September, 1999

One pesticide gone, another curtailed in FQPA moves

by Lee Dean

The Food Quality Protection Act axe has started to fall. In an Aug. 2 announcement, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) effectively banned the use of methyl parathion (Penncap-M) and restricted the labeled uses of azinphos-methyl (Guthion). Both materials are in the organophosphate family of insecticides. EPA said it would complete its risk assessment and risk management actions on the remaining organophosphates by September of 2000. (See chart on page xx). It will also re-evaluate another group of what it considers older, widely used pesticides for priority review. These materials include atrazine, aldicarb and carbofuran. The agency is requiring new studies on the neurological and developmental effects of pesticides, issued new requirements designed to better protect farmworkers, and announced it would register 47 lower-risk alternatives to more toxic pesticides, such as the organophosphates. The EPA actions were met with little applause outside the federal government. Grower groups bemoaned the loss of what they consider to be crucial crop protection materials and wondered about the potential of more damage. Environmentalists said the agency did not go far enough. A rash of suits, countersuits and congressional legislation (see story on page xx) are further complicating the issue.With the Aug. 2 announcements, EPA stated it has met the law’s goal of re-evaluating one-third of the existing tolerances by Aug. 3. When FQPA was passed in August of 1996, it called for the complete re-evaluation of all tolerances in increments of one-third over the next 10 years. EPA tried to reassure the American public that its supply of fruits and vegetables are safe to consume while explaining the need for its actions. “Our nation enjoys the safest, most abundant food supply in the world. I want to emphasize that for children and adults alike, the benefits of a diet that includes fruits and vegetables far outweigh the risks of pesticides,” said EPA administrator Carol Browner. “Nonetheless, as our scientific understanding of the health risks and environmental effects of pesticides improves, it is becoming increasingly clear that foods can be made even safer, especially for children. Our action today will protect children from the adverse effects of exposure to pesticides commonly used on foods.” The azinphos-methyl announcement is of more importance to the apple industry. Most growers have said they can live with the restrictions, but the cutbacks could cause scattered difficulties depending on weather and other specific factors. The long-range FQPA process is of more concern. “It does focus our attention on the process, how future decisions might be made and what their overall impact might be on the industry,” said Kraig Naasz, president of the U. S. Apple Association. The American Farm Bureau Federation charged the EPA action was motivated by politics and not sound science. AFBF President Dean Kleckner said the announcement on the two pesticides was timed to coincide with the Aug. 3 FQPA deadline and did not allow enough time to conduct the proper scientific evaluation.

Bills seek to hold EPA to provisions of law A bill introduced by a bipartisan group of senators joins similar House of Representatives legislation in forcing the use of “sound science” in implementing the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA). The legislation in both houses is called “The Regulatory Openness and Fairness Act of 1999, was introduced by 14 senators, including three Democrats. Similar legislation was introduced in the House in April. The bills have four main components: • The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) would be required to publish all the data used in making decisions on pesticides. Worst-case scenarios (also called default data) on pesticide use would be replaced with actual information on applications. • The bill would ban revocation of any pesticide tolerance without the use of old or incomplete data. This segment of the bill is designed to guard against the disruption of agricultural production due to pesticide revocation. • Export performance of U.S. agricultural goods would be monitored to see if FQPA’s provisions affect the ability of the American farmer to compete with farmers from other countries in both foreign and domestic markets. USDA would be required to report to Congress every two years on its findings. • EPA would be required to revise its priorities to allow all new registration applications and petitions for tolerance exemptions to be acted upon promptly. This measure is designed to help EPA focus its attention on replacements for materials that may be lost. “Pesticides allow farmers to control pest outbreaks and thereby provide agriculture products to consumers around the world,” said Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan), one of the Senate co-sponsors. “If FQPA is not implemented fully, fairly and responsibly based on sound science, U.S. growers will be at a competitive disadvantage in critical world export markets.” The House version of the bill (H.R. 1592) has already garnered more than 150 co-sponsors. These representatives come from both parties, from urban and rural districts and from across the nation, said Rep. Richard Pombo (R-Cal), one of the original sponsors. “The underlying effort of the bill is to require EPA to use sound science to do the work necessary so that when we have to make political decisions, they are based on good science. When science becomes politicized, it is not sound science,” said Pombo. Pombo explained that his bill would alter the process of implementing FQPA, and not the standards or protection levels laid out in the act, which was passed in 1996. As EPA began its implementation process, great concern arose in the agricultural and crop protection industries that materials would be swept away without proper consideration of their safety and the ability of growers to produce a commercially viable crop. In 1997, Vice-President Al Gore wrote a letter to the EPA, asking it to implement the act on the principles of sound science, public notice and transition for growers. As a result, the Tolerance Reassessment Advisory Committee (TRAC) was formed. The broad-based group has been meeting to consider organophosphate and carbamate pesticides and the science used in reviewing their tolerances. Rep. Ralph Hall of Texas, another of the original co-sponsors, noted that the TRAC meetings have been helpful, but added that H.R. 1592 is needed to ensure full compliance with the act. TRAC sustained a blow when the environmental and public interest groups walked out on the process in late 1998. Many of those groups are also opposed to this bill. “Any time you use the word ‘pesticides,’ it raises the ire of environmentalists anywhere,” said Hall. At the current pace of acquiring co-sponsors, Pombo feels the bill could get 200 backers – and perhaps even a majority of Congressmen. However, reaction to the bill from EPA has been cool. “EPA does not appear to be going along with everything that was in the vice-president’s letter – and just because he wrote it, doesn’t necessarily make the EPA do it,” said Pombo. “If we can force the federal government to provide us with good, sound science, we will let the chips fall where they may when it comes to the political end.”

