Reform of Pesticide Rules Passes House Unanimously

In a rare display of bipartisan unanimity, the House on Tuesday approved a sweeping revision of regulations on agricultural pesticides, strengthening federal rules on the amount of chemicals allowed on Americans’ food.

The bill would repeal a 40-year-old zero-tolerance standard that had become widely viewed as outmoded and would set a single standard for pesticide residues on all foods--fresh and processed--that people buy for their table.

The zero-tolerance standard, commonly called the Delaney clause, had led to a fragmented system of pesticide tolerances that frustrated food processors, bothered public health advocates and applied only to a small percentage of processed foods.

In an election-year anomaly, the measure passed, 417 to 0, amid a torrent of self-congratulatory praise for the nonpartisan teamwork that led to the swift action.

“This bill reconciles fundamental differences . . . into a bill that benefits all Americans,” said Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Los Angeles), who had toiled for decades to reform the pesticide law. “This is what the American people want us to do: work out compromises.”

The Senate Agriculture Committee is expected to give its approval to the bill today and send it to the Senate floor for a vote.

Carol Browner, head of the Environmental Protection Agency, urged the Senate “to act quickly to pass the new legislation.” She said that the bill answers Clinton administration requests for “a comprehensive strengthening of food safety laws.”

But some grass-roots environmental groups have criticized the bill, saying it is too easy on industry and could hamstring states like California that have tough pesticide regulations on the books.

“This is a step in the wrong direction, not an advance in food safety laws,” said Mary Raftery, the legislative director for the California Public Interest Research Group in Sacramento. “Environmental groups inside the Beltway may think it’s a good thing, but it gives away a standard that says we will not put carcinogens into our food and replaces it with [risk assessment] science that has never proven itself to be accurate.”

The bill supplants zero-tolerance with “reasonable certainty” that consumers will not be harmed, and it defines that level as not more than a one-in-a-million chance of causing cancer in a lifetime. Public health advocates had sought the new health-based standard.

The new rules are designed to heighten protections for children. The bill incorporates the recommendations of a 1993 National Academy of Sciences study which pointed out that tolerances for pesticides in children are considerably lower than in adults.

The movement to repeal the zero-tolerance standard had been sought by the food industry for more than a decade but gathered momentum after a 1993 federal appeals court ruling said the clause was being enforced too loosely.

Fearing the ruling would lead to an all-out ban that could disrupt the food supply, agricultural interests turned the heat on Congress to eliminate the clause.

Until two weeks ago, the entrenched positions of the food industry and environmentalists appeared to doom any chance of agreement. But the two sides met behind closed doors earlier this month and achieved a surprising breakthrough.

Waxman and Rep. Thomas J. Bliley Jr. (R-Va.), chairman of the House Commerce Committee, found compromise by agreeing to positions they had rejected earlier.

The food industry wanted zero tolerance repealed but had to accept in its place a strong federal standard based on health considerations. Likewise, the industry wanted to have a “benefits test” in cases where a pesticide could be shown to be vital to growing certain crops--a position strongly opposed by environmental groups.

Under the Bliley-Waxman bill, exceptions to the federal standard would have to meet a standard of a two-in-a-million chance of causing cancer. The bill also requires that the public be informed on labels when foods do not meet the one-in-a-million standard.

Specific language was also written into the bill to preserve California’s right to carry out provisions of Proposition 65, which called for pesticide warning labels.

The bill has won the endorsement of many industry and environmental groups.

“This is a big issue for California agriculture from the standpoint of establishing a standard that is based on science,” said Bill Krauter of the California Farm Bureau.