SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS
Page 1 TOP OF DOC
REVIEW THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE FOOD QUALITY PROTECTION ACT
THURSDAY, APRIL 22, 1999
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Department Operations,
Oversight, Nutrition, and Forestry,
Committee on Agriculture,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:32 a.m., in room 1301, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Bob Goodlatte, (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Pombo, Chambliss, LaHood, Moran, Walden, Clayton, Goode, Berry, Phelps, Hill, and Stenholm [ex officio].
Staff present: John Goldberg, Kevin Kamp, Brad Shurdut, Callista Bisek, Wanda Worsham, clerk; and Danelle Farmer.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BOB GOODLATTE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF VIRGINIA
Mr. GOODLATTE. Good morning. This hearing of the Subcommittee on Department Operations, Oversight, Nutrition, and Forestry to review the implementation of the Food Quality Protection Act is now called to order.
The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony and written statements reviewing the implementation of the FQPA. This hearing continues the aggressive oversight of FQPA implementation this subcommittee started in the 105th Congress on June 25 of last year, and initiates what I am sure will be intensified efforts by this subcommittee in the 106th Congress.
Page 2 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
By way of background, the process of regulating the use of pesticides was dramatically changed when Congress passed the Food Quality Protection Act in August 1996. The FQPA amended the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide, FIFRA, and the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act by significantly modifying the criteria for assessing and issuing pesticide tolerances. The process by which the FQPA amendments are implemented is of real interest to this subcommittee because it has the potential of bringing major changes to our system of food protection, disease control, and other public health programs. If not properly implemented, we could see a significant negative impact on overall nutrition, especially for children. Likewise, random and unjustified revocation of pesticide tolerances will wreak havoc in rural America as food production shifts to foreign countries.
I have called this hearing today at the request of Congressman Stenholm and Congresswoman Clayton, the ranking members of the full committee and this subcommittee, respectively. The frustration of this committee is bipartisan. EPA's refusal to base decisions on the best available scientific evidence, and their unwillingness to call for additional reliable data to meet new requirements, is intolerable. EPA's risk assessments are not adequately portraying the best available data, as required by the law. Instead, the agency insists on using default assumptions regarding pesticide use, as well as associated risks.
For instance, we will hear today about the tolerance review of a specific ''OP,'' so I only reference it now, but it dramatically proves why we are so concerned by EPA's inability to establish a consistent process. Many stakeholders have told me that they are willing and able to submit accurate and actual data. EPA, however, either refuses to accept these data or refuses to tell the stakeholders what data they need.
If these complaints sound familiar, they are. They were a focus of the hearing last June. The only difference is now we have proof. In this hearing I hope to learn where EPA and USDA are in the implementation process. If there is a process, I hope the administration witnesses can assure this committee that it is fair and responsible.
Page 3 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In the interest of disclosure, I will not consider a process responsible if it doesn't take into account unintended consequences or potential negative impacts that could be avoided. This subcommittee is committed to science-based, accessible, predictable, and transparent regulatory process that assures public health and safety. Anything less violates the letter and spirit of the FQPA. It also puts our Government in the position of damaging the highly respectable position of American agriculture, both nationally and internationally, something that this subcommittee will not tolerate.
I look forward to hearing the witnesses' testimony today. We have assembled uniquely qualified witnesses that will provide insight into FQPA implementation.
At this time, I would like to recognize the ranking member of the subcommittee, Mrs. Clayton, from North Carolina.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. EVA M. CLAYTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
Mrs. CLAYTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to thank you for holding this hearing and think this is certainly an appropriate hearing, because we do have oversight over this important issue. More importantly, the implementation of the FQPA is so important, not only to the well-being economically of the agriculture industry, but also to the safety of food for children and consumers.
We are also interested to make sure that, as we approach this important issue, we are not suggesting by any means in calling this hearing or asking profound questions that the protection of public health is not a priority. There is no abrogation as to the priority of this. The protection of public health—particularly of our consumers and our children—is a priority. But that is not to suggest that, as we approach this worthy public policy, we should do it without having our decision based on reasonable, sound science. That science should be available. It should be reasonable. It should be understood.
Page 4 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Also, there are principles articulated in the memorandum that the Vice President had offered to both the agencies responsible for this. Those principles need to be adhered to. I want to just serve warning that I intend to be engaged with the agencies to make sure that not only the science is sound, it is the best and it is reasonable; the transparency is there; that we have a transitional period, and, indeed, that we do reach to make sure that the other participants in this whole implementation are trying to identify not only the pesticides, but new registrants, as we go forward in that.
The whole issue about having the opportunity for transitional period is a concern of mine. I hope that the witnesses will illuminate their particular agencies on that. The issue of having sufficient resources for the implementation and the registration of these new pesticides is another concern.
All in all, I think we have made some progress. I want to acknowledge that. But, indeed, there are opportunities for the TRAC Committee that has been meeting. I noted in some of the testimony that it has been meeting now for a year. You have had at least seven meetings. There are a number of issues still remaining, and I hope that this committee will be engaged with that.
Mr. Chairman, again, thank you for holding the hearing.
[The prepared statement of Mrs. Clayton follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. EVA M. CLAYTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you for holding this hearing today. It is appropriate that this subcommittee conduct oversight because implementation of the Food Quality Protection Act has a significant impact on agriculture.
I am looking forward to hearing from the witnesses and appreciate the diverse point of views represented. Although I am disappointed that members of the environmental community declined to participate today. Their views on this subject are very important. I would also like to thank the chairman for the bipartisan manner in which this hearing has been handled.
Page 5 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
As you know the FQPA passed overwhelmingly in 1996 with the support of environmentalists, growers, chemical companies, and food industry groups. If implemented correctly, FQPA can protect human health without jeopardizing agriculture and rural America in the process. Without question, public health is a priority. Safer food is good for the consumers and farmers.
But, we must ensure that EPA bases their decisions on sound science. EPA and USDA must also work to ensure that there is clear and understandable process for tolerance reassessment. Stakeholders must be involved in this process and EPA and USDA must continue to work together. All of these principles were laid out by Vice President Gore in his memorandum to EPA and USDA one year ago this month. I intend to work with the agencies to ensure that they adhere to these principles.
I am pleased with the progress that has been made over the last year but there are still issues that need to be addressed. One area of concern is whether or not EPA has all of the data they need for their decision making process. FQPA requires EPA for the first time to consider non-dietary risks (water and residential) as well as dietary risks. EPA should use complete and actual data instead of using default assumptions that unfairly portray risk.
Additionally, the issue of a reasonable transition for agriculture needs to be adequately addressed. I hope that the Tolerance Reassessment Advisory Committee (TRAC) will address this issue more thoroughly in the upcoming meetings and that both EPA and USDA will continue to solicit stakeholder input.
Finally, I would like to be assured that adequate resources are devoted to registration of new, safer, and more environmentally friendly products. EPA should make registration of this type of chemical a priority.
We must also ensure that USDA is adequately funded. USDA's role in implementation of the FQPA is imperative to the success of
Page 6 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
this law.
Again, thank you Mr. Chairman for holding this hearing today.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you, Mrs. Clayton.
It is now my pleasure to recognize the ranking member of the full committee, someone who is very interested in this issue and also involved in requesting that we hold a hearing, Congressman Stenholm.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES W. STENHOLM, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS
Mr. STENHOLM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for holding this oversight hearing today on the implementation of FQPA.
This law is critical to agriculture. I think it is very appropriate that we review FQPA implementation on AG/Earth Day. Now, while some folks have asked why we are holding a hearing now, I think the answer is simple. It has been nearly a year since the last oversight hearing was held. It has been about a year, or a little over a year, since Vice President Gore made some significant instructions to EPA and USDA, when he suggested in all of these decisions that sound science should be used. Most of us agreed to that.
He suggested that we have transparency; that everyone interested in the process be allowed, permitted, and encouraged to participate, and that the decisionmaking process should be transparent, so that all parties would see what is going on; reasonable transition for agriculture, and recognizing that sometimes decisions are made that can have a very devastating effect on production agriculture, and that transition time needs to be utilized where public health is not imminently in danger.
With regard to consultation with the public and other agencies—we observed at that time that it was sort of amazing that we would have to have the Vice President of the United States instruct two agencies of the Government of the United States to work together. But, that has happened. There have been some very positive actions have happened since then, as evidenced by some of the criticisms now being made.
Page 7 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
It has been a year since the TRAC Committee began its work. These are the reasons for this hearing today. The August deadline for EPA to reassess one-third of all tolerances is rapidly approaching. The appropriation bills which fund EPA and USDA's work on FQPA will be considered fairly soon. Legislation to amend FQPA has been introduced. EPA has begun making decisions on the nine key science policies they released for notice and comment. EPA and USDA have begun to work on risk assessment for organophosphates. We continue to receive numerous phone calls and visits from concerned growers, industry folks, and consumer representatives.
For all of these reasons, I welcome this opportunity to get an FQPA update before the next full TRAC meeting next week, April 27 and 28. It is very important that we continue to exercise our oversight authority on this important issue. I greatly appreciate Mr. Goodlatte holding at least one more hearing on FQPA implementation this summer.
As you all know, there is still a lot more work to be done to ensure that FQPA is implemented in a fair, reasonable and workable manner, and that all decisions are driven by sound science. I believe the TRAC has been a valuable tool, and I commend the interested groups for trying to work through all these difficult issues.
I would also like to commend both USDA and EPA for their commitment to this issue. While I do believe we are better off today than we were a year ago, there are still several issues that concern me. First, USDA's role is critical to the successful implementation of this law. For the first time, USDA is reviewing the risk assessments before they are finalized. Unfortunately, they are seriously underfunded and understaffed in this area. I intend to work with the appropriators as we look at USDA funding for Fiscal Year 2000. I will also ask that USDA make this a priority and utilize all available resources for these purposes.
Second, I am pleased that EPA has put key science policies out for notice and comment. However, I am greatly concerned that decisions on products might be made before these science policies are finalized. As a farmer in real life, common sense tells me you don't make decisions until you have all of the information. The FQPA gives EPA the authority to make time-limited tolerances on products. But it is important to keep in mind that passage of FQPA did not make registered chemicals unsafe overnight. Prior to FQPA, chemicals still had to go through a rigorous approval process.
Page 8 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I am also concerned with EPA's public release of preliminary risk assessments over the Internet. While I have no problem with the public release of this information once it can be supported by sound science, I do have concerns with the release of information based on worst-case assumptions instead of actual data. There is no justification for needlessly scaring people with misinformation, when there are several groups just waiting for the opportunity to do just that.
