SECTION: VIEWPOINTS, Pg. 3H

LENGTH: 313 words

HEADLINE: EPA OVERREGULATES USE OF FARM CHEMICALS

BODY:


Dr. Alan Lockwood of Buffalo recently wrote a column challenging the integrity of the Regulatory Openness and Fairness Act of 1999. In his letter the doctor identifies the collection of proper scientific data as an unnecessary "blizzard of paperwork." The Farm Bureau, of which I am a director, disagrees with this characterization. We oppose the way the EPA is administering the Food Quality Protection Act. The EPA wants to limit human exposure to farm chemicals by as much as 99.9 percent, which would eliminate most, if not all, crop protectants currently available to farmers. And all this, without using sound science to justify their actions.

The EPA assesses exposures based on a worst case scenario for each chemical. Many might think it prudent to tabulate exposures in this manner. John Stossel from the program "20/20" spoke to the Farm Bureau several years ago. He recounted the probability of death or serious injury from exposure to one particular chemical. The chemical's registry, he presumed, would probably be rejected using the EPA's standards. That chemical was water.

Does water have offsetting positive attributes? Are they enough to cause us to stop using it? What about Dursban, the chemical EPA is banning some uses of? Dursban is used to control fleas, roaches, wasps, hornets and so on. Will the negative impacts of exposure to this chemical be dwarfed by the negative effects of insect populations out of control? A proper assessment can't be made because the necessary data is not available.
 
Lockwood condemns our congressmen for supporting a scientific approach. Our Western New York congressmen support the Regulatory Openness and Fairness Act of 1999 at the encouragement of the Farm Bureau. We appreciate its support of our livelihood, which depends heavily on access to the appropriate crop protectants. PAUL ZITTEL

Eden

LOAD-DATE: August 1, 2000