Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: SUNDAY, June 26, 1994 TAG: 9406260070
SECTION: NATIONAL/INTERNATIONAL PAGE: A5 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: Associated Press
DATELINE: WASHINGTON LENGTH: Medium
The agency says it's time to worry about the amounts of chemicals that show up in meals, not just the residues on crops leaving the farm. The idea in proposed legislation and in new rules under discussion would be to set limits on how much residue is acceptable on food.
That sounds like a common-sense notion, but it's not the way things are. The first pesticide regulations sought to assure farmers weren't misusing chemicals, said Dr. Lynn Goldman, the EPA's top official in charge of pesticide regulation.
Concerns about the safety of food followed. The starting point under the new plan is food safety, moving backward in the food chain to the farm.
"It's a great idea," said Richard Wiles, in charge of pesticide issues at the Environmental Working Group, an organization that closely watches the impact of agriculture on the environment.
Between harvest and the dinner table, pesticides wear off, are washed off, get peeled or are diluted during processing and mixing. The government now sets different tolerances for pesticide residues in processed foods such as corn oil only if the residue is concentrated in the end product.
The agency also may propose to set tolerances - acceptable residues of chemicals that may cause cancer or other ailments - based more on how foods are likely to be consumed.
Tolerances on corn now consider the whole plant with the husk on. Iceberg lettuce tolerances don't consider that the lettuce is washed,and most people throw away the outer leaves.
In recent testimony before a House agriculture subcommittee, Goldman tried to portray the idea of setting different tolerances at the farm gate, the food processor and the retail store as farmer friendly.
"If we took that dinner plate standard and applied it at the farm gate, then we might not be able to allow a perfectly reasonable use of the pesticides to meet the needs of the farmers," she said.
But the American Farm Bureau Federation won't buy into the notion. Nor will the food and pesticide industry, which at one point supported it.
Industry doesn't like the pesticide legislation offered by the administration because a more conservative way of measuring risk will lead to tighter restrictions all around. Regulators could no longer consider the benefit of higher, more efficient production of crops when setting tolerances in raw goods, for instance.
The bill would take into account the special vulnerability of children because of their immature bodies and tendency to consume more fruits and vegetables by body weight. Other exposures, such as bug sprays in houses, would be considered in determining how much can be allowed before filling the "risk cup."
by CNB