Home page

Shaky Standards
The Food Quality Protection Act of 1996

Vegetarian Times February 1998
by Linda and Bill Bonvie
 
     In August 1996, shortly after President Clinton signed the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) into law, he referred to it as the "peace-of-mind act," designed to assure parents that "the fruits, grains and vegetables their children eat are safe." 

     Agreeing with the president was an odd alliance of environmental and industrial organizations -- the American Crop Protection Association, for example, took sides with the (very green) National Wildlife Federation.  In the opposing corner were grassroots environmental groups, such as the Walden, VT.-based Food & Water organization, which vigorously opposed the FQPA from the beginning. 

     So, since the law's enactment, has there been any change for the better?  Should we be feeling the "peace of mind" Clinton promised?  That remains to be seen.
  
     The FQPA changed the standard by which the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) determines pesticide tolerances (the highest amounts of residues allowed in food).  The most important changes include new requirements for the protection of infants and children.  The EPA has promised to conduct research to determine if children are likely to ingest more pesticides than adults and to apply an additional safety margin to protect them when indicated.  On a wider scale, risks (such as nerve damage, reproductive failure, birth defects, and the effects of naturally occurring estrogenic substances in pesticides) will be evaluated.  The EPA also is charged with figuring out the cumulative exposure level per individual from all nonoccupational sources of each chemical.  Too much possible exposure and the resultant "risk cup," as the EPA like to call it, must be reduced.
  
     Sounds good, doesn't it?  Not according to Michael Colby, Food & Water's executive director.  "It's more bureaucratic busy work that makes it appear as though our government agencies are doing something about a very serious problem, when they're really not," says Colby.  "I challenge them to tell me which pesticide has been taken off the market as a result of it (FQPA), and the answer is none." 

     Although over the next 10 years the EPA is required to reassess all of the more than 9,000 existing pesticide tolerances (the riskiest will be first) in order to meet the new standard, even Stephen Johnson, the EPA's acting deputy director in the Office of Pesticide Programs, cannot identify a single change that has resulted from the work done thus far.  "It's just "a flurry of activity." 

     In fact, this "flurry" exemplifies the ineffectiveness of FQPA.  A tolerance set for the fungicide vinclozolin, widely used on snap beans, already violates the new law, according to attorney Patti Goldman of the Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund based in Seattle.  "The two most significant parts of the FQPA were not followed.  We have a nasty reproductive toxin here.  There is no extra protection for children, which is the extra safety factor the law requires, and there is no consideration of vinclozolin's toxicological cousins (fungicides iprodione and procymidone)," says Goldman.
 
     On behalf of five other organizations, Goldman's group submitted an objection to the EPA last September, citing studies that show vinclozolin has been shown to "disrupt the endocrine system" and cause "feminized genitalia" in male rats.  This is exactly the sort of chemical the FQPA was designed to protect us from, but this initial application of the law "turns the safety principle on its head," Goldman contends.  "Significant reproductive toxicity mandates the use of the safety factor.  It's absolutely outrageous (that it's not being put to use)."
 
     Despite numerous calls to EPA officials who declined to comment on vinclozolin, the EPA stance appears to be that the FQPA's much touted extra margin of safety is not needed in this case because the fungicide's side effects are already known -- even though those side effects include acute reproductive deformities.  Bizarre as that may sound, the agency refused to clarify its vinclozolin decision, simply saying that the matter is under litigation.

     Whether the FQPA will make food safer in the future is anyone's guess.  For now, the best way to reduce your exposure to pesticides is to buy organic, and wash and peel your produce. 
 
Wait! A Pesticide Worth Saving
     As the EPA slowly gears itself up for the task of reassessing chemical-pesticide tolerances, a biological pesticide that's long been sanctioned by environmentalists is stirring up a hornet's nest for the agency.  It's the soil bacterium known as Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), which has ben used for 40 years to protect crops and forests without apparent harm to the environment or human health.

     Now, environmentalists fear, genetic engineering may adversely alter both the level of protection offered by Bt and its safety level.  This has prompted some 31 groups, lead by Greenpeace International, to begin a  petition challenging the EPA's approval of a scheme supported by multinational chemical and genetic-engineering firms that would allow plants to be genetically altered to contain Bt.

     By enabling plants to produce the toxin, advocates hope to develop crops with built-in pest resistance.  The opposition, however, views such engineering as a threat to organic farming.  "We fear the transengenic application of Bt to be unwise because of the high likelihood that it will rapidly accelerate resistance to Bt," said Jim Gerritsen, an organic farmer and one of the petition's signatories.  "Should we ever lose Bt, our ability as organic farmers to grow quality produce will be in serious question."

     Opponents also are concerned that transgenic plants would be toxic to predators of target insects and would spread the engineered genes to wild plants though cross-pollination with potentially disastrous results.

     If the agency fails to respond to the petition within 90 days, the groups plan to take the matter to federal district court.