The bottom line is this: The FQPA can be implemented in such a way that it works. By the same token, it can also be implemented in such a way it won't work. We must all work together to ensure proper implementation of this law. As long as sound science is driving the process, everybody wins.
I am pleased that so many different points of view will be presented here today. However, I am very disappointed that we will not hear from some in the environmental community. Two environmental groups were invited, one of which called and asked to testify. Regrettably, both turned down the invitation. While we may not always agree on FQPA implementation, I hope these groups will want to participate in the process in the future. I hope that those of you will want to do more than just run cute little ads in The Washington Post the day before a hearing of this nature. This is what upsets most of us in the production agriculture community. Those of you out there who have an agenda which you believe is more important than sound science developed at EPA and USDA, might come up with very cute little ads. You have every right to do that. I respect your right to do that. You did it to me all through last September and October. But it did not work, because most of the folks I represent are like most of the folks in this room, today and in this town: They understand that, if we pursue your theories, we will not have the most abundant food supply, the best quality, the safest food supply, at the lowest cost to the consumers.
Let me say that I, along with several other Members of Congress, were depicted as dogs. I'd proudly wear that label, ''blue dog.'' My photo was placed over the body of a Dalmatian I thought was somewhat appropriate, seeing as how I was working with those who were willing to work with me to try to put some fires out in this endeavor, in order that we might have a positive result and not a negative result.
Page 9 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
It is interesting that those with opposing views were depicted in this ad as chewing on our ankles because they didn't have the opportunity to testify at the FQPA hearing last year, Mr. Chairman. Last year, they were chewing on you and criticizing you for not allowing them to testify. This year we made sure they would have a voice. Two different environmental groups were invited to be here today. Both turned you down, Mr. Chairman, even after one of them had contacted the committee last week with a request that they be allowed to participate.
Now I understand that this is not necessarily the perfect process from any of our points of view. But I still hope that the environmental community will decide they want to work with you, Mr. Chairman, and with this committee.
I want to thank and express my appreciation to those who have worked hard through the TRAC process. It is harder to stay and work through these difficult issues than to get up and walk away when the going gets tough, as one environmental group did.
I hope that those representing different points of view today will contribute to the beginnings of an even more successful implementation of FQPA.
I should note in closing, Mr. Chairman, that the USDA Deputy Secretary, Richard Rominger, and Acting EPA Deputy Administrator, Peter Robertson, were unable to be here because of AG/Earth Day. They will, however, do a briefing for the full House Agriculture Committee on April 30.
Finally, I would like to extend a special welcome to Mr. Donnie Dippel, the assistant commissioner for pesticide programs for the Texas Department of Agriculture, and I look forward to hearing from all of the witnesses.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and let me take this opportunity again to express my appreciation to you and your staff for your cooperation, assistance, and leadership in putting together this hearing today. Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you, Mr. Stenholm. Let me just say that you are one dog I want to have in this fight. [Laughter.]
Page 10 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. STENHOLM. We may no longer be a Dalmatian or a blue dog; we may be a pit bull or a Doberman.
Mr. GOODLATTE. I will take it. We have another Member of Congress who is vitally interested in this issue who represents a major agriculture protection area in the San Joaquin Valley of California. We are glad to have Mr. Pombo's statement as well.
OPENING STATEMENT OF RICHARD W. POMBO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. POMBO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to join my colleagues in thanking you and the ranking member for holding this hearing. After that statement from the ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Stenholm, I don't have an awful lot to say. I think I will just say that I agree wholeheartedly with his sentiments and concerns over this legislation.
Over the past year, I have become increasingly more concerned about the implementation of what, I believed at the time, was a good low. I still believe that it, basically, was a good law. But like a lot of other things that we do here in Washington and that the bureaucracy does, we kind of messed it up. I think that, as you look at the implementation of this law, there is concern for all of us.
I have spent the better part of the past year working with outside groups and trying to find out exactly what is wrong and what is right with the current implementation; the way that it is working; the concerns that have been raised, and intend on introducing legislation next week that I believe will take a sound science approach to solving this problem.
I think we all have concerns. That is why the legislation was passed to begin with. That is why we tried to do something about the law at the time. But when we look at the implementation, I think that it scares all of us. I think that if we have sound science and if we have a good process in place, we can live with the results. My greatest concern is that is not where we are ending up.
Page 11 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I encourage all of you to take a look at the legislation that we are going to introduce next week, as well as other legislation that has been introduced already. I think that, as you look at that and try to figure out what the best way to solve this problem is, I believe that we can come to a consensus and move legislation that we can all be very confident in the results. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you, Mr. Pombo. Does any other member have an opening statement they would like to make? Mr. Walden.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GREG WALDEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON
Mr. WALDEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for holding this hearing and giving me the opportunity to comment on the implementation of the Food Quality Protection Act by the EPA and USDA. My district, the Second Congresional District of Oregon, is home to a wide variety of crops, from pears and apples in the Hood River and Rogue Valleys; to potatoes and onions in Malhuer County; mint in central Oregon, and wheat and barley in the Columbia Basin.
Growers in my district are concerned about how Government is going to make the decisions that affect their very livelihoods, as much as the growers from around the country are. Right now, there is very little margin for error. As I travel my district, I hear firsthand from my constituents about the Government regulations that affect their lives. One of their greatest concerns is the possibility of losing the very tools they need to combat pests and disease, tools that make a difference as they try to make a living growing the crops that feed us.
Some of the questions I have been asked on the subject of implementation of FQPA are similar to those I am hearing from my colleagues from around the country. Will the pesticide review process be based on sound science—predictable, transparent, and expedient? Will growers and other stakeholders be a viable part of the process? Is EPA following the original intent of FQPA as passed by Congress? Will there be room in the risk cup for pesticides used for minor crops? Will the loss of access to products further impact the ability of growers to compete in today's marketplace?
Page 12 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
These questions are serious. Their answers will have a significant impact on the people whom I represent. So, as we review efforts to ensure the safety of our food supply, we need to make sure that the growers are not put at competitive disadvantage.
I look forward to today's testimony from my colleague, Representative Doc Hastings, because our districts are very similar. Our constituents share a lot of the same thoughts and concerns. I welcome the opportunity to hear from the administration about the progress they have made in implementing FQPA, and where they are going in the months ahead. I look forward to hearing from the grower and industry groups today, to get their input on the implementation of FQPA and its impacts on their ability to grow their crops and make a decent living.
Obviously, we all want a very safe food supply and we want the ability to grow that supply, as well. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your subcommittee holding this hearing on this very critical matter. I look forward to working with you and members of the committee on this issue of great importance. Thank you.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you, Mr. Walden.
Mr. Phelps, do you have a statement you want to make?
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID D. PHELPS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
Mr. PHELPS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just to thank you for hosting this hearing. I am still learning. I am a new member. I am a blue puppy and still trying to cut my teeth and get my eyes open. We just appreciate the sensitivity to the science being verified in these matters. I come from a heavy agricultural district in Illinois. Thank you for the opportunity.
Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank you.
Page 13 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
At this time, it is my pleasure to welcome our first witness, the Honorable Doc Hastings, a Congressman from the Fourth Congressional District of Washington. I want to welcome you and let you know that your written statement will be made a part of the record. We would be pleased to receive your testimony. Thanks for joining us.
STATEMENT OF HON. DOC HASTINGS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I want to begin by thanking you for this opportunity to testify on the implementation of the Food Quality Protection Act as it is being administered by the EPA and the USDA. I want to say that I wholeheartedly want to associate myself with remarks by my colleague and ranking member of the Agriculture Committee from Texas, Mr. Stenholm. Thank you for that.
There are, frankly, very few issues which have provoked more sustained interest and concern in my district than the implementation of this act. For those of you that have not had the opportunity to visit central Washington and my district—several of you have from outside my area; Mr. Walden's district is right across the Columbia River from my district—we are one of the most productive and diverse agricultural areas in the country.
Let me give you a couple of examples. Washington State leads the Nation in the production of these crops: apples, pears, hops, mint, peas, lentils, grapes—including wine grapes—and asparagus. That is just a few of the crops that we have and we lead the Nation in that. In addition, we are a very large producer of wheat, potatoes, cherries, and alfalfa. This diversity creates a problem, because minor crops, frankly, face the greatest difficulty in finding replacement chemicals when the use of current pesticides are lost. I don't know there is any other area of the country, with the possible exception of the Central Valley—I will say that in deference to my friend from California—that will be impacted more by the implementation of the Food Quality Protection Act than in central Washington.
Page 14 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In response to the concerns of growers in my district, I invited the former EPA Assistant Administrator for Pesticides, Dr. Lynn Goldman, to join me for a public hearing last May in Yakima, in my district. I think it was the first outside public hearing by anybody in regard to FQPA. The comments that we heard from those that were there—and there were about 500 people attending that meeting—were clear and consistent. They were clear and consistent with the principles that were outlined in the April 1998 memo from the administration that the agencies must use sound science; must have a transparent process; must ensure reasonable transition periods, and must consult with other agencies before decisions are made.
Making radical changes to pesticide policies, especially without scientific justification, would, frankly, potentially devastate our agriculture industry, and, as a result, drive many farmers out of business. Of these principles, my constituents are most insistent—as has been mentioned here several times—that the EPA use sound science.
Mr. Chairman, I supported the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 because I believe that the replacement of the zero-risk Delaney clause with risk standards based on sound science would be good, not only for our farmers, but for consumers. Standards that are not based on sound data, however, threaten our Nation's agricultural producers, and, frankly, may result in even more risks to our children and other at-risk consumers if food imports increase.
That is why I was very pleased to join with my colleagues from Illinois, Mr. LaHood and Mr. Blunt, in sponsoring H.R. 1334, the FQPA Implementation Act of 1999. This bill would ensure that sound data is the basis for consistent implementation of the Food Quality Protection Act. It directs the EPA to consider additional data, including outside data, and the public interest before suspending the use of any pesticide. A requirement to ''call in'' additional data before modifying a tolerance will ensure that these critical decisions are made on the basis and reliable science, rather than on mere assumptions. The information is available and the EPA should use if the Food Quality Protection Act is to be implemented successfully.
