Changing pesticide regulations: a promise for safer produce

Changing Pesticide Regulations: A Promise for Safer Produce

While the popularity of fruits and vegetables has surged in recent years, a growing number of consumers have become concerned about the health effects of chemical residues on produce. In a 1988 nationwide survey conducted for The Packer, a produce industry weekly magazine, nearly 18 percent of consumers polled said they were concerned enough about the possibility of chemical residues on produce that they changed their buying habits. Another 64 percent were concerned but had not altered their purchasing behavior. Only 19 percent were not very worried.

One reason for the enhanced concern about food safety was the release in 1987 of a National Academy of Sciences study on Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) food regulations. This study made startlingly high estimates of the potential cancer risks from 28 pesticide residues in food, especially fresh produce. Although the estimates were based on theoretical assumptions that all foods contain the maximum residues legally allowed and current monitoring programs suggest that actual levels are substantially lower, a consumer alarm was sounded.

Some supermarkets and food retailers are responding to consumer concerns. A few supermarkets, especially on the west coast, are supplementing Federal pesticide residue monitoring programs with private residue testing. (See The Food Industry Responds to Consumers' Pesticide Fears for more information on private testing.) Others are adding organic sections to their produce departments so that shoppers can buy fruits and vegetables grown without chemical pesticides. Food buyers are also becoming more insistent that pesticide residues--on both domestic and foreign produce--do not exceed safe levels.

However, consumers may be wary of the effectiveness of current food safety regulations. For example, when small groups of Redbook magazine readers were asked about food safety, only 7 percent of the respondents trusted present laws to guarantee a safe food supply, whereas 70 percent did not. Few consumers appreciate the scope of the U.S. food regulatory system--the inspection and testing procedures for monitoring food production, processing, and marketing--which has generally given Americans a safe food supply. Also, new steps are being taken to improve monitoring and fill the gaps in pesticide regulation.

More than a dozen Federal agencies regulate, in one way or another, the safety, quality, apprearance, freshness, labeling, marketing, and importing of produce, but only two share responsibility for ensuring that fruits and vegetables do not contain unsafe pesticide residues. EPA determines which pesticides may be registered for use on food crops and the maximum residues that may be legally present--called tolerances--in fruits, vegetables, and other foods marketed for human consumption. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) then monitors and enforces the pesticide tolerances set by EPA on both domestic and imported products. Both agencies have recently been empowered with new rules or programs to augment their ongoing regulatory and monitoring procedures.

EPA Sets Pesticide Tolerances

Chemical pesticides have only been in widespread use on fruits and vegetables since the late 1940's. Early regulation of chemical pesticides focused on consumer protection--making sure that a pesticide was effective and that the label accurately stated the chemical's purposes and benefits. In response to a growing awareness of the effects of pesticides on humans and the environment, subsequent regulation has focused on pesticide safety.

EPA currently administers three Federal laws regulating pesticide use and safety. The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) requires that pesticides be registered with EPA for legal use on food crops. The law also contains provisions on pesticide classification, certification standards for applicators, disposal of pesticide containers, and criminal and civil penalties for violating the law.

Relevant portions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act require EPA to establish legal tolerances for pesticide residues in raw agricultural commodities and as additives in processed foods before a pesticide can be registered for legal use on a food crop. The main purpose for setting tolerances is to protect consumers from being exposed to unsafe levels of pesticide residues in food. A provision in the Fish and Wildlife Act requires EPA to study the effects of pesticides on fish and wildlife to determine amounts and formulations that can be used safely.

Many pesticides commonly used on fruits and vegetables were registered before 1972, when more rigorous testing methods became available for determining safe maximum residue levels. Although EPA has been working on reregistration of older chemicals, progress has been very slow because of both the high cost and the time needed to conduct studies. Amendments to FIFRA signed into law in 1988 should speed up reregistration. The new amendments (Public Law 100-532) set 1997 as the deadline for testing, reregistration, and possible cancellation of older chemicals. They allow EPA to bill the manufacturer for part of the cost of studies needed to reregister pesticide uses. In the past, the agency paid all expenses for toxicology, chemistry, and other tests needed to challenge previously registered pesticides. The 1988 FIFRA amendments also end EPA's responsibility to reimburse manufacturers for unused stocks of pesticides that have had their registrations suspended or cancelled, and provide new rules for storage and disposal of pesticides taken off the market.

Another limitation with the procedures used to set tolerances in the past is that per capita consumption of some fruits and vegetables has risen since tolerances were set, causing potential understatement of residue intake. For example, average consumption of fresh honeydew, broccoli, and tomatoes increased from 1.1, 1.1, and 12.6 pounds per person, respectively, in 1976 to 2.4, 3.3, and 16.8 pounds in 1987. Some of the pesticides used on these vegetables were registered prior to these consumption gains.

