Good News And Bad News About FQPA

Though pesticide regulation has had a short history, it has undergone dramatic changes and mandates since 1938 when the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act was signed into law. This was a rather simple law that set permissible limits for pesticide residues in food. In 1947, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) was passed which, with its subsequent amendments, shaped the pest control industry throughout the past 50 years. This law established the pesticide label as the law. In addition, it governs pesticide registration and mandates training and certification of pesticide applicators of restricted-use pesticides.

In 1972, when the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was formed, many in the pest control industry thought that their world had come to an end. Not surprisingly, we have survived almost 30 years with the Agency, and business couldn’t be better. However, the implementation of the 1996 Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) could significantly affect the registration and availability of pesticides used by our industry.

In 1996, the pest control industry reveled with delight when FQPA was signed into law. This law eliminated the Delaney Clause, the 1958 amendment to the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, which did not permit any pesticide residues in food if the pesticide was determined to be a carcinogen. What follows is a review of the "good news" and "bad news" as it relates to the implementation of FQPA.

Good News: In 1958, the level of pesticide detection in food was rarely better than parts per million (ppm).

Bad News: In 1996, the level of detection for some pesticides increased a million-fold to parts per trillion (ppt).

Good News: Prior to 1996, EPA chose to liberally interpret the Delaney Clause and use risk benefit analysis, as well as a 100x safety factor in determining what pesticide residue levels were acceptable in food.

Bad News: A federal court mandated literal interpretation of the law by EPA, i.e., NO residue of a cancer-causing pesticide would be permitted in food. Furthermore, the FQPA went on to impose a 1000x-safety factor above the no effect level (NOEL) for any pesticide whether in food or not. This means if a product has a NOEL of 1.0 part per trillion, the permissible exposure would be 1.0 part per quadrillion.

Good News: Many of the newer pesticide products used by the industry are applied at very low rates and at extremely low concentrations (e.g., 0.01 to 0.06%).

Bad News: EPA has two risk cups (a measure of allowable risk for a given chemical) into which they place all pesticides.

Aggregate Risk Assessment — All the potential uses of a product added together.

Cumulative Risk Assessment — Any risks associated with a given chemical, plus any chemical with a similar mode of action to the first chemical added together.

Good News: As an industry, we use very few pesticides and we use them in small amounts compared to the agricultural industry.

Bad News: Many of our pesticides are derived from products used in large quantities for agricultural and lawn and ornamental applications. Thus, if the risk cup is going to overflow, manufacturers might be inclined to support those applications which generate the greatest revenue and pose the least amount of risk to infants and children, i.e., agricultural pest control products.

Good News: EPA is currently working to complete its review of organophosphates, carbamates and B2 carcinogens; it has until 2002 for pyrethroids; and until 2006 for less toxic pesticides. They are close to completing only one of the "bad actors," methyl parathion.

Bad News: In their haste to complete this unattainable task, EPA might use bad science in making decisions regarding what products are valuable to our industry. Manufacturers faced with the requirement to develop extensive data packages might opt to withdraw product registrations which, in the past, occurred frequently during the reregistration process. The Agency, through expedited registration, might replace proven products with safer, but less efficacious products.

Good News: EPA imminently will publish a Pesticide Regulation Notice on public health. This document will request input on the definition of public health and on pests considered a public health threat.

Bad News: Too few people within the industry (as well as our customers) appreciate the role the structural pest control industry plays in protecting public health.

Good News: As an industry, we provide an immeasurable service as protectors of food, property, health and the environment.

Bad News: We rarely tell anybody about it.

Good News: The National Pest Control Association has launched a major industry awareness campaign that focuses on this very issue.

Bad News: I fear apathy — that too few of us will care whether or not this campaign will be successful. My hope is that I am proven wrong.

Good News: Despite FQPA, the overflowing risk cup and those who pontificate on how we should perform pest control services without pesticides, our industry will survive and prosper.

Bad News: None!