Page 15 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
House Resolution 1334 also calls for a study of the international trade impacts of the Food Quality Protection Act. We must keep in mind—sometimes we lose sight of this—that our producers are competing in an international marketplace. Federal regulations that raise costs and decrease productivity only serve to increase the chance that U.S. farmers, the ones that follow the rules, could lose their international competitiveness, and that the imports of foods grown with pesticides banned in this country, but not in other countries, will increase.
In addition to the review of existing pesticide registrations, the growers of my district are concerned about the Food Quality Protection Act's impact on new registrations. The crops that I mentioned earlier are, by and large, minor crops. They are the ones that are most impacted by this. Because the EPA is devoting so much effort to review the process, the waiting period for new registrations and growers' dependence on emergency exemptions, frankly, has increased.
H.R. 1334 would provide the EPA Administrator with authority to grant emergency tolerances so long as the incremental exposure does not pose any significant risk. I believe that this is a reasonable approach, and I encourage the committee to consider the issue of emergency exceptions in its oversight of the Food Quality Protection Act.
Mr. Chairman, the Food Quality Protection Act is good law, as I mentioned earlier. It balances the need to ensure food safety with the need to give our farmers the tools to produce the food that we eat. Sound science is a point on which these interests are balanced. We must ensure that both the EPA and the USDA honor this principle.
I also want to commend the committee for holding this hearing. I look forward to working with you to ensure that the FQPA is properly implemented so that our farmers will have the access to the tools that they need to keep their fruits and vegetables safe, abundant, and affordable for everybody.
Page 16 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
With that, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for the opportunity to appear before you. If you have any questions I will be more than happy to try to respond.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you, Congressman Hastings. I fully agree with your observations on this issue. We thank you for your contribution. I know that Mr. Pombo's eyebrows were raised when you said you produced more wine grapes than any other State. But as long as it is based on sound science, we are willing to accept. [Laughter.]
Mr. HASTINGS. What I said, for clarification here—I don't want to get into a shouting match—I said we lead in production of grapes, including wine grapes, which is a growing industry. I am not going to suggest that we grow more wine grapes than California, although I would argue about maybe the quality of our wine. [Laughter.]
Mr. GOODLATTE. We are getting away from scientific evidence here. We do thank you for your observations on this issue. We are very pleased to have you join us today. Thank you again.
We would now like to invite our second panel to the table. We have with us Mr. Keith Pitts, the Special Assistant to the Deputy Secretary of the United States Department of Agriculture, who is accompanied by Al Jennings, Director of Pest Management Policy, also with the USDA. We also are joined by Mr. James Aidala, who is the Associate Assistant Administrator, Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances with the Environmental Protection Agency; who is accompanied by Steve Johnson, Deputy Director of Office of Pesticide Programs with EPA.
Mr. LAHOOD. Mr. Chairman?
Mr. GOODLATTE. Before we do that, I had promised Mr. LaHood that he would have the opportunity to give his opening statement. He will do that at this time.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RAY LAHOOD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
Page 17 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. LAHOOD. I am sorry to be an interloper on this, but I had to go over to the Transportation Committee and vote on a very important bill. I wanted to read my statement, because I have taken a great deal of interest in this issue to the extent that I have introduced a bill which Congressman Hastings alluded to. I, too, want to thank you for holding this very important hearing.
I, too, have heard from a lot of growers in my district on this issue. When I summarize what they are saying about FQPA implementation, it is clear that they are still afraid they are going to lose pest control products they depend on, as a result of the new law, particularly as we begin the growing season. They are uncertain as to the process of having alternatives available under FQPA and concerned about being able to maintain the high quality of U.S. crops in the field, in transit, and in storage.
When FQPA was enacted, Congress never intended, nor expected, FQPA to result in the threat of disruption to U.S. agriculture. Many in my district are convinced that EPA was proceeding with unilateral cancellations of some pesticides, which would harm the production of certain crops on millions of acres of U.S. cropland. Consequently, I have introduced H.R. 1334, and I would ask any of you on the committee to take a look at it and become co-sponsors. It is a good bill.
The FQPA Implementation Act clarifies FQPA and opens the process to the public even further. The bill requires the EPA Administrator to consider additional data before revoking or modifying a tolerance to determine if adherence to the deadlines is in the public interest and to publish its conclusions in the Federal Register. The bill gives new authority to the EPA Administrator to grant expedited section 18 exemptions if exposures will not pose any significant risk.
Additionally, the bill requires both the Secretary of Agriculture and the EPA Administrator to detail to Congress financial resources it may need for proper FQPA implementation. The report should include an assumption that new appropriations will not be available from Congress.
Page 18 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Finally, the bill requires the Secretary of Agriculture, in cooperation with the EPA Administrator and the U.S. Trade Representative, continuously monitor the competitive strength of U.S. agricultural commodity sectors in the international marketplace.
Pesticide law has always been a very large and complex issue. In my opinion, its complexities involve highly technical, scientific issues such as toxicology or risk assessment issues. The new FQPA definition of a safe tolerance for food residue continues that longstanding foundation of sound science by requiring aggregating only when there is reliable information on other exposures, such as drinking water and residential exposures.
I encourage all of the members of the committee to look at my bill. I think it sends a strong message to the EPA that we are serious about this. In the event that the bill would not pass, it does, I believe, get a good debate going, obviously today. It also sends a message that we are serious here about requiring EPA to do what is right: to use sound science; get off the dime; make some of these decisions, and make them in a way that is palatable to sound science and agricultural industry.
Again, Mr. Goodlatte, thank you, and also, to both Mr. Stenholm and Mrs. Clayton for requesting this hearing. This is an important issue in agriculture country. We are hurting in agriculture country. We don't need any more hold-ups. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Your timing is impeccable.
Mr. LAHOOD. Thank you.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you, Mr. LaHood, for those comments. What I think we ought to do is go ahead and start the testimony. We may have to take a break here for some votes. But if we can get started, I think it will be very helpful. So, at this time, Mr. Pitts, we welcome you, and your testimony will be made a part of the record. We would very much like to have your oral statement.
Page 19 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
STATEMENT OF KEITH PITTS, SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE DEPUTY SECRETARY, ACCOMPANIED BY AL JENNINGS, DIRECTOR, PEST MANAGEMENT POLICY, AND HAROLD COBLE, IPM COORDINATOR, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Mr. PITTS. Thank you. We will go ahead and submit our written statement for the record. I will be brief.
First of all, I want to thank you for having us here today. The Deputy does send his regrets. We have all been on the road quite a bit, meeting with land grants this past week, specifically working on FQPA implementation. He just rolled in from Chicago and is busy with Earth Day assignments that he has gotten for today.
I do have Dr. Harold Coble with me, who is the Department's IPM Coordinator, and Dr. Al Jennings, who is the Director of our Office of Pest Management Policy. They will be available for questions, as well.
I have broken our oral statement down to basically three sets of issues: the process we are engaged with with EPA; the kind of data we are collecting and how it is being used, and where we are with transition and mitigation strategies in the even FQPA implementation does present some unacceptable risks.
Since the formation of TRAC, we have been pretty much meeting with EPA on a daily basis. The law has certainly presented us all with a lot of challenges. I think the working relationship is a good, solid one. Historically, I think the Department in the past had a tendency to collect a lot of pertinent pesticide use data and pesticide residue data, often without consulting with EPA. Many times our approach was to plod on, set our data on a stump in the woods, and hope that EPA would come by and pick it up.
We are way beyond that these days. EPA is very much involved in talking with us about the kind of data they need. Our programming is now able to work quickly on its feet and adjust as needed. That goes for our NASS data, which is collecting a lot of the pesticide use the pesticide data program aat AMS, which is doing a lot of the residue data collection, and we do have the new Office of Pest Management Policy, which is a retooled and revamped NAPIAP program. We felt like it was not appropriate for FQPA implementation. We also do have ARS collecting important national food consumption survey data. We have finished one round of data collection that was specifically targeted toward FQPA. I think that we are seeing a significant and positive impact of that data with the risk assessments process at EPA so far. We are looking forward to continuing that working relationship.
Page 20 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
As far as the process goes, working daily on TRAC-related issues, the science policies papers are being developed. We are developing these concurrently with EPA. We review all of them before they go out.
At this point in time, of the 38 OPs, 10 of them have been sent over to the Department. We have completed our review of four of them and sent them back to EPA. I anticipate here, soon, we will have technical briefings associated with those particular OPs. Those four, none of them are major food use OPs, but they did have some issues related to worker exposure and ecological toxicity issues that we are working on with EPA now. We have two more that we anticipate having done in the next couple of days.
We do have a major food use OP over at the Department now that we have been trading a lot of information back and forth with the Department on. That is Guthion or azinphosmethyl. Again, it has been quite a challenge trying to work with probabilistic software and making sure we have all the data we need in place. As we have gone through the software runs, we have been able to define data that has been pertinent to the process. I think that you will be hearing some today about the impact the working relationship that we have generated with EPA has had on going from the preliminary risk assessment on azinphosmethyl to where we are today.
As far as process, when the OPs come over to the Department, we have the headquarters team, led by Al Jennings and Therese Murtaugh, his Deputy, review it. We also have top-level scientists from ARS, CSRAS, NASS, PDP, or Office of Risk Assessment and APAS as part of the technical review team. We will do an initial review of the risk assessment and get comments back to EPA as they come in. If we see a particular area where we don't have the expertise around the table at the headquarters—if it is a commodity-specific issue—we have identified people in the land grant and Extension and ARS research systems that we farm those risk assessments out to. It has worked well. I think we are getting a lot of information. As far as if and when we do see a risk related to an OP, we are also asking land grant and Extension scientists to help work with us on mitigation transition strategies.
Page 21 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
One thing that the Department has undertaken, as we have seen the OPs that have come through, is that even in the event that an individual OP may be within its referenced dose, we are thinking about cumulative now. We know there is still a lot of science and work that needs to be resolved about how to do a cumulative risk assessment, so we are not surprised and not having any unintended consequences in the further implementation.
The Department is stepping up its efforts and steering resources toward the development of transition strategies. That said, the programs we are going to use for transition are our Pest Management Alternatives Program. We have a new program developed we call Crops At Risk, which currently in our budget. And a third program, which is the Risk Avoidance and Mitigation Program. We will be happy to talk about those more. Harold Coble is here and helped us develop this program. We think it is a very key part of this entire package that we trying to pull together.
We do have a budget up here that has added $34 million to our FQPA implementation plan. It has almost doubled out budget. We think it is really important for the Department to go to work with Congress and realize those funds, so that we can be the kind of players we want to be in this effort.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pitts appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you, Mr. Pitts.
