[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Delaney, EPA version (long)
Last week the PANUPS news relase gave some information about the proposed
new enforcement of the Delaney clause that regulates carcinogens in food.
(Settlement of California vs Browner). What follows is the EPA press
release on the subject. It gives more details of what will happen when,
and the specific Acts and Sections.
PANUPS wears it politics on its sleeve, the EPA's position is a little more
ambiguous. Carol Browner is a strong advocate for environmental
protection, yet the EPA lost the lawsuit that seeks stricter enforcement.
EPA REACHES PROPOSED AGREEMENT ON LAWSUIT CONCERNING PESTICIDES
AND THE DELANEY CLAUSE
EPA has reached a proposed agreement with plaintiffs in a lawsuit
concerning pesticides and the Delaney clause. The agreement establishes a
schedule for the Agency that will set policy that could lead to
cancellation of the uses of 36 pesticides and will lead to further review
of at least 49 others.
The state of California, the Natural Resources Defense Council and
others sued EPA in l989 over the Agency's application of the Delaney
clause of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. In certain
circumstances
this law prohibits residues of pesticides that "induce cancer" from being
present in processed food.
"I am pleased that EPA has reached this proposed agreement,
which
continues the Clinton Administration's commitment to reduce pesticide use
and ensure a safe food supply. The agreement, however, addresses only one
complex part of the nation's system for safe pesticide management," said
EPA Administrator Carol M. Browner. "The Administration believes the
entire food safety program requires overhaul, and we have already begun
implementing far-reaching administrative reforms and developed a package to
reform current law. All of our actions and decisions are based on quality
science designed to better protect the health of the American public.
"Among our initiatives, for example, are new pesticide safety
testing procedures designed to be more protective of children, who may be
more susceptible to pesticide risks. We are working with farmers to
streamline the process for moving safer pesticides onto the market more
quickly. And we are working to reduce the total use of pesticides
nationally.
"Our actions and initiatives address not just cancer risks, but
numerous other health risks, such as reproductive disorders. And our
proposal affects not just processed foods, but all foods. This agreement
assures that America will continue to enjoy the cheapest, most abundant and
safest food supply in the world." The major terms of the agreement are:
-- EPA would agree to rule on a l992 petition of the National
Food Processors Association (NFPA) within 60 days from the court
approval of the settlement agreement. NFPA petitioned EPA among
other things to discontinue its policy that links processed food
tolerances with raw food tolerances. Under the Agency's
"coordination policy," if a processed food tolerance is needed
but is prohibited under the Delaney clause, the corresponding raw
food tolerance is not permitted. For example, prohibition of a
tolerance on processed tomato puree would also prohibit a
tolerance on raw tomatoes, because EPA cannot ensure that raw
tomatoes bearing pesticide residues will not enter processing
channels and result in residues over tolerance in downstream
processed tomatoes. The proposed agreement does not dictate the
decisions EPA will make on this or other issues raised in
the NFPA petition, but does set a deadline for making these
decisions.
-- EPA would agree to decide within six months of the court's
approval of the agreement, whether any of approximately 60
processed food tolerances (409s) (earlier identified by EPA as
potentially violating the Delaney clause) violate the Delaney
clause. Final decisions on revocations would be required within
l8
months thereafter.
-- EPA would agree to decide within 24 months of the court's
approval of the agreement, which of the approximately 80 raw food
tolerances that are associated with existing or needed processed
food tolerances that may violate the Delaney clause are subject
to
revocation under EPA's coordination policy, as defined in EPA's
response to the NFPA petition. Final decisions on any proposed
raw food tolerance (408) revocations must be issued within five
years of the agreement.
-- EPA would agree to review within five years any carcinogenicity
and processing studies already submitted to the Agency but not
yet
reviewed to determine if additional processed and raw food
tolerances are subject to the Delaney clause and must be
revoked.
If processing data are lacking, EPA must take steps within one
year to obtain such data.
The Delaney clause in section 409 of the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) provides that no processed food tolerance may be
approved for any chemical found to induce cancer in man or animals.
Pesticides require processed food tolerances only where pesticide residues
in the processed food either exceed the residues in the raw food or are
added directly to the processed food. In l988 EPA adopted a policy
interpreting the Delaney clause as subject to an exception for carcinogenic
pesticides which pose only a negligible risk. EPA's action under the
Delaney clause and its negligible risk policy was challenged in two
similar but separate suits.
In the Les vs. Reilly suit, in July, l992, the plaintiffs
successfully obtained a "zero risk" interpretation of the Delaney clause
when the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit rejected
EPA's negligible risk approach to the Delaney clause.
In California vs. Browner, the subject of the proposed agreement
released today, the parties sought a court order requiring EPA to revoke
raw food tolerances (section 408) associated with processed food tolerances
(section 409) which are barred by the Delaney clause.
The proposed agreement between EPA and the California vs. Browner
plaintiffs has been given to the intervenors in the case (American Crop
Protection Association and the National Food Processors Association and
various grower organizations) for comment and will be submitted to the
Court on Dec. 2 for approval.
Obtain copies of the agreement by calling the EPA
Communication Branch in the Office of Pesticide Programs, 703-305-5017).
--
Thomas Bjorkman Dept. of Horticultural Sciences Cornell University
q . i€ .. qè
Bionet.plants From markh@ORA.COM Wed Sep 1 10:17:09 1993
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1993 23:53:45 PDT
From: Mark Harrington <markh@ORA.COM>
To: Multiple recipients of list DEVEL-L <DEVEL-L@AMERICAN.EDU>
Subject: Neem Tree
ECHO (Educ concerns for hunger org) has the seeds and some info
on propagation and use available. Apparently the twigs are excel
lent toothbrushes as well. they are slightly alkaline and neutralize
the acidic plaque. They have an interesting intern newsletter.
ECHO, 17430 Durrance Rd., North Ft. Myers FL 33917-2200
voice 813 543 3246
Cheers...
--
Mark Harrington
email: markh@ora.com
phone: (H) 707-526-0867
(W) 707-576-2434