The Stop-Go Pace of Pesticide Reduction Policies in the US

1993 has seen attempts at the federal and state levels to introduce measures to reduce pesticide use, not all of which have been successful. The fortunes of three state-wide attempts to adopt legislative reduction policies are outlined, in conjunction with federal policy changes which are filtering through as a result of the installation of the Clinton Administration earlier this year. By David Buffin.

Federal reduction policies
On 25 June, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Carol Browner, an Al Gore appointee, announced a federal commitment to reduce the use of pesticides and to promote sustainable agriculture. These measures will be implemented jointly by the US Department of Agriculture, EPA and the Food and Drug Administration which have committed themselves to intensify efforts to reduce the use of higher risk pesticides and to promote integrated pest management, including biological control and cultural control(1). As yet few details are available on the extent of this commitment. They are expected later in Autumn 1993, after wide-ranging consultation has taken place(2).
    This initiative, which immediately preceded the National Academy of Science report (suggesting greater risk to children from pesticides, see pages 4-5), also came after public interest groups had called for the need to reduce pesticide use. In May the World Wide Fund for Nature and the Public Voice for Food and Health Policy recommended that the EPA set up a commission to set goals for profitable pesticide reductions in use and propose policies and programmes to achieve them.

California policy back on the slow track
In California, the Pesticide Use Reduction Act of 1993 (Senate Bill 475) mandates a State programme to “achieve a significant reduction in the use of active ingredients in pesticides in California by the year 2000”. It has successfully passed through the Californian Senate, but still lacks technical substance. Local environmentalist Joan Clayburg of Pesticide Watch is heartened by the Senate decision but says they will face a struggle passing the Bill through the Californian Assembly, the next legal hurdle. The Bill also has to pass through the Republican Governor’s office—and may not emerge unscathed. The time-scale of the legislative process has been lengthened, and the Bill will not be brought before the Californian Assembly before January 1994.
    This reduction legislation lacks clear numerical goals. Detailed targets may be set as the Bill moves through the legislature. Without such measures, however, there is a chance the whole process may be diluted down.
    Meanwhile, pesticides are used more extensively in California (600 million pounds p.a.) than anywhere else in the US. Pesticides are routinely detected in Californian ground and surface water, rainwater, fog and air.
    While California has one of the strongest pesticide regulatory programmes in the world, environmentalists are concerned that the State is no longer a leader in protecting public health and the environment. As many as 23 countries including Canada, Indonesia, Sweden and The Netherlands have enacted or are involved in pesticide reduction programmes(3).

Partial potential for reduction in New York
In New York, the Pesticide Use Reduction Act (Assembly Bill 4774-A) floundered in its passage though the State Assembly earlier this year. It would have required State agencies and schools to use 'least toxic, least impact' methods of pest control and to cut their pesticide use by 50% over the next ten years. The New York Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides, which has been working for a pesticide reduction Bill for several years, reports that a similar Bill passed the State Assembly in 1992, only to die in the State Senate without a sponsor.
    In a separate move, the New York State Board of Regions, which sets State school policy, is considering adopting integrated pest management strategies. There will be a decisive vote on this issue in autumn 1993. Another potential for reduction has come from the New York Attorney General’s office with the submission of a separate bill to the state legislature that would require commercial pest applicators to provide potential customers with information about less toxic or non-chemical controls. However, this Bill lacks a sponsor and is not under active consideration(4).

Oregon policy faces set-back   
Senate Bill 195 in the north-west State of Oregon, which seeks to reduce pesticide use, has recently been voted down. Whilst passing its first Senate committee, the Bill failed when it was out-voted by a second committee set up to assess the cost of implemention. Its proposed costs would be met through increased application licence fees. The Bill, which is unlikely to be presented again before 1995, would have sought to reduce pesticide use through research and promotion of safer alternatives and would hold pesticide users legally accountable for the consequences of their use, including the costs of environmental clean-up. The Bill also addressed farmworkers’ and public information access and would require licensed pesticide users to report all use to the State Department of Agriculture.
    Quincy Sugarman of the Oregon Public Interest Research Group, who helped develop the proposed legislation, to prevent groundwater contamination by pesticides, hopes that other measures, not requiring legislation can be adopted in the meantime. One  example is record-keeping, which would at least provide a more thorough base-line from which to reduce pesticide use in the future(5).

1. EPA press release 25/6/93.
2. Agrow, No. 191, 3/9/93, p. 14. 
3. PANUPS, PAN North America, 9/6/93.
4. PANUPS, PAN North America, 16/4/93 & pers. comm. NCAMP.
5. Pers comm. Qunicy Sugarman, OSPIRG, 2/9/93.
6. PANUPS, PAN North America, 21/8/93.

[This article first appeared in Pesticides News No.21, September 1993, paqe 6]