Mr. Aidala, if you will forgive us, we have to go vote. I also apologize for butchering your name. Am I pronouncing it right, now?
Mr. AIDALA. You are. If that is the biggest problem we have this morning, I will take that as personal victory. [Laughter.]
Mr. GOODLATTE. We are already making progress and the subcommittee will stand in recess.
Page 22 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
[Recess.]
Mr. GOODLATTE. The subcommittee will come back to order.
At this time it is our pleasure to welcome, again, Mr. James Aidala. We are ready for your testimony.
STATEMENT OF JAMES V. AIDALA, ASSOCIATE ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES, ACCOMPANIED BY STEVE JOHNSON, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF OFFICE OF PESTICIDE PROGRAMS, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Mr. AIDALA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am also, as you mentioned earlier, accompanied by Mr. Steve Johnson, also from our office at EPA.
Good morning, and thank you for the invitation to appear here today to discuss EPA's implementation of the Food Quality Protection Act. Obviously, now, I will just make a few brief remarks and then submit my full testimony for the record.
It has been about a year since EPA and USDA last testified before the committee and I am happy to have this opportunity to fill you in on the progress that we have made. Much has changed in the last year. When we were last here, the TRAC process was just beginning and there were many questions and concerns from all sides about how EPA would be implementing FQPA. There were questions about whether EPA would be able to get the information needed to make sound decisions; whether or not we would be able to apply FQPA new standards in a manner that would be fully protective of public health, especially for infants and children, while maintaining the abundant food supply that American consumers have come to expect; whether we would be able to keep making decisions on new chemical uses at historically high rates; whether or not we would be able to meet the ambitious time table for tolerance reassessment; whether EPA would precipitously cancel important uses of organophosphate pesticides without adequate information, and whether or not we would be able to carry out these duties in way that is fully transparent and accountable to public scrutiny and based on sound science.
Page 23 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Chairman, I believe that these concerns were understandable then and now. FQPA created significant new challenges for all of us and came at a time of great uncertainty within agriculture. The increasing importance of world markets; pressures on commodity prices, and growing consumer awareness of food safety issues in general, all contribute to that uncertainty. We recognize that how FQPA is implemented can have important consequences for growers and consumers, alike.
This morning I am happy to be here today to report on what we are doing and that, if you will, we are on track. In partnership with our colleagues at the Department of Agriculture and with the advice and assistance from growers, registrants, scientists from the academic community and the environmental community, we have put in place procedures and systems that are allowing us to meet the important goals of the statute. We are making decisions based on sound science and reliable data, and we would like to talk about that. We have established an unprecedented level of cooperation and partnership with the USDA. We are bringing new technology to the market at historically high levels. We have established a routine and predictable process for review of organophosphates. We are on target to meet the FQPA tolerance assessment schedule. We are doing all of this in a manner that is open and transparent to all of our diverse stakeholders.
One of the key elements of the implementation process has been the advice that we have gotten from the Tolerance Reassessment Advisory Committee, the ''TRAC.'' The TRAC was established by EPA and USDA to help us find a more effective way for the public to participate in development of the tolerance assessment and risk management processes and has been enormously helpful.
The TRAC process has resulted in two particularly important new developments. First, EPA and USDA have put in place a new pilot process for refining their organophosphate pesticide risk assessments and develop reasonable risk mitigation approaches and transition strategies. This process provides for public input at each critical step, so that all interested parties can clearly understand what information our assessments are based on and have the opportunity to provide new data that can help to further refine our analyses. We believe this pilot has been extremely useful in opening up the risk assessment process. Perhaps even more importantly, it is bringing in substantial amounts of new information. The data and information provided by USDA, growers, and registrants has greatly assisted in making better regulatory assessments.
Page 24 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The second area that the TRAC has been particularly useful in is developing a framework for addressing key science policy issues raised by FQPA. To date, papers covering seven of the nine original science policy areas and one other related issue have been released for public comment. As proposed at the TRAC, we have been applying these science policies in our risk assessments at the same time they are being refined through scientific preview and public comment. We expect to have virtually all of the science policies finalized before organophosphate risk management decisions are completed.
Another area that is critical to successful FQPA implementation is our ability to meet the growers' needs for new pest management tools. I would like you to look at this chart on my left to illustrate that point.
[Chart shown.]
We do continue to place a high priority on bringing new and safer technologies to the marketplace. And as the chart shows, our review of new chemicals—these are our approvals of new active ingredient registrations—is at historic levels. Obviously, you can tell a little bit of a dip right after FQPA enactment, but, again, we are back up to historically high levels compared to a 3-year moving baseline in the 1970's, 1980's, and through the 1990's.
Typically, for example, in that earlier period we saw no more than about 15 or 16 new active ingredients. Now we are the high 20's, which is an historically high average. This is not only a comment on our work, but also the innovation and investments that the industry has made.
One last point, Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to report that we are on schedule to meet the deadline for reassessing the first third of the tolerances. That is the other chart on my right.
[Chart shown.]
Page 25 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
As this chart shows, we expect to meet the August 1999 deadline, with about two-thirds of the reassessments coming from the highest priority group, group 1. As in my written testimony also, the requirement is for us to review 3,210 tolerances. We expect that by August 3, the deadline in the statute, we will have over 2,000-plus tolerances from the group 1 category reviewed; approximately 600 from group 2 and 700 from group 3. Add that up; we expect to have at least 3,300 tolerances reassessed by the August 3 deadline. This would meet the deadline.
Taken together, I believe the record shows we have put in place the systems and procedures necessary to achieve FQPA public health goals in a predictable and transparent way, based on sound science and reliable data. We will continue to build on this strong foundation and work in close partnership with USDA and with input from our stakeholders to address the critical challenges that we all face.
One last comment, Mr. Chairman, in your opening statement you said that we need to FQPA implementation based on—I think I took the notes here—''science-based, predictable and transparent.'' Other members added the concept we would also agree with that growers and other constituencies need to be part of that process. My last comment is, we couldn't agree more.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Aidala appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you very much. Mr. Aidala, this first question is for you. The Food Quality Protection Act was a very difficult bill to craft and pass. It involved the cooperation of farmers, industry, consumers, and environmentalists. Everyone wants safer, better products on the market. That takes alternatives to what is currently available. If chemical products are taken off the market without effective and economical replacements, farmers suffer because there are no viable tools to protect their crop.
Consumers also suffer because there is a shortage of agricultural products to buy at the marketplace, and what is available is of lower quality and costs a great deal more. In fact, I think someone here today who will be testifying later has an example of that.
Page 26 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. AIDALA. We brought props that weren't perishable.
Mr. GOODLATTE. That is right. Can you tell me how many applications for new, conventional, active-ingredient pesticides are pending now?
Mr. AIDALA. I will turn to Mr. Johnson, here, in a second. Altogether pending, I think we have usually about a 2- to 3-year supply, if you will. Obviously, what we do is go through an assessment. We get literally over a 120-plus studies to review. Obviously, you can't do all those overnight. We sort of queue them up and put them through stages. The results you see on this chart are the final decisions we see on a per-year basis. But let me ask Mr. Johnson about the exact backlog.
Mr. JOHNSON. Well, Mr. Chairman, we have at the present time approximately 50 conventional chemicals and 20 biopesticides; therefore, a total of approximately 70 new active ingredients in the registration queue.
Mr. AIDALA. And again, that is about a 2- or 3-year kind of rolling number of applications that we move through the system.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Is it true that you asked the industry to hold off on submitting more new applications?
Mr. AIDALA. We have asked and created—somewhat to help with the predictability on their end and our management of the workload—we have what we call a priority scheme. I think that is what you are referring to. There we have said that, given the resources we have available, we will work down—given your list of priorities—to a certain level. Beyond that point, we have then suggested that submitting more applications—we won't be able to get to them. So, it is not really a particular value to be submitting them. The short answer, I think, relatively, yes.
We understand, from the industry, there are more applications that would be submitted if we did have the resources.
Page 27 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. GOODLATTE. Well, is that a good policy to pursue at a time where we are effectively, with this new law, transforming our efforts to deal with pesticides? We want to bring new products onto the market as quickly as possible. Shouldn't you be up here asking for more resources to expand your ability to process more applications in a shorter order?
Mr. AIDALA. Two points, Mr. Chairman. One is, we are asking for more money. I will have Mr. Johnson give the exact numbers, but we are asking for an increase this year of $4.5 million in the President's budget for registration activities. No. 2, in order to meet some of what you are asking about—the availability of replacements under FQPA that might take away a tool that a grower currently has—we have also insisted that one of those priorities in the priority scheme I mentioned will be granted for alternatives that may be jeopardized by FQPA; specifically, for example, organophosphate alternatives.
I am not trying to prejudge the outcome of any particular assessment, but in order to have those new transition alternatives available.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Wouldn't it be a good idea to encourage folks to bring in new products and get them before the EPA, and with that information in hand, determine what kind of additional resources you need to process the larger volume, so that we can process as many safer pesticides as quickly as possible?
Mr. AIDALA. I generally agree with that statement. One of the things that we have asked with the industry—and you might want to ask ACPA, who is one of your witnesses later—is to have a survey of what are the applications that they currently do have in hand, would have in hand—even projecting out into the future to help manage this workload. We are also engaged in a discussion with them about what we call a ''fee-for-service'' scheme. That, given budgetary limitations, there may be a scheme similar to the one at FDA to pay for pharmaceutical approvals that. With some combination of public and fee-for-service funding from the industry, we could increase that output.
Page 28 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. GOODLATTE. What is your typical number, your average number of applications you process in a year?
Mr. AIDALA. Again, there are two ways that we do that to meet the needs of growers. One is the chart that we had up about the approvals of new, active ingredients. Again, that is in the neighborhood of the high 20's. Twenty-five to 30 is the range of new active ingredients a year.
The other thing that is very important, especially for minor crop growers, are the number of new uses. Again, this was an arena that did take a hit—to be blunt about it—right after FQPA's enactment. Let me give you an example from this current fiscal year.
Our budget calls for approving 90 new uses. This is where a company already has their first approval. Almost always that is for a major crop like corn, wheat, cotton, rice and soybeans. Then the minor crops follow. This year, we had projected to approve 90 new uses for the entire fiscal year. Already, up to this point in the fiscal year—we still have some time to go—we are at 107.
Mr. GOODLATTE. What is the average review time for a conventional pesticide?
