|
Items in cart [1] |
Questions? Call 888-624-8373 |
| Copyright © 2009. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Terms of Use and Privacy Statement |
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 118
c
Comparing the Impact
of the Scenarios
.
This chapter compares the four scenarios by their effects on herbicides,
insecticides, and fungicides; individual pesticide active ingredients; and
selected crop-pesticide combinations.
The previous chapter describes the scenarios and their impacts. This
chapter highlights the important convergent and divergent effects of these
scenarios on oncogenic pesticides as measured by changes in estimated
dietary oncogenic risk, acre treatments, and expenditures.
THE IMPACTS OF THE SCENARIOS ON HERBICIDES
INSECTICIDES, AND FUNGICIDES
The four scenarios have markedly different impacts on the major
classes of pesticides. In each scenario, fungicides suffer the greatest
percentage of canceled crop uses and tolerance revocations; the revoca-
tions account for the greatest percentage of total risk reduction. In each
case, more than 50 percent of all fungicide risk is eliminated, and half or
more of existing fungicide uses are affected.
These scenarios have more diverse effects on insecticides and herbi-
cides. The risk reduction for insecticides ranges from 19 percent in
scenario 4 to 99 percent in scenario 3. For herbicides the range is from 11
percent in scenario 4 to 99 percent in scenario 3. Table 5-1 arrays the
percentage of estimated risk reduction across the scenarios for each type
of pesticide.
A chief reason for the disparity among the scenarios' risk reduction is
OCR for page 119
COMPARING THE IMPACT OF THE SCENARIOS ~19
TABLE 5-1 Estimated Risk Reduction for Each Type of Pesticide by
Scenario (in percent)
Scenano
Risk Standard 1 2
3
4
Tolerances
Section 408 Zero Risk/benefit 10-6 risk trigger for Risk/benefit for raw
risk each crop, processed foods with no
and raw form com- processed fonn
Lined; no consider-
ation of benefits
Section 409 Zero Zero risk for See above 10-6 risk trigger for
risk processed processed foods
foods tied (tied to parent raw
to parent commodities); no
raw com- consideration of
modifies benefits
Pesticides
Fungicides 100 71 98 51
Herbicides 100 36 99 11
Insecticides 100 26 99 19
All pesticides 100 55 98 36
that much of the dietary risk from herbicides and insecticides examined in
this study stems from residues in food derived from animals. The EPA
does not currently recognize these foods as having processed forms. Any
scenario that revokes or denies tolerances on the basis of oncogenic risk
in processed foods will not touch tolerances for residues in beef, milk,
poultry, or pork products. Thus, even though dietary risk from exposure
to residues in animal products may exceed that associated with the human
food forms of the major feed crops, tolerances for animal products will
not be revoked under scenarios 2 or 4. For example, in a case where meat
from animals fed pesticide-treated corn presents a greater risk than corn
oil derived from the same treated corn, tolerances for meat would not be
revoked.
Of the compounds the committee examined, about 50 percent of all
herbicide risk and 40 percent of all insecticide risk are derived from
tolerances for animal products. This partially explains the difference in
the treatment of herbicides and insecticides in scenarios 2 and 4 compared
with scenario 3. On the other hand, less than 1 percent of all risk from
fungicide residues is from tolerances for animal products. This helps
explain the comparatively consistent treatment of fungicides across all
scenarios.
Although the EPA's criteria currently attribute very little oncogenic
OCR for page 120
120 REGULATING PESTICIDES IN FOOD
risk to fungicide residues in animal products, the committee is suspicious
of this low estimate. Indeed, much evidence suggests that many
fungicide-treated crops whose by-products are fed to animals lack legally
mandated feed-additive tolerances. Modern residue chemistry data are
likely to demonstrate the need for such tolerances. If these tolerances are
set, overall estimated risk would rise, as would the percentage of risk
derived from meat, poultry, and dairy products, currently all defined as
raw foods. The percentage reduction in fungicide risk under scenarios 2
and 4, on the other hand, would decline. This change in depiction of the
baseline would not greatly change the overall performance of the scenar-
ios, however.
Further, the committee is aware that confirmation of residues in
processed food or feed could result in the loss of tolerances for the major
animal feed crops. This in turn could reduce the residue level in all food
products derived from animals fed these crops, leading to a de facto
reduction in risk without the loss of food tolerances for these crops. It is
important to note, however, that total elimination of this risk is not certain
in these cases. Crops with animal feed uses could retain both food and
feed tolerances through the sensitivity-of-the-method procedure if it were
demonstrated that residues of these oncogenic pesticides in human food
posed very low risks. (See Appendix C for the thiodicarb case study.)
