Protection From Pesticides

Landmark pesticide-reform legislation, the product of a laboriously negotiated agreement between manufacturers and environmentalists, has passed its first test in relatively good form. The measure, which would speed the testing of pesticide ingredients, has cleared the House Agriculture Committee intact. The full House and the Senate will take up the measure after the Fourth of July recess; speedy passage would be a clear victory for the public that the measure seeks to protect.

The bill would strengthen the pesticide law known as the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, or FIFRA. It is necessary because about 600 active ingredients of pesticides have never been adequately tested for health hazards, for they came into use before tougher standards were enacted. Under the legislation, these substances would have to be screened and re-registered--or restricted, if that is necessary--within nine years. To pay for this accelerated testing, the bill would assess fees totaling $150,000 on each pesticide being reviewed.

The agreement that was hammered out between representatives of 92 chemical companies and 41 environmental, consumer and labor organizations also would allow the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate inert ingredients of pesticides for the first time. John Moore, EPA’s assistant administrator for pesticides and toxic substances, says that inert ingredients may be as harmful as active ingredients. Now those must be tested and listed on pesticide labels.

There remains one serious threat to the strength of this reform legislation. Food manufacturers are backing an amendment that would allow federal regulation to preempt state standards limiting food contamination on the ground that they do business nationwide and need uniform regulation. That proposal would work against Californians, who have regularly been more skeptical about pesticides than the federal government has. In fact, in 1984 it took action by California--and Florida--removing from the market citrus and grain products contaminated by treatment with ethyl dibromide (EDB) before the EPA finally acted. California needs to retain that authority to act against contaminated food.

House Agriculture Committee members finessed the point by first passing that amendment to show that they supported the idea, then deleting it so that it wouldn’t be sent to a committee headed by Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Los Angeles), who threatened to make a scene about it. So it is especially important that no preemption be included in any Senate bill so that no such provision goes to a conference committee of the House and Senate working out the final version. Gov. George Deukmejian could provide some valuable leadership by letting Californians on Capitol Hill know that the state wants to retain the authority to protect its own citizens.