SECTION: IN THE NEWS

LENGTH: 773 words

HEADLINE: PREPARED STATEMENT OF
CONGRESSMAN DOC HASTINGS
BEFORE THE HOUSE AGRICULTURE COMMITTEE
DEPARTMENT OPERATIONS, OVERSIGHT,
NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY SUBCOMMITTEE
SUBJECT - IMPLEMENTATION OF THE FOOD QUALITY PROTECTION ACT

BODY:

 
I would like to begin by thanking you for this opportunity to testify on the implementation of the Food Quality Protection Act by the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Department of Agriculture. There are few issues which have provoked more sustained interest and concern in my district.
For those of you who have not yet had the opportunity to visit Central Washington, we are one of the most productive and diverse agricultural areas in the country. Washington State leads the nation in the production of a variety of minor crops such as apples, pears, hops, mint, peas, lentils, grapes, and asparagus. This diversity creates a problem because minor crops face the greatest difficulty in finding replacement chemicals when the use of current pesticides are lost.
I don't think any other area of the country, with the possible exception of California's Central Valley, will be impacted more by the implementation of the Food Quality Protection Act than Central Washington. In response to the concerns of growers in my district, I invited the former EPA Assistant Administrator for Pesticides, Dr. Lynn Goldman, to join me for a public hearing last May in Yakima, Washington. The comments we heard were clear and consistent. Consistent with the principles outlined in an April 1998 memo from the Administration. the agency must: use sound science; have a transparent process; ensure reasonable transition periods; and consult with other agencies before decisions are made. Making radical changes to pesticide policies--especially without scientific justification--would devastate our agricultural industry and drive many farmers out of business.
Of these principles, my constituents are most insistent that the EPA use sound science. Mr. Chairman, I supported the Food Quality Protection Act in 1996 because I believed that the replacement of the zero-risk Delaney Clause with risk standards based on sound science would be good for our farmers and good for consumers. Standards that are not based on sound data, however, threaten our nation's agricultural producers and may even result in more risk for children and other at-risk consumers if food imports increase.
That's why I joined with my colleagues, Mr. LaHood and Mr. Blunt, in introducing H.R. 1334, the "FQPA Implementation Act of 1999." This bill would ensure that sound data is the basis for consistent implementation of the Food Quality Protection Act by directing the EPA to consider additional data--including outside data--and the public interest before suspending the use of any pesticide. A requirement to "call in" additional data before modifying a tolerance will ensure that these critical decisions are made on the basis of sound and reliable science rather than mere assumptions. The information is available and the EPA should use it if the Food Quality Protection Act is to be implemented successfully.
H.R. 1334 also calls for a study of the international trade impacts of the Food Quality Protection Act. We must keep in mind that our producers are competing in the international marketplace. Federal regulations that raise costs and decrease productivity only serve to increase the chance that U.S. farmers will lose their international competitiveness, and that imports of food grown with pesticides banned in this country will increase.
In addition to the review of existing pesticide registrations, the growers of my district are concerned about the Food Quality Protection Act's impact on new registrations. Because the EPA is devoting so much effort to the review process, the waiting period for new registrations and growers' dependence on emergency exemptions has increased. H.R. 1334 would provide the EPA Administrator with authority to grant emergency tolerances so long as the incremental exposure does not pose any significant risk. I believe that this is a reasonable approach, and I encourage the Committee to consider the issue of emergency exemptions in it's oversight of Food Quality Protection Act implementation. Mr. Chairman, the Food Quality Protection Act is a good law. It balances the need to ensure food safety with the need to give our farmers the tools to produce the food that we eat. Sound science is the point on which these interests are balanced, and we must ensure that both the EPA and the USDA honor this principle. I commend the Committee for holding this hearing, and I look forward to working with you to ensure that the Food Quality Protection Act is properly implemented so that our farmers have access to the tools they need to keep fruits and vegetables safe, abundant, and affordable.
END


LOAD-DATE: April 24, 1999