June, 1999
by Lee Dean
As this issue was going to press, the fruit industry was awaiting the Environmental Protection Agency’s announcement of a refined risk assessment for a widely used insecticide.
The assessment, for azinphos-methyl (Guthion) is part of the implementation of the Food Quality Protection Act. Speculation about the announcement centered on how it may affect use of the product this growing season to concern about the completeness of the data used and how environmental groups may interpret the results.
An early clue about what the assessment may contain was posted in early May on EPA’s website. The site contained a technical summary noting that dietary risk is high from acute exposure, worker risk is very high, drinking water risk is uncertain, ecological risks are high and that aggregate risk is of concern from acute exposure. "Acute" refers to the toxic effects produced by a single exposure to a toxicant, while "chronic" refers to the toxic effects produced by prolonged or multiple dose exposure to a toxicant.
At issue is how EPA is calculating risk. At the 99.9th percentile, the risk of using Guthion is of concern, while at the 99.8th percentile, the risk for all populations is not of concerns.
That .1 difference is very important in how the data are interpreted, said Cindy Baker of Gowan Corporation, a member of the Tolerance Reassessment Advisory Committee that is advising EPA.
"The EPA, prior to FQPA, regulated at 95%. The Europeans regulate at 97.5%. Nothing is regulated at 99.9 and to do so is to essentially say a product is 100% safe, and that’s not possible," said Baker.
The technical summary notes that apple consumption is "clearly the major contributor to risk." That had apple industry advocates preparing to counter the information presented at the public announcement of the Guthion data.
Apple industry officials like Kraig Naasz, president of the U.S. Apple Association, were getting ready to counter how environmental groups would spin the data.
"We are working aggressively to try and influence the tenor of the briefing in such a way that it does not call into question the safety of products treated with Guthion," said Naasz. "We remain confident that as long as the process is guided by sound science in accordance with the mandate from Congress that ultimately Guthion will be awarded a clean bill of health."
Another issue is how the announcement would change the way Guthion is used in the orchard. For the workers, EPA says the risk is very high, to the level that extending restricted entry intervals (REI) to reduce the risk level to an acceptable level would not make the use of Guthion practical for crop production.
Baker said the worker risks were calculated using data that did not reflect actual use levels of the product. An EPA-sponsored task force called the Agricultural Re-entry Task Force is expected to provide a more accurate number for the agency to use.
Growers should be able to retain the use of Guthion, if adjustments are made in how it is applied. Mark Whalon, Michigan State University entomology professor and TRAC member, believes this won’t pose problems for growers in his state.
"We think we can preserve the use of azinphos-methyl if we extend the REI, increase the PHI (pre-harvest interval) and reduce the total rate per acre of active ingredient that’s legal to apply," said Whalon. "Based on the average practice Michigan, this shouldn’t cramp the style of many growers."
On the legislative front, a bill in Congress is challenging the FQPA’s implementation process.
The Regulatory Fairness Act was introduced in April with the sponsorship of a bipartisan group of 21 Congressmen. That number had grown to more than 40 as of mid-May. It is intended to ensure EPA’s adherence to a directive of Vice President Al Gore.
The vice-president directed that implementation be conducted using the best possible science, come up with clear and understandable rules, that agriculture be given adequate time to adjust to the changes and that EPA should speed up the approval of alternative products.
As a result of Gore’s memo, the Tolerance Reassessment Advisory Committee (TRAC) was formed. The committee continues to meet and try to come up advise EPA on how best to implement the law. The group continues to meet as the deadline to complete the first one-third of pesticide tolerances (August of 1999) approaches.
The bill’s sponsors are Reps. Allen Boyd (D-Fla.), Gary Condit (D-Cal.), Richard Pombo (R-Calif.) and Ed Towns, (D-N.Y). They and the other co-sponsors believe EPA is rejecting sound science and actual pesticide use data.
"This is something all of us have been watching and monitoring for a period of time and we’ve been a little bit unhappy with the progress that this issue has taken," said Condit.
The bill would require EPA to take certain steps to more closely adhere to Gore’s memo. The agency would have to note where default assumptions were used to make a tolerance. A default assumption presupposes use of the maximum-labeled rate of a pesticide.
The bill requires EPA to instead use real-world data and scientifically sound information when changing or revoking uses. EPA would also have to consider the marketplace impact of the loss of crop protection materials and the emergency-use permit process for registration would be streamlined.
The bill was introduced with the support of more than 60 agribusiness organizations, including American Farm Bureau Federation and American Crop Protection Association.
Future TRAC meetings won’t need such a large table after representatives of the remaining environmental and public interest groups resigned in late April. The Environmental Working Group’s representative left last year.
The April 27 letter of resignation was signed by officials of the World Wildlife Fund, Natural Resources Defense Council, Pesticide Education Center, Consumers Union, Farmworker Justice Fund, National Campaign for Pesticide Policy Reform and the Farmworker Support Committee.
The groups believe the TRAC process is now serving only to delay the "meaningful implementation" of the law. Their letter said EPA may succeed in meeting the August deadline, it will do so only by removing old or little-used tolerances, and would not make meaningful progress on organophosphate and carbamate materials.
"I think they left because they weren’t getting what they wanted," said Baker. "It’s really disappointing because now we don’t have a balanced committee. But the members who are left expressed desire for TRAC to continue."
The Fruit Growers News