EPA'S PESTICIDE PROGRAM AND FOOD SAFETY REFORM Y 4.G 74/7: EN 8/25 EPA's Pesticide Progran and Food Sa. HEAKING BEFORE THE ENVIRONMENT, ENERGY, AND NATURAL RESOURCES SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS HOUSE OP REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED THIRD CONGRESS FIRST SESSION OCTOBER 29, 1993 Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Operations « U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 78-496 CC WASHINGTON : 1994 ForsalebytheU.S.GovernmentPrintingOffice SuperintendentofDocuments,CongressionalSalesOffice,Washington,DC 20402 ISBN 0-16-044229-X ir\ Ar\*- *-k EPA'S PESTICIDE PROGRAM AND FOOD SAFETY REFORM 4.G 74/7: EN 8/25 I's Pesticide Progran and Food Sa. HEARING BEFORE THE ENVIRONMENT, ENERGY, AND NATURAL RESOURCES SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED THIRD CONGRESS FIRST SESSION OCTOBER 29, 1993 Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Operations J fL 1 5 4 '- U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 78-496 CC WASHINGTON : 1994 ForsalebytheU.S.GovernmentPrintingOffice SuperintendentofDocuments.CongressionalSalesOffice.Washington.DC 20402 ISBN 0-16-044229-X COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan, Chairman CARDISS COLLINS, Illinois WILLIAM F. CLINGER, JR., Pennsylvania GLENN ENGLISH, Oklahoma AL McCANDLESS, California HENRY A. WAXMAN, California J. DENNIS HASTERT, Illinois MIKE SYNAR, Oklahoma JON L. KYL, Arizona STEPHEN L. NEAL, North Carolina CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut TOM LANTOS, California STEVEN SCHIFF, New Mexico MAJOR R. OWENS, New York C. CHRISTOPHER COX, California EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming JOHN M. SPRATT, JR., South Carolina ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida GARY A. CONDIT, California DICK ZIMMER, New Jersey COLLIN C. PETERSON, Minnesota WILLIAM H. ZELIFF, JR., New Hampshire KAREN L. THURMAN, Florida JOHN M. McHUGH, New York BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois STEPHEN HORN, California CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York DEBORAH PRYCE, Ohio THOMAS M. BARRETT, Wisconsin JOHN L. MICA, Florida DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey ROB PORTMAN, Ohio FLOYD H. FLAKE, New York JAMES A. HAYES, Louisiana BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont CRAIG A. WASHINGTON, Texas (Independent) BARBARA-ROSE COLLINS, Michigan CORRINE BROWN, Florida MARJORIE MARGOLIES-MEZVINSKY, Pennsylvania LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California GENE GREEN, Texas BART STUPAK, Michigan Julian Epstein StaffDirector Matthew R. Fletcher, Minority StaffDirector Environment, Energy, and Natural Resources Subcommittee MIKE SYNAR, Oklahoma, Chairman KAREN L. THURMAN, Florida J. DENNIS HASTERT, Illinois CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York JOHN M. McHUGH, New York JAMES A. HAYES, Louisiana DEBORAH PRYCE, Ohio CRAIG A. WASHINGTON, Texas JOHN L. MICA, Florida EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont (Ind.) Ex Officio JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan WILLIAM F. CLINGER, JR., Pennsylvania Sandra Z. Harris, StaffDirector James V. Aidala, Professional StaffMember Elisabeth R. Campbell, Clerk CHARLI E. COON, Minority Professional Staff (ID CONTENTS Page Hearingheldon October29, 1993 1 Statementof: Goldman, Lynn, Assistant Administrator, Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, accompanied by Michael R. Taylor, Deputy Commissioner for Policy, Food and Drug Administration, Health andHuman Services 43 Guerrero, Peter, Associate Director, Environmental Protection Issues, U.S. General Accounting Office, accompanied by J. Kevin Donohue, Assistant Director; Robert J. Tice, evaluator in charge; and Mark Trapani, evaluator 2 Martin, John C., inspector general, U.S. Environmental Protection Agen- cy, accompanied by Kimberly O'Lone, audit manager, northern division, Chicagooffice 18 Rominger, Richard, Deputy Secretary, U.S. Department of Agriculture, accompaniedby LarryElworth, special assistant for pesticide policy 66 Synar, Hon. Mike, a Representative in Congress from the State ofOkla- homa, and chairman, Environment, Energy, and Natural Resources Subcommittee: Openingstatement 1 Letters, statements, etc., submitted forthe recordby: Goldman, Lynn, Assistant Administrator, Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Prepared statement 47 Guerrero, Peter, Associate Director, Environmental Protection Issues, U.S. General Accounting Office: Prepared statement 6 Martin, John C, inspector general, U.S. Environmental Protection Agen- cy: Prepared statement 21 Rominger, Richard, Deputy Secretary, U.S. Department of Agriculture: Prepared statement 69 APPENDDC Material submitted forthehearingrecord 101 (III) EPA'S PESTICIDE PROGRAM AND FOOD SAFETY REFORM FRIDAY, OCTOBER 29, 1993 House of Representatives, Environment, Energy, and Natural Resources Subcommittee of the Committee on Government Operations, Washington, DC. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:23 a.m., in room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Mike Synar (chairman ofthe subcommittee) presiding. Present: Representatives Mike Synar, Karen L. Thurman, Craig A. Washington, and John L. Mica. Also present: Sandra Z. Harris, staff director; James V. Aidala, professional staffmember; Elisabeth R. Campbell, clerk; and Charli E. Coon, minority professional staff, Committee on Government Operations. OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAntMAN SYNAR Mr. Synar. Subcommittee will come to order. This morning we will welcome a new crew of players to the wonderful world of food safety. After 12 years, the party in power has shifted, but I can assure you all in this room that the subcommittee's concerns remain the same. We remain concerned that our great grandchildren will still hold hearings wondering when pesticide registration will be completed. We remain concerned at missed deadlines, absent and misplaced priorities, and chronic shortages of money and authority have plagued this program and continue to do so. We remain concerned that the rhetoric too often replaces reason, and that political posturing is preferred to meaningful reforms. We remain committed as an oversight subcommittee to inves- tigating how well or badly programs within our jurisdiction are doing, and whether there is a need to fix the blame or to fix the law, regardless ofwho is in charge. This morning we will introduce ourselves and our concerns to a new team of officials faced with the duty of implementing our food safety laws. We wish them well, but we also put them on notice that newness in thejob is no excuse for inaction. It is already late to begin the reform process. Too much needs to be done too quickly to allow for much of a honeymoon. Almost 1 year ago we informed the new administration of the problems which would immediately face them in the pesticide program. Like (1) it or not, the new administration has already had a long time to begin to address the needed reforms, and that is the measure by which we willjudge this current program. Vice President Gore hopes to reinvent government. This morning, we hope to hear how administration officials plan to reinvent the reregistration program. The administration's food safety plan an- nounced in September is a credible start on the path toward re- form. I believe many elements of the package as described up to now must be precisely articulated so that we can betterjudge the effec- tiveness. And as always, we reserve the possibility of offering complemen- tary legislation so that in the end, that we can have the faith that the reforms we put in place now will in fact carry us into the next century with a pesticide regulation program that is finally in keep- ing with the modern age. We are joined this morning by my colleague from Florida, Mrs. Thurman, for an opening statement. Our first panel this morning will be Mr. Peter Guerrero, Associ- ate Director of the Environmental Protection Issues of the U.S. General Accounting Office and the Honorable John C. Martin, in- spector general ofEPA. If they would come forward. And John Martin is accompanied this morningby Kimberlv O'Lone, audit manager. Let me welcome you all. As you know, it is the policy ofthis sub- committee, in order not to prejudice past or future panels, to swear in all our witnesses. Do any of you have any objections to being sworn? Anyone accompanying these witnesses who may be asked to tes- tify please rise and be sworn. [Witnesses sworn.] Mr. Synar. First of all, before we begin, why don't we have Mr. Guerrero introduce who is with him today. Mr. Guerrero. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Immediately to my left is Mark Trapani, principal investigator. Behind me also is an- other investigator, Bob Tice, and to my far left is Kevin Donohue, who represents some 12 years experience in this area. Mr. Synar. As you know, the policy of the subcommittee is to submit your prepared testimony for the record. At this time we will hear from you, Mr. Guerrero, and we look forward to your com- ments. STATEMENT OF PETER GUERRERO, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ISSUES, U.S. GENERAL AC- COUNTING OFFICE, ACCOMPANIED BY J. KEVIN DONOHUE, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR; ROBERT J. TICE, EVALUATOR IN CHARGE;AND MARK TRAPANI, EVALUATOR Mr. Guerrero. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, members of the sub- committee, we are pleased to be here today to discuss our work on EPA pesticide regulation and to relate this work to the administra- tion's pesticide reform proposals. Our testimony will be primarily based on recent GAO evalua- tions on the reregistration program, although as you know, we have issued more than 100 reports on the pesticide program over the past 25 years. I will be pleased to discuss this larger body of work and to refer to it in questions and answers later. In summary, Mr. Chairman, we found that EPA will not be able to reregister all pesticides by 1998 as called for by the law. Instead, EPA estimates that it will not complete this program until the year 2006. Second, EPA's progress in reregistering pesticides that are used on food has been substantially slower than expected. EPA has reregistered lower priority pesticides that present few food safety concerns. This low progress raises serious questions regarding the feasibility of the administration's proposal to review all pesticide tolerances within 7 years. And third, EPA has understated the true costs of reregistration, and its proposed $20 million increase in user fees may prove to be insufficient. Now, I would like to discuss