THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1996, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Wednesday, July 17, 1996 TAG: 9607170011
SECTION: FRONT PAGE: A16 EDITION: FINAL
TYPE: Editorial
LENGTH: 41 lines
Congress is trying to decide whether to retain a program that tests produce for pesticides. At $11.5 million a year, the USDA's Pesticide Data Program is inexpensive as government programs go. The Senate has voted to keep it in business; the House to zero it out, as they say.
It turns out the program has produced too much good news for its own good. It was established in reaction to the scare over allegedly deadly levels of the pesticide Alar.
The program has shown that 39 percent of produce tested has no detectible pesticide residue and only 1 percent has even the minuscule amounts that violate thresholds for safety set by the Environmental Protection Agency.
Farm groups want to continue the program because they believe it shows how safe their products are and sets consumers' minds at ease. Environmental groups want to continue the program because it provides useful data on which pesticides are a problem.
Ironically, the House wants to kill the program, it says, because there's so little contamination that there's no point in continuing to test. That argument has a certain surface appeal, but it's really too simplistic to withstand closer examination.
Shutting down a testing program because it has shown food to be safe is a little like getting rid of smoke detectors because they almost never sound an alarm. That's obviously silly. They are still worth having around to warn when an emergency does arise, if only to bestow peace of mind.
In the same way, an ongoing program to monitor pesticide levels in produce is a sensible precaution, not a wasteful self-indulgence. Most of the time, the news will be good. But modern pesticides are potentially lethal and widely applied.
Keeping an ongoing record of pesticide use, their levels and the effect that continued exposure has on people is reasonable. Maintaining an early warning system to detect cases of misuse is prudent policy. On the rare occasions when environmentalists and farmers agree, Congress probably ought to pay heed. by CNB