SECTION: IN THE NEWS

LENGTH: 3602 words

HEADLINE: PREPARED STATEMENT OF
DEAN KLECKNER
PRESIDENT
THE AMERICAN FARM BUREAU FEDERATION
BEFORE THE HOUSE AGRICULTURE COMMITTEE
DEPARTMENT OPERATIONS, OVERSIGHT, NUTRITION AND FORESTRY
SUBCOMMITTEE
SUBJECT - IMPLEMENTATION OF THE FOOD QUALITY PROTECTION ACT

BODY:

 
Good morning, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank you and the members of the Subcommittee for holding this hearing. I am Dean Kleckner, a hog and soybean farmer from Rudd, Iowa, and I serve as the President of the American Farm Bureau Federation, the nation's largest agricultural organization.
Like the members of this committee, all members of Congress, many of the agencies and organizations represented at this heating today, Farm Bureau supported passage of the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996. Passage of the FQPA was viewed as the successful conclusion of a 15-year effort by the agricultural, food processing and crop protection community to modernize our food safety and pesticide laws. FQPA repealed the obsolete Delaney standard for food pesticide residues and replaced it with a new science and health-based standard. It established national uniformity for chemical residues and provided incentives and streamlined registrations for "minor use" farm chemicals, and gave the Environmental Protection Agency the ability to adapt and change as scientific developments and data warranted.
Our support for these provisions was tempered with serious concern that other provisions of FQPA could result in unjustified restriction of essential crop protection products if it was not carefully implemented. EPA assured Congress and others affected that implementation of the new law would cause little change in the availability of crop protection tools to farmers. Today, as we approach the three-year anniversary of FQPA's passage, how the act is being implemented is causing great concern across the country.
We are now being told that farmers must mitigate risk for many critical pesticide tools, some of which have been used safely for over 40 years. This could mean the outright cancellation of some uses and dramatically altered use patterns for others. How EPA implements provisions addressing cumulative risk, non-occupational exposure, or toxicity end point selection and other new requirements of the FQPA will dramatically affect how many crop uses will be lost or the extent of cost increases to farmers.
The organophosphate pesticides (OPs) represent the single most important class of insecticides used in U.S. agriculture and are the first of EPA's targets under FQPA. The OPs are critical to farmers because they represent about 50 percent of all insecticide treated acres and about 65 percent of the total pounds of insecticides applied in the U.S. Of the roughly 350 million acres of farmland in the U.S., OPs are used on roughly 10 percent of those acres.
This is only one class of crop protection chemistry at risk under FQPA. Others will follow with uncertain outcomes, which only increases Farm Bureau's anxiety and concern. The FQPA sets forth a number of new requirements that will result in major changes to existing regulatory policies and procedures involving a high degree of complexity. Practical implementation of these new requirements demands EPA have and use new scientific tools in addition to those that were available when the FQPA was enacted. EPA must have adequate time to properly evaluate and implement these new tools.
As you know, this implementation is happening in the middle of a farm economic crisis when farmers have little or no ability to absorb higher and higher regulatory costs. Market prices for some commodities do not reflect the cost of production. EPA' s implementation of FQPA could drive costs even higher, making a bad situation even worse. As a result of all this, the FQPA has become Farm Bureau's highest priority issue.
In 1996, Farm Bureau members nationwide contacted their members of Congress urging passage of the FQPA. But they would never have done so knowing what they know now. Please consider the following: - Would farmers have asked for your support knowing that the FQPA could remove many of the crop protection tools we rely upon most?
- Would farmers have asked for your support knowing that the FQPA could simultaneously eliminate these critical and widely used products while simultaneously slowing the registration process for newer pesticides that might serve as alternatives?
- Would farmers have asked for your support knowing that the FQPA would provide greater incentives to register pesticides for minor uses on one hand, while at the same time leading EPA to target many critical and widely used minor uses?
- Would farmers have asked for your support knowing that crop protection tools, many of which have been used safely for over 40 years, that were safe before August 3, 1996, would be in jeopardy?
- Would farmers have asked for your support knowing that EPA would consider using the law to group and assess the risk of entire classes of pesticides as one pesticide?
The answer to each of these questions is no.If the safety of our food supply was in question and deteriorating, or if the health risks for Americans from consuming food treated with crop protection tools were increasing, it would be understandable to take appropriate action to correct these problems. But that is not the case.
I testified before the Senate on May 5, 1996 -- nearly 3 years ago -- to talk about these very same issues. Earlier that year the National Research Council (NRC) released the report, "Carcinogens and Anticarcinogens in the Human Diet." The report draws several conclusions which I raised then and will repeat now. Those conclusions include:
"Most naturally occurring minor dietary constituents occur at levels so low that any biologic effect, positive or negative, is unlikely. The synthetic chemicals in our diet are far less numerous than the natural and have been more thoroughly studied, monitored and regulated. Their potential biologic effect is lower."
In other words, natural chemicals present in the foods we eat pose a greater health risk than synthetic substances. However, both natural and synthetic substances are present in our diets "at levels so low that they are unlikely to pose an appreciable cancer risk." Those words are worth repeating in light of how the FQPA is being implemented today. If we could enumerate the health benefits Americans could expect to enjoy following EPA's current implementation track, it might be worth it. But we can't. The fact is, our food is safe and forcing farmers to switch to other products will not change the health and welfare of Americans at all. We will demonstrate this point in greater detail in a few weeks. We have asked the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis to examine this issue in greater detail and we will provide to you the results from their study as soon as it is available.
The growing concern over EPA's implementation of FQPA gave rise to an unprecedented coalition effort.

