SECTION: IN THE NEWS

LENGTH: 1169 words

HEADLINE: PREPARED TESTIMONY OF
DONNIE DIPPEL
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER FOR PESTICIDE PROGRAMS
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
BEFORE THE HOUSE AGRICULTURE COMMITTEE
DEPARTMENT OPERATIONS, OVERSIGHT,
NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY SUBCOMMITTEE

BODY:

 
Mr. Chairman and Committee members:
Commissioner Susan Combs is sorry she could not be here, but I appreciate the opportunity to testify on behalf of the Texas Department of Agriculture to express our continuing interest and concerns regarding the Environmental Protection Agency's implementation of the Food Quality Protection Act.
No one argues with the intent of FQPA; however, problems have arisen occasionally through implementation. When the agencies responsible for pesticide regulation do not have clear regulatory guidance regarding issues such as risk assessments, uncertainty factors, and emergency uses, it is very difficult to fulfill our responsibilities to the people we are charged with protecting or the farmers and ranchers we strive to support. The changing needs for supporting data, differing acceptable risk criteria, and changing environmental fate requirements demonstrate how important it is that the Agriculture Committee continues to provide oversight and insists that EPA provide clear, specific guidance to states regarding what is required for a crop protection product to be approved.
Today, I would first like to outline the Texas Department of Agriculture's commitment to ensuring that the implementation of the new pesticide laws is based on real risk, sound science, and continued availability of necessary crop protection products. Second, I will outline our experiences, both good and bad, with EPA's application of FQPA. Finally, I want to suggest policy guidance that will help as states strive to meet the new safety standards set by FQPA.
Commissioner Combs is committed to ensuring FQPA implementation that is reasonable and rational. She became a member of the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture's Committee on Pesticide Regulations, which recently approved a very strong statement regarding EPA's interpretation of the law. I respectfully submit a copy of that policy to the record.
Even prior to Commissioner Combs' administration, the Texas Department of Agriculture was committed to providing advice and input to EPA's application of FQPA. TDA has committed staff resources to efforts such as the Tolerance Reassessment Advisory Committee to ensure that EPA clearly understands what states need in order to responsibly administer the new law. The Commissioner continues to demonstrate the importance of this issue through our continued participation in these efforts and her commitment to ensuring that FQPA policy expertise is part of her new administration.
Though you have heard it before, I want to remind you of the ever- changing demands EPA made during the summer of 1997 relating to the request for an emergency specific exemption to use carbofuran. TDA invested extensive time and money to answer potential carbofuran residues in cotton gin trash. EPA alleged it was fed to cattle in Texas despite evidence that gin trash is seldom used as a source of feed for dairy cattle.
Last year, even after exhaustive preparatory work, EPA raised yet another issue regarding carbofuran that created extreme uncertainty for us, as the agency issuing the emergency exemption, and even more uncertainty for South Texas farmers who desperately needed the product. EPA planned to deny the request because of groundwater problems with carbofuran in New York. We went to the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission for data on carbofuran detections. There were none in groundwater or surface water from use of carbofuran on cotton. The only Texas detections were from the use of granular carbofuran on rice.
This raises the issue of EPA not accepting data from the states. EPA must use data from state sources instead of seeking a worst-case scenario in another state. Data must be relevant to the geographic area where the pesticide will be applied. The states have the largest stake in making sure pesticides do not harm groundwater or surface water or any other aspect of the environment. We are the ones who must answer to consumers, producers and our state legislators.
But despite these continuing issues, I would like to commend EPA for the improvement we have seen in working with us to make the Section 18 process more manageable over the last couple of years. The EPA staff has provided timely answers regarding emergency registrations to Texas growers. The quick turnaround on agency decisions has been extremely helpful in our efforts to fulfill our responsibilities as the state's pesticide regulatory agency.
Many of these problems could be eliminated if alternative, reduced- risk pesticides were available. FQPA forced EPA to refocus its resources toward meeting the requirements of the act, specifically reassessing tolerances. As a result, states have had to ask for Section 18 exemptions which also require EPA resources.
Here are just a few examples of some reduced-risk pesticides that we believe should have been registered by now. We have obtained Section 18 emergency specific exemptions for Confirm on cotton for four years, Capture on grain sorghum for four years, Dual on spinach for 5 years and maleic hydrazide on rice for 3 years. Dual use on spinach is an IR-4 project, and EPA has had this reliable and scientific data for two years yet the product is still not registered.
Commissioner Combs wants me to convey her support for the efforts made by this subcommittee, the TRAC, and the industry's Implementation Working Group to help provide more clarity.
Finally, I want to provide a few suggestions on policy development that will help the Texas Department of Agriculture in our efforts to apply the new safety standard. We need specific rules, developed through the rulemaking process, regarding key FQPA issues.
As regulators, if we know what the benchmark is on dietary, residential, and nonoccupational exposure, how the additional safety facts will be applied, and how nondetectable levels will be treated, we will do a better job of providing EPA with the data and scientific information it needs to make registration decisions.
I cannot stress strongly enough the importance of the United States Department of Agriculture's Pesticide Data Program. PDP significantly upgrades the statistical reliability and extent of information available for the assessment of risk posed by pesticide residues. The EPA should use the statistical reliability of this data on a broader scale so that it is applicable to agricultural commodities not specifically included in PDP. TDA has worked very hard to make sure that we have a qualified, competent staff of risk assessors who are able to provide the necessary information to EPA when we submit Section 18 packages. Good PDP data is crucial to our ability to do so. Once again, thank you for this opportunity to provide input regarding FQPA implementation. The Texas Department of Agriculture stands ready to continue this information exchange through the Committee, the rulemaking process, EPA, and other organizations such as NASDA.
END


LOAD-DATE: April 24, 1999