Mr. AIDALA. For new active ingredients, in the neighborhood of about 40 months.
Mr. GOODLATTE. How long for safer pesticides?
Mr. AIDALA. Safer pesticides are more in the range of half that time, or less, 18 to 20 months.
Mr. GOODLATTE. And what about biological pesticides?
Mr. AIDALA. Biologicals can be as short as 3 or 4 months; typically, more in the neighborhood of a year.
Mr. GOODLATTE. My time has expired on this round. At this time I am pleased to recognize the gentle woman from North Carolina.
Page 29 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mrs. CLAYTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Also, I just wanted to note the acknowledgment of the agreement of everyone in terms of the principles that we are trying to do. There doesn't seem to be a disagreement in terms of the very principle and I want to acknowledge that.
So I gather that the point of confusion, or disagreement or tension, is in how we interpret implementation, speed, and understanding. To that understanding requirement, on my part, my understanding is that, when we amended FIFRA, it provided that both the risks and the benefit of public health pesticides must be considered when the EPA made tolerance review. Is that correct?
Mr. AIDALA. Under FIFRA is the cost-benefit balancing statute. The food and drug amendment has resulted in a limited role for benefit considerations under very prescribed circumstances. In general, though, there is a balancing question that you always have when you make these kinds of decisions.
Mrs. CLAYTON. Limited means limited in application or limited in the products you would apply that to?
Mr. AIDALA. Specifically, under the Food and Drug Act, which is amended by the FQPA, the limitations on the benefit considerations are somewhat narrow and confined to a certain arena of some risk questions. In general, regardless of that sort of precise legal and technical formulation, you always ask yourself, in terms of that balancing of concerns you have, the strength of the evidence and the impact on not just growers, but the public in general—everything from the public health to the price of food.
Mrs. CLAYTON. How do you plan, as an agency, using the public health pesticide, even in that limited way, in weighing the risks that might also be associated with the aggregate use of pesticides on food for public health?
Mr. AIDALA. In terms of public health, that does have some additional considerations under the FIFRA provisions that were added as part of FQPA. Obviously, again, it is a balancing test. In the strict public health application, for example, mosquito control, if you have a material that helps prevent malaria versus the tradeoff what the potential risks are, that is something that you need to address. So, we are engaged with the Department of Health and Human Services, specifically, similar to what we are engaged with for, say, grower concerns on an agricultural commodity with the Department of Agriculture, on exactly trying to assess those impacts and the potential needs of that community.
Page 30 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mrs. CLAYTON. Is that plan developed, or is that a process allowing the plan to be developed?
Mr. AIDALA. It is both. We do have some material that we are jointly working with Health and Human Services—I believe a Memorandum of Understanding—of how we will approach the kinds of questions you are talking about.
Mrs. CLAYTON. Have you had an example to do that yet?
Mr. AIDALA. Some of the first assessments that we have completed, at this point in the assessments, we have some of the organophosphates are used for mosquito control, for example; those are the ones that we are using to be the engine that drives this ''How are we going to cooperate? How are we going to get the information we need out of all kinds of sources of the public as well as Health and Human Services?''
Mrs. CLAYTON. So you have an example where you actually had a process where you evaluated it?
Mr. AIDALA. We are in the beginning stages of that process on a couple of the OPs. Do you want to talk about which ones they are?
Mr. JOHNSON. We have shared the risk assessments. The ones that have been shared with the Department of Agriculture we have also shared with the Department of Health and Human Services. In fact, we have just received their first set of comments on the risk assessments, both to refine the risk assessments on the data they have available, as well as to better characterize what the benefits are and what kinds of issues we need to work together to solve with regard to the public health pesticides. So we are very much in that process.
Mr. PITTS. Can I just add one thing, too?
Mrs. CLAYTON. Yes.
Mr. PITTS. We do have one OP that fits in that category now that both HHS and USDA and AFAS are reviewing. It does have public health applications. It is a process that we are working through right now.
Page 31 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mrs. CLAYTON. Is there a written plan based on that process between USDA, EPA, and Health and Human Services?
Mr. PITTS. I would not say. We have the MOUs between the agencies. Also, just following a lot of the processes laid out in the law as far as sharing lists of pertinent public health pesticides, we do have something that derives from the law.
Mr. AIDALA. The last page of my written testimony, Congresswoman, also the generic process for the both the public input and input by—usually it is the Department of Agriculture, but not solely—for example, HHS.
Mrs. CLAYTON. Thank you. Let me move to another area just to put the contrast between the tensions. The producers of pesticides, as well as the users, obviously, want to make sure that as they are required to implement that they have viable substitutes as quickly as possible. On the other hand, the environmentalists, who feel that the fast-moving pace may be that you are putting on the market a not-safe pesticide. Can you give a balance of the time that is in place now to assure both sides that what you have, indeed, ensures the process to be sufficient in terms of time? At the same time, obviously, the expediency for producers who need to find an alternative or substitute—obviously, these are different time pressures, schemes. Both will acknowledge the other has a right. They aren't different in understanding that time costs money. On the other hand, it is not unreasonable to understand that due process and due diligence and erring on the side of caution takes more time. Can the length of time you have in place, can you just share for us, in a few minutes, that that process meets both of those goals?
Mr. AIDALA. Absolutely. We are committed to the proper implementation of the statute: protecting public health; making sure it meets the standard of both FIFRA and the Food and Drug Act. The timelines I mentioned to Mr. Goodlatte in his question, for example, 40 months on average for a new conventional pesticide; 20 months for a new, so-called safer pesticide. The reason we are able to compress that time is not only because of the sort of initial profile that the safer materials represent to us, but because we grant them a priority, there is, in effect, no queuing time. We are the first to admit that, if everyone at EPA dropped everything and worked on the petition that came in today, it could move through the system more rapidly. But, obviously, we have, as mentioned, 50-plus applications at any given time on top of our additional elements of our workload and the scope of our work.
Page 32 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The fee-for-service scheme that is currently under discussion with the industry would basically accelerate that turnaround time, not by compromising, in any way, the health and safety and environmental protections that our laws call us to implement, but basically the goal would be eliminate altogether the queuing times. So, one part of the assessment is done, but when it goes to the next stage in the review, it has to wait in line again. If you take out all those queuing times, fully reviewing it as we do now to assure public health, you end up with a much different timeframe expectation. We would see less time. We could have both goals: quicker turnaround with full protection and implementation of what the statutes require us to do.
Mrs. CLAYTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My time has expired.
Mr. POMBO [presiding]. Mr. LaHood.
Mr. LAHOOD. Mr. Aidala, do you think there is a need for the kind of legislation that I have introduced or do you think you folks are pretty much on track on trying to implement FQPA? I am curious to know what your perception is of what we are trying to accomplish up here. Could you comment on that?
Mr. AIDALA. Sure. At this time we would not see a need for amendments. I have looked at your bill. There are other drafts floating around, and these ideas, if you will, are not new altogether. I think the central issue that you are concerned about, as well as we are, is whether or not the Agency has adequate information to act. If you don't have the adequate information, make sure you get it before you act. So much is at stake. Many members spoke passionately about that need. We entirely agree with that.
Obviously, there may be some disagreements about, ''Well, you say you have enough, but there might some additional data.'' Again, that is a very viable point and one that you people can disagree with. But at the core notion of ''make sure you have the information before you act''—that is one of our principles. How else do you do sound science? How else do you have all the goals that we have set already, both in the Vice President's memo and many members spoke of it in their opening statements. Though, at this time, I think that we are doing what the goals of that proposal are about. Obviously, there might be some people who disagree and we would want to sit down and talk about that.
Page 33 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. LAHOOD. What about the timeliness issue? Part of the reason I introduced my legislation is the issue that you just addressed, but also the timeliness part. There are farmers and growers of fruits and vegetables that believe that things have not been done in a very timely fashion. That is one of things that we have tried to address in our legislation. I wonder what you think about that.
Mr. AIDALA. There, again, it is similar to an issue I think, especially the time element has come across in the section 18 emergency exemption approval process, where if the current requirements are such we have to do a full-blown tolerance assessment—other witnesses speak about this in their testimony—does it take too long and too much time and is, in effect, unpredictable or too lengthy, so that growers that have pest control needs are going to answer in a timely way? There, again, I would say that the impact of FQPA, initially after enactment, did see significant delays or increases in the review time. We have levels of review time that are less than they have ever been in the history of the section 18 process.
So, again, there is a question of exactly what. There may have been an initial problem, but exactly what is the concern now in terms of timeliness or allocation of resources to get the job done?
Mr. LAHOOD. Did that really come about as a result of the letter that you got from the Vice President? Has timeliness, in terms of your review, increased as a result of that, or just because you have been able to hire more staff?
Mr. AIDALA. Well, both of those things. For example, Congress, in its generosity, right after enactment gave us $15 million more. On a base, at that time, of somewhere in the neighborhood of $90 million, that is a significant increase. We appreciate that. It was a wise investment and is something that, given the way the Government, civil service, and all that works, you give us a check today, it takes a fair amount of time to get those people in place, get them trained and all that. That is one of the reasons you saw the review time slip and then get better. Now we are able to say we are back, and in fact, better than we have been.
Page 34 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The other point is we made a conscious priority to continue new active ingredient reviews, as well as section 18 priorities. They are called emergency exemptions for a reason. It is an emergency. We need to review those in a very timely way.
Mr. LAHOOD. Do you hear from farmers and growers from around the country about the delays in the implementation of this, and the delays in the reviews, and whether you are using sound science?
Mr. AIDALA. Of course we have. You have heard both from your own constituents and from other places. As Congressman Hastings said, our Assistant Administrator went out to his district. I have been to other districts. A head of the Pesticide Program, for example, just met with the Farm Bureau Task on FQPA, just a few days ago in Chicago. We always want to have further outreach. We are welcome to hear any other recommendations of any other things we need to do. We have heard these complaints and have attempted to respond to them.
Mr. LAHOOD. Thank you.
Mr. POMBO. Mr. Stenholm.
Mr. STENHOLM. Part of the problem is that over the years EPA has not had a lot of credibility with the agricultural community. That is part of the problem. That is Mr. LaHood's line of questioning and it is shared by producers all over the country in the past. I think that most folks that have listened to your testimony today understand that there has been a change. It is a visible change. I guess my question to you is, what have you learned this last year, Mr. Aidala, in your association with the USDA? What knowledge have you learned in this association that was not, perhaps, present before this year.
