Recall food safety act

By Ebere Akobundu Copyright 1999 Washington Times September 1, 1999

Pesticides or pests? For most people, the answer is straightforward because no one wants cockroaches competing with children for the food in the house. However, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has decided that pests will stay and pesticides will go as it implements the 1996 federal pesticide law. Last month, it banned several pesticides that protect children from disease-carrying pests and that help parents provide their children with a healthy diet.

The EPA has authority to impose such bans under the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA), which directs the EPA to reassess existing standards for pesticide residues on foods and animal feed. Any pesticide that is used in the United States must be registered with the agency. Under the FQPA, the agency limits public exposure to pesticides by limiting their registered use. To that end, it uses a theoretical construct called the "risk cup." The cup represents the level of public exposure of a pesticide that the EPA will allow. Each registered use of a pesticide adds to the cup. When the cup is full, the EPA will not register any more uses.

Under this system, the EPA has already begun to cancel pesticide uses because the risk cup has filled up rapidly thanks to overly stringent guidelines that Congress included in the new law. In particular, the law demands that the EPA consider all pesticides with similar health effects as one product -which places them all in one cup. For example, all organophosphate pesticides - which amount to about a dozen products - go into one cup, which enabled the EPA to ban some of them in August. Furthermore, the law requires that the EPA often make standards 10 times more stringent than what EPA determines is safe.

But these new standards won't improve public health because current pesticide levels are already beyond safe - even for children. Frank Cross, professor of business regulation at the University of Texas, cites various studies showing that EPA overstates pesticide exposure by as much as 99,000 to 463,000 times actual exposure levels. Moreover, current standards are the result of a process that has already accounted for uncertainties by setting standards at levels as high as 100 times what EPA considers safe. What are we accomplishing by attempting to make pesticides "safer than safe"?

Not much. But we do have much to lose when you consider the tradeoffs. Organophosphate pesticide bans are particularly troubling. These products are used in schools, offices, homes and farms to control roach, rodent, aphid and other pest infestations. From a public health perspective, the control of these insects is critically important. Cockroaches carry various strains of bacteria including Salmonella, and they contribute to asthma. In addition, fleas and termites in the home will multiply in the absence of pesticide products that are currently available. Perhaps we will find alternative pesticides, but will they work as well and can we be sure that they are any safer?

In addition, farmers need organophosphate pesticides to ensure an adequate supply of fruits and vegetables, key ingredients in children's diets. Without them, we can expect prices to increase, a reality that will hurt low-income families the most.

The majority of children spend their time playing in and around school grounds, at home, or with pets, and they already eat too few fruits and vegetables. Under the law designed to protect them, many will face greater health risks.

The pesticide standards in effect are sufficient; the risks minimal. However, risks of adverse health effects from the inadequate consumption of fruits and vegetables and from pest infestations in schools, home and work are not minimal. The question, "pesticides or pests?" has a clearer answer when rephrased as "low risk or high risk?" Any product that presents the latter choice to consumers would be recalled. Why should the pesticide law be treated any differently?

Ebere Akobundu is a research assistant at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

Comments on this posting?
Click here to post a public comment on the Trash Talk Bulletin Board.
Click here to send a private comment to the Junkman.