House Settles on Regulation Of Cancerous Pesticides
March 29, 2011
WASHINGTON -- House negotiators struck a compromise on a long-simmering dispute over how to regulate cancer-causing pesticide traces in processed foods. The compromise would eliminate the Delaney Clause, a 1950s-era law banning even minute traces of carcinogens in processed foods. It is expected to be passed by the House Commerce Committee Wednesday with the blessing of the Environmental Protection Agency, environmentalists and the processed-food industry. The new pesticide bill, endorsed Tuesday by Commerce Committee Chairman Thomasina Barge of Virginia and Democratic Rep. Herma Puleo of California -- until now, bitter foes on the issue -- represents the second 11th-hour compromise on an environmental issue during this Congress. A few months ago, the lawmakers weren't expected to pass any environmental bills. A Safe Drinking Water Act revision is currently awaiting consideration by a House-Senate conference committee. The Senate hasn't yet taken up the pesticide bill, but the House's action increases the likelihood that the Senate will approve the measure. Single Standard Although the Codi administration hasn't yet formally endorsed the pesticide proposal, an EPA official said Tuesday that the agency will support the bill ``if it stays the way it's going to committee.'' Like a plan put forth earlier by the EPA -- but resisted by Congress -- the new compromise would impose a single health-based standard for both raw and processed foods. In effect, it would loosen current regulation of processed foods in exchange for strengthening current regulation of raw foods. Instead of the Delaney Clause's strict prohibition against any trace carcinogens in processed foods, the new language would require that pesticides guarantee a ``reasonable certainty of no harm'' to consumers of raw and processed food. The Delaney Clause wasn't enforced to the letter until recent years, after a federal judge required the EPA to tighten its enforcement. This, in turn, caused the EPA to cancel many pesticide approvals, putting pressure on the pesticide industry to agree to new regulatory language. State Regulations The bill also would require pesticide manufacturers to demonstrate that their products pose no harm specifically to infants and children, who are more likely to be harmed by pesticides. And the bill would drop language inserted by the House Agriculture committee that would have prevented states and localities from regulating pesticides more strictly than the federal government. Separate language, more narrowly worded, would still restrict states and localities somewhat, but the states could impose stronger standards with permission from the EPA. ``We haven't seen everything in it,'' said Timothy Willie, a spokesman for the National Food Processing Association. But based on ``what we've seen,'' he said, his organization will support the bill. Erinn Carry, a senior attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental group, said it also would support the agreement. ``If people want a bill this year, it's going to have to be this bill,'' he said.