“It’s unfortunate that the EPA has acted to undermine any hope on the part of farmers that the pesticide re-evaluation process would be fair, understandable and science-based,” said Kleckner.
Jay Vroom, president of the American Crop Protection Association, had a similar reaction, calling the decision a victory of political science over sound science. Farmers lose, but so do consumers, he said.
“Decisions like this may shake their confidence in the safety of our food supply,” said Vroom. “We are disappointed and deeply concerned by the decision because of the precedent it sets for overall implementation of FQPA.”
Consumers Union (CU) was far from happy with the announcement, either. CU alleges that the EPA is not moving swiftly enough to ensure food safety for children, and is not dealing with the “worst” pesticides first.
“EPA actions up to now have reduced the risk from only two of the 125 riskiest pesticide uses on food and have actually allowed more risk in seven cases. This is a pathetic record,” said Edward Groth, director of technical policy and public service for CU.

Azinphos-methyl

Exposure of this material to children ages one to six and to workers drove the agency’s action. The risk from food alone was found unacceptable to children, while the chemical’s presence in drinking and ground water would add to the risk. Worker exposure and risk is greatest for those people re-entering treated fields and orchards.
The use of azinphos-methyl was reduced on apples, pears, quinces and crabapples. Use was canceled for sugarcane, cotton grown east of the Mississippi, ornamental Christmas trees, forest trees and shade trees. The new measures will be in place by the 2000 growing season.
On apples, the maximum yearly rate is reduced from six pounds to 4.5 pounds of active ingredient. The pre-harvest interval will be 21 days if the last application is more than one pound of active ingredient. Applications are prohibited from chemigation or airplanes. The reduction of the maximum yearly rate and the ban on chemigation and aerial application also apply to pears and other pome fruit.
For peaches, the maximum yearly rate is reduced from 4.5 pounds to 3.375 pounds active ingredient. Chemigation and application from the air was prohibited.
Bayer Corporation, the manufacturer of Guthion, announced its plans for the product for the next three years. The company plans to submit petitions to EPA on Sept. 1, which would change the tolerances for three crops. The pome fruit tolerance would move from 2.0 parts per million (ppm) to 1.5 ppm, cranberries would go from 2.0 to 0.5 ppm and grapes from 5.0 to 4.0 ppm.
On Sept. 13, Bayer must submit protocols for next year’s residue trials. The company plans to conduct trials to look at whether the changes announced on Aug. 2 can allow further reductions. On Feb. 1, 2001, Bayer will propose an additional tolerance change in pome fruits to 1.0 ppm, if data support such a change.
EPA determined that most of the worker exposure risk during application or handling is unacceptable even if protective clothing, equipment and engineering controls are used. Post-application risk to re-entry workers also greatly exceed EPA levels.
“To achieve acceptable exposure levels for post-application workers, field re-entry intervals must be significantly increased in length,” according to the EPA summary. “These increases may affect the efficacious use of azinphos-methyl on many crops.”

Methyl parathion

EPA determined methyl parathion poses unacceptable dietary risks to children. The agency risk assessment showed it could not meet the FQPA safety standards as currently registered. Acute dietary risk to children ages one to six exceeded the population adjusted dose (the amount kids can safely consume in one day or less) by 880%.
Canceled children’s food uses included carrots, succulent peas and beans, tomatoes and all fruit. This lowers the risk to 78% of the dose, which EPA finds acceptable for kids and all other age groups.
Other canceled food uses include artichokes, broccoli, brussels sprouts, cauliflower, celery, collards, kale, kohlrabi, lettuce, mustard greens, rutabagas, spinach and turnips. Remaining vegetable uses include cabbage, corn, dried beans, dried peas, lentils, onions, sweet potatoes and white potatoes.
Existing stocks of methyl parathion with canceled uses may be used until Dec. 31. Produce that has been legally treated until the deadline may still be sold by growers.


Additional studies

EPA is requiring information from registrants on chemicals thought to have neurotoxic effects. The studies must show the effects on the nervous system after a one-time or very short-term exposure, over an extended period of time and just before or shortly after birth. EPA also wants to learn if these materials have different effects in young people and adults.
The agency is mailing letters to the affected registrants, which must respond within 90 days on how they intend to provide the data. The information will be provided in stages, with data from the highest-priority pesticides needed first. These are the cholinesterase-inhibiting OPs such as azinphos-methyl, chlopyrifos and diazinon.

Worker protection

On the retained uses for methyl parathion, the re-entry interval for workers has been extended to four-to-five days from the present two days. For the 2001 growing season, closed cabs and cockpits along with closed mixing and loading systems will be required. Exposure studies will be presented to resolve post-application issues.
Although many uses of azinphos-methyl were retained, concern over worker safety leaves the future availability of this pesticide in doubt. EPA perceives worker risk to be unacceptably high – even if protective clothing and equipment are used.
“To achieve acceptable exposure levels for post-application workers, field re-entry intervals must be significantly increased in length,” according to the EPA document. “These increases may affect the efficacious use of azinphos-methyl on many crops.”

The Fruit Growers News