Last spring Farm Bureau, the American Crop Protection Association, National Food Processors Association, major and specialty commodity groups and over 50 other farm, food, manufacturing and pest management organizations, known as the Implementation Working Group (IWG), completed and released the FQPA "Roadmap Project." The "Road Map" provides a comprehensive implementation proposal which is consistent with FQPA, serves the interests of consumers and is workable for the regulated community. It was and still is our hope that the "Roadmap" be viewed by EPA, the Agriculture Department and Congress as our constructive recommendations for workable, health and science-based implementation of FQPA. The "Road Map," we also believe, is consistent with Vice-President Al Gore's "memorandum" on the implementation of the FQPA. Both called for the use of sound science before regulatory decisions, transparency in the process, and stakeholder involvement.
Since the release of the "Road Map," we have worked with EPA and USDA in an effort to provide comments on the implementation process as appropriate. While we are encouraged in some aspects with the distance the agency and department have come over the last year, we remain very concerned overall for the future of agriculture as implementation efforts proceed. I would like to expand on several of our continuing specific major concerns.
SOUND SCIENCE
The FQPA requires EPA to assess pesticide risks for "anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information." Before the FQPA, the focus was on food. After the FQPA, the focus is still on food, but additional exposures must now be considered. This includes exposure from drinking water and exposure from non-occupational or residential exposures, such as indoor exposures to termite or cockroach pesticides.
What doesn't make sense are the unrealistic, default assumptions EPA is using when data are absent or incomplete. It was our understanding that upon passage of FQPA better data for these new requirements would be obtained before regulatory decisions were made. Unfortunately, instead of asking for data from farmers, registrants and others, EPA is using these unrealistic default assumptions. One example of the unrealistic default assumption is that when the agency does not have real pesticide use information, it assumes that farmers use pesticides at maximum rates, on all acres, and apply products the maximum number of applications. In some cases, it is also assumed that consumers are exposed daily to the maximum dose of pesticides from a variety of exposures.
If we look hard at data that is available, it becomes clear that those types of assumptions have very little resemblance to real-world exposure. Also, it is becoming clear that when actual data is substituted for default assumptions, risk is lowered and lowered considerably. EPA proved this in their recent example of a risk assessment for Guthion (Azinphos-Methyl) which they briefed stakeholders on two weeks ago. Last summer EPA's preliminary assessment, using many defaults assumptions, showed risk at nearly 5,000 percent above acceptable risk for the general public, and 10,000 percent above acceptable risk for children. Recently, EPA incorporated more realistic data from several sources including the USDA. The result was that risk is now well below acceptable levels for the general population, at 68 percent, and at the safe margin for children at 105 percent -- again, 5,000 down to 68, 10,000 down to 105, by using more realistic data.
This particular assessment underscores the need for continual and expanded EPA and USDA cooperative involvement in the process. Without this mutual partnership, we believe determining real-world exposure to pesticides would be nearly impossible to obtain.
With real-world data, we can replace these worst case assumptions, but it takes time and cooperation from EPA and USDA. Very simply, we are asking EPA to do what we feel FQPA calls for. As part of this hearing, Congress should clearly instruct EPA to use its data call in authority in order to obtain reliable information and to take the necessary time to collect and use this data. This requirement may need to be law. On this point, I am attaching a copy of a letter sent by myself and Jay Vroom, President of the American Crop Protection Association, to EPA urging the agency to utilize their authority under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) to call in data from registrants to satisfy the many data needs associated with a sound implementation of FQPA.
