Safe Use of Pesticides in Food Production; a Report [by] W.J. Darby, Chairman ... [Et Al.] (1956)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

information, and the hazards involved in the amounts of residue likely to result. Data on toxicology and residues must be submitted to the Commissioner, Food and Drug Administration, in the Depart- ment of Health, Education, and Welfare, with a petition for FDA to establish specific residue tolerances for each crop that might bear residues from the use of the pesticide as proposed. If the data presented are considered inadequate, either from the toxicologic or residue viewpoints, the Commissioner can reject the application, or can establish a toler- ance of zero. Once a tolerance is pub- lished in the Federal Register it becomes operative and the Food and Drug Ad- ministration is authorized to enforce it. Any raw agricultural commodity found in interstate commerce, or at any time after it has moved in interstate com- merce, with a residue exceeding the legal tolerance is subject to seizure by FDA and condemnation by court de- cree. Tolerances can also be enforced by criminal proceedings. Because of complexities in denning usefulness, reaching decisions on the residues re- maining, or determining levels of com- plete safety, a large measure of per- sonal judgment has to be exercised by the Administrators of the two Acts and their assistants. Their decisions must be based upon technical information and made solely in the public interest. To expedite the establishment of safe tolerances, the law contains a provision for referring debatable points on maxi- mum allowable residues to advisory committees of unbiased experts. The National Academy of Sciences selects experts to serve on the advisory com- mittees which are appointed by the Food and Drug Administration. Such com- mittees are composed of specialists in the subject matter of the petitions to be reviewed, and with training in such fields as medicine, pharmacology, toxi- cology, chemistry, biology, and agricul- ture. The procedures now in force are gen- erally considered to be definitely su- perior to those in use before the recent amendment of the law. Although the old procedures had protected the public, as shown by the absence of authenti- cated association of pesticide residues with human illness, the amendment of the law assures even greater protection to the public health and provides an or- derly process for the development, ap- proval, and use of new pesticides. The present law makes it clear that every pesticidal chemical intended for use in the production, storage, and trans- portation of raw agricultural commodi- ties must be proved safe before it is used on food crops. This responsibility rests with the sponsor of the chemical. The consumer can rest assured that every care is taken to provide foodstuffs that are wholesome and safe insofar as mod- ern scientific procedures can be applied. The law provides that a decision must be made promptly on accepting or re- jecting a material that has been pro- posed for use as a pesticide. Residue tolerances must be established by the Food and Drug Administration within a specific time limit, provided data sup- porting the petition for a tolerance are adequate to justify the tolerance. This assures industry that research progress will not be blocked by official indecision, and that significant discoveries can be put to use as promptly as is commensu- rate with public safety. In case differ- ences of opinion arise as to what con- stitutes a safe tolerance, a workable system is available whereby the most competent scientists in the country can be called in for advisory service, and 15

unresolved controversial issues can be referred to the courts. The foregoing procedures apply to all insecticides, fungicides, rodenticides, and herbicides used in the production, storage, and transportation of raw agri- cultural commodities. Nematocides and growth regulants are controlled by other provisions of law. Residue tolerances of these substances are set as a result of proposals submitted by an interested person, or upon the initiative of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Opportunity is given for any- one who might be adversely affected by the tolerance proposed to express his ob- jections before the tolerance becomes effective. Proposed tolerances cannot be appealed to an advisory committee under present interpretation of the law, how- ever. Once safe residue tolerances are es- tablished, they can be enforced by samp- ling and analyzing produce as it moves in interstate commerce from the farm to the consumer. Offenders can be prose- cuted and punished in court for their misuse of any material. The foregoing discussion of legal pro- cesses is concerned only with regulation of pesticide residues on food in inter- state commerce, or food held at any time after it has moved in interstate com- merce—the extent of Federal control. Most of the states have comparable laws regulating the sale and use of pesticides, with which the manufacturer must comply. The procedures established are costly to both government control agencies and the agricultural chemicals industry. This cost eventually is paid by the con- sumer in increased food prices and taxes. He will benefit in the long run, however, because of the greater productivity of our farms and the reduction of food losses in transit and storage. 16