Mr. AIDALA. I would ask Mr. Pitts to comment because I think it might be more the other way. As people learn more about the EPA process and understand it, they can help us more, both literally and efficiently as a department, in the kinds of information they are giving to us. Or, as Keith had mentioned his statement, in the past there was an assessment and it wasn't clear what happened to it. Now, there is much more formalized ways that we use it. That, especially, is something that came out of the TRAC.
Page 35 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In light of the Vice President's memo, and I know yourself, Mr. Berry, and other members of the committee were very interested and pivotal in seeking some of that counsel and guidance directed from the Vice President. What that has done, as we have gone through the TRAC process, is two important things. We have laid that process so that all can play. There are many stakeholders in this process. Whether or not they put ads in newspapers and other kinds of things, as you know it is a big country. That is everything from environmentalists, producers, companies, and academics. What we have attempted to do is lay out a process—there is a literal description of it in very short form at the end of my written testimony—in order to make it regularized, transparent, and predictable, some of the goals yourself and others raised this morning. That is the single biggest achievement.
At the same time, it also has helped us just to get input, as Mr. LaHood just asked. These are folks from all over the country, all kinds of stakeholders saying what they think of it, with skepticism. One of the comments, reading today's written testimony compared to earlier testimony, I made a note to myself. I think there was sort of a large dose of cynical pessimism a year ago, and now, I think, it is at least cautious skepticism. I do think that is an improvement.
Mr. STENHOLM. That is progress.
Mr. AIDALA. And we need to move it to cautious optimism. That is our goal, among other things.
Mr. STENHOLM. Well, Mr. Pitts, would you comment for me from the USDA's standpoint?
Mr. PITTS. I think, for us, it has just been a real eye-opener on what EPA has to deal with. We really have imposed ourselves—been invited into a process, I should emphasize that—that was, in the past, really closed to us and also a lot of growers. It had traditionally been a working relationship between registrants and EPA. A lot of us just did not see what happened. That includes growers, except in the cases were a registrant may have actively pursued bringing an end. But USDA really did hold this whole regulatory process at arm's length. I think that was really unfortunate. I think the one thing that we have learned is that we go on and we have a couple of data points that we feel like need to be run through a risk assessment and think it can be dropped in and the answer spit out in 5 minutes. What we are realizing is that you are dealing with a process where, if you change even number, it is sometimes taking days just to get an answer out of the software just because of the amount of data points you are using. The tremendous amount of work that they have to do over there has been an eye-opener for us.
Page 36 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I think as far as the Department, it has really been apparent to me that early on in this process, historically, we just really have not done a good job incorporating regulatory pressures and anticipating them in our research programming. I think that is something we are trying to catch up on now. I think that is why you are seeing the budget that we are sending up. What I want to make sure of is, when the door closes behind me, being a local appointee, that we are not resting on our laurels and are not trying to move things forward as far as the research agenda. We have spent a lot of time in the last year-and-a-half outside of DC working with RARS, land grant and Extension folks to make them aware of the FQPA, as well as commodity groups. I think that with that awareness we are going to do a better job in the future.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Aidala, upon incorporating actual data into risk assessment, risk levels have been dramatically reduced. Doesn't this suggest that there is a tremendous value to using real data in these assessments as opposed to unrealistic default assumptions?
Mr. AIDALA. Absolutely. Real data is always a very helpful thing to have. Data trumps assumption. Science trumps speculation. We would agree to that. Sometimes the problem we have is that we have to use the best available information. I also think there has been a concern by many constituencies in this whole arena about the level of reasonableness, or—I forget the adjective that you used—unreasonable assumptions. We have to use some assumptions as we go through some of these analyses in order to, at least, get an initial view. Often, what we do—whether you want to call them unreasonable or overly conservative, or simply conservative—we often find out clearly to then not have to do any further work. It saves us time and money, the registrants and the growers.
If you grow a commodity—for example, cotton—a cotton crop has often not gotten a heavy dietary presence, compared to, say, a fresh fruit or vegetable. Obviously, that may mean when we do these preliminary assessments, that some of the grower groups that might otherwise be involved know that we don't have a stake in this particular one. You might as we go on further in accumulative. But right now, that tells something that we need to know. That is the spirit in which we use a lot of these models and assumptions—call them preliminary assessments—in order to make that initial priority list or agenda. It does come at some cost.
Page 37 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We need to then be, and I think we have been, properly placing those in context. We are open to any feedback. These are preliminary and could change, but here is what we know now.
Mr. POMBO. Mr. Moran.
Mr. MORAN. No questions.
Mr. POMBO. Mr. Goode.
Mr. GOODE. I would like to ask Mr. Aidala just a question or two. I was not here when the Food Quality Protection Act was passed. In testing pesticides, do you use EPA employees, mainly, or do you contract out?
Mr. AIDALA. The data that we have to assess a pesticide for decision to approve or not comes from the company. They have to conduct according to what we call ''good laboratory practices,'' which is a sort of formalized protocol, which lays out what they have to do and how, and how long to keep the data. The data, itself, is generated by the company.
Mr. GOODE. So, it is all in-house?
Mr. AIDALA. It is not our house. It is company-generated.
Mr. GOODE. I can't understand why it takes, if you don't do any testing yourself, 40 months to do your analysis.
Mr. AIDALA. Mr. Johnson, in an earlier life, was in charge of the registration division, so I think may have some unique insights on this and will ask him to respond to that.
Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Goode, for a typical food-use pesticide, a company will develop approximately 120 different types of studies that try to assess what the human health and environmental fate of the chemical are. Just taking one of those studies, for example, a chronic study to look at whether it may cause cancer, there are over 500,000 data points in just that one study. Of course, what our charge is is to do an independent evaluation of those 120 studies; then to a combine what does that whole picture look like, both for human health assessment as well as the environment. That process takes a long time.
Page 38 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Based upon my experience in industry and my experience at EPA, frankly, takes about the same amount of time for toxicologists, if you will, at EPA as in industry. As Mr. Aidala pointed out, the 40 months to review a new chemical also has quite a bit of queuing time where the application is waiting for the scientist to sit down and review.
The last comment is, we use a combination of both scientists within the Agency, and for those functions that are not inherently Government functions, we actually contract out independent review. We use both those sources to try to accelerate our review, while maintaining sound science.
Mr. GOODE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. POMBO. I would like to followup on a question that Mr. Stenholm was asking. I believe you said that in your initial assessment that you do make some assumptions, at the beginning. I think what concerns a lot of people is that those assumptions then find their way into the process. You proceed with your analysis of a particular chemical with those assumptions being in place. Are you telling us that you don't do that now?
Mr. AIDALA. We use assumptions. For example, there is one assumption—a model, if you will—when we assume that, in the kind of study that Mr. Johnson just referred to, whether or not it causes cancer in the animals and what is the proper way to extrapolate its potential human risks. That is a model and an assumption: when we dose animals to see whether or not they cause cancer, that tells us something about potential for human health risk.
The bigger controversies come when there are either broader, sort of call it less-well-refined assumptions or models; also, where it is not clear, exactly, how they were built and have they been previewed and all those other appropriate questions. One of the goals that we have had all the time, but emphasized by the Vice President's memo emphasizing part of the TRAC process, is transparency: understanding what were are doing, why, when and then, shall we say in a later assessment, ''Did you still keep this? Did you change that? Shouldn't you change that?'' Or, ''I want to argue about that.'' That is all part of the transparency process.
Page 39 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In general, and then in particular, what the TRAC did is lay out nine science policies in some sub-issue, kind of getting specifically at that. How are you going to assess residential exposure, water exposure and other examples?
Mr. POMBO. But that, in taking your nine science policies, and I have them in front of me, a lot of the assumptions that you make in coming up with your answers to each of these different science policies are based upon models or assumptions that I think are questionable—or, a lot of people believe are questionable—as to whether or not they are giving you accurate data.
Mr. AIDALA. The model themselves are based on science. They are peer reviewed in almost all cases. Or they are subject to peer review if they are still under development. They are based on the actual data that is input into them. Again, I think there is a distinction between using them, and, shall we say, people understanding when they are used. There may be some disagreement about their appropriateness to use them. Obviously, in general, the first cut is when we do these sort of broader, if you will, more conservative models. Then we go to further refinements.
The testimony of other witnesses, for example, will cite some of these specific examples. We agree with you in terms of that process. When you go from using the broader assumptions down to the more narrow specifics, supplemented by either more refined estimates, additional data from the Department, the growers and the companies, that is how you then improve your assessment.
Mr. POMBO. Let me ask you about one, specifically: the interpreting no residues detected from exposure assessments. If you are assessing a particular crop or a particular chemical on a crop and there is not residue detected, does that go down on the book as a zero, or does it go just below the detection amount?
Mr. AIDALA. Neither one. What we have as a policy, and this is one of the policies subject to notice and comment and getting some public input on, is whether or not zero is really zero. When is it? When should it be? I current policy, for example, would be to say that at least in our initial assessments that we will have half the level of detection—not right below—but half the level of detection. There is some statistical justification for that given that if you don't detect it, you don't know exactly what the number might be.
Page 40 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. POMBO. Is that number then subjected to the 10-fold?
Mr. AIDALA. No. That would just be simply the number that you put into your risk assessment.
Mr. POMBO. But when it goes into the risk cup; when you add up all these different exposures, it has a 10-fold safety factor at the end. So it is times by 10, is it not?
Mr. AIDALA. For example, if there were a number of non-detects in an assessment, we would do an analysis assuming half the level of detection. If that was the only question at hand: full data set; fully valid data; no increased sensitivity in the animal studies, and so and so forth, the FQPA safety would be removed. It would not be added because it is unfound.
At the same time, let us say that the case being brought before the decision makers indicated that, for example, ''Gee this appears to have an overly full risk cup, but it is never found on any food in the FDA samples or the USDA PDP.'' Would that concern us? Would we start asking more questions? Absolutely. It is what we called and is referred to in our testimony, and, I believe, in Mr. Pitt's statement, a sensitivity analysis—if you will, a common sense test.
We also have another policy that we have issued for comment. For example, if we have no expectation of finite residues, which is sort of the term of art, should we then not have it be subject to meeting a tolerance at all? I don't know Keith if you wanted to add anything?
Mr. PITTS. I wanted to use an example of what we are doing with sensitivity analyses on zero-detects that we are finding. We have run the risk assessment at the old policy, which is half the limit of detection to see what happens with the risk cup. Then we drop all the uses out, but have no detects and see if it changes the risk cup, as well.
