SECTION: IN THE NEWS

LENGTH: 1343 words

HEADLINE: PREPARED STATEMENT OF
JAY J. VROOM
PRESIDENT
AMERICAN CROP PROTECTION ASSOCIATION
BEFORE THE HOUSE AGRICULTURE COMMITTEE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON DEPARTMENT OPERATIONS,
NUTRITION, AND FOREIGN AGRICULTURE

BODY:


Thank you Mr. Chairman:
I am Jay J. Vroom, President of the American Crop Protection Association (ACPA). ACPA is the U.S. industry trade association representing basic manufacturers, distributors, and formulators of crop protection products. We are pleased to respond to your invitation today to share the collective views of our membership on the 3 year anniversary of the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) becoming law of the land.
I testified at your April 22, 1999 FQPA hearing and I went back to review the written testimony I presented to you then. As I find that written testimony to be as valid today as it was in April, I have attached a copy to this presentation, and propose to only provide an update as to actions and events which have unfolded in the ensuing 3 months. One week after your April hearing, the FQPA Tolerance Reassessment Advisory Committee (TRAC) was convened by EPA and USDA for one of our final gatherings. Instead of attending that meeting, most all the remainingenvironmental activists staged their own "event" which was an en masse resignation from TRAC.
Many of us in the food and production ag community saw the walkout as an attempt to derail the public participation process and were concerned that their next moves would focus on PR events and litigation. While no TRAC member could say he or she was overwhelmingly pleased with how or what progress was being made, TRAC was bringing the many and varied interests together, and progress was being accomplished.
I publicly and privately approached several of those who resigned, encouraging them to reconsider and come back to the TRAC table. To no avail, so the fracture ran through all the consensus progress that had been gained via more than a year's effort.
Through the month of May we became increasingly convinced that some or much of the FQPA process would be driven into the judicial system. Finally a group of food and ag interest groups decided to act in that realm first- and we initiated FQPA litigation in early June. Today, with American Farm Bureau and ACPA as lead plaintiffs, we have a total of 23 other organizations as co-plaintiffs in the suit.The litigation mirrors the concepts of Vice President Gore's April 1998 memo and the three FQPA bills now introduced in the House and Senate. In other words, the litigation is just another strong message in support of the use of sound science, transparency, reasonable transitioning, and stakeholder involvement for FQPA.
Today, the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and a coalition of California groups confirmed our expectations from May and filed their own FQPA suit against EPA.
Meanwhile, Congressional concern about EPA's implementation of FQPA has continued to increase, and since your April 22 hearing two additional bills (H.R. 1592 and S. 1464) were introduced to prevent the unnecessary loss of pesticides. These bills, and H.R. 1334 introduced earlier this spring, seek to implement the principles in the Vice President's memo in a predictable, sciencebased fashion. The three bills stress the importance of a clear, orderly process for making EPA decisions, put science ahead of making decisions driven by FQPA deadlines, and would ensure fair treatment for growers and other customers. We're encouraged about the significant, growing support for these bills. !n fact, over 159 Representatives and 21 Senators have endorsed this FQPA legislation, and the list continues to grow!EPA's actions August 2 reaffirm that it is unacceptable for EPA to continue its destructive implementation path for FQPA. Although the Administration developed a clear, published implementation process, EPA has failed to follow its own plan, abandoning transparency and transition/mitigation discussions for farmers and other users. The Administration jumped to decisions without the benefit of public comment on evolving science policies that very likely would have changed the results upon which EPA bases decisions. EPA also refused to review and consider data submitted to the Agency in making decisions.
The member companies of ACPA continue to support Vice President Gore's goal of sound science, public participation and farmer equity. But now, more than ever, we recognize the need for congressional oversight and involvement, and urge you and your colleagues to move forward with strong legislative directives to EPA.
Recently we've learned that, not only did the activists gain press attention by resigning from TRAC in April, but they also circumvented Vice President Gore's call for transparency and stakeholder involvement by staging separate forums to advance their concepts. The most troubling part of this is that the events they've created to advocate their FQPA "solutions" have largely excluded participation by pesticide registrant representatives or a broad cross section of growers. These events have included meetings recently in Michigan and Wisconsin and have the appearance of "mini TRAC meetings" -- down to the fact of having facilitation bythe same firm that has organized and run TRAC meetings -- but most of us from the grower and registrant communities on the real TRAC have been excluded from the Michigan and Wisconsin meeting invitation list! The secretive/exclusive nature of these meetings, with Administration participation and funding, is more than a little troubling to us.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, allow me to turn to events of the last week or so. We have believed for some time that the Agency would meet or exceed the numeric deadline set out in FQPA for August 3, 1999. We also knew that there would be disagreement over whether the "right" one-third of existing tolerances had been reviewed.
What has emerged over recent days was the decision by EPA to have at least two significant "examples" of risk mitigation accomplishment opposite the 39 organophosphate (OP) insecticides, in time for the August 3 deadline. This decision was set and the course charted to meet that goal, notwithstanding the fact that:
a. Not all scientific studies on the two subject chemicals had been fully evaluated by EPA and incorporated into the risk assessment.
b. More science studies are in progress.
c. "Science policies" that could significantly impact the risk assessment of the two subject chemicals have yet to be finalized by EPA.
So, under the outright threat of cancellations against these first two OPs and the concern for other products, the registrants were forced to "the bargaining table" and found themselves part of a rush to judgment in order to -- we believe -contribute to a perception of further achievement by the August 3 deadline. This occurred despite the fact that the Risk Assessment and Mitigation Phase VI step that was developed by the TRAC with full endorsement of USDA and EPA would be totally subverted in the process.
Mr. Chairman, while we commend the earnest and hard work of the companies that "cooperated" in negotiating last minute agreements with EPA to save many uses for these two chemicals, in large part to help avert a "food scare" based on perceptions and threats, the Vice President's principles have suffered a serious blow...and sound science has taken a back seat to political science.
We hope that no farmer suffers any short-term consequences from this week's abrupt actions; and along with this Committee's continued diligent oversight and support, I commit ACPA to working with everyone to ensure that these two "examples" do not become the longer-term process precedent for FQPA implementation. My industry remains committed to the Vice President's four principles. It is the only means by which we can have a fair, consistent andpredictable regulatory process. And that is essential if we are to maintain today's safe technologies and have the incentive to discover tomorrow's innovative new technologies -- including biotech solutions. Both will be essential if America is to lead the way to serving three square meals a day in the coming century to a troubled and hungry world.(ACPA).
END


LOAD-DATE: August 5, 1999