pesticides posing a trivial or de minimis risk (Chemically Speaking,
July, 1992, p. 1).
The Ninth Circuit Court’s action is of significant interest to agri-
cultural producers. Of the 300 pesticides registered for application to
foods, some 67 have been found to induce cancer in laboratory stud-
ies (Chemical Regulation Reporter, July 10, 1992). The EPA acknowl-
edges that some 35 chemicals and a number of uses will be impacted
by the Ninth Circuit’s ruling (Chemical Regulation Reporter, July 10,
1992).
Supporters of Congressional moves to change Delaney argue the
EPA is being forced to adhere to a law based on 1950s technology.
When implemented in 1958, residues could not be detected with
then-existing technology. Now, however, science has advanced to
the point at which residues can be detected at concentrations of one
part per billion. This is equivalent to a pinch of salt in 10,000 tons of
potato chips (Nesheim). There is no way, producers argue, that a
crop could be produced without any residues being detected in the
processed product. Strict adherence to the Delaney standard would
be devastating. Opponents counter that Delaney should be strictly
enforced. To not do so Wouldjeopardize public health.
Members of Congress have introduced several bills proposing
changes in the application of Delaney. These bills generally provide
for a “negligible risk” standard in establishing tolerances for both
raw and processed commodities (Vogt, p. CRS-3). Under Section 408
of the FFDCA, the EPA is allowed to weigh the benefits of pesticide
use and set less stringent tolerances for carcinogenic residues on
raw agricultural commodities. Subsequently, EPA has pursued a
policy of setting different standards for carcinogenic pesticide resi-
dues in processed and raw foods (Chemical Regulation Reporter,
July 10, 1992). The emphasis of the currently proposed bills appears
to be that of setting identical standards for both raw and processed
commodities. Because of the health and production arguments for
and against Congressional action on Delaney, this is one environ-
mental issue with little if any ground for compromise.
Minor-Use Pesticide Registration — In general, all pesticides must
be registered by EPA. The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Ro-
denticide Act (FIFRA), together with rules promulgated by EPA set
forth the requirements for pesticide registration (USDA Economic
Research Service, p. 37). These requirements are quite complex and
need not be elaborated on here other than to point out that EPA will
not register a pesticide unless it is satisfied its use, as specified by
the label, will not cause undue harm to humans or the environment.
Pesticides must be reregistered periodically and EPA must make the
same kind of judgment on a reregistration that it does on an original
registration. Registration is the cornerstone of FIFRA and is costly.
184