US Government to phase out 36 pesticides
The
US government will begin phasing out uses of 36 pesticides that are known to
cause cancer and which until now have been allowed as residues in juices, canned
fruits and vegetables, cooking oil and other processed foods, according to a
far-reaching court settlement announced on October 12, 1994. Parties to the
settlement are the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), AFL-CIO, Public
Citizen, a California farm worker, the state of California and the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
The agreement settles a lawsuit brought in 1989 by NRDC and
the other groups against the EPA, alleging that the agency routinely allows
residues of cancer-causing pesticides in numerous processed foods, in violation
of the Delaney clause of the Food Drug and Cosmetic Act. The Delaney Clause
prohibits additives in processed foods that have been found to “induce cancer
in man or animal.”
The 36 pesticides include some of the most widely used on the
market. The pesticides and their uses include: alachlor, a herbicide used on
soybeans and peanuts; benomyl, a fungicide used on apples, citrus, grapes, rice
and tomatoes; captan, a fungicide used on grapes, plums and tomatoes; mancozeb,
a fungicide used on cereal grains and grapes; and dicofol, an insecticide used
on many kinds of fruits and tomatoes.
The settlement also calls for the EPA
to review within five years another 49 cancer-causing pesticides to determine
whether they, too, should be eliminated from certain uses. They will
additionally be proscribed if they are found in processed agricultural products
at higher concentrations than raw food.
NRDC
Press Release, October 12, 1994.
Contact:
Jennifer Curtis, NRDC, 71 Stevenson Street, San Francisco, CA 94105; phone (415)
777-0220; fax (415) 495-5996. Pesticides Action Network North America Updates
Service, 116 New Montgomery St., CA, 94105, US.
US
EPA and USDA develop alternatives to high risk pesticides
On
August 15, 1994, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the US.
Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced an agreement to coordinate regulatory
actions against high risk pesticides with their efforts to search for safer
alternatives. Within six months of the agreement, EPA and USDA will identify
those cases where producers will face a lack of pest management tools due to
pending regulatory action. USDA will then work with both the agriculture and
research communties to identify and develop alternative pest control methods.
The USDA has agreed to collaborate with agricultural and
research groups to identify and develop alternative methods with priority given
to alternatives which significantly reduce health and environmental risks. This
will be done in part through a competitive grants program within a research and
technology transfer program. USDA Secretary Espy stated that in order to
facilitate this research, the USDA hopes to double the $14.5 million in their
budget allocated to
As part of the agreement, EPA will give priority to review of
USDA-designated alternatives which may be alternate chemical or non-chemical
treatments.
USDA/EPA
Environmental News, August
Al Heier, US. EPA, +1 202) 260-4374; Tom Amontree, USDA +1 (202) 720-4623; PANNA.
+1 (415) 541 9140.
Dutch
pesticide use continues to decline
In
1990, the Dutch government developed a Multi-Year Crop Protection Plan aimed at
cutting pesticides usage by half of 1990 levels by the year 2000. The baseline
figure is a 1984-1988 average of 19,950 tonnes of active ingredient used per
year. In 1993 the use of pesticides had decrease by 40% of this baseline figure.
The main reason for this decline has been the sharp decrease in the use of soil
disinfectants. The 1993 drop was heavily influence by weather conditions. During
1993, the use of insecticides and herbicides decreased and fungicide use
remained static. A high level of potato blight occurred which meant that
fungicide use could not be reduced.
Regardless of the percentage movement of pesticide use, Dutch
farmers are clearly given a great deal of advice as to alternative pest control,
which must result in risk reduction in the long term.
Implementation
of the Multi-Year Crop Protection Plan in the Netherlands, Progress report for
1993, Ministry of Agriculture, P0 Box 20401, 2500 EK Den Haag, the Netherlands,
June 1994, l8pp.
WWF
Canada considers pesticide reduction proposals
World
Wildlife Fund (WWF) Canada is proposing that an ambitious national pesticide
reduction plan across all sectors can have economic and environmental benefits.
They have produced a discussion paper, from which they hope to gain general
support and which will ultimately allow for implementation in Canada. Specific
targets of for example 50% over a set timetable are suggested. At present, 34
million kg of pesticides are used in Canada. About 70% are used in agriculture
at a cost of $219 million.
In their discussions with government
staff, politicians, farmers, citizens and conservation groups, WWF Canada has
found that all agree that pesticides can have negative effects and must be more
carefully used and controlled. But while there is interest in participation in
pesticide reduction programs, there is not yet a common vision for how
significant reductions in use, risk and reliance should be defined, promoted and
achieved in Canada.
WWF Canada say that reducing the risk
from, and reliance on, pesticides are the ultimate goals of a pesticide
reduction policy. Risk reduction refers to minimising or eliminating the risk to
human health or the environment. Reduction of reliance implies a fundamental
shift from chemical to non-chemical methods of pest control that are more
environmentally benign and economically secure. Pesticide use reduction, that is
by weight or volume, could serve as proxy for the reduction of risk and
reliance, according to WWF Canada.
Policy suggestions, must respect the
autonomy of growers and their knowledge of farming. Reduction results will be
achieved on the farm, not in policy-making boardrooms, conclude WWF Canada.
A
Pesticide Reduction Policy for Canada: principles & premises, examples &
policy options, WWF Canada Discussion Paper September 1994, 90 Eglinton Ave. E.,
Suite 504, Toronto, Ontario, M4P 2Z7, Canada.
The
US General Accounting Office (GAO) has identified five basic weaknesses in the
overall federal structure and systems for monitoring chemicals in food. First,
splitting of responsibility among multiple agencies results in gaps in federal
monitoring activities. Second, chemicals posing similar risks may be regulated
differently under different laws. Third, federal agencies rely on programmes to
detect unsafe chemicals in food rather than preventing these problems from
developing. Fourth, agencies lack strong enforcement authorities. Fifth, similar
problems exist for imported foods.
Food
Safety: Fundamental Changes Needed to Improve Monitoring of Unsafe Chemicals in
Food, John Harman, before the Subcommittee on Human Resources and
Intergovernmental Relations, House Committee on Government Operations,
GAO/T-RCED-94-31 1, 1994.
Enviro-Health,
a US clearinghouse on environmental health, has been set up by the National
Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. It will provide free and easily
accessible information to public interest groups on environmental health issues.
Enviro-Health,
100 Capitola Drive, Durham, NC 27713, US, Tel: +1 800 643 4794 (free in the US),
Fax: +1 919 361 9408
[This article first appeared in Pesticides News No. 26, December 1994, page 21]