July 31, 1996
Dear Senator Thompson:
I am pleased to share some thoughts regarding the implications of
passage July 24th of H.R. 1627, "The Food Quality Protection Act of 1996."
This is one of the most significant environmental and public health bills
passed in 20 years, and indeed may distinguish itself in time as the most
significant. This is because it changes fundamentally the goal of regulation
from protecting healthy adults, based on hypothetical average estimates of
exposure one pesticide use at a time, to protecting the most vulnerable
segments of the population, almost always pregnant women, the unborn,
infants, and children, based on modern scientific knowledge and real world
estimates of exposure from all routes of exposure and all pesticide uses (food,
water, air and other chemicals that cause adverse impacts through the same
biological mode of action).
In a nutshell, this means a majority of pesticide tolerances are finally
going to be adjusted downward to more assuredly safe levels, as a series of
scientific experts and commissions have been recommending since the Mrak
Commission in 1969. Based on substantial past analyses done on the
provisions in the bill, I estimate that about two-thirds of the existing
tolerances on the books will be affected, and about one-half of these will be
affected significantly, i.e. lowered more than 10-fold.
The scientific need and justification for the major changes in H.R.
1627 are fully presented in two National Research Council/National
Academy of Sciences reports: the 1987 Regulating Pesticides in Food: The
Delaney Paradox and the 1993 report Pesticides in the Diets of Infants and
Children. I served from 1984-1990 as the Executive Director of the Board in
the NRC that carried out these studies and am very familiar with them, the
underlying analyses carried out during the projects, and their role in shaping
H.R. 1627. To a degree I have not seen matched in my almost 20 years in
Washington, the newly passed bill implements almost verbatim essentially all
the major recommendations of these two reports. In the attached bill
analysis, I refer to these two NRC reports in the course of explaining the
scientific justification for the changes.
Several factors amplify the significance of H.R. 1627. First,
unanimous passage in both the House and Senate within four working days
of initial subcommittee markup of controversial legislation bottled up for
three years in this Congress (and for about 10 years actually, if one goes back
to the first real effort in 1987 to act on the '87 report's recommendations), is
an extraordinary statement of bipartisan support and evidence of the
importance the Congress places in getting this endless and divisive debate
behind it, and Praise the Lord, behind us all. The way this bill passed
provides EPA a powerful mandate to implement it on schedule and true to the
principles set forth in the bill. Also, it will not be easily undone regardless of
the outcome of the forthcoming election, although I already hear some people
suggesting that certain "minor" corrections are going to be needed. Good
luck.
Second, the "reasonable certainty of no harm" standard for infants
and children and the vulnerable will become, I predict, the health standard
adopted over the next decade or so in other federal environmental and public
health law, as well as in legislation in progressive, public-health minded
states. These may include California at some point in the future.
Third, the international trade ramifications of the bill are enormous,
particularly for California agriculture which ships overseas such a variety of
high-value fruit, vegetable and drink products. EPA will be lowering
hundreds of tolerances significantly within a few years to well below current
Codex/WHO levels. Some of our trading partners and competitors will no
doubt try to challenge these changes as non-tariff trade barriers and the U.S.
will have to defend the scientific justification for the lowering of tolerances.
This debate will be visible on a world wide stage and the U.S. position will
prevail, I am certain.
This debate will set the stage for major, and long-overdue changes in
the way international organizations evaluate and attempt to bound pesticide
risks from dietary exposure. Some countries - Canada, Japan, much of
Europe - are bound to eventually adopt the same or a similar standard
through domestic legislation. As this process unfolds over a 10 year period
or so, California producers and exporters will find themselves again at the
vanguard of controversial changes involving pesticides, public health and
pest management practices. Some in the agricultural community will view
and respond to this debate as unwarranted, not based on sound science and a
threat, and will invest their time, talents and resources in fighting change.
Others will accept the judgment of science and the need for lowering
tolerances, and they will seize change as an opportunity and invest their skills
and capital in helping farmers move along the IPM continuum. This is the
best way to meet the new standards while holding pest damage and total pest
management costs steady (indeed, experience suggests many farmers will
lower both damage and costs once they stop relying excessively on pesticides
that are working poorly). I am sure a greater portion of the latter group of
growers and processors, those that respond to the challenge rather than
fighting the need for change, will wind up standing, and prospering when the
dust settles.
Your staff asked that I share some initial thoughts on the implications
of H.R. 1627 on California agriculture. In short, it will be positive although
many working in the pest management and production community today,
who have to make pay-rolls and suffer the consequences if pest management
systems fail, for whatever reason, are not likely to look
down the road long enough to see how or why this bill is a plus for
California. Some will need help along the way and I hope they receive it, for
it will be a good long-run investment.
The bill will help California because it shines a spotlight on food
safety. This helps California because first, the state produces the safest food
in the world in terms of average levels of pesticide residues and dietary
exposure, and second, because California has the strictest laws and the most
comprehensive state pesticide regulatory program in the country. By virtue
of the weather, the sophistication and diversity of growers, a great university
system, the independent pest management professionals working in the field,
the innovation going on in both small and large companies offering pest
management products and services, California farmers will always have an
easier time than most others in meeting stricter pesticide safety standards. In
addition, it is important to add, indeed emphasize, that farmers and
agribusiness workers are also consumers, have children, hope to have a
healthy life and so will also benefit from the added measure of health
protection this bill will bring about. This benefit will be extended to farm
workers, people drinking water in agricultural areas and indeed all consumers
in the State. The economic importance of this outcome in saving health care
costs and enhancing quality of life for all Californians dwarfs any
inconvenience or near-term costs incurred along the way to biointensive IPM.
While imposing some cost and challenge during transition periods,
California agriculture can and should accelerate progress toward biointensive
IPM. I sense that commitment to IPM has waned among some parts of the
agricultural community in the last few years, despite the pesticide-induced
crop failures and environmental problems that are arising with troubling
regularity. It is hard for me to understand why this wavering in support for
IPM has happened, given the enormous success of so many respected, large
commercial growers in the state who have, for whatever reason, decided that
biointensive IPM is the way to go. In my forthcoming Consumers Union
book on IPM, Pest Management at the Crossroads, there are dozens of
examples from California of both the collapse and adverse consequences of
excessively pesticide-dependent systems, as well as the successes many
farmers have achieved by allowing a little biology back onto the farm.
Indeed, we cite the California wine grape industry as probably the most
advanced major agricultural industry anywhere in the world in terms of
adopting biointensive IPM.
The forthcoming book, by the way, documents the ongoing, and
predicts a major further shift in pesticide regulatory responsibilities from the
federal government to the states. Clearly, DPR is going to face major added
challenges because of H.R. 1627. The bill is going to force a sort of triage
among pesticide manufacturers, who must choose which tolerances and uses
to keep, and which to abandon. Especially for OP and carbamate
insecticides, the bill is going to force major changes, since all these pesticides
are going to be regulated, in effect, as one. (All or most work to inhibit
cholinesterase function in the brain).
Pesticide companies will pursue combinations of three ways to "save"
their most profitable labels and uses: seek voluntary cancellation of all uses
of their most toxic compounds (likely to impact about a dozen insecticides),
in effect saving their allotment of OP/carbamate exposure for their most
profitable products within their existing product line; drop high dietary
exposure uses with low acreage (read, California agriculture); and, change the
way insecticides are formulated and applied in order to drive down residue
levels post-harvest so that a given label, as revised, uses up very little of an
active ingredient's total allowed exposure.
There are ways to use many OP/carbamates today in California that
will result in extremely infrequent and very low residues, and which could
survive under this bill - but who is going to do the work needed to convince
the companies and EPA of this fact? I see a major role for DPR in working
with the growers, processors and the pesticide industry to obtain new section
24 ( c ) registrations coupled with geographically limited tolerances, as well
as in changing formulations, pre-harvest intervals, maximum rates of
application, standard post-harvest food handling practices, and many other
factors. These are among the many strategies California should pursue in
response to this bill. The name of the game is driving residues down and
saving uses that companies would otherwise abandon in favor of corn,
soybean, cotton, small grain and other major commodity uses. But all these
steps will require development and approval of state labels and/or revised
federal labels, based on real data and credible analyses, that EPA accepts and
trusts. DPR can do this but not without additional resources.
For example, take Lorsban, an important insecticide for dozens of
California crops. Suppose EPA's judgment ends up requiring an average 50-
fold reduction in Lorsban tolerances for all food crops. DowElanco ponders
what to do and starts to move toward ending 30 high exposure but low
sales/income minor crop uses, to save a dozen major crop uses. But growers
and processors in California feel it is feasible to retain most of these uses
even with the lowered tolerances. To convince DowElanco to seek and
defend the lower tolerances, or for the state to seek them under the minor use
provisions in H.R. 1627 (which are going to be much more important now,
given the other provisions in the bill), will require decisive and well
coordinated action by everyone in the state, in both the public and private
sectors.
The strategy will work only if California grower, processor,
environmental, consumer and other interests, working with DPR, can devise
a set of label changes supported by field research data and evaluated by DPR,
and enforceable in California because of the state's unique capabilities
and use-reporting system, that will result in residues reliably below the
soon-to-be lowered tolerances. I am aware that DPR has placed high priority
on the label review and revision process, which is going to take time and
resources but which is essential if margins of safety in the state are to be
expanded, as some probably should be. H.R. 1627 greatly enhances the
importance of moving forward with that process.
EPA would probably decide to proceed with lowering the tolerances
50-fold on average, rather than ending them altogether. This would mean
that over the next three to five years pest managers will have to shift a major
share of the insect pest management burden to biologically-based
interventions, what we call biointensive IPM, but that in the years when
weather or other factors limit the effectiveness of such systems, there would
still be products like Lorsban in the toolkit. This works only if the remaining
relatively toxic OPs and carbamates are all used very judiciously, not as a
routine crutch but as an insurance policy.
I apologize for lack of time now to fully evaluate and explain the
several other ways this bill, and its also very important FIFRA provisions,
will change the demands on DPR. There is major new authority, for
example, to preserve minor uses and reward companies developing
biopesticides, but both will again depend upon a strong scientific case
coming from the state, with DPR playing a major role in shaping data
requirements, establishing review provisions and decision-criteria, and taking
on responsibility for monitoring exposure episodes and enforcing labels. The
capacity of DPR to perform these tasks will determine what pesticides can be
used in the state and whether the still damaging lag between approval by
EPA and other states, and in California is lessened. Indeed, the bill envisions
a day when many specialized products get registered first in states (and
perhaps largely by states), after EPA assesses and approves tolerance
petitions.
Last, you asked for suggestions regarding where funding should be
invested. Again, just a few preliminary ideas. The DPR "IPM Innovator"
award, and the competitive grant program for IPM partnerships, have been
incredibly successful and have cost next to nothing. I urge you to markedly
expand these programs. Why not give each agricultural sector "IPM
Innovator" award winner a $50,000.00 prize, and urban winners prizes of
appropriate size, contingent upon receipt of an acceptable proposal to take
their work the next level and share the roots of their success widely through
the state? The State can best leverage change by supporting those who have
taken on the challenge of leadership on their own. How about a dedicated
pool of IPM competitive grant award funds in 1997 and annually beyond that
only IPM Innovator award winners can compete for, so that past award
winners, some of which frankly are struggling to keep up with the challenges
they face, can also receive a boost to keep going down a sometimes difficult
path.
A major strength of the competitive grant program is that the money
goes to private organizations, commodity groups, processors, etc that are in
the IPM trenches. Direct DPR to keep it that way, and let these groups reach
into the university community to collaborate with faculty of their choosing,
people who in the past have been responsive to requests for help. The same
suggestions applies to agricultural consultants and IPM service providers,
like analytical labs. Let those facing the consequences of failure in the field
choose who they wish to place their confidence in.
I hope you can find a way to at least double the size of the grant
program. Awards should be extended to support up to five years work, with
one renewal possible if strong progress is demonstrated in the first grant.
IPM takes a long time, and continuity of effort requires continuity of support.
So many talented IPM experts in California are spending way too much time
trying to keep bread on the table, and are simply not able, despite sincere
desire, to work in the sort of partnerships that are now proving their worth
across the state. So, why not double the state's contribution to projects, while
at the same time requiring a minimum 25 percent real cash (not in-kind) cost-
share match from the private sector partners? This could be waived in cases
where there is no partner financially able to meet the requirement.
Also on the research front, it strikes me as singly short-sighted, and
small minded, that the State and its official institutions have clearly not taken
full advantage, nor acknowledged, the pioneering contributions of organic
farmers in the pest management arena. These farmers have made
biointensive IPM work through hard work, costly experimentation and a lot
of determination. They have paid for their mistakes and for their convictions,
and the State, its citizens and conventional agriculture has and will continue
to reap important benefits as a result. Many of the innovative strategies now
finding their way onto the state's large conventional farms and ranches were
first tried and refined and shown practical by organic farmers. They
continued to pay the consultants, lab fees and experts who said ".this can't
be done, we don't have the tools or the knowledge.." but then pressed on and
found both.
I hope DPR will find new ways to assure that a reasonable portion of
IPM research program funds support work on organic farms with organic
farmers as partners. California is home to some of the world's most
advanced organic farmers, whose produce is sought after and known by name
around the world. Why not invite the recognized leaders in the organic
community, the Organic Farming Research Foundation (OFRF), BIRC, CSA,
CCOF, and perhaps others I am not aware of, to collaborate with
DPR/PMAC in soliciting and awarding a portion of the funds to organic
farmers and those working with them? The grants OFRF is now awarding,
even more so than the grants that DPR is able to make, are far too small and
too short to carry out, and convincingly document, onfarm research on
significantly new approaches. This perpetuates the enormous investment of
time in writing grants, a task that typically falls on those who have the most
to contribute when working with growers and pest managers in the field.
I attach a brief analysis of H.R. 1627 and hope these hastily
composed comments are of value. Let me say clearly, as one who has
studied DPR's program in detail (see enclosed report, Challenge and
Change), I think the program is well managed and does an excellent job in
keeping its focus on the high risk pesticide uses and challenges in the state,
despite sometimes less than helpful guidance from various players in the
state. Its importance will rise in the years ahead, both in protecting the
natural resources of the state and the health of the state's citizens, farmers and
farm workers, and pesticide handlers and applicators. DPR's ability to do its
job requires a predictable and secure financial base and the confidence of the
citizens of the state. It is, after all, a public institution working on behalf of
the public. For DPR to retain public trust and to make the tough calls it
faces from time to time, it must not be forced to go begging for funding
and/or political support from the regulated community. That sort of
dependency serves no one's interest.
Thanks for the chance to share these thoughts and let me know if I
can be of further assistance.
Charles Benbrook
Senator Mike Thompson
California State Senate
State Capitol
Sacramento, California 95614
Sincerely,
