SECTION: IN THE NEWS

LENGTH: 2625 words

HEADLINE: PREPARED TESTIMONY OF
E. ALLEN JAMES
BEFORE THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON DEPARTMENT OPERATIONS,
OVERSIGHT, NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY

BODY:


I am Allen James, Executive Director of RISE (Responsible Industry for a Sound Environment), the national not-for-profit trade association representing producers and suppliers of specialty pesticides for professional and consumer markets. RISE is affiliated with the American Crop Protection Association, and has more than 150 members who are manufacturers, formulators, and distributors of specialty pesticides, as well as other companies providing services to this industry or associations representing product users.
Industry products are used for public health, general pest control, lawn care, golf courses and other turf areas, nurseries and greenhouses, forestry and for terrestrial and aquatic vegetation management. Most pesticide products sold by RISE members contain the same active ingredients as agricultural pesticides.
As this Committee is well aware, the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 dramatically changed the regulation of pesticides. An entirely new paradigm of food pesticide tolerance review requirements came into place, including the need to understand an individuals total potential exposure to a particular pesticide from a variety of exposure sources, including food consumption, non-occupational use and drinking water, plus the potential exposure from all other pesticides with the same mechanism of toxicity. A new food tolerance, or continuation of an existing tolerance, would be set such that total potential exposure to a particular pesticide, or to pesticides that act in the same manner, would not exceed a "safe" level, determined as the level which would result in "reasonable certainty of no harm."
As you know, problems quickly developed in determining how the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) would accomplish this review and what policies and standards would apply. There has recently been some progress in determining appropriate review guidelines, thanks, in part, to the oversight of this Committee and to the Tolerance Reassessment Advisory Committee (TRAC) process, but much more EPA guidance is needed. My testimony will focus on the need for better data and policy guidance regarding the urban use of pesticides.
The EPA has acknowledged that the database on pesticide usage and exposure in urban areas, especially in and around homes, is weak at best. In fact, the Agency has very little information about urban pesticide usage patterns. One of the likely reasons for this data gap is that, before FQPA, potential exposure from a particular use was calculated independently of other uses. In urban areas, the potential exposure to a certain pesticide would normally be reasonably low, based on use patterns and product formulations. Limited urban use data were sufficient to make a finding of safety for a product and register it. Years of specialty pesticide usage in urban areas have confirmed the safety of these products.However, under FQPA, a very precise understanding of the use of, and potential exposure to, all pesticides in urban areas is required, to assure that accurate aggregate and cumulative determinations about these products can be made for food- use pesticides that have urban uses. Failure to develop the necessary database, and the use of exaggerated assumptions, will result in inaccurate total risk calculations. Such erroneous or overstated calculations could have adverse implications for final food tolerance decisions by falsely overflowing the well known "risk cup."
Urban use pesticide suppliers are working very hard to develop data which will satisfy the need for accurate information under FQPA. The Outdoor Residential Exposure Task Force (ORETF) was established before passage of FQPA. ORETF has since been expanded to provide broader pesticide exposure and usage information, to provide accurate models which will measure the potential exposure from the use of pesticides on lawns and other turf areas, as well as in gardens. The ORETF was originally formed as a result of a data call-in issued by the EPA to all registrants of pesticide products labeled for application to residential turfgrass. Subsequently, the Agency sanctioned the ORETF's role in generating most of the generic outdoor residential data, and individual members of the ORETF are responsible for generating certain data specific to their own pesticide formulations which are labeled for use on residential lawns and other similar tuffgrass areas. Early information from this task force will be available this fall, but will continue to be developed over the next few years. A similar task force has been developed for indoor pesticide usage and exposure under the auspices of the Chemical Specialties Manufacturers Association.
Together, these two task forces have the potential to greatly improve the understanding of non-occupational pesticide exposure in urban areas. However, as one can imagine, the development of this data will take considerable time, and requires many negotiating sessions with the EPA, to assure that the output will be acceptable and useful to the Agency in making decisions.
As just noted, data development takes time, and is quite costly. Thus, it is critical that the companies develop data that the Agency wants and needs to understand urban pesticide exposure, and that will help the Agency make reasonable scientific decisions based on this information. To date, the kind of guidance and policies needed for companies to move forward has not been forthcoming from the Agency. In fact, in recognizing the lack of information, the Agency has proposed Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) for estimating potential exposure. These SOPs have been widely criticized -- including by the EPA Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP)-- for being so conservative that they seriously overstate likely exposure. Examples are attached (see "Framework for Assessing Non-occupational. Non-dietary (Residential) Exposure to Pesticides"). The SOPs have not yet been finalized, and the Agency recently delayed a second review by the SAP, even though the Agency must soon make decisions on fooduse pesticides that have urban, residential uses. These SOPs will be used as part of the exposure evaluation. It seems unreasonable that the Agency would use these exaggerated SOPs, which, when taken in the aggregate they so greatly overstate risk.
Wouldn't it be unfortunate if a food tolerance had to be reduced or removed due to lack of urban exposure data or use of overly conservative residential SOPs, which overstate potential exposure? Yet, this is likely to happen if the Agency does not seriously revise the SOPs to make them more realistic, identify data needed and call it in from companies, and await completion of the work of the industry task forces. As I understand, the Agency has given no indication that it intends to take any of these necessary actions to assure that it is making accurate exposure determinations.
Use of these pesticides is important in urban areas, and these products have been used safely for years, with little or no problems. RISE affiliated associations representing pesticide product users share our concerns as follows:
Professional Lawn Care Association of America (PLCAA).
PLCAA is an international association that promotes education, balanced legislation and public awareness of the environmental and aesthetic benefits of turf and ornamentals. PLCAA represents more than 1,200 lawn and landscape companies, industry supplies, government agencies, grounds managers, educators and students in the U.S., Canada and other countries.


