Table Of ContentEPA'S PESTICIDE PROGRAM AND FOOD SAFETY
REFORM
Y 4.G 74/7: EN 8/25
EPA's Pesticide Progran and Food Sa.
HEAKING
BEFORE THE
ENVIRONMENT, ENERGY, AND
NATURAL RESOURCES SUBCOMMITTEE
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS
HOUSE OP REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRD CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
OCTOBER 29, 1993
Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Operations
«
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
78-496 CC WASHINGTON : 1994
ForsalebytheU.S.GovernmentPrintingOffice
SuperintendentofDocuments,CongressionalSalesOffice,Washington,DC 20402
ISBN 0-16-044229-X
ir\ Ar\*- *-k
EPA'S PESTICIDE PROGRAM AND FOOD SAFETY
REFORM
4.G 74/7: EN 8/25
I's Pesticide Progran and Food Sa.
HEARING
BEFORE THE
ENVIRONMENT, ENERGY, AND
NATURAL RESOURCES SUBCOMMITTEE
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRD CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
OCTOBER 29, 1993
Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Operations
J
fL
1 5 4
'-
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
78-496 CC WASHINGTON : 1994
ForsalebytheU.S.GovernmentPrintingOffice
SuperintendentofDocuments.CongressionalSalesOffice.Washington.DC 20402
ISBN 0-16-044229-X
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS
JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan, Chairman
CARDISS COLLINS, Illinois WILLIAM F. CLINGER, JR., Pennsylvania
GLENN ENGLISH, Oklahoma AL McCANDLESS, California
HENRY A. WAXMAN, California J. DENNIS HASTERT, Illinois
MIKE SYNAR, Oklahoma JON L. KYL, Arizona
STEPHEN L. NEAL, North Carolina CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut
TOM LANTOS, California STEVEN SCHIFF, New Mexico
MAJOR R. OWENS, New York C. CHRISTOPHER COX, California
EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming
JOHN M. SPRATT, JR., South Carolina ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida
GARY A. CONDIT, California DICK ZIMMER, New Jersey
COLLIN C. PETERSON, Minnesota WILLIAM H. ZELIFF, JR., New Hampshire
KAREN L. THURMAN, Florida JOHN M. McHUGH, New York
BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois STEPHEN HORN, California
CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York DEBORAH PRYCE, Ohio
THOMAS M. BARRETT, Wisconsin JOHN L. MICA, Florida
DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey ROB PORTMAN, Ohio
FLOYD H. FLAKE, New York
JAMES A. HAYES, Louisiana BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
CRAIG A. WASHINGTON, Texas (Independent)
BARBARA-ROSE COLLINS, Michigan
CORRINE BROWN, Florida
MARJORIE MARGOLIES-MEZVINSKY,
Pennsylvania
LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California
GENE GREEN, Texas
BART STUPAK, Michigan
Julian Epstein StaffDirector
Matthew R. Fletcher, Minority StaffDirector
Environment, Energy, and Natural Resources Subcommittee
MIKE SYNAR, Oklahoma, Chairman
KAREN L. THURMAN, Florida J. DENNIS HASTERT, Illinois
CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York JOHN M. McHUGH, New York
JAMES A. HAYES, Louisiana DEBORAH PRYCE, Ohio
CRAIG A. WASHINGTON, Texas JOHN L. MICA, Florida
EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont (Ind.)
Ex Officio
JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan WILLIAM F. CLINGER, JR., Pennsylvania
Sandra Z. Harris, StaffDirector
James V. Aidala, Professional StaffMember
Elisabeth R. Campbell, Clerk
CHARLI E. COON, Minority Professional Staff
(ID
CONTENTS
Page
Hearingheldon October29, 1993 1
Statementof:
Goldman, Lynn, Assistant Administrator, Prevention, Pesticides, and
Toxic Substances, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, accompanied
by Michael R. Taylor, Deputy Commissioner for Policy, Food and Drug
Administration, Health andHuman Services 43
Guerrero, Peter, Associate Director, Environmental Protection Issues,
U.S. General Accounting Office, accompanied by J. Kevin Donohue,
Assistant Director; Robert J. Tice, evaluator in charge; and Mark
Trapani, evaluator 2
Martin, John C., inspector general, U.S. Environmental Protection Agen-
cy, accompanied by Kimberly O'Lone, audit manager, northern division,
Chicagooffice 18
Rominger, Richard, Deputy Secretary, U.S. Department of Agriculture,
accompaniedby LarryElworth, special assistant for pesticide policy 66
Synar, Hon. Mike, a Representative in Congress from the State ofOkla-
homa, and chairman, Environment, Energy, and Natural Resources
Subcommittee: Openingstatement 1
Letters, statements, etc., submitted forthe recordby:
Goldman, Lynn, Assistant Administrator, Prevention, Pesticides, and
Toxic Substances, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Prepared
statement 47
Guerrero, Peter, Associate Director, Environmental Protection Issues,
U.S. General Accounting Office: Prepared statement 6
Martin, John C, inspector general, U.S. Environmental Protection Agen-
cy: Prepared statement 21
Rominger, Richard, Deputy Secretary, U.S. Department of Agriculture:
Prepared statement 69
APPENDDC
Material submitted forthehearingrecord 101
(III)
EPA'S PESTICIDE PROGRAM AND FOOD
SAFETY REFORM
FRIDAY, OCTOBER 29, 1993
House of Representatives,
Environment, Energy,
and Natural Resources Subcommittee
of the Committee on Government Operations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:23 a.m., in room
2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Mike Synar (chairman
ofthe subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Mike Synar, Karen L. Thurman, Craig
