A complex piece of legislation, the new Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) reforms the nation's food safety laws. Signed into law by President Clinton on August 3, 1996, the act amends the two major laws involving pesticides: the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). FQPA revises the FFDCA so that the 1958 Delaney Clause no longer affects pesticides. The Delaney Clause established a zero cancer risk standard for pesticide residues on some processed foods as compared to a negligible risk standard for raw commodities.

FQPA is important to the methyl bromide issue because many of the potential alternatives to be considered will fall under its provisions.

Highlights of the new law include the following:

Amends the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and Creates Single Safety Standard

Replaces the Delaney Clause--thereby abolishing the zero cancer risk standard for pesticide residues in some processed foods--with a single "safe" standard of a reasonable certainty of no harm to consumers for pesticide residues in raw and processed foods.

When setting pesticide tolerances using benefits considerations, builds in a safety factor for "nonthreshold" health risks. Strictly limits exemptions from the established standards to ensure a stable food supply and mandates that the public be informed when crop emergencies require that the standard be relaxed.

Requires explicitly that pesticide residues be safe for infants and children and includes an additional safety factor of 10-fold, if necessary, to allow for uncertainty in data collected on children's diets. Also takes into account children's special sensitivity to pesticides.

Prohibits state and local governments from setting pesticide tolerances more rigid than those established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, unless states petition EPA for exception.

Requires EPA to prepare for produce retailers a brochure discussing the risks and benefits of pesticides, how to avoid risks including recommending substitute foods, and identifying foods that have tolerances for pesticide residues that were granted under the benefits provisions of FQPA. Recognizes states' rights to require warning or labels on food treated with pesticides, such as California's Proposition 65.

Requires all existing pesticide residue tolerances to be reviewed within 10 years to ensure they meet the new health-based standard.

• Pesticide Reregistration Program: Reauthorizes and increases user fees from $14 million to $16 million each year; the fees cover review of older pesticides to ensure they meet current standards. Makes reassessment of tolerances part of reregistration.



• Pesticide Registration Renewal: Requires EPA periodic review of pesticide registrations to establish a 15-year cycle to ensure that all pesticides meet new safety standards.



• Registration of Reduced-Risk Pesticides: Provides for quick review of reduced-risk pesticides to enable them to reach the market sooner to replace older, potentially more risky chemicals.



• Minor-Use Pesticides: Establishes minor-use programs in EPA and USDA to coordinate use issues and policy and provides a revolving grant fund to develop data necessary to register minor- use pesticides.

Also encourages minor-use registrations through extensions for submitting pesticide residue data and exclusive use of data, flexibility to waive certain data requirements, and requiring EPA to expedite review of minor use applications.

Cal/EPA Reactions to FQPA

While provisions of the new Food Quality Protection Act addressing minor crops will have some positive impacts on California agriculture, the act contains problematic features that may reduce the availability of important pest control tools, according to James W. Wells, director of California's Department of Pesticide Regulation, Cal/EPA. Methyl bromide and its alternatives may be affected by how some of the act's provisions are implemented.

Wells cautions that the tolerance reassessment timeframes are exceedingly short, given the complexity of the new safety standard. Depending on how EPA uses default assumptions in implementing the new safe standard for tolerances under the new act, growers could be left with fewer products to address pest problems, which could increase the chances of pests' developing resistance to the remaining compounds.

"There could also be a loss of materials critical to IPM systems, resulting in a return to older, more chemically intensive pest control strategies. Loss of key pesticides could also result in increased usage of remaining compounds with potentially harmful environmental and health consequences," he notes.

An example of this would be that loss of insecticides effective at low rates of application may lead to more frequent use of other insecticides or use at higher rates, causing the potential for greater worker exposure and adverse environmental consequences such as runoff into surface waters or air pollution. Wells says that California would like to see EPA move cautiously and consider the potential impacts of the use of default assumptions on pest management systems.

Under the new act, the requirement for tolerances for emergency exemptions under Section 18 of FIFRA could also be significant for California. Section 18 allows EPA to exempt certain uses of a pesticide from the requirements of the act. These emergency exemptions address pest emergencies that arise when no suitable pesticides are registered for use on that pest. Since California is unique in its diversity, pest pressures, climatic conditions, and lack of sufficient pest management techniques for all minor uses, these Section 18 emergency exemptions are vital to the health of the state's agriculture.

The Section 18 exemption process is intended to be an expedited process. Exemptions are short- lived and must be reapproved annually. Tolerances and, therefore, exposures to Section 18 chemicals are time-limited until the chemical is registered. Using the same process to establish tolerances for exemptions and full registrations seems to contradict the emergency nature of the process.

"The way EPA implements this provision is critical for growers of minor crops to continue to respond to emergency situations that arise in California," Wells says. "We know that EPA is working hard to comply with the new act in a timely fashion, and we're working closely with them."

FQPA is expected to have some positive impacts on California agriculture. "There are incentives for minor crop uses," says Wells. "Since most crops grown in California are fruits, vegetables and nuts, we're a ?minor crop' state. We produce more than 250 raw agricultural commodities. But they don't represent major markets for pesticides which were developed primarily for use on corn, soybeans, wheat, rice, and cotton, which are the nation's major crops."

Wells says that in the past, pesticide registrants have sometimes made the economic decision not to produce costly data to enter or remain in the minor crop marketplace.

"The incentives and program direction provided by FQPA should begin to address the needs of minor crop growers for viable pest management tools, especially if Congress appropriates the authorized funds for the revolving grants program to be administered by USDA," he explains.

According to Wells, the reduced-risk provisions of the Act will give EPA the impetus to further promote development of reduced-risk pesticides. These provisions will allow EPA to focus registration priorities on implementing integrated pest management (IPM) nationwide.

"California farmers are well positioned to expand IPM practices and adopt reduced-risk pest management practices when new products become available," he says.