In addition, certain age groups eat larger amounts of some fruits and vegetables than the average on which residue ingestion is estimated, again causing understatement of potential residue intake. Toddlers consume 11 times more fresh bananas and 6 times more apples per unit of body weight than the typical adult woman. Consequently, EPA has commissioned the National Academy of Sciences to determine toddler food consumption and estimate safe pesticide tolerances for young children.

EPA's tolerance-setting system does not consider the health effects of consuming several pesticides simultaneously, which may or may not be greater than the sum of the risks from exposure to the residues individually. In addition, inert ingredients--the filler or carrier compounds for the active chemicals that kill the pests--are not tested. EPA's first priority for testing is active ingredients, even though inert ingredients sometimes are toxic too.

Legislative pressure to ban unsafe pesticides and strengthen EPA's tolerance-setting process continues to build in Congress. Representative Henry A. Waxman of California introduced a bill on April 6 that would require EPA to reduce tolerance levels. Legislation to ban the use of Alar and other chemicals was also introduced recently.

FDA Monitors Pesticide Residues

The Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act authorizes FDA to monitor and enforce the pesticide residue tolerances set by EPA. FDA has two monitoring programs. Regulatory Monitoring samples and analyzes domestic and imported foods for residues. The Total Diet Study estimates average dietary intakes of pesticide residues by people of various ages and sexes.

Regulatory Monitoring focuses on fresh, raw commodities. Domestic products are sampled close to the point of production and imported goods at the point of entry. Sampling is based on the amount of a particular commodity consumed and on previous residue problems. More samples are collected in States that grow large amounts of fruits and vegetables and from shipments from major import suppliers. In addition, produce from a particular area or group of shippers may be targeted for sampling if there is a history of high residues.

FDA can seize domestic goods or invoke an injunction that prohibits marketing them if samples exceed legal residue levels. When samples from imported products reveal residues above legal tolerances, the violative shipments may be detained at the port of entry. Also, if food from a particular exporter is found to exceed legal residue levels, FDA may require subsequent shipments from that exporter to be accompanied by a certificate from a private laboratory stating that the commodity does not contain illegal amounts of residues.

In over 25 years of regulatory monitoring, FDA data indicate that a relatively small percentage of all shipments contained above-tolerance residues. In 1987, pesticide residues were detected in less than half of the 14,492 samples of domestic and imported food, and less than 1 percent of the samples contained residues exceeding tolerances. Fruits and vegetables made up 80 percent of the total samples collected that year.

Of the 3,020 domestic vegetable samples examined in 1987, 63 percent revealed no residues, while less than 1 percent contained residues exceeding tolerances and 2 percent contained residues with no set tolerances. Because of the time and cost involved, EPA has not yet set fruit and vegetable tolerances for some pesticides registered for use on other agricultural crops. In addition, chemical companies sometimes only register a pesticide for use on major food crops, where sales revenues would be high, although it may be safe for use on minor crops like vegetables. If a chemical is not registered for a specific vegetable, then no tolerance is set and its use on that vegetable is illegal.

No residues were detected in 55 percent of the 4,205 samples taken from imported vegetables in 1987. Residues exceeding tolerances were detected in 1 percent of the samples, and residues with no set tolerances were found in 5 percent.

For domestically produced fruit (1,458 samples), no residues were detected in 50 percent of the samples, and less than 1 percent contained residues over tolerances or with no set tolerances. For the 2,720 samples of imported fruit, no residues were detected in 51 percent, while less than 1 percent contained residues over tolerances and 6 percent contained residues with no set tolerances.

While Regulatory Monitoring tracks exposure to pesticides in our food supply, the Total Diet Study--also called the Market Basket Study--provides an estimate of dietary pesticide intake. FDA collects 234 food items representing the diet of the U.S. population and tests them for pesticide residues. The items are collected four times a year in cities throughout the country. The cities change each year.

The food samples are prepared for consumption, then analyzed for pesticide residues. Dietary intake of pesticides is estimated for eight age and sex groups using these results and the amount of each food consumed by the different groups. The dietary intake levels are then compared with acceptable daily intakes established by the United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organization and World Health Organization.

Results from the 1987 Total Diet Study are congruent with the Regulatory Monitoring results. Both indicate only a small exposure to pesticides. Residues were detected for 53 out of the 200 compounds tested for in the 936 samples taken in 1987. For almost all tested pesticides, the dietary intake was less than 1 percent of the acceptable daily intake.

The analytical procedures used in the Total Diet Study, however, permit testing for only about half the pesticides with established tolerances. In addition, FDA's samples of domestically grown and imported fruits and vegetables represent less than 1 percent of U.S. produce shipments.

FDA is taking steps to improve its monitoring. The agency is working with State authorities to expand the number of domestic food samples analyzed. FDA collected 14,000 additional samples from five States in 1987, although they were not incorporated into official estimates. FDA is also trying to improve its ability to monitor imported foods, especially fruits and vegetables. The agency recently purchased a computerized data base on foreign pesticide use to help target foreign products likely to contain pesticide residues.