A. Washington, and John L. Mica.
Also present: Sandra Z. Harris, staff director; James V. Aidala,
professional staffmember; Elisabeth R. Campbell, clerk; and Charli
E. Coon, minority professional staff, Committee on Government
Operations.
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAntMAN SYNAR
Mr. Synar. Subcommittee will come to order. This morning we
will welcome a new crew of players to the wonderful world of food
safety.
After 12 years, the party in power has shifted, but I can assure
you all in this room that the subcommittee's concerns remain the
same.
We remain concerned that our great grandchildren will still hold
hearings wondering when pesticide registration will be completed.
We remain concerned at missed deadlines, absent and misplaced
priorities, and chronic shortages of money and authority have
plagued this program and continue to do so.
We remain concerned that the rhetoric too often replaces reason,
and that political posturing is preferred to meaningful reforms.
We remain committed as an oversight subcommittee to inves-
tigating how well or badly programs within our jurisdiction are
doing, and whether there is a need to fix the blame or to fix the
law, regardless ofwho is in charge.
This morning we will introduce ourselves and our concerns to a
new team of officials faced with the duty of implementing our food
safety laws. We wish them well, but we also put them on notice
that newness in thejob is no excuse for inaction.
It is already late to begin the reform process. Too much needs
to be done too quickly to allow for much of a honeymoon. Almost
1 year ago we informed the new administration of the problems
which would immediately face them in the pesticide program. Like
(1)
it or not, the new administration has already had a long time to
begin to address the needed reforms, and that is the measure by
which we willjudge this current program.
Vice President Gore hopes to reinvent government. This morning,
we hope to hear how administration officials plan to reinvent the
reregistration program. The administration's food safety plan an-
nounced in September is a credible start on the path toward re-
form.
I believe many elements of the package as described up to now
must be precisely articulated so that we can betterjudge the effec-
tiveness.
And as always, we reserve the possibility of offering complemen-
tary legislation so that in the end, that we can have the faith that
the reforms we put in place now will in fact carry us into the next
century with a pesticide regulation program that is finally in keep-
ing with the modern age.
We are joined this morning by my colleague from Florida, Mrs.
Thurman, for an opening statement.
Our first panel this morning will be Mr. Peter Guerrero, Associ-
ate Director of the Environmental Protection Issues of the U.S.
General Accounting Office and the Honorable John C. Martin, in-
spector general ofEPA.
If they would come forward. And John Martin is accompanied
this morningby Kimberlv O'Lone, audit manager.
Let me welcome you all. As you know, it is the policy ofthis sub-
committee, in order not to prejudice past or future panels, to swear
in all our witnesses. Do any of you have any objections to being
sworn?
Anyone accompanying these witnesses who may be asked to tes-
tify please rise and be sworn.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Synar. First of all, before we begin, why don't we have Mr.
Guerrero introduce who is with him today.
Mr. Guerrero. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Immediately to my
left is Mark Trapani, principal investigator. Behind me also is an-
other investigator, Bob Tice, and to my far left is Kevin Donohue,
who represents some 12 years experience in this area.
Mr. Synar. As you know, the policy of the subcommittee is to
submit your prepared testimony for the record. At this time we will
hear from you, Mr. Guerrero, and we look forward to your com-
ments.
STATEMENT OF PETER GUERRERO, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR,
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ISSUES, U.S. GENERAL AC-
COUNTING OFFICE, ACCOMPANIED BY J. KEVIN DONOHUE,
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR; ROBERT J. TICE, EVALUATOR IN
CHARGE;AND MARK TRAPANI, EVALUATOR
Mr. Guerrero. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, members of the sub-
committee, we are pleased to be here today to discuss our work on
EPA pesticide regulation and to relate this work to the administra-
tion's pesticide reform proposals.
Our testimony will be primarily based on recent GAO evalua-
tions on the reregistration program, although as you know, we
have issued more than 100 reports on the pesticide program over
the past 25 years.