On May 22, 1998, AFBF, as lead petitioner, filed a Petition for Rulemaking and Procedures for Implementing the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996. In that petition, we request EPA and USDA to issue formal regulations that will govern EPA's tolerances decisions. Such regulations will give notice to registrants of what data EPA will require with applications and the methodology that EPA will apply in making decisions. Notwithstanding statutory requirements, EPA has not yet issued a coherent implementation plan and continues to rely on ad hoc policies. Under its statutory mandate, EPA must collect and evaluate new scientific and technology data about many pesticides. Because we are concerned that EPA may bypass this process and revoke tolerances by reason of broad default assumptions, Farm Bureau and others filed this petition. To date EPA has not responded.
On June 19, 1998, AFBF and numerous agricultural and food trade associations petitioned EPA to issue regulations streamlining the approval process for Section 18 tolerances for pesticides used under emergency conditions. Such proposed regulations would accelerate the Section 18 tolerances review process, avoid disruptions of EPA' s tolerances review schedule and allow EPA to concentrate its limited resources on full risk assessment for the small number of emergency permits. To date the EPA has not replied to this petition.
Finally, Farm Bureau and others have petitioned EPA to implement a key provision of FQPA, the data collection provision, codified in Section 408(f)(1) of the Food Drug and Cosmetic Act. The data collection provision would provide the agency with a way to make tolerances decisions based on reliable data rather than unsupported assumptions. Our petition in this regard was filed on October 21, 1998 and followed up on March 18, 1999. On March 30, 1999, EPA Acting Administrator, Susan Wayland, responded by stating, among other things, "While we are always interested in new information that could help us refine our analyses, the Agency already has a wealth of reliable data upon which to evaluate these chemicals." The letter concludes by stating that Congress did not intend or require that the Agency rely on such (call in) data and, moreover, the Agency it has determined that it has sufficient data on which to base its tolerances decisions. Thus, the Agency continues to ignore its obligation under the statute.
Another area that concerns Farm Bureau greatly is the so-called "cumulative approach." This provision in the law could require not only single pesticides to meet the new standards of FQPA individually, but could require a group of compounds, like the organophosphates, to be considered together and meet a standard previously allowed for just one chemical. The possible implementation of this single provision of the law underscores the need for the use of sound science and not the use of default assumptions. This cumulative approach could mean the unnecessary cancellation of entire classes of chemicals, and the loss of critical crop protection tools for growers.
TRANSPARENCY
We beleive that the implementation process for the FQPA should be open, transparent and follow established administrative procedures for federal rules and regulations. But EPA's implementation procedure has not followed normal administrative procedures for the rulemaking process.
Vice President Gore's April 8 memo has helped on this subject. It asked EPA and USDA to "ensure that the decision and positions of the two agencies are transparent to affected constituencies." EPA then began to act upon this announcement by forming the Tolerance Reassessment Advisory Committee (TRAC) and out of the TRAC, EPA has begun to publish sets of science policies for public comment. Farm Bureau believes the TRAC process has been positive for agriculture in many important respects. We believe it is essential for all concerned that this process continue in an effort to ensure openness, input and accountability. I would like to thank all of you, especially Representative Stenholm and Representative Berry for your personal efforts opening this process.
The nine science polices, with over 20 sub-papers, began to be released last fall for public comment and continue today. We greatly appreciated this effort as it offered an understanding of the tolerance reassessment process. However, nearly a year after Vice President Gore's memorandum, and only several months away from an August deadline, only one out of the 20 plus policy papers has been re-released to the public, and it is not yet final.