Page 41 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. AIDALA. Right.
Mr. PITTS. So, we do it at half. Then we do it at absolute zero. If it doesn't change, we understand that it doesn't really have an effect. But if it did change by running those two sensitivity analyses, we would have a lot of discussion about what it means.
Mr. AIDALA. It is common sense. You are making a good point.
Mr. POMBO. That is what I question, the common sense in the whole thing. I just picked out one of your nine. I think I could make the same argument on seven out of the nine, or six out the nine, that the same kind of question comes into play in terms of what the final data tells you.
You know the drinking water standards that you use. What you happen to have in one particular part of the country; how that gets extrapolated across the entire country and gets included in the entire risk cup for a particular chemical, I think, gives you a very, very, very safe outcome. But at the same time, I question whether or not the data that you are basing the outcome on is accurate.
Mr. AIDALA. Well, you are basically on the right track, Congressman. If it is safe, even using that very crude assumption—one number for the entire country—then that is helpful to know. Then we don't have to ask further questions. We can go on other kinds of work. As we have said, there is a backlog of work at any given time. At the same time, too, the company does not have to spend more money trying to further articulate exactly what the numbers might be in different parts of the country. That is the first consideration.
The second consideration is, would you just use that one number and then stop and say, ''Oh, my goodness, we have a problem. We need to deny approval, or do what ever?'' The answer is no. What we would do in those cases is ask, given this—in the jargon—very conservative model, this very safe assessment, does that make sense? One issue that came up, for example, in a particular decision facing us last year was whether or not a material might get into water. In general, it might as a profile from some of our models. But where is it really used? It is used in Texas or west Texas where it doesn't rain much, sometimes. Don't want to get into that issue with the drought recently, but does that make sense? Is it going to get into ground water in west Texas? Well, not if it doesn't rain or given the historic rain patters, if you want to call it that, compared to what the rain might be in New England. This is, again, a common sense test that you then—we call it ''peeling back''—peel back the decision and say, ''What is really going on here?'' Because it doesn't rain much in west Texas.
Page 42 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. POMBO. My time has expired. Well, I do have a lot of questions about the assessment that you are doing and the factors that you come up with your final decision on. As I have tried to walk myself through this over the past several months, it just raises more questions and concerns on my part. In having had the opportunity to talk to some of the folks that work at EPA and are working on this issue, they also see some need for doing it a little bit different way that what we are doing and coming out with a better idea.
I don't necessarily blame EPA and USDA for all of this. I think Congress has to have the courage, if there is something wrong, to change the law and not just to keep blaming EPA and USDA for it. That is why I think that there may be a need to go forward with amendments. Mr. Stenholm, did you have any further questions?
Mr. STENHOLM. Yes. Just one question and then a comment. Along the lines of the last questioning in talking about sensitivity analysis, I understand from your testimony that EPA will meet and most likely surpass the requirement of FQPA to reassess one-third of the tolerances by, or before, August 1999. Will all the science policies be completed prior to the August deadline?
Mr. AIDALA. Again, I think we have a schedule for the science policies that is part of the attachment to the testimony. What you will see is that the milestones include, certainly out for public comment, whether or not the final policies will be published in whatever time frame. Will all of them be published by August 3 of this year and finalized? The answer is no. Notwithstanding that, we do plan—this is this chart over here to my right—we still have enough information about enough tolerances that need to be reassessed that we will meet the deadline.
Not all tolerance decisions facing us are keyed to an ongoing science policy that is still subject to some possible change.
Mr. STENHOLM. Will you have all the decisions on the OPs and carbonates completed by the August deadline?
Page 43 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. AIDALA. No, we won't.
Mr. STENHOLM. Then the obvious question: How can you make final decisions on any compounds until you have the science policies?
Mr. AIDALA. Because a lot of decisions that we face are not ensnared in some of the ongoing science policies. Let me give you one example. In some cases there may be reassessments completed because, notwithstanding some of the things Mr. Pombo mentioned about an overly conservative assumption, it meets the test. If it meets the test, it can be reassessed, even though we might further refine that reassessment or change that policy underneath and making it a less conservative model as we improve it.
Another time might be where, in some cases, the registrant has decided for a number of reasons—economic reasons and other things—to drop all those tolerances. That counts in our accounting system as a reassessed tolerance. There are a number of kinds of things that we do. When we look at a section 18 emergency exemption, it was a chemical that was first approved before FQPA, we have to do some type of FQPA-type analysis. That will help us decide what we think of that chemical. It might not, again, ensnared—if you will—by some of those science policies that are ongoing.
With PDP data that we are getting from the Department, we can make a clear conclusion. One issue that is at controversy is that 99-percent level, is that overly conservative? Is it reliable? What if the analysis tells us that even at a lower level we have enough information to make a decision? That is where we are making those decisions.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, my comment is this: I have been sitting at this dais now for 20 years listening many times to EPA and USDA discussing the issues before us. This has been one of the most refreshing discussions—testimonies, answers to questions, the targeted questions, Mr. LaHood's bill and the specific questions that he asked, and your answers—this has been one of the most refreshing to me. To me, this indicates we are making progress, but you have stated over and over, we have a long way to go. There are many stakeholders. When we start talking about interpretation of science, I know that any opinion is going to have different scientific interpretations.
Page 44 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ultimately, you have to get a consensus. I believe we are now moving toward consensus science instead of opinionated science, which has been the problem of EPA in the past and which earned you the bad reputation in growers' circles. This is refreshing. Again, what we have always asked for is transparency; allowing all of the stakeholders to participate; recognizing that the protection of the safety of the food is utmost and primary; but, also, asking those who take different opinions to realize that there is a risk in eliminating pesticides.
There are increased costs; the lack of availability of fruits and vegetables, which is a risk of doing what some would ask you to do on a regular basis. There is a risk there. That needs to be debated in transparent and open hearings. I acknowledge that. I also want to repeat, lest I be misunderstood by my comments regarding the ''dog'' advertisement, I respect the rights of that group, to run an ad. They criticize me for my support for many in the agricultural community for the positions that I take. Criticisim is a valid right of any citizen, but you should identify who you are.
I don't think it is fair to criticize me for doing what I openly do, unless you are prepared to be subject to the same criticisim. Aren't we blessed to live in a country that has the most abundant food supply; the best quality of food; the safest food supply at the lowest cost to our people of any other country in the world? I challenge those who don't accept that to an open debate.
Again, Mr. Chairman, I commend you for this hearing. I am hopeful about the cooperation that we have seen between USDA and EPA and the participation by all of the groups. We can resolve this, administratively. If it takes legislation, Mr. LaHood, I will be among the first to co-sponsor your bill.
But, right now, I thank you for being here. I think we are headed in the right direction. We keep moving forward.
Mr. POMBO. Thank you, Mr. Stenholm.
Page 45 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. AIDALA. I would also to any member, myself, members of our staff—I am sure speaking for the Department, also—be happy to come down and sit with yourselves or your staff, whatever it takes to walk through these things. Even if you do have some points of disagreement, at least to better understand it. This is a very technical-based subject. It is very difficult to understand.
FIFRA is one of the shortest statutes. The Food and Drug Act provisions are not very long, either. But it has a huge impact and it is science-based and very tricky. We would fully admit that. We would be happy to sit down and do, sort of, a mini TRAC presentation for any member and any staff.
Mr. POMBO. Mrs. Clayton, you have a follow-up question?
Mrs. CLAYTON. I did, but since he has made an offer to come and walk me through it, I think I will just walk through it. But I want to express, also, my appreciation of the working attitude and cooperation of trying to bring both the needs of a continuous need for public health and safety for food and for consumers and children and others. I was impressed at one of the one potential effects from your exposure. So I wanted to make sure that we had all the concerns there.
Also, we as an agriculture committee should be perceived and understood by everybody that we want to be environmentalists; we want to have health. I don't see it as either/or; I think it is both. We are trying to find out how agriculture, growers and producers can make a good living and continue to produce food. But also, they respect the necessity of always having a goal of a safer product. In the end, if their products are not safe they suffer.
I want to thank you.
Mr. POMBO. Thank you. Mr. LaHood.
Mr. LAHOOD. I just wanted to followup on something that Mr. Stenholm said. In a way I agree with what he said about the fact that I think this has been enlightening. I think we are making a little bit of progress. I would say that has come only because—and you probably don't agree with this—what the Vice President did last year—as a result of that fact that I had a resolution that had over 80 co-sponsors last year that took his language, the Vice President's language, in the letter that he sent to you folks. And the fact that we have had an outcry from people in agriculture country. I think the progress has come at a cost of scaring the hell out of people in agriculture to the extent that they have come to us and said, ''Hey, we are worried about what is happening or what is not happening.''
Page 46 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I hope that you will continue your initiatives. I hope you will continue to make progress. We can move ahead with some of the work that you are doing now. I think it comes as a result of the fact people in agriculture country were really worried about the fact that they were not going to be able to the things they have been able to do in the past. The bill was not being implemented in a way that they thought it would be implemented. It took the Vice President's office. It took legislative activity up here.
I am going to accept your invitation. At some point in the next couple of months, I would like to have a status report on where we are. I think you, also—I know this is probably not part of your job. I am going to be able to go back and tell people that I represent that I think we are beginning to make some progress.
In some way, shape, or form, I think you have an obligation to do that, too. Perhaps you do that to people who send you letters or call you or whatever. I guarantee the message that you have conveyed here today is not out in the hinterlands around the country. It simply is not. People are scared to death out there, just as we are beginning the planting season in the of the country that I come from. Thank you very much.
Mr. POMBO. I did have further questions. I will submit those to you in writing, if you could answer those.
Mr. AIDALA. I will be happy to do that, Congressman.
Mr. POMBO. I would appreciate it.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I would assume that goes for all Members and any additional questions we might submit for the record.
Mr. POMBO. I will ask the panel. I am sure there are additional questions. I know that Mrs. Clayton has additional questions, as well. Those will be submitted to you in writing. If you could answer those in a timely manner, we will hold the committee hearing open in order for you to do that. I will caution you that we will not hold it open that long. If we don't get answers, I will send Mr. Stenholm down there and he get them. [Laughter.]
Page 47 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
But we would like you to answer those. I understand that Mr. Johnson is going to stay, if we have additional questions with the other panels. I would request the USDA, as well, have someone stay in case there are questions that deal with you.
Having said that, I will dismiss this panel. Thank you very much for your testimony and for the answers you gave to our questions.
