Delaney clause, because under EPA guidelines they had no processed form. The Delaney clause was replaced with language to ensure uniform regulatory treatment of chemicals used in both raw and processed foods. Other provisions of FQPA were intended to encourage a more sciencebased and transparent regulatory process with focus on additional and adequate protections for subpopulations, particularly children. The overarching goal of FQPA is to encourage development and use of pesticides with reduced risk to humans and the environment. That goal and the many provisions of the law will affect the number and types of pestcontrol agents that will be available for US agriculture in the future (EPA 1999).
As noted earlier, a major provision of FQPA was to address the inconsistencies that emerged from the Delaney Clause of FFDCA, primarily the dilemma caused by the zero tolerance standard for some pesticides in processed foods. Under the Delaney clause (FDCA Section 409), no finite tolerance was allowed for chemicals that were found to cause cancer (that is, to induce either malignant or benign tumors) in experimental animals and which concentrated during food processing (NRC 1987). Zero tolerance produced a variety of problems: as analytical methods improved, concentrations that were “zero” by older methods became measurable (Zweig 1970). That tie to the analytical method of detection led to an evershifting regulatory landscape as agencies and registrants attempted to keep up with improvements in analytical methods. In addition to improved analytical methods, extensive testing to determine oncogenicity occurred in the 1980s, partly as a result of reregistration requirements of FIFRA. The extent of testing in the 1980s indicated that 60% of all herbicides (on the basis of pounds applied) are oncogenic or potentially oncogenic. By volume of use, 90% of all fungicides and 30% of all insecticides fell into this category (NRC 1987). The combined effects of increased positive tests for oncogenicity and improved analytical capabilities threatened the registration status of many mainstream pesticides that were found both on foods that undergo processing (Section 409) and on raw agricultural commodities (Section 408). An additional problem with the Delaney clause is that zero tolerance for carcinogenicity but not other modes of death inadvertently biased test results in favor of the more toxic compounds because test animals succumbed before doses sufficient to induce cancer could be applied. FQPA eliminated the distinction between raw-food and processed-food tolerances so that all pesticide residues will be regulated under an amended FFDCA section 408. New section 408 requires all tolerances to be “safe”, ensuring a “reasonable certainty of no harm” from pesticides. The law authorizes slightly higher residue concentrations on foods when pesticide use avoids greater health risks to