States’ Rights on Pesticides

A unique alliance of chemical manufacturers and environmental groups faces a stiff test as Congress completes work on landmark reform of the nation’s pesticide laws. The industry and citizens’ groups negotiated a package of changes in the existing law, but now lobbyists are urging that it include what they call uniform standards for pesticide residues on food. In fact, such standards would prevent states like California from providing better protection against cancer threats than the federal government has been willing to provide.

Insistence on retaining states’ rights to be tougher than the federal government is not simply a legalistic exercise. It has practical consequences. Two years ago the Environmental Protection Agency dragged its feet on banning ethyldibromide (EDB), a known carcinogen. Finally, when unacceptable levels of the fungicide showed up on fruit that had been fumigated and in grain products, California acted. California and every other state should retain that right.

The Senate Agriculture Committee was unable to resist the argument of the groups led by the Grocery Manufacturers Assn., and inserted the preemption into its version of the bill. The House Agriculture Committee signaled its backing of preemption in debate, but didn’t write it into its bill because then the legislation would have gone to a committee chaired by Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Los Angeles), who does see the value in providing the best possible protection to consumers.

The House is now debating the measure, and is being asked by Rep. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) to establish uniform national standards for pesticide residues so that farmers and food processors can market their products in all states in an orderly fashion. The amendment purports to bring states into the decision-making process, but really would add a meaningless layer of delay and should be defeated.

An alternative amendment has been worked out by Waxman and Rep. Leon E. Panetta (D-Monterey). It would permit the EPA to establish national tolerance levels but allow states to exceed those standards if necessary specifically to protect public health. If the federal preemption provision cannot be deleted altogether, the Waxman-Panetta approach seems a reasonable resolution of the dispute.

This revision of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act could be one of the key pieces of environmental legislation of the decade. It would require testing of pesticides for their potential health effects under tougher standards than were in effect when the chemicals first went on the market, set deadlines for that review and speed the process of canceling the use of pesticides suspected of harming people or the environment.

Such legislation would have nationwide benefits. But Californians have demonstrated in the past the need to establish more stringent standards than federal ones that may be adequate for most states but not for California. Air-pollution control is another example, in addition to pesticides. This right should be retained in the final version of the new national pesticide law.