Published: August 9, 1999
In 1996, in a rare display of bipartisanship and
without a single dissenting vote, Congress passed the Food Quality
Protection Act, ordering the Environmental Protection Agency to review
nearly 500 pesticides and ban or restrict those that posed hazards to
human health. Then the real fight began -- translating a broad mandate
into specific regulations that were almost certain to displease
somebody. Last week, Carol Browner, the E.P.A. administrator, fired her
first shot, announcing tough new restrictions on two widely used
pesticides. Her decision may ultimately improve the safety of America's
food supply, especially for children. But it was merely the opening
round in what is sure to be a long, politically charged regulatory
struggle. Her best hope in this fight is to be sure-footed in her
science.
The two chemicals are methyl parathion, which is
used on fruits and vegetables, and azinphos methyl, also used on foods.
They are members of a class of pesticides called organophosphates, many
of which were developed in the 1940's and 1950's, and which now account
for about half the pesticides used in the United States. For years, many
scientists have worried about the possible toxicity of organophosphates
to humans, particularly to the developing nervous systems of infants
and children. Congress clearly had organophosphates in mind when it
specified in the law that the E.P.A., in setting any new standards,
should use children, not adults, as the benchmark for safety.
In 1997, Ms. Browner put 39 organophosphates at the
top of a priority list of pesticides to be examined in the early stages
of her review. Environmentalists had expected that she would have ruled
on at least these 39 by last Monday. When she announced restrictions on
only two, they accused her of caving in to agricultural interests and
filed suit to compel her to comply with the review schedule mandated by
Congress. For their part, the growers warned that the decision, however
modest, was merely the first step in a process that would strip them of
vital pest-fighting weapons and leave them at a competitive disadvantage
against foreign growers.
The E.P.A. said that the real reason for the slow
pace of the review was that the investigative process, which involves
several layers of scientific review, had proved more complicated than it
had anticipated. That is probably true. The 1996 act required the
agency not only to devise new safety levels for children, but also to
calculate the risks from all sources, including drinking water and
pest-control sprays in the home.
But of course there is politics in this mix. There
always is when Congress passes a broad, well-intentioned law and then
passes the nasty details along to an administrative agency. The
pesticide industry and agribusiness interests have been importuning
anyone who will listen to them, including Vice President Al Gore, and
the environmental groups are surely justified in complaining that the
E.P.A.'s pace has been sluggish. Ms. Browner needs to accelerate
pesticide reviews to the extent possible without jeopardizing their
scientific quality. Separating the bad from the benign among 500
pesticides is a massive task, and the most important thing is to get it
right.
No comments:
Post a Comment