Court Bans 4 Chemicals From Processed Foods : Agriculture: Ruling may force curbs on many common pesticides. Cancer concerns triggered case.

In a ruling that could affect dozens of pesticides used on food, a federal court on Wednesday said that four widely used, cancer-causing agricultural chemicals can no longer be used on crops that are processed into food.

If allowed to stand, the ruling by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals will force the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to ban the use of many common pesticides on crops, such as grapes or oranges, that could be processed into other forms, including juices or oils. Fruits and vegetables primarily would be affected, although the chemicals’ use on some grains could also be restricted.

EPA officials said the chemicals will be barred only if the pesticide ends up in the processed product in concentrations that exceeded the level found in the raw food. Depending on the nature of the chemical, the food or the processing, some chemicals become more concentrated once food has been processed.

But because growers often do not know whether their crops will eventually be processed, the ruling would effectively discontinue the use of many pesticides on certain food crops altogether, the officials said.

“This is going to provide the overdue catalyst for the agricultural community to get off the pesticide treadmill and move away from using toxic chemicals in agriculture,” said Albert Meyerhoff, a senior attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council, one of three organizations that challenged the chemicals’ use.

Meyerhoff said the EPA has so far learned that 67 of about 300 agricultural chemicals used on food induce cancer either in animals or people. Dozens of those chemicals are known to concentrate in processed foods and could be banned under the ruling, he said. The rest are under review.

Among those at risk, according to Meyerhoff, are alachlor, a herbicide used on corn, peanuts, sorghum and sunflowers; captan, a fungicide applied to apples, grapes, plums and tomatoes, and chlorothalonil, used on soybeans. He said the plaintiffs have filed another suit to force the EPA to restrict these and other chemicals.

Jonathan Fleuchaus, an EPA attorney, said the agency has not yet decided whether to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court or to ask the circuit court to reconsider.

“The impacts are going to be spotty in terms of how they are going to affect certain pesticides,” he said. “We are not going to wake up tomorrow and find that there will be 60 pesticides gone across the board.”

He added, however, that the impact of the ruling may affect dozens of pesticides beyond the four cited in the case.

“If you’re dealing with dozens of uses, it is probably going to hit most of the major crops, most of the major fruits and vegetables . . . barley, oats,” he said. “You are going to hit lots of crops.”

The pesticides at issue were benomyl, a fungicide used on raisin grapes and tomatoes intended for processing; mancozeb, a fungicide found in raisins and flour; phosmet, an insecticide detected in cottonseed oil, and trifluralin, another insecticide detected in peppermint and spearmint oils.

The EPA has allowed the uses of cancer-causing chemicals if their risk is minimal. Fleuchaus said the risks of getting cancer from eating the processed foods mentioned in the court case ranged from one cancer for every 10 million people who consumed the chemical over a lifetime in an average diet to two cancers for every 100 billion consumers.

By contrast, Alar, the controversial chemical that was eventually banned by the EPA, had a risk of five cancer cases for every 100,000 people who consumed an average number of apples over their lifetime.

A spokesman for the California Farm Bureau said the chemicals singled out in the court case are not widely used in the state for processed foods, and other chemicals or pest management strategies could probably be found. However, he said farmers are nervous about what other pesticides may be restricted as a result of the court decision.

Veda Federighi of the California Department of Pesticide Regulation said benomyl is used on about 40 California crops that are processed; mancozeb on 11, phosmet on 12 and trifluralin on about 36.

The legal case involved a challenge to the EPA over the federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, passed in Congress in 1958. One of its provisions, known as the Delaney clause after the congressman who sponsored it, says additives in processed food should not be deemed safe if they cause cancer in either animals or humans when ingested.

The EPA argued that the chemicals posed only a negligible risk and should not be restricted under the Delaney clause.

As a consequence, the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental group, the AFL-CIO and Public Citizen, a consumer organization, filed suit.

Meyerhoff said he is confident the decision will be upheld, but acknowledged “the fight may now move to Capitol Hill.”

He added, however, that he does not believe Congress “would weaken laws intended to prevent cancer.”

Michael Henry, a spokesman for the California Farm Bureau, said the Delaney clause must be “thrown out.”

“The concern we have, of course, is the Delaney clause,” he said. “We think it is unacceptable and goes contrary to science. We have been working with Congress for some time on this and our efforts will continue.”