From The Publisher: FQPA: It's Now or Never

Like unrest in a far-off part of the world that has little or no impact on one’s daily life, PCOs have been hearing omi-nous reports about the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) since 1996. Despite the predictions of impending doom, however, life has been good. The United States continues to enjoy a prolonged economic expansion that is the envy of the world; PCOs report another solid year of business (see PCT’s State of the Industry Report, page 97); and recent technological advancements have raised the quality of service in the industry to new heights, creating a level of pride and enthusiasm among PCOs that hasn’t been seen since the years immediately following World War II.

Given this rather "rosy" picture of the structural pest control industry on the eve of a new millennium, I only have one piece of advice for the industry — enjoy it while you can — because FQPA has the potential to wipe that smile off your face overnight.

As every PCO should know by now, FQPA requires that all existing food-use pesticides — including many of the same active ingredients used in the structural pest control industry — be "reassessed" under new, more stringent standards that take into account the sum total of risk associated with a given chemical (the so-called "risk cup"). EPA has selected organophosphate insecticides (i.e., Dursban and diazinon) as the first major group of pesticides to be reassessed under these new standards.

While we’re still in the relatively early stages of this multi-step review process, there’s apparently enough cause for concern following EPA’s preliminary risk assessment of chlorpyrifos that Dow AgroSciences is asking for the pest control industry’s help. Speaking at a recent RISE meeting, Tim Maniscalo, manager of government and public affairs for Dow AgroSciences, said "the problem with the EPA reassessment procedure is that it categorizes risk only and doesn’t account for all the product’s benefits. Not measuring the benefits of a product makes revoking tolerances much easier for the EPA. This is why end users and manufacturers must argue about the benefits of these products to keep them on the market."

And if you think this is only a Dow AgroSciences issue, you’re mistaken. This is not just Dow AgroSciences vs. EPA or PCOs vs. environmentalists. EPA’s pesticide reassessment program represents an indictment of the entire specialty pesticide industry, according to Dan Bouck, communications manager for the company.

So, get out a pen and paper or fire up your personal computer. It’s time to let EPA know why specialty pesticides remain a gradually declining — yet still important — part of the industry’s control arsenal. Contrary to popular belief, "EPA does respond to public pressure," Maniscalo says, so it’s essential that PCOs make their feelings heard on this critical topic. Put simply, when it comes to FQPA, it’s now or never.