol M. Browner used a hearing of the House Subcommittee on Economic Policy, Trade & Environment to unveil the tougher export proposals. "Pesticide debate has been gridlocked over this issue for years," Browner told the panel. "We are very concerned that many countries that import U.S.-manufactured pesticides lack the resources to use those products safely." Although broadly referred to as a circle of poison, the pesticides export issue is really two separate problems. The first, the "circle," is the concern that pesticides that cannot be used in the U.S. but can be manufactured here will be sent to other countries and used on food crops. Those crops, in turn, will be imported into the U.S. bearing unsafe residues of the unregistered pesticides. Some citizen activist organizations worry that these residues will get into stores—and consumers' homes—because the Food & Drug Administration does not have analytical methods for detecting unregistered pesticides. Second is the problem of safe use of 16
FEBRUARY 14,1994 C&EN
these chemicals by agricultural workers in developing countries. Substantial evidence documents that workers in many of these nations are not using the proper precautions or wearing the protective clothing frequently required when working with pesticides. Some of these unprotected workers have suffered severe health problems. About 26 pesticide ingredients that are exported from the U.S. are not registered for U.S. use or have had their registration revoked. Most of these also are manufactured by other industrial countries. Some of the compounds are acetochlor, heptachlor, DDT, dinoseb, and (2,4,5-trichlorophenoxy)acetic acid. The pesticide export issue has been gradually building momentum. During the 1990 reauthorization of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide & Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), the primary law for regulating the registration and use of pesticides, measures to restrict pesticide exports were included in both Senate and House versions of the law. But the Bush Administration resisted the idea, and these provisions were deleted before the law was enacted.
Browner: committed to act
More recently, the National Academy of Sciences released a study on possible health effects in children caused by pesticide residues on food. This study, "Pesticides in the Diets of Infants & Children," concluded that more could be done to protect young people from pesticide residues. The study galvanized many citizen activist groups into stepping up their campaigns against misuse, or even any use, of pesticides on foods. Last September, in a comprehensive proposal to Congress on food safety, Browner included several measures to control pesticide exports. But now the Administration wants tougher legislation. "As I have become increasingly aware of pesticide misuse around the world, I have become more committed to act. We must improve our pesticide laws," Browner told the subcommittee. At the subcommittee hearing, Browner pointed out some recent examples of such misuse that EPA found. Major concerns are workers who do not wear proper protective clothing and spilled pesticides just lying in fields. Most disturbing, she said, is evidence that bulk pesticides are being repackaged into smaller containers so the poorer people living in developing nations can afford to buy the pesticide. Often these smaller containers, such as soda or milk bottles, previously held food or drinks. The chance of accidental poisoning from such repackaging is significant, Browner said. These concerns have led the Administration to make four changes to its original legislative proposal on pesticides. The first would prohibit the export of pesticides canceled or severely restricted for health reasons in the U.S. EPA says it would use criteria developed by the United Nations' Prior Informed Consent program in deciding whether a pesticide product has been banned for virtually all uses. Second, EPA wants to restrict the export of any pesticide based on any adverse environmental effects. A pesticide that loses its registration for environmental but not health reasons could be
Vgricultural workers weanng no protective gear avvlv and mix pesticides.
exported only after an express statement from the importing country that it wishes to receive the product. A third major change would put stringent restrictions on exports of pesticides that have never been registered in the U.S. This situation arises, for instance, when companies manufacture a pesticide that has little or no use in the U.S. and therefore does not need to be registered here. EPA says that, to be sure the product is safe, it will require that unregistered pesticides be permitted for use in at least three countries that have credible pesticide regulatory programs before their export is permitted. Finally, EPA says it will propose new requirements intended to promote pesticide product stewardship in foreign countries by U.S. producers and exporters. The Administration says it will require U.S. exporters to follow the code of conduct on pesticides adopted by the UN Food & Agriculture Organization. This will require that U.S. exporters keep track of major uses of their products and the occurrence of problems arising from use of the pesticide. Jay J. Vroom is president of the National Agricultural Chemicals Association (NACA), the trade organization representing most major pesticide manufacturers in the U.S. In testimony before the trade subcommittee, he described how the industry is already moving forward in many of these areas. "The trend in the pesticide marketplace is moving in a demonstrable way that speaks to the increased perception of the problem," Vroom said in an interview. Companies are spending more
time training agricultural workers and monitoring pesticide use. The industry is also working with international organizations on the Prior Informed Consent program, so that developing nations will get all the information they need about restricted pesticides; these nations would then be able to bar the imports of these products into their countries. Still, the problems persist. Sandra Marquardt, testifying for Greenpeace before the subcommittee, described conditions she saw on a trip to Costa Rica. "Wherever I went, whomever I asked, everyone knew they should wear a mask, or gloves, or boots. But the fact is that they don't. Protective clothing is too hot, too uncomfortable, too expensive." Greenpeace's solution to this problem is to teach farmers to rely on natural pesticides and integrated pest management methods. Vroom admits that some of these problems exist, but says there is no way that companies can monitor pesticide use all the time. "When you go outside the U.S., especially in developing countries, the agriculture practices are widely diverse and if s not possible to have a one-size-fits-all stewardship program or training approach that will work in every country. Agriculture workers, poor farmers, and their families desperately want to know how to use these products safely," Vroom says. "They know the enormous benefits they can get. Often if s the ability to raise a crop at all in some environments, and to have an adequate
production so they can get beyond just subsistence level of farming." The possible improper use of these pesticides in developing countries is what leads to public concerns about unsafe residues of the pesticides on imported food. Although EPA sets the rules for pesticide use and the amount of residue that can remain on the food when imported—the tolerance levels— the agency responsible for checking these residues is the Food & Drug Administration. During 1992, FDA analyzed 16,428 food samples for pesticide residues. Of these, 7J77 were domestic products, and 8,651 were imported foods. According to FDA deputy commissioner Michael R. Taylor, less than 1% of the U.S. samples had residues above the tolerance levels, and less than 4% of the imported foods had residues that violated U.S. standards. In addition, FDA reports that in 1992, 22 states that conduct their own contamination tests analyzed 14,990 samples. The percentage of domestic samples violating EPA tolerances was about 1%, the same as the FDA found. But this level of testing has been called inadequate. Richard Wiles, of the Washington, D.G-based Environmental Working Group, maintains that FDA tests far too few food samples to be sure contaminated foods are not reaching consumers. He says for most crops from most countries, FDA inspectors have little or no idea what pesticides were applied to the food. In addition, the multiple residue tests used most frequently by FDA laboratories can only detect one half of the pesticides used in international commerce. NACA's Vroom doesn't think the situation is that bad. "There are all kinds of statistical and real-world intelligence that FDA uses to make decisions about what to look for and where," he says. Only some kinds of pesticides are used in some countries, and inspectors know what kinds of pests are problems in what countries. Also, the Department of Agriculture keeps track of pesticides and pests to prevent new kinds of fungi or insects from infesting the U.S. The Administration's package of food safety reforms, including the ones presented at the hearing on pesticide exports, has not yet been introduced as a piece of legislation. There is no word as to when that will occur. • FEBRUARY 14,1994 C&EN
17
