Senate OKs Tough Pesticide Curbs : Allows States to Set More Stringent Standards Than U.S.

The Senate, approving a historic plan to strengthen health controls on pesticides, voted Monday to permit states to set standards even tougher than those imposed by the federal government.

By a 44-35 vote, the Senate rejected a motion to strip states of the right to set more stringent levels on the amount of pesticide allowed to remain in food. Sen. Alan Cranston (D-Calif.) voted for the motion and Sen. Pete Wilson (R-Calif.) voted against it. The Senate then approved the entire bill on a voice vote.

The House, in approving its version of the legislation last month, voted to strip the right of California and other states to set stricter standards. For several weeks, the provision has threatened to jeopardize a fragile and unusual coalition of pesticide makers and environmentalists who forged the bill, designed to reduce the level of harmful pesticides in food.

$463 Million

The bill authorizes spending $463 million over the next five years. Supporters of the legislation praised the Senate action and predicted that a compromise on the states’ rights issue could be reached when the measure goes to a conference committee later this week.

Al Meyerhoff, an attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council, said that the only major challenge remaining will be winning a compromise on industry provisions covering patents, pollution liability and the sale between companies of health and safety data. “But we have the momentum now,” he said.

Supporters of the amendment to permit states to retain their regulatory authority--approved on a voice vote after the motion to kill it failed--argued that states have used their discretionary authority only narrowly and only when the federal government failed to protect public health in the face of strong evidence of a problem.

Several senators recalled the Environmental Protection Agency’s failure to ban the pesticide EDB, ethylene dibromide, until April, 1984, a decade after it had been discovered to cause cancer in animals. Several states by then already had stripped grocery shelves of products such as cake mix and cereals made from wheat sprayed with the fumigant.

Sen. Robert T. Stafford (R-Vt.) said that, if states had not acted and forced the EPA to take action, “EDB would still be on grocery shelves at this time.”

Gap in Protection

Sen. Dave Durenberger (R-Minn.), who sponsored the amendment stripping the bill of the state provision, argued that the limit on states’ rights would create a “void, a gap in the health protection that is afforded to the American public.”

Supporters attributed the Senate’s decision on the state provision to lobbying efforts by governors upset by the House action. “Senators are also somewhat more responsive about a statewide issue than is an individual congressman,” said Nancy Drabble, a member of Congress Watch.

Opponents of the amendment argued that it was unnecessary, saying that the Senate language limited state authority only over pesticides that had already received strict federal scrutiny. Moreover, opponents said, the Senate bill would have permitted states to act in emergencies, though they would have to go to court if the EPA found that the emergency action does not need to be made permanent.

Led by Food Groups

The campaign to limit state authority has been waged by the Grocery Manufacturers Assn. and the National Food Processors Assn. They have argued that different state residue limits would raise prices and disrupt the food distribution system.

The proposal would not preempt Proposition 65, the California initiative designed to reduce toxic pollutants in drinking water.

The pesticide bill requires the EPA to test within nine years about 600 compounds that are building blocks for about 50,000 pesticides now on the market. The tests are to determine whether the chemicals cause birth defects, cancer or other illnesses. If they are found to have adverse consequences, the EPA can order them removed from the market.

Handful Tested

Congress ordered such testing in 1972 but set no timetable. Since then, the EPA has tested only a handful of the chemicals.

To help pay for the program, the bill requires pesticide producers to pay up to $150,000 for each compound being reviewed. The Reagan Administration has opposed the bill on the grounds that the fees would not cover the cost of the program.

The bill would also expand the EPA’s regulation of pesticide ingredients, accelerate procedures for reviewing and canceling pesticides believed to harm human health or the environment and require pesticide producers to make public health and safety information about their products.