I will be pleased to discuss this larger body of work and to refer
to it in questions and answers later. In summary, Mr. Chairman,
we found that EPA will not be able to reregister all pesticides by
1998 as called for by the law. Instead, EPA estimates that it will
not complete this program until the year 2006.
Second, EPA's progress in reregistering pesticides that are used
on food has been substantially slower than expected. EPA has
reregistered lower priority pesticides that present few food safety
concerns. This low progress raises serious questions regarding the
feasibility of the administration's proposal to review all pesticide
tolerances within 7 years.
And third, EPA has understated the true costs of reregistration,
and its proposed $20 million increase in user fees may prove to be
insufficient.
Now, I would like to discuss some of these issues in greater de-
tail.
After more than 20 years of data collection to support the reas-
sessment of health and environmental effects of older pesticides,
EPA has reregistered only 1 percent of the 20,000 older products
currently in use. Moreover, most of these reregistered pesticides
are not high priority food use pesticides, but are instead lower pri-
ority pesticides, such as dried blood and garlic that present few
safety concerns.
EPA is still collecting data on most of the thousands of pesticide
products currently used in agriculture and in the home, including
most ofthe food use pesticides.
EPA's continuing delays in reregistering pesticides will be a
roadblock to achieving the administration's pesticide policy initia-
tives. The administration's newly announced reforms call for EPA
to establish a strong protective health-based standard for all pes-
ticide residues in foods, and then to review all existing tolerances
to make sure that they adhere to that standard.
However, tolerance reevaluations would, in most cases, follow re-
registration, and EPA's current schedule for pesticide reregistration
is behind.
Therefore, the goals of conducting these reevaluations of the tol-
erances within the 3 to 7 year timeframes envisioned by the pro-
posals is unlikely to be met.
To reduce the public's exposure to the riskiest pesticides as soon
as possible, it is imperative that EPA take action now to focus its
efforts on the high priority food use pesticides that have the great-
est potential to cause serious health problems.
Our report also recommends that the Congress consider amend-
ing FIFRA to require that EPA finish reregistering the highest pri-
ority food use pesticides before it reregisters lower priority ones.
I would like to make one final point concerning EPA's efforts to
reregister pesticides. Such decisions must address current public
health and safety concerns. However, another report on lawn care
pesticides demonstrates this is not now the case. While EPA is re-
considering its long-held beliefthat individuals, and especially chil-
dren, are not at risk from exposure to lawn care pesticides, the
agency is nonetheless planning to reregister these pesticides using
available data and techniques that may not fully address these con-
cerns.
The administration's reform proposals would also establish a reg-
istration sunset provision. Under this provision, pesticide registra-
tions would expire after 15 years unless EPA approves a new appli-
cation which meets then current scientific safety standards.
Today, pesticide registrations have no fixed expiration date.
While we have not evaluated EPA's rationale for establishing the
15-year period, we believe that a sunset provision would appro-
priately place the burden on registrants to identify and supply all
the data that is needed to maintain their product registrations.
A sunset provision would also help ensure that pesticides would
not remain on the market while health and safety concerns remain
unanswered.
The administration's reform proposals would also strengthen the
authorities of the food safety regulatory agencies to carry out their
responsibilities under the law. It would increase the agency's in-
spection and regulatory authorities, and it would significantly in-
crease civil and criminal penalties under FIFRA.
We fully support these proposed changes. As we reported in Sep-
tember 1992, the Food and Drug Administration's pesticide mon-
itoring program does not prevent imported foods adulterated with
illegal pesticide residues from reaching U.S. grocery shelves. We
urge that strengthened legal authority to deter importers from
marketing such foods and to penalize those that do.
Finally, the administration's proposal estimates a $20 million
shortfall for reregistration through the end of 1997 and rec-
ommends that the shortfall be funded through increases in pes-
ticide reregistration fees.
We believe, however, that this shortfall is likely to be greater
than estimated. In our May report we questioned the adequacy of
EPA's program cost estimates because EPA did not properly ac-
count for the additional data review costs and delays resulting from
the high percentage of studies the agency had rejected and could
reject.
In addition, EPA did not account for program costs beyond 1997
even though it had recognized that reregistration could not be com-
pleted by that date.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, we are encouraged that the admin-
istration has proposed many important initiatives for reforming
pesticide regulation. Central to their success, however, is the time-
ly completion ofthe pesticide reregistration program.
We believe that in view of the limited progress made to date,
EPA should consider a risk-based approach to reregistration that
would require it to address the highest priority food use pesticides
before it reregisters lower priority pesticides.
More realistic cost estimates to complete this task are also need-
ed. We would also note that regardless of whether the administra-
tion's reforms are enacted, and which ones are enacted, EPA needs
to address critical management issues that have long limited its
ability to regulate pesticides effectively.
Among these are resources insufficient to carry out its respon-
sibilities, management information systems incapable ofsupporting
