Printer Friendly

Pest patrol.

The Clinton administration's pesticide policy: on balance, a nuisance

IN SEPTEMBER, THE CLINTON ADMINIStration unveiled its game plan for pesticide regulation. If it's enacted into law, the big winners may be the pests.

In one positive change, the new policy would drop the "Delaney Clause," which bans all carcinogens from processed food. In its place would be a "negligible risk" standard for all foods. This allows pesticides that cause a risk of fewer than one extra case of cancer per million consumers exposed to the substance over a 70-year period.

But the new policy would also:

* Streamline pesticide registration by "sunsetting" pesticide ingredients. For each ingredient in its pesticides, a manufacturer would have to prove every 15 years that toxins meet "negligible risk" standards set by the Environmental Protection Agency. The standards may change at any time, and a product with several ingredients might have a different "sunset" for each ingredient. Currently, manufacturers aren't required to reregister their products for EPA approval unless evidence of harm surfaces.

* Prevent the economic benefits of a pesticide from being considered in the approval process "except in exceptional cases involving significant disruption of the food supply," in which case the product would get a five-year reprieve.

* Make risk standards stricter by basing them on the tolerance levels of children rather than adults.

* Prohibit the export of banned ingredients or products.

* Authorize the EPA to remove pesticides from the market without warning if suspected health problems arise.

* Set national goals to eliminate all "high-risk" (that is, man-made) pesticides and institute "Integrated Pest Management" controls that would require crop rotation, natural predators, and the like by the year 2000.

Secretary of Agriculture Mike Espy says the changes will assure safer food "while maintaining the economic viability of the American farmer."

But as effective pesticides are taken off the market, says Mark Maslyn of the American Farm Bureau Federation, farmers are worried that "this policy will result in higher |produce~ prices and lack of product." Maslyn voices other concerns, including the prospect of "citizen suit authority," which lets activists sue private landowners on behalf of the government for alleged violations, and skittish food processors who will "demand foods be pesticide-free if there's even a perception of risk."

Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) and Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) have sponsored bills that codify the administration's proposed policy. It is also part of the Food Quality Protection Act, introduced in September by Sen. David Pryor (D-Ark.).
COPYRIGHT 1994 Reason Foundation
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 1994, Gale Group. All rights reserved. Gale Group is a Thomson Corporation Company.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Title Annotation:U.S. pesticide policy
Author:Litsinger, Glen
Publication:Reason
Date:Feb 1, 1994
Words:406
Previous Article:A little respect.
Next Article:School switch.
Topics:


Related Articles
The high cost of pesticide subsidies.
Disarming farming's chemical warriors: research brightens the dark underside of the green revolution.
Pesticidal plants face legal hurdle.
Reassessing pesticides' value.
New legislation on pesticides and food safety laws introduced.
Environmentally responsible pest management: safer and more targeted ways than wholesale spraying are available.
Developing a comprehensive pesticide health effects tracking system for an urban setting: New York City's approach.
Pesticides sicken school kids.
Information on pesticides.
Inferring past pesticide exposures: a matrix of individual active ingredients in home and garden pesticides used in past decades.

Terms of use | Copyright © 2017 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters