On July 23, 1996, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 by a unanimous vote of 417 to 0. On July 24, 1996, the act also passed the Senate unanimously without amendment. By July 26, the act was presented to the president, who signed it into law at a White House ceremony on August 3, 1996.

With a stroke of a pen, President Clinton signed into law the most sweeping change to the regulation of pesticides since the 1988 changes to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act that resulted in the reregistration of pesticides. It is possible that the 1996 changes could be even more far reaching than those of 1988.

The most unsettling aspect of the new legislation is what we do not know about it. I am calling the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 a Trojan iceberg. The act resembles a Trojan horse. It has, at first glance, several desirable characteristics, such as the overturning of the Delaney Clause. However, I believe it could ultimately have a much greater negative impact on the cost and production of food. The act can also be referred to as an iceberg. Just as 90% of an iceberg cannot be seen, so will much of the impact of the act remain unknown until EPA, USDA and FDA convert the legislation into regulation. We will not know the full impact of the legislation for several years.

Something that I have found particularly striking about this act is that I have found no one who can tell me the effects of this legislation. NO ONE KNOWS WHAT THIS LEGISLATION MEANS.

Briefly, I will provide some of my thoughts regarding some of the major points of the act:

• The legislation sets a uniform standard in setting all tolerances in food -- "a reasonable certainty of no harm". Historically, this means 1 in 1 million additional risk of cancer over a lifetime. While it is unclear what this means, one informed estimate is that this will require 80% of all tolerances to be readjusted downward, perhaps by one to three orders of magnitude for some pesticides. This will be tantamount to cancellation for many pesticides.
  
• EPA must treat as one pesticide all pesticides with the same toxic endpoint, such as all cholinesterase inhibiting pesticides. This means that the additive toxicological impact of all organophosphate insecticides must be considered.
  
• The legislation requires the development and implementation of a comprehensive screening program for estrogenic and other endocrine effects within three years and a report to Congress within four years. By its own admission, it will be difficult for EPA to meet this requirement fully.
  
• EPA is required to publish pamphlets containing consumer friendly information on the risks and benefits of pesticides, recommendations for reducing exposure to pesticide residues and maintaining a healthy diet.
  
• Virtually all of the recommendations of the 1993 National Academy of Sciences report on pesticides in the diets of infants and children are included. This includes a ten-fold increase (beyond the current 100-fold safety margin) in the safety margin for children.
  
• The legislation could have strong impacts on U.S. agricultural exports and imports. The legislation will require EPA to lower tolerances below the current Codex and World Health Organizations levels. This could prevent the importation of some fruits and vegetables and is bound to result in charges that the U.S. is creating trade barriers and in retaliation toward our exports.
  
• Organophosphate and carbamate insecticides will be the most severely impacted groups of pesticides.
  
• The Delaney Clause is overturned. The impact of this will be immediate. Several cancellations will be prevented. Already, IR-4 program will be able to proceed with several projects that had been on hold due to Delaney.
  
• Pesticide usage data can be used to estimate more accurately chronic risk from pesticides. This will make collection of pesticide usage data very important. The National Agricultural Pesticide Impact Assessment Program is establishing a national program to collect pesticide usage data.
  
• A schedule is created for review and adjustment of tolerances. The schedule calls for 33% of tolerances to be reviewed within three years, 66% to be reviewed within six years and all to be reviewed within 10 years. EPA is instructed to give priority to tolerances that appear to pose the greatest risk to public health. This means that most of the major food use pesticides and fungicides will be examined first.
  
• A very different definition of a minor use crop is created. This definition is the broadest definition yet in use. Virtually any crop can qualify as having a minor use pattern. If a pesticide use pattern is safer than existing alternatives or could be important in resistance management, it is a minor use. Minor use registration applications will be given expedited reviews 12 months).
  
• The act creates a minor use program at EPA. Previously, EPA had a single (overworked but committed) individual addressing minor use issues.
  
• The Secretary of Agriculture is directed to establish a minor use program and a data development grant program, to be funded by Minor Use Pesticide Data Revolving Fund. It remains to be seen what impact this will have.
  
• An additional $12 million is provided for increased FDA monitoring of pesticide residues in imported and domestic food.
  
• A significant change has been made in the way Section 18 exemption requests are handled. EPA will probably require additional data, and the agency will have a much more extensive (more time consuming) review process.
  
• Pesticide regulatory authority will be provided to Indian tribes, if at least 50% of the reservation lands are owned by the tribe or tribal members.

For more information on the Food Quality Protection Act, see The Food Quality Protection Act.