More than 21 million U.S. households spent a record $16.8 billion on professional landscape/lawn/tree care services in 1998, according to a recently released Gallup survey. This represents a 2.2 billion increase on total spending over the previous year and a 32 percent increase in the average amount spent by each household on these professional services.
While these numbers are impressive, they only tell part of the green industry story. Turf and ornamentals are essential to a clean environment, are aesthetically pleasing, increase curb appeal and property value, provide a safe, cushioned play surface for children, and instill a sense of community and pride in our surroundings. In order to achieve the above benefits, one has to fight off literally thousands of insect species, plant diseases and weeds. In an age when people want instant results, pesticide are one of the few resources available to take care of these pests effectively. The loss of any pesticide product in a planned pest control strategy would reduce the array of products available to adequately manage pest problems and could cause more pesticide products to be used, resulting in increased total product use.
Turf grass Producers International (TPI).
TPI is a 32-year-old, international, not-for-profit trade association. Its more than 1,000 members in the U.S., Canada and 38 other countries produce an estimated 80 percent of all cultivate turfgrass sod that is used on home lawns, golf courses, parks and sports fields, as well as near highways and other erosion-prone areas.The 1997 Census of Agriculture reports that there are 1,784 sod farms in the U.S., cultivating approximately 302,930 acres and generating sales of $800,694,000. Since the 1992 Census, these figures have risen by 10.5 percent, 38.9 percent and 69.8 percent respectively. According to a recent Tuffgrass Producers International survey, the typical sod farm in the U.S. is a 350 acre, family owned and operated operation that realizes more than 95 percent of its gross income from this single crop.
Today's consumers (both residential and professional) insist that the turfgrass sod they purchase be fully mature and totally free of weeds, insects and disease. Further, sod producers, and consumers alike, have all become more aware of the scientifically documented positive environmental and social advantages of properly produced installed and maintained turfgrass. The multiple benefits of turfgrass can only be achieved through the judicious use of pesticides that are carefully selected according to the specific pest, applied at proper time and in accordance with product labels. As profit-oriented firms, sod producers carefully monitor their use of pesticides to maximize efficacy and minimize overhead costs.
Widespread and well-grounded fears exist among all turf grass sod producers and managers of tufted areas related to the potential loss of time-proven, cost-effective pesticides as a possible result of the EPA's current FQPA implementation methodology. Specifically, the turf producer concerns can be classified into four general areas: 1. Absent a transparent and scientifically based product review process, turf farmers may experience the immediate and unexpected loss of materials that do not have an equal or better replacement.
2. Pesticide registrants may determine that a turf-farm label cannot be justified as a result of FQPA implementation because the "minor use" will not justify the additional time and costs required to obtain a sod or tuftspecific label.
3. Because turfgrass sod production is an agricultural activity, all pesticide products used on these farms must have Worker Protection Standards as part of the label. When WPS requirements are combined with FQPA concerns, products may be lost to pesticide applicators.
4. Absent a complete or expanding spectrum of pesticides, turf producers and managers may have no alternatives other than using greater and greater amounts of the limited number of remaining products. This result seems unintended under FQPA.
American Nursery and Landscape Association (ANLA).