FDA has also requested that supermarket retailers who test for residues on produce share their data with the agency. Furthermore, FDA is encouraging more residue and quality monitoring by the food industry. Another new FDA objective is to strengthen its system of dealing with pesticide emergencies.

State Initiatives

Laws and enforcement programs to protect consumers from unsafe chemical residues on produce exist at the State level, as well as in the Federal Government. California is a leader in establishing strong pesticide monitoring programs. Some States have recently enacted or proposed new pesticide regulations intended to limit exposure to pesticides from all sources and to require growers to keep records of pesticide use. Several States and over a dozen organic growers' associations across the country have implemented or proposed certification systems for organic produce to protect consumers from fraud.

Pesticide Regulation. The California Department of Food and Agriculture registers pesticides and regulates their application on the State's fruit and vegetable crops. Chemical manufacturers must provide extensive information to have products registered in California, including data on application intervals, effectiveness, residue methodology, and pesticide chemistry. Commercial pesticide applicators must be licensed and are required to send usage reports on all applications to the agricultural commissioner of the county in which the chemical is used. California also conducted 13,500 residue tests in 1987 on samples from wholesale and retail markets, chain store receiving docks, and ports of entry. The number of tests was up slightly in 1988 and will be bolstered this year with an additional 2,500 tests.

California grows almost half of U.S. domestic production of fresh vegetables and over half of processed vegetables. In addition, the State provides over 40 percent of fresh and processed fruit production.

Proposition 65. The objectives of California's proposition 65, "The Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986," are to warn residents about exposures--occupational, environmental, or from consumer products--to chemicals that cause cancer or reproductive toxic effects, and to prevent significant discharges of these chemicals into drinking water. At least 231 chemicals have been identified to date as causing cancer or reproductive toxic effects, including some pesticides used on fruits and vegetables. Implementation of proposition 65 has been slow because of limited scientific data on the carcinogenic effects of various chemicals and because the law was not precise about acceptable levels of exposure.

Pesticide Use Records. Several States, including California and Texas, have proposed new recordkeeping rules for growers who use pesticides. The California Department of Food and Agriculture has proposed that growers who apply their own pesticides record each application for each field and crop. Public hearings and industry reviews are being conducted. If approved, enactment of California's program is scheduled for January 1, 1990.

Organic Certification. Some consumers prefer organically grown produce since its growers use natural predators, bacterial and viral pesticides, lime, sulphur, detergents, and other nonsynthetic chemicals and methods to control pests. Organic products are usually priced higher than their nonorganic counterparts, and there have been documented cases of nonorganic produce being sold as organic. For example, last summer, the California Department of Health Services investigated a complaint about fraudulent organic carrots. The firm involved was directed to stop labeling produce as organic until records were maintained on the source and location of its growers. Organic certification programs help protect consumers from fraud by ensuring the authenticity of organic products.

Only Washington and Texas currently run organic certification programs, although agriculture departments in other States may partially fund, administer, or enforce such programs. The Washington certification program became effective in April 1988, and involves both announced and unannounced inspections and collection of samples for residue testing. Most certifications in Washington have been for vegetable growers. Texas' program took effect in June 1988, and the department received many more applications than it expected. To become certified, growers must answer a 10-page questionnaire about their operations and sign affidavits about the questionnaire's validity. They must also submit to onsite inspection.

Implications of Stronger Pesticide Laws

Occurrences of pesticide residues above legal tolerances in our food generally appear to be minimal, according to FDA sampling. Nevertheless, the public continues to express concern about the adequacy of EPA's pesticide tolerances and FDA's monitoring of the food supply for illegal residue levels. Recent changes in pesticide regulations and residue monitoring procedures should further reduce health risks and reassure consumers about the safety of fruits and vegetables.

Along with lowering health risks, tougher pesticide laws and enhanced monitoring may lead to other changes, including substitution of biotechnology products for some chemical pesticides, increased organic farming, and possibly higher prices for fresh produce. Biopesticides and genetically engineered pest-resistant fruit and vegetable varieties are currently under development. The new, more potent strains of the bacteria Bacillus thuringiensis are excellent examples of a biopesticide. The bacteria helps control lepidoptera larva (most garden worms), and its residue has no known harmful effects on humans.

Fruit and vegetable acreage--and thus chemical use--is small compared with corn, soybeans, and other field crops. Chemical manufacturers may find the costs prohibitive for testing and registering some chemicals used on limited acreage. Consequently, fewer compounds may be registered for fruits and vegetables than in the past. Reduced availability of pesticides may require using more costly or less effective ones, which could lead to lower output and higher prices.

PHOTO : In over 25 years of regulatory monitoring, the Food and Drug Administration has found only

PHOTO : a relatively small percentage of food samples with residues above legal limits.

PHOTO : Chemical pesticides have only been in widespread use on fruits and vegetables since the

PHOTO : late 1940's.

COPYRIGHT 1989 U.S. Government Printing Office
COPYRIGHT 2004 Gale Group