I would like to call up our third panel: Mr. William Lovelady, Mr. Herbert S. Karst, Mr. Dean Kleckner, and Mr. Doug Wilson.
Thank you all for joining us. I think you all are probably familiar with the time limit. We have a 5-minute time limit for your oral testimony. The lights in front of you are similar to a traffic light. Green means ''go,'' yellow means ''hurry up,'' red means ''stop.'' If you could try to stick to that 5-minutes as closely as possible, we would appreciate it. Your entire written testimonies will be included in the record.
Having said that, Mr. Lovelady, if you are ready, you can begin.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM LOVELADY, FORMER PRESIDENT, NATIONAL COTTON COUNCIL
Mr. LOVELADY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for you interest and your leadership in this issue and for the opportunity for me to speak on behalf of the National Cotton Council.
My name is Bill Lovelady. I am a cotton farmer from Tornillo, TX—that is near El Paso. I am also a former president of the National Cotton Council and I represent cotton's interest on the Tolerance Reassessment Advisory Committee.
As a farmer, I am proud that American agriculture produces the most abundant, the highest quality and the safest food and fiber supplies in the world. To maintain this production, there are tools that we need to protect our crops from the ravages of insects, diseases, and weeds. Analyses indicate that if cotton farmers lost the use of organophosphate compounds, economic losses would totally approximately $7.2 billion per year. This estimate does not include the use of other necessary compounds.
Page 48 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Chairman, I testified before the subcommittee last year during a hearing on this very same subject. There have been some positive developments over the past 10 months, but there are still quite a few concerns. It is a absolutely critical, that FQPA be implemented with the use of sound science. In fact, the statutory language of FQPA requires EPA to use solid, reliable data in its tolerance reassessment. However, in the absence of good data, EPA often relies on conservative default assumptions, such as assuming 100 percent of a crop is treated at maximum rates. These assumptions grossly exaggerate risk.
An example of the problems involved with such assumptions and one which, I am sure, you will hear a lot about today is the case of azinphosmethyl, or the brand name Guthion. At the initial phase of its assessment, EPA's default assumptions led it to overestimate the risk involved with the use of Guthion by 95 times. Such a discrepancy in risk assessment clearly illustrates why it is critical that EPA use data which reflect real-life situations.
EPA can only use sound scientific data, if it has such data in hand. The Agency must inform the agricultural community and the registrants of data it is lacking. The agricultural community is very willing to provide necessary data. The National Cotton Council is currently working with the EPA on data regarding the feeding of waste products from ginning operations. We discovered that EPA's initial assumptions over estimated the amount of gin trash that is in the diets of beef and dairy cattle by 7 to 20 times.
The TRAC has been a useful means for producers to participate in FQPA implementation and to voice their concerns. The TRAC has met on five different occasions. Its sixth meeting is scheduled for the end of this month. I encourage that this committee, or a similar forum, be continued at least until the time that EPA has established a well-defined methodology for reassessing existing tolerances and establishing tolerances for new products.
During the TRAC meetings, EPA decided upon nine science issues, which it believes are important for FQPA implementation. The position of the agency on these issues is being published in the Federal Register for public comment over a period of time. We support this type of public participation. On the other hand, the final completion of the science policy issues is not scheduled until the first part of next year. In the meantime, EPA will be making tolerance decisions for the August 3 deadline before it has all of the science policy issues resolved.
Page 49 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The TRAC meetings have also resulted in an increased role for USDA in FQPA implementation. We fully support a higher level of USDA participation, especially with the planning for transition strategies. USDA is currently reviewing EPA's revised risk assessment for organophosphates. The Department is utilizing the expertise of the land grant universities for further review and input. We support this approach, providing that USDA is using land grant faculty who are familiar with the respective crop and their protectants.
We are concerned, however, that over time that use of university resources could place a burden on that system. We also support USDA's Pesticide Data Program and National Agricultural Statistics Service for the data that they are generating.
EPA has funneled much of its time and resources into the reassessments of the existing tolerances under FQPA. We do not want EPA's other responsibilities, such as section 18s and registrations of new active ingredients, to suffer. EPA is interpreting FQPA to say that a full-blown FQPA tolerance must be determined to issue a section 18. EPA should adopt an incremental risk approach for evaluating and approving section 18 requests.
The National Cotton Council is also concerned that the implementation of FQPA has detracted from the registration of new crop protection products. Farmers need a variety of products for resistance management, for specific pest problems, and potentially, to replace organophosphate uses.
Mr. Chairman, as I have said, there have been some positive developments in FQPA implementation, but there are still some concerns. The National Cotton Council looks forward to working with your subcommittee on these issues. Thank you again, for this opportunity to speak to you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lovelady appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. POMBO. Thank you.
Page 50 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Karst.
STATEMENT OF HERBERT S. KARST, PRESIDENT, MONTANA BARLEY GROWERS
Mr. KARST. Thank you. I am Herb Karst. I am a wheat, barley, and canola farmer from northern Montana. I also serve as president of the National Barley Growers Association. It is a pleasure to appear before the committee today.
We have submitted our written testimony. In light of the repetition in some of that testimony to other comments, I would like briefly summarize and make some oral points.
I think that out crop, maybe more than any other crop, is in dire trouble. Those of you that saw the planting reports for this year will notice that barley acres in the United States are projected to be down 17 percent in this coming year. That is a huge decrease in one year. That decrease can be directly attributed to insect and disease problems in the Red River Valley in Washington, and the economic pressure that we are receiving across the border from Canada. By contrast, that same Canadian production is often treated with chemicals that have not been approved yet in this country.
Faced with those two facts, we are in dire straits in my industry, in barley. We have some specific concerns, and, also, a couple of specific ideas that we can see that could help our industry. First of all, we are a niche. We are not classified under the minor-use crops, under the Food Quality Protection Act. We have over 300,000 acres. We have about 6 million acres of barley. Because we are one of the smaller of the major crops and a lower-value crop, we often are not on that priority list. If fact, we are never on that priority list for section 3 registrations. That puts us in a very difficult niche between the major crops and the minor crops in getting chemicals approved.
I listened with interest at EPA talking about a program, the sharing of costs between the private companies to expedite the registration. However, that for a small crop, could only make those chemical products more expensive as those costs are passed on to our producers. So, I caution that approach, as well. But I do think we have to make sure that EPA understands the niche that lower-acreage crops are in.
Page 51 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We need section 18s that are timely. Under section 18s I think that it was just mentioned, the incremental risks. I think the one fact that gets overlooked on section 18: these are often for insect pests. These insect pests often attack very rapidly and spread very rapidly. One day, you might have a 1 acre infestation, and the next day 10 acres, and the next day 100 acres. Incremental risks and judging the total use of that pesticide in an emergency situation should be a factor in allowing an emergency use. So, we support Congressman LaHood's proposal in his bill that he is proposing.
We also see that using residual requirements from similar grain crops—for instance from wheat to barley—transfer of those residual data could serve to expedite the registrations for crops like barley. They are grown in the same areas. They are grown under the same agronomic conditions and the same type of uses. We see that where the science supports that transfer of residual data, residual data can be transferred to a limited-acreage crop.
I want to say a few words, also, about the new harmonization procedure. That is something that we have not touched on today. For our crop, that is very important. The harmonization that we see starting to take place in with Canada and Mexico, where we can use residual data from these countries and come up with joint registration of chemicals. We do, however, support taking that one step further. We are in a situation where nearly all of the major chemicals we use are higher-priced in this country than they are in Canada. The chemical companies will tell us that is because, possibly, the higher cost of registration. That is not necessarily the case. But whatever the case is, part of the difference is just the change in the dollar values. We need to go to NAFTA labeling of products so they can be purchased and used cross-border, if indeed we are going to importing the food products from Canada and Mexico, the we have to be able to compete with input costs that our competitors—in my case only 2 miles north of me—are using. We support that harmonization process. We hope that it's work is indeed done by the 2002 deadline.
Page 52 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The last thing I would like to mention is that during the reassessment process, it was pointed out earlier, the section 18s were slowed down. We would like to cooperate with EPA in making sure that they have the resources necessary to continue to shorten those times for the full registrations, as well as the section 18 registrations. We would like to support them in any way they can make more resources available, if need be.
With that, thank you for letting me appear before the committee this morning.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Karst appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. POMBO. Thank you.
Mr. Kleckner.
STATEMENT OF DEAN KLECKNER, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN FARM BUREAU
Mr. KLECKNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for holding this hearing. I am Dean Kleckner. I am the elected president of the American Farm Bureau. I am a corn, soybean, and hog farmer in north central Iowa. Hopefully, we will be planting corn later this week.
Like everybody else, or almost everybody else, Farm Bureau supported passage of FQPA in 1996. Today, as we approach the third year anniversary, how the act is being implemented is causing great concern. We are now being told that farmers must mitigate risk for many critical pesticide tools, some of which have been used safely for more than 40 years. This could mean outright cancellation of some uses and dramatically alter uses of some others.
The organophosphates represent the single, most important class of insecticides used in the United States and are the target of EPA. Others will follow. This will only increases farmers and Farm Bureau's anxiety and concern. For the farm economic crisis, now is not the time for increased regulation and costs for farmers. This issue, FQPA, has become Farm Bureau's highest concern. It is our No. 1 priority issue last year and again this year.
Page 53 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
These concerns gave rise to an unprecedented coalition effort. Last summer, Farm Bureau, American Crop Protection Association, National Food Processors, commodity groups, pest management organizations and over 50 others, known as the Implementation Work Group, ''IWG'', completed and released the FQPA Road Map Project. The Road Map, we believe, is consistent with Vice President Gore's Memorandum on the implementation of FQPA. Both call for sound science, transparency, transition in the process and stakeholder involvement.
Since release of the Road Map, we have worked with EPA and USDA and remain very concerned for the future of agriculture, as implementation efforts proceed.
Our concerns: First is sound science. Before the FQPA the focus was on food. After FQPA, the focus is still on food, but additional exposures must now be considered, like drinking water and residential exposures. These provisions seem to make sense. What doesn't make sense are the unrealistic default assumptions EPA is using when data are absent or incomplete. If we look hard at this, it becomes clear that those types of assumptions have very little resemblance to real world exposure, and that actual data lowers risk considerably. The charts you have been looking at just proves that: 10,000 down to 100 percent—for heaven's sake—when you go from assumptions to real data. It is unbelievable.
Farm Bureau has filed a petition with EPA calling for the use of the data call-in provision that was