EPAWATCH Proposed exemption for engineered pesticides EPA would exempt some naturally occurring pesticides in closely related plants from safeguards under the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA), according to supplemental notices to three 1994 proposed rulemakings {Federal Register, 1997, 62(95), 27132-55). The May notices explain how the FQPA would affect proposed tolerance exemptions for viral coat proteins, which protect plants against viral infections; plant pesticides derived from closely related (interbreeding) plants; and nucleic acids, which make up the genetic material that produces a plant pesticide. The aggregate risk section of the FQPA, which limits pesticide use based on a calculation determining total human exposure from all sources of similar pesticides applies only to pesticides considered some risk to human health Tolerance p v p m Y\ _
tions would effectively them from the aeeregate risk equation The notices concern some in the scientific community who say genetic engineering can alter plants in ways that would not occur outside of the laboratory, even when the gene manipulation is limited to closely related plants. Scientists do not know enough about genetically engineered plant pesticides to make a determination that they are safe, said Jane Risler of the Union of Concerned Scientists. For example, Risler said researchers might decide to introduce substances from a tomato's wild relative to tomato plants used for food production These submieht not have reached the food sUDDIV naturally or through traditional breedine therebv raising 'the safetv of the genetically enginppred plant "These (natural plant pesticides) are things we are eating all the time," said Elizabeth Milewski, assistant for biotechnology in EPA's Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances. "We have a lot of experi-
Agreement targets Cryptosporidium in drinking water On June 4, after an intense four-month negotiation, an EPA advisory committee agreed to enforce extensive measures for drinking water facilities aimed at reducing the risks from the microbial pathogen Cryptosporidium. A complicated group of negotiated rulemakings has been under way since 1992 to balance the benefits of using disinfectants to control microbial pathogens with the risks of illness from disinfectant byproducts (DBPs) such as trihalomethanes. The rulemakings are an agency priority: In 1993, an outbreak of cryptosporidiosis killed more than 50 people in Milwaukee and sickened almost the entire city. The committee agreed that public water utilities serving more than 10,000 customers should lower maximum turbidity limits from 5 to 1 nephelometric turbidity unit (a measure of particles in water) for all of the effluent from the filters in a single plant. Because scientists have not reached a consensus on how to kill Cryptosporidium, the rule will focus on removing as much of the microbial pollutant as possible with filters. In future rules, EPA will pursue a risk-based, multiple-barrier approach, including source water protection, physical removal, and new inactivation technologies as they become available. Ozonation appears to be the most promising treatment for inactivating Cryptosporidium, although ozonation does not work well under 5 °C and there are few real-world studies confirming the lab data. Committee members planned to sign the accord on July 15. Although one member from the National Rural Water Association did not approve the plan because he believes it sets a precedent for unacceptably high expenses for very small systems, the agreement was expected to go forward. EPA will use the pact as the framework for the Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule, intended to revise filtration and disinfection requirements, and for another rule to revise acceptable levels for DBPs.
ence to base our conclusions" that the plant pesticides are safe. In the May 16 notices, EPA solicited additional information that might demonstrate how genetic engineering could introduce new substances into the food supply under the proposed exemptions.
States, EPA agree to measure progress States and EPA have agreed on a range of measures they will use to determine the failure or success of environmental programs. A draft joint statement, which was undergoing revisions in June, lays out "core indicators" designed to replace the traditional methods of measuring environmental protection efforts starting in 1998. The agreement with the states is part of a larger EPA effort to move away from defining success by the
3 5 0 A • VOL. 31, NO. 8, 1997 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / NEWS
number of enforcement actions taken or the amounts of fines assessed, said Ann Goode, chief of staff in the Office of Air & Radiation. "We want to measure environmental changes," she said. For example, states might use EPA's Toxics Release Inventory along with the agency's National Toxics Inventory to determine whether emissions are declining. For hazardous waste management facilities, states might look at the controls put in place to prevent air, soil, and groundwater releases. To measure success in lead programs states would look at the change in bloodlead levels. EPA has developed its own set of measures in "Environmental Goals for America, with Milestones from 2005," which lists a mix of scientific and administrative techniques that the agency says will fill the gap left by federal laws and agreements that
0013-936X/97/0931-350A$14.00/0 © 1997 American Chemical Society