Scenarios 2 and 4, which do not directly affect tolerances for animal
products, ensure less risk reduction than does scenario 3, which is not
limited to finding residues in a processed food.
THE IMPACTS OF THE SCENARIOS ON INDIVIDUAL ACTIVE
INGREDIENT RISK
Among individual pesticides, fungicides are the most heavily affected
under all scenarios. This does not mean, however, that all scenarios have
equal effects. In fact, the same scenario can have quite disparate impacts
on different fungicides, herbicides, and insecticides.
A single scenario can have very different impacts on two similar types
of pesticides. For example, under scenario 3, tolerances accounting for
more than 93 percent of all risk from benomyl and 98 percent from maneb
are revoked. Scenario 4 treats the two fungicides quite differently: 80
percent of benomyl risk and 25 percent of maneb risk are eliminated.
When one examines the effect of the different scenarios on all toler-
ances for the same active ingredient, scenario 3 stands out sharply. It
consistently revokes tolerances for pesticides presenting relatively high
risks, but does not affect relatively low-risk compounds. Scenario 3
achieves only 2 percent less risk reduction than scenario 1 while revoking
1,500 fewer food tolerances for the 28 compounds that constitute the
OCR for page 121
COMPARING THE IMPACT OF THE SCENARIOS 121
TABLE 5-2 Impact of Scenarios on Different Pesticide Active
Ingredients
Reduction in Risk from Total Estimated
Risk in Three Scenarios (%)
Pesticide 2 3
4
Herbicides
Alachlor (Lasso) 50 77 SO
Linuron (Lorox) 36 99 11
Metolachlor (Dual) 30 0 0
Insecticides
Chlordimeform (Galecon) 31 99 31
Cypermethrin (Cymbush, Ammo) S 77 0
Permethrin (Pounce, Ambush) 24 98 12
F. .,
unglclaes
Benomyl (Benlate) 93 93 80
Captan 71 98 48
Maneb 43 98 25
committee's risk estimate. Scenario 3 achieves greater risk reduction than
either scenario 2 or 4. Scenario 1, of course, eliminates all dietary
. .
Oncogenlc rls. (.
Sizable differences in risk reduction between scenarios 3 and 4 are
apparent for many compounds, as shown in Table 5-2. For the insecticide
permethrin, scenario 3 reduces dietary risk by 98 percent, whereas
scenario 4 reduces risk by only 12 percent. For the herbicide linuron,
scenario 3 reduces risk by 99 percent; scenario 4 reduces risk by 11
percent. The selectivity of scenario 3 is also highlighted at this level of
analysis, particularly when contrasted with scenario 2.
Scenario 2 (which allows no risk in processed foods) does not discrim-
inate between active ingredients that pose more significant and relatively
insignificant risks. Even though scenario 2 achieves a higher degree of
risk reduction than scenario 4, it fails to do so efficiently particularly
when compared with scenario 3. This is because the rigorous zero-risk
standard in scenario 2 applies only to the processed portion of the food
supply. As a result, tolerances for pesticides accounting for sizable
estimated oncogenic risks, such as linuron and maneb, are relatively
unaffected under scenario 2 because many foods on which they are found
lack processed forms. At the same time, several pesticides presenting
relatively low estimated dietary risks, such as glyphosate and
metolachlor, lose tolerances under scenario 2 because they are presumed
to be present in certain processed foods. This failure to discriminate
OCR for page 122
122
o
._
._
rD
o
._
v
._
q)
v
ao
a~
s~
~o
C~
~:
o
· _
v
s~
._
ao
s~
Ct
E~
s~
v
._
4 -
U) V
, ~ ·_
_'
c
Cq
ao
, C
C c,
a~
Ck ~
X C,
P:
— C
~L) .0
C ~
Ct
C
~ Ct
<~: ~
c
o
.
.= 4)
Z P:
, C
o
~o
C C)
~,
X
~ P:
c
.
c
o
.
C)
. ~ ~,
P: ~
t:
.°
.O
E~
.
Z ~
4~
o
C i~
C
~L) .0
Ct ~
o o ~ o
o o o o ~ o
0 ax
~o ~ o ~ _ ~ o
N
~ - ~ ~ ~ ~
oo o o oo ~ oN
~ ~ ~o ~ ~ ~ ~
~ x o - ~ o oo -
~ x ~ ~ ~ ~o
N ~ o
~4 ~ ~ ~ ~ x
o o o o o o o o
o o o o o o o
- - - - - - -
t'6
~ oo oo ~ ~ ~ ~
N ