A Guide for Pesticide Safety
The chemical industry and environmentalists, traditional opponents on the regulation of pesticides, have negotiated a major agreement that could finally lead to long-overdue changes in the federal law governing pesticide safety. When these adversaries are willing to talk, and agree, Congress should listen and write the agreement into law to provide better protection for U.S. consumers and chemical-industry workers. Congress should also push for stronger protection for farm workers, who are not part of the new agreement.
For many years no one has had the strength to close the obvious gaps in the law--the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act. With this agreement it could happen, although the general agreement still must be put into specific legislative language.
The agreement calls for legislation that would speed the process of government review of pesticide safety, require pesticide makers to fill in gaps in scientific data about their products and impose a one-time fee on manufacturers to pay for the laboratory studies to produce the data. At present, adequate information on potential health or environmental hazards exists on only about 10% to 30% of pesticides. The agreement also would tighten procedures for canceling permits to use dangerous pesticides, and require more public involvement in the cancellation process.
One problem addressed in this agreement involves inert chemicals used in pesticides that have no effect on bugs but that could harm workers, like vinyl chloride or asbestos. Under the new agreement, even the presence of these inert chemicals would be disclosed by manufacturers.
Another key element would require pesticide makers to provide summaries of health and safety information about their products to local fire and health authorities as well as community officials.
The agreement followed months of talks between the National Agricultural Chemicals Assn. and environmental groups led by the Natural Resources Defense Council. Parallel talks have been occurring with one of the largest grower groups, the American Farm Bureau Federation, because people who handle pesticides in the fields need many of the same protections that chemical-industry workers could now have. Farm workers need to know what chemicals they are handling and when it is safe to return to fields, as well as to be given proper protective clothing. Congress must protect these workers, too.
The climate for successful pesticide-safety negotiations was created by both people and events. Politicians like Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Los Angeles) have been urging increased authority over pesticides under the nation’s food and drug laws, which the industry didn’t want. Sen. Charles McC. Mathias Jr. (R-Md.) has promised extensions of agricultural-chemical patents, which the industry does want, but Mathias pledged action only if the main pesticide law is tightened.
But events such as the tragedy in Bhopal, India, in which 2,000 people were killed because of a chemical leak, had to be the major motivating factor. No industry needs that kind of image. The chemical industry and the environmentalists have taken a key step, one that could well serve as a guide for resolving other environmental issues. Now it’s up to Congress to walk the rest of the way with sound legislation to protect the public.