Mexico is the largest supplier of fruit and vegetable imports to the United States, accounting for about 50 percent of the total value in 1997. Mexico supplies about 60 percent of all fresh vegetable imports and 35 percent of the total value of fresh fruit imports.
Farmers in other countries will likely benefit and gain a competitive edge if U.S. growers lose the ability to use certain pesticides due to anecdotal information, default assumptions or invalid methodologies. Pesticide residue testing at the border is not adequate to catch produce entering the United States that has been produced using a pesticide restricted or eliminated due to the FQPA. Organophosphate and carbamate pesticides break down quickly through the action of sunlight and water into harmless by-products. Foreign growers, to prevent residues from being detected could merely increase their pre- harvest intervals to ensure that resides are not detected at the border.
So while the FQPA regulates farming practices in the United States in an attempt to improve food safety and the diets of children, it provides a competitive advantage to foreign growers who will be able to use tools U.S. growers won't be able to use. This will not improve food safety and provide stronger safeguards for infants and children. We are very concerned about the serious consequences for U.S. farmers if critical and economical crop protection tools are lost due to hasty implementation of FQPA.
THE NEED FOR LEGISLATION
The Guthion risk assessment is a perfect example of why we are now asking for legislation that specifically addresses the needs for an effective, science-based, fair implementation process that we understand and which creates a level playing field for all crop protection products. We urge your support for legislation that will refine and build upon the process for pesticide reassessment in two ways.
First, by requiring the use of sound science in place of default assumptions for the new provisions of the law. And second, by creating the much needed transition time for agriculture, EPA, USDA and other stakeholders, that the original law did not provide. We look forward to legislation that allows this transition time for the agriculture community and EPA to collect real world data and for the agency to use it.
We don't believe that by passing the FQPA, Congress intended for the EPA and USDA to make hasty decisions based on theoretical risk. Instead, we believe and agree with Congress that sound science and a fair process is the foundation of this law. These themes are concurrent with the "Road Map" that was released last summer and with the Vice President's memo to EPA and USDA. These issues must be addressed in order to address the legitimate concerns of growers across the country, and avoid serious economic impact on farmers. CONCLUSION
Our society derives significant benefits from the safe and judicious use of pesticides.
Pesticides reduce the risks of crop failure and stabilize food production.
- Pesticides increase yields and allow food to be produced on less land. Land that would otherwise be needed for food production can be devoted to wildlife habitat and other beneficial uses. Pesticides also allow environmentally fragile lands to be idled. Fewer farmed acres reduces the amount of water needed for irrigation.
- Pesticides prevent soil erosion resulting from increased cultivation to control weeds.
- Pesticides reduce farm costs. Reduced costs allow us to compete in world markets. Lower farm costs also translate to lower food costs, which encourage consumption of foods important to health.
- Pesticides allow food to be grown domestically, rather than depending on imports where we have little to no control over food production methods.
- Pesticides improve the quality and storability of food. Consumers can expect more perishability at the marketplace as a result of pest infestation and consumer rejection of products with poor appearance and quality if farmers are forced to arbitrarily reduce pesticide use. Consumers can expect poor quality foods if they are typically stored for long periods. High quality foods are essential for meeting export standards as well. Customer countries will reject U.S. products if they do not meet quality or phytosanitary standards.
- Pesticides decrease farm labor requirements. History has shown that it is difficult to attract labor to agriculture due to the often difficult working conditions.
There is a lot of good news for the American food consumer. The supply of food is bountiful, quality is unparalleled, variety is ever- expanding and prices are reasonable. The American farmer/government/university food production system is unrivaled. Our quality of life and health provide sufficient evidence and argument to build upon our current system. Our hope is that the FQPA will allow us to build on these successes rather than turning our back on them.
In conclusion, FQPA implementation is now the top priority for the American Farm Bureau Federation and many other agricultural, crop protection, pest control and food manufacturing organizations. Thousands of personal contacts have been made with EPA, USDA and members of Congress expressing the need for fair implementation. We need to have an effective, science based, fair, implementation process that we understand, that will create a level playing field for all crop protection products.
Thank you for holding this important hearing and for your attention to our concerns.
1 Fruit and Tree Nuts - Situation and Outlook Report, FT-282, March, 1998
END


LOAD-DATE: April 24, 1999