Test on Pesticides

For years environmental, business and labor groups have been negotiating the terms of a new law that would tighten federal safety controls over pesticides. There are still loose threads, however--so many that the package could come unraveled on Capitol Hill if the competing forces keep pulling in their own directions instead of toward the public interest. If the package does fall apart, there may not be another chance to improve this important area of environmental law for many years.

Several key issues remain to be resolved in the Senate Agriculture Committee as it nears a vote Wednesday on changes in the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act. Among them are the right of local and state governments to set higher standards than federal law. Committee members who want the public well protected should insist that the federal law not preempt state or local standards.

One troublesome amendment would prevent cities and counties from enacting regulations, as Mendocino County did in 1979 when it banned aerial spraying of phenoxy herbicides in a move aimed at timber companies operating locally. After Mendocino took the action, the California Legislature wrongheadedly passed a bill giving the state jurisdiction over the uses of such chemicals. The only redeeming feature of the law is that it allows local governments to write their own controls and have them adopted as state regulations.

Local governments are entitled to decide for themselves what is appropriate under special and local circumstances. And the fact that the California Legislature weakened the rights of local governments in the field of pesticides and herbicides should not be used as an argument in favor of the federal government’s doing the same thing to states. Sen. Pete Wilson--who is on the Agriculture Committee and may support the preemption, depending on how it is worded--should keep that point in mind.

The other preemption under debate is potentially more onerous. Many food-industry lobbyists want the legislation to preempt all state regulation of the levels of pesticides that will be tolerated in the food supply. They argue that if states are allowed to have tougher standards, they, not the Environmental Protection Agency, will be setting federal policy. Others, who saw California move more quickly than the federal agency to deal with the hazards of ethyl dibromide, want to retain that independent ability to act when circumstances warrant. We agree with them.

A spokesman for Wilson said that he might favor an approach that would require uniform standards, with no state exceptions, but apply those uniform standards only to pesticides approved in the future under the tough guidelines. That might be an avenue for compromise, but the committee should again keep the public interest uppermost in any talks of giving away any state protections.

The legislation as approved by the House Agriculture Committee and moving through the Senate would set deadlines for testing pesticides that farmers started using before tougher guidelines went into effect. It would give the public more information on where pesticides are produced. It would require the EPA to issue regulations on protecting farm workers who deal with pesticides. It might establish national standards for the amount of pesticides in groundwater. The bill is a careful piece of work, and one of the most important environmental bills to appear before Congress in many years. The painstaking work must not be undone by last-minute changes that could weaken the protection of the public.