Prompted by concern about the impact of
pesticides in the Third World, EPA Administrator Carol Browner unveiled changes
in export legislation at a hearing of the Subcommittee on Economic Policy, Trade
and the Environment of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. The new proposals
will: prohibit export of pesticides cancelled or severely restricted for health
reasons in the US; require express permission from importing governments for the
export of pesticides which have lost registration in the US for environmental
reasons; ensure that pesticides not registered in the US are registered in
three countries that have a 'credible regulatory system'; and promote product
stewardship in foreign countries by US producers.
Sandra Marquardt, testifying for Greenpeace before the
Committee, expressed disappointment that the proposals are weaker than
legislation first proposed in 1990 (though later deleted) under the Farm Bill,
which proposed banning the export of pesticides banned for any reason.
Greenpeace is critical of four aspects of the legislation: export of
unregistered pesticides; the ambiguity surrounding voluntary cancellations; US
technical assistance for safe use of pesticides; and the reliance on testing to
prevent imported foods with residues of pesticides banned in the US.
Never-Registered Pesticides
The Administration proposes to permit exports of
pesticides which have never been registered in the US if they are registered in
three countries with a ‘credible regulatory system’—this generally refers
to Member States of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).
Industry argues these never-registered pesticides are exported when there is no
demand for a product in the US: either the pest does not exist or the crop
on which they are used is not grown. However some pesticides are not
registered in the US because of health or environmental concerns.
Greenpeace cites the herbicide acetochlor, made by Monsanto in Iowa, and
primarily exported to Europe (often for re-shipment), the Ukraine, the CIS and
Argentina. Although Monsanto and ICI have been trying to register the
product in the US since 1983, the EPA considers it a ‘probable human
carcinogen’.
Voluntary cancelled pesticides
While the EPA proposal would prohibit export of
pesticides voluntarily cancelled for health reasons, manufacturers frequently
cite ‘economic reasons’. The pesticide propazine is considered a
possible human breast carcinogen and ground water contaminant by EPA. When
asked to do further studies, the manufacturer, Ciba Geigy, withdrew the product
on the grounds that it would not be economic to carry these out. Although
the EPA may be able to prove this is a withdrawal for health reasons, it could
lay itself open to law suits, as the current law (FIFRA) permits companies to
state whatever reason they want for withdrawal.
Product stewardship
The EPA is proposing to give $4 million in technical
assistance for ‘safe use’ training. Education for safe use of
pesticides is crucial, but also benefits the manufacturers, and many believe it
should be paid by the manufacturers and reflected in the price of the
product. Conditions in many countries simply make safe use impossible.
Development assistance is better directed to promoting sustainable agricultural
production based on non-chemical alternatives.
Food testing
Greenpeace argues that prevention at the source is
preferable to testing imported foods for residues of pesticides banned in the
US. The FDA and USDA inspect only 1% of all food shipments and the USDA
has only 78 port inspection personnel for 160 official import establishments.
Strong export legislation is supported by a
wide range of US organisations, with backing from over 100 consumer,
environmental, farming, medical/public health and religious groups. (BD)
[This article first appeared in Pesticides News No. 23, March 1994, page 14]