New pesticide law draws fire as supporters predict implementation delays Although legislation reforming the way EPA regulates pesticides was signed just three months ago, it has already come under fire from bill supporters, who say that Congress did not give EPA enough time or resources to carry it out. Pesticide makers and users, in particular, claim that the law will delay EPA's already sluggish pesticide registration process. The Food Quality Protection Act, signed by President Clinton in August, deletes the longstanding zero-tolerance level for cancer-causing pesticide residues in processed food in favor of a riskbased approach. EPA is now required to review existing standards for pesticides and incorporate new data—such as dietary consumption; toxic, cumulative, and endocrine effects; aggregate exposure; and risks to infants and children—into its standard-setting decisions {ES&T, Sept. 1996, p. 380A). These requirements translate into new research and regulatory projects for the agency, including devising processes to gather data and developing models to analyze data and incprporate the information into new risk assessment procedures. Almost immediately after the bill was signed, EPA established a Food Safety Advisory Committee comprising representatives of chemical and pesticide manufacturers, pesticide users, food processors, and public health and environmental groups, to explain the law and exchange ideas on policy, regulation, and implementation. But at a Sept. 26 committee meeting, it was clear that the stakeholder groups, once united in support of the bill, were at odds over EPA's implementation. Farm groups, food processors, and pesticide manufacturers in particular said they were troubled that Congress did not appropriate additional funds for EPA to implement the act. The result will be to delay EPA's currently slow pesticide registration process. "This law has slowed and will continue to slow things down at EPA," said Richard Holt, DuPont's manager of regulatory affairs, agricultural products division.
Holt and others complained that the agency is taking too long to approve pesticides under emergency conditions, an expedited process allowed by the old statute. Under the new law, the agency must set a new tolerance, or standard, for each emergency exemption, including a review of new data. More than 30 applica-
"This law has and will continue to slow things down at EPA." —Richard Holt, DuPont agricultural products division tions for emergency approval from 30 states regarding 19 pesticides were in the pipeline when the act was signed. By mid-September, EPA had made decisions on only three pesticides. This lag time is affecting crop production throughout the country and especially in California and Florida where growing seasons are yearround, pesticide-user groups said. They urged the agency to act quickly on all of its responsibilities under the act. EPA officials admit that emergency approvals have been delayed because of the law's re-
quirements. To address this, EPA has pulled staff from other registration programs into a team to "triage" the emergency approval process, said Steve lohnson, director of registration division, Office of Pesticide Programs. But EPA is not likely to approve as many emergency requests as it once did. "This is a much more involved process than we were required to do in the past." Public health advocates said they too are concerned about inadequate resources. Caroline Brickey, executive director of the public health group, National Campaign for Pesticide Policy Reform, said a time lag will prevent additional protections from being issued in a timely fashion. "We hope we don't see things held up because of what we don't know," she said. Just before Congress adjourned, Clinton signed the omnibus budget bill including an additional $30 million for executing the food quality act and the newly-signed Safe Drinking Water Act. Another $10 million was earmarked for pesticide data collection activities. The funds "won't be a silver bullet," but will help with implementation, said Jim Aidala, associate assistant administrator in the Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances. "Had that money not been appropriated, it would have greatly exacerbated these problems," he said. Many advisory committee members also expressed concern continued on page 476A
Farm groups are concerned that the slow pace of EPA's pesticide registration process under the new food quality act will affect the nation's supply of fruits and vegetables. (Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture.)
VOL. 30, NO. 11, 1996/ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / NEWS • 4 7 5 A
that EPA does not have the time to carry out the law. The law became effective the day Clinton signed it. This means that the agency must develop new processes to comply with the law's requirements while reviewing existing standards and setting new ones. To make matters worse, bill supporters from all sides of the pesticide-use debate now say the law includes provisions they would rather not see in legislation. "To get the bill enacted, there were some things we had to swallow," said Brian Folkerts, National Food Processors Association. "Clearly there are some things in there that have given some people in the industry pause," including new federal authority to fine food processors $500,000 per shipment if residues on food are found to violate a standard. Environmentalists, too, have privately complained that the bill does not include a phaseout for carcinogens. Comments from stakeholders indicate that EPA will have a hard time carrying out the law. "It would be naive to say that the antipesticide groups are not going to use these [data] provisions to challenge regulations" like they did with the zero-tolerance requirement under the old law, said one industry representative. Public health and environmental groups said they don't have an agenda planned, but they pledge to make sure EPA "follows the letter of the law," said Richard Wiles, Environmental Working Group. The Natural Resources Defense Council, which sued the agency because it was not acting on the old law's zero-tolerance requirement, plans to watch EPA's implementation "like a hawk," said NRDC senior attorney Al Meyerhoff. "I think everybody realizes that some of these issues will be ground up in the courts," Meyerhoff added. "Let's not kid ourselves," EPA Deputy Administrator Fred Hansen cautioned committee members. The agency is applying a new standard to pesticide use, and some decisions will not please everyone. "I don't want people to believe that more resources means that everybody is going to get their way," Hansen said. —CATHERINE M. COONEY
NEWSSCIENCE White House panel creating database of endocrine disrupter-related research The U.S. government is funding some 400 research projects that examine the effects of chemicals that disrupt the endocrine systems of humans and wildlife, according to a new federal survey. A 26-member federal panel organized by the White House National Science and Technology Council, which oversaw the survey, intends to make a searchable database of endocrine-disrupter research and combine it with information on all similar public and private research in the United States and Europe. The database is intended to help scientists coordinate research and see where gaps lie, according to Lawrence W. Reiter, director of the EPA National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory and chair of the panel. The U.S. inventory and a scheme to differentiate the re-
search will be presented at the panel's meeting Nov. 22 in Washington, DC. Reiter stressed that techniques used to create this database may serve as a model for other complex research projects. "Problems go up and budgets don't, and we've got to figure out better ways to get the work out," he said. The panel is made up of federal scientists from throughout the government. It is leading the effort to coordinate some $20 million to $30 million annually in federal research on a host of chemicals found to disrupt the hormonal systems of wildlife and, potentially, humans (ES&T, June 1996, 242A). Along with the inventory, the panel has created a "framework document" laying out major scientific questions and broad research needs. It is in draft form and under review. The research
PRIORITIES NRC outlines U.S. environmental science agenda Environmental monitoring and impact of chemicals are among six topics singled out as key to setting an environmental science and technology agenda for the future in a report by the National Research Council (NRC) released in September. The topics were selected based on surveys, forums, and interviews with experts and the interested public, including business leaders, academics, and environmentalists. "Linking Science and Technology to Society's Environmental Goals" calls for scientists and engineers to better focus research and technology application in these areas: • Use of social science, costbenefit analysis, and risk assessment to help separate minor and major environmental risks and to encourage less expensive, incentive-based pollution reduction approaches; • Ecological and environmental monitoring to gather consistent, standardized, high-quality, and complete
4 7 6 A • VOL. 30, NO. 11, 1996 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / NEWS
data on the state of the environment; • Adverse effects of chemicals in the environment and development of better test methods to evaluate longterm effects of chemicals; • Development of energy sources that do not rely on fossil fuels; • Manufacturing and product engineering that reduce the negative environmental impact of industrial production; and • The relationship between population and consumption to help reduce the environmental impact of population growth. The six research areas were selected from nearly 40 subjects put forward by participants in the NRC's surveys, interviews, and forums. The NRC notes that many other areas were of equal concern, but the drafting committee felt these six were not being studied adequately. To obtain the report call the National Academy Press at 1-800624-6242. —JEFF JOHNSON
