Kids’ Health Is No Experiment

In 1993, the National Academy of Sciences issued a seminal study of federal pesticide standards, criticizing their failure to account for the greater vulnerability of children to low-level exposure. The study resulted in the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996, which requires the Environmental Protection Agency to determine safe levels of pesticide residues for children. The law was seen as a compromise between environmentalists--who wanted a total ban on old, relatively toxic pesticides--and farmers who said a ban would put them out of business. Since its enactment, however, the act has only widened the rift between agribusiness and food safety experts.

Food safety experts criticize the EPA for its failure to live up to its promise of fast action on the riskiest of the 9,700 pesticides on which the act required a review--particularly a group of nerve agents called organophosphates. Those experts point out that the only regulations the EPA has imposed so far are restrictions on how three types of particularly dangerous organophosphates may be used.

Meanwhile, farmers and pesticide manufacturers accuse the agency of implementing the act too quickly. This week they are lobbying for a bill, HR 1592, by Rep. Richard W. Pombo (R-Tracy), that would make it next to impossible for the agency to implement a key provision of the food protection act. The bill is scheduled for a vote Thursday in the House Agriculture Committee.

Pombo says his bill “does not change any of the new and more rigorous [Food Quality Protection Act] safety standards and simply establishes a fair process.” In fact, the bill would turn the 1996 law on its head.

The act holds that unless the EPA has reliable evidence showing that a given pesticide is safe for children, the agency must err on the side of caution and use stricter standards to ensure that children are protected from exposure to that pesticide. The Pombo bill reverses that provision, prohibiting the EPA from acting against a pesticide unless the scientific evidence of harm is certain and overwhelming. That is just not the way science works.

Agribusiness is, however, right in saying that the act is somewhat arbitrary in calling for a tenfold reduction of pesticide residues in foods that children are likely to eat, including fresh fruits and vegetables. Vice President Al Gore was right in 1998 when, to the dismay of environmentalists and some food safety experts, he asked that the EPA work more closely with agribusiness before implementing any provision of the act. However, it is one thing to implement the law cautiously and another thing entirely to gut its key provision.

The industry’s argument in favor of the Pombo bill boils down to the assertion that pesticides should be held innocent until unquestionably proven guilty. The smart course is “better safe than sorry” when it comes to children’s health. The Pombo bill should be defeated.

*

To Take Action: House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) has the power to block the bill. (202) 225-2976. E-mail: dhastert @mail.house.gov.