some of these issues in greater de- tail. After more than 20 years of data collection to support the reas- sessment of health and environmental effects of older pesticides, EPA has reregistered only 1 percent of the 20,000 older products currently in use. Moreover, most of these reregistered pesticides are not high priority food use pesticides, but are instead lower pri- ority pesticides, such as dried blood and garlic that present few safety concerns. EPA is still collecting data on most of the thousands of pesticide products currently used in agriculture and in the home, including most ofthe food use pesticides. EPA's continuing delays in reregistering pesticides will be a roadblock to achieving the administration's pesticide policy initia- tives. The administration's newly announced reforms call for EPA to establish a strong protective health-based standard for all pes- ticide residues in foods, and then to review all existing tolerances to make sure that they adhere to that standard. However, tolerance reevaluations would, in most cases, follow re- registration, and EPA's current schedule for pesticide reregistration is behind. Therefore, the goals of conducting these reevaluations of the tol- erances within the 3 to 7 year timeframes envisioned by the pro- posals is unlikely to be met. To reduce the public's exposure to the riskiest pesticides as soon as possible, it is imperative that EPA take action now to focus its efforts on the high priority food use pesticides that have the great- est potential to cause serious health problems. Our report also recommends that the Congress consider amend- ing FIFRA to require that EPA finish reregistering the highest pri- ority food use pesticides before it reregisters lower priority ones. I would like to make one final point concerning EPA's efforts to reregister pesticides. Such decisions must address current public health and safety concerns. However, another report on lawn care pesticides demonstrates this is not now the case. While EPA is re- considering its long-held beliefthat individuals, and especially chil- dren, are not at risk from exposure to lawn care pesticides, the agency is nonetheless planning to reregister these pesticides using available data and techniques that may not fully address these con- cerns. The administration's reform proposals would also establish a reg- istration sunset provision. Under this provision, pesticide registra- tions would expire after 15 years unless EPA approves a new appli- cation which meets then current scientific safety standards. Today, pesticide registrations have no fixed expiration date. While we have not evaluated EPA's rationale for establishing the 15-year period, we believe that a sunset provision would appro- priately place the burden on registrants to identify and supply all the data that is needed to maintain their product registrations. A sunset provision would also help ensure that pesticides would not remain on the market while health and safety concerns remain unanswered. The administration's reform proposals would also strengthen the authorities of the food safety regulatory agencies to carry out their responsibilities under the law. It would increase the agency's in- spection and regulatory authorities, and it would significantly in- crease civil and criminal penalties under FIFRA. We fully support these proposed changes. As we reported in Sep- tember 1992, the Food and Drug Administration's pesticide mon- itoring program does not prevent imported foods adulterated with illegal pesticide residues from reaching U.S. grocery shelves. We urge that strengthened legal authority to deter importers from marketing such foods and to penalize those that do. Finally, the administration's proposal estimates a $20 million shortfall for reregistration through the end of 1997 and rec- ommends that the shortfall be funded through increases in pes- ticide reregistration fees. We believe, however, that this shortfall is likely to be greater than estimated. In our May report we questioned the adequacy of EPA's program cost estimates because EPA did not properly ac- count for the additional data review costs and delays resulting from the high percentage of studies the agency had rejected and could reject. In addition, EPA did not account for program costs beyond 1997 even though it had recognized that reregistration could not be com- pleted by that date. In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, we are encouraged that the admin- istration has proposed many important initiatives for reforming pesticide regulation. Central to their success, however, is the time- ly completion ofthe pesticide reregistration program. We believe that in view of the limited progress made to date, EPA should consider a risk-based approach to reregistration that would require it to address the highest priority food use pesticides before it reregisters lower priority pesticides. More realistic cost estimates to complete this task are also need- ed. We would also note that regardless of whether the administra- tion's reforms are enacted, and which ones are enacted, EPA needs to address critical management issues that have long limited its ability to regulate pesticides effectively. Among these are resources insufficient to carry out its respon- sibilities, management information systems incapable ofsupporting