H.R. 1627... "The Food Quality
and Protection Act of 1996"

FQPA Update

By Alan Schreiber

in Agrichemical and Environmental News
Washington State Department of Agriculture
Issue No. 133, March 1997

EPA is reevaluating all tolerances for the 39 organophosphate insecticides used on food crops. It will do the same for B2 carcinogens and carbamate pesticides. EPA representatives have expressed such great concern that these compounds will not mee t FQPA standards that registrations for many of the compounds will have to be canceled. It is likely in the near future that EPA will strongly discourage any registration work on several of these compounds. Almost all FQPA risk assessments are associated with dietary risk. At least eight organophosphate insecticides are thought to have full risk cups (a current term to describe the maximum amount of exposure or risk that a pesticide can have). The actual phrase used by EPA is that the risk cups for these compounds are " overflowing, not just overflowing, but gushing". EPA is not saying which compounds are in trouble, but it is my belief that these compounds are chlorpyrifos (Lorsban), phorate (Thimet), oxydemeton-methyl (MSR), aldicarb (Temik), methamidiphos (Monitor), ethoprop (Mocap), dyfonate (Fonofos) and azinp hos-methyl (Guthion). Other compounds with uses in jeopardy due to the FQPA may include diazinon or phosmet (Imidan). The FQPA is making Section 18s more difficult to obtain. A recent experience by the hop industry is insightful. Oregon hop growers this year are requesting ethoprop for control of garden symphylan under Section 18. It is the second year for the request.

The request was granted in 1996 after development of a risk mitigation plan to prevent excessive worker exposure. Since the Section 18 was granted in 1996, FQPA passed and changed the Section 18 process. The risk cup for ethoprop is now considered by E PA to be "overflowing". Additionally, multiple breakdown products of the chemical have recently been considered by EPA to be more toxic than previously thought, adding to the risk associated with the chemical.

Under a literal interpretation of FQPA, there can be no new uses of the chemical, but registrations for this chemical must be reduced to the point where the risk cup is not overflowing. Hop industry representatives argued that the way ethoprop was used resulted in no detectable residues in hops and that, therefore, the compound could not increase dietary exposure or risk.

Considerable debate occurred regarding whether the Section 18 should be granted; EPA's Office of General Counsel led the argument against granting the exemption. Ultimately, Oregon received permission from EPA for the use of ethoprop on hops.