House Agriculture and Commerce Committee staff say they are deeply worried that EPA is planning to use overly cautious "default assumptions" in lieu of complete risk information when establishing regulations for pesticides under the new food safety law.
Congressional sources say they have raised their concerns with EPA Assistant Administrator for Prevention, Pesticides & Toxics Lynn Goldman in recent meetings regarding implementation of the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA), which Congress passed last fall.
Under FQPA, EPA is required to completely revamp the risk assessment procedures the agency uses when setting pesticide "tolerances" - the amount of pesticide residue that is allowed on food. Under the new law, EPA is required to basically cap the amount of risk that a particular category of pesticides can pose to the public. For instance, if EPA determines that four pesticides in a particular grouping account for a level of risk that approaches the risk cap, the agency would be barred from granting any additional tolerances for pesticides that also fall into that category.
Congressional staff are becoming increasingly concerned that EPA will use conservative "default assumptions" in lieu of more complete risk data when establishing tolerances under the new law. If this comes to pass, congressional sources fear that some pesticides will be denied tolerances simply because EPA has used conservative assumptions to deter-mine that the risk cap has been met. One House staffer says, "We are saying that you have the authority to regulate for accumulation and aggregation only when you have enough information."
But EPA sources say that they will conduct risk assessments using only "available information," and "reasonable assumptions," according to one high-ranking EPA official. One EPA official explains that establishing tolerances always involves a degree of judgement based on the best available data. This source points out that FQPA clearly allows the agency to make assumptions when complete data is not available.
Congressional staff are taking issue with position, arguing that EPA does not have as much authority as it is suggesting. One House staffer stresses that congressional staff have argued in recent meetings with EPA that the law intended for EPA to make risk determinations that are predicated exclusively on the data that is at hand. If no such data exists, congressional sources say that the law did not intend for EPA to use default assumptions in a risk determinations. A Democratic staffer stresses that many on Capitol Hill are "worried about the real world impact" of this practice. "The bottom line is that if these default assumptions are used as a tool for the removal of all kinds pesticides that were previously considered safe, then there is going to be a lot of heartburn."
If held to this standard, EPA officials say that the agency would be forced to make incomplete risk determinations since the agency does not posses complete data in a number of areas. For instance, EPA sources point out that while information of pesticide exposure through drinking water is "fairly good," information on exposure through home and garden use of pesticides is poor.
Material presented on this home page constitutes opinion of the author.
Copyright © 1997 Steven J. Milloy. All rights reserved. Site developed and hosted by WestLake Solutions, Inc.