ANLA is a 125-year-old association representing 2,700 growers, landscape firms, retail garden centers and the 16,000 additional family farm members of state and regional nursery and landscape associations nationwide.
As with other agricultural crops, the growth and success of our industry depends on our ability to effectively manage insects, diseases and weeds. A pest infestation can quickly ruin a crop, with no recourse for the grower. If FQPA is implemented unfairly, ANLA members will lose effective and reliable pesticides that provide the ability to manage crops. Many pest control products currently being assessed by EPA are critical to Integrated Pest Management, environmentally friendly programs that control insects, weeds and disease through effective application of mechanical, cultural, biological and chemical tools.
Golf Course Superintendents Association of America (GCSAA).
Access to safe, efficient pesticides is vital to the golf course management industry. Ongoing training and education by the 20,000 member GCSAA ensures that golf course superintendents use pesticides safely.
Healthy golf course turfgrass provides many benefits to people and improves environmental quality for communities by providing green spaces. Golfers and others often do not realize the environmental benefits of well-maintained turfgrass.
Turfgrass reduces loss of topsoil from wind and water erosion; absorbs and filters rain and runoff water, recharging ground and surface water; captures and cleans runoff water from urban areas; improves the soil and restores damaged areas such as landfills and mining sites; improves air quality and moderates temperature; and reduces noise, glare and visual pollution. Golf course turfgrasses, trees, shrubs and water features create and enhance wildlife habitats, as well as enhance physical health while contributing to the community's economy.
The specialty pesticide industry is prepared to provide information to the EPA to support the continued use of its products and to help determine real overall exposure potential, but we need guidance and policy before decisions are made. On behalf of the industry, I urge this Committee to continue to provide strong oversight on these issues.
I also urge each of you to support HR 1592, the Regulatory Fairness and Openness Act of 1999, introduced by Mr. Pombo. HR 1592 now has more than 140 co-sponsors, including many other members of this Committee. Of the measures introduced to strengthen FQPA implementation, we believe this legislation most fully serves the public interest. Among other provisions, this legislation provides for the use of actual data and scientifically sound information when reviewing food tolerances. This provision will help relieve the concern about the Agency's reliance on overly conservative assumptions about pesticide use and exposure, and will decrease the need for use of SOPs during the evaluation of residential pesticides.
I'll close by expressing my concern for how EPA plans to handle the "benefits" of public health pesticides. I believe the reduction of health threat risks to humans (the "benefit") must be factored into the overall risk consideration, as a reduction in product risk, when EPA is evaluating food pesticides that also have public health uses. Failure to allow for the reduction of human health threats as part of the risk determination would undermine this section of FQPA, which is within the FIFRA portion of the law, and under oversight jurisdiction of this Committee. I urge you to follow closely the Agency's policy development in this important area. I am including three documents as attachments to this testimony, which describe the value of public health pesticides:
1. "FQPA and Public Health"
2. "The Problem with Pests," Dr. Michael F. Potter, University of Kentucky
3. "FQPA: A Public Health Perspective," Dr. Darrell Sumner, Wake Forest University
Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to express the concerns of this industry regarding FQPA implementation.
END


LOAD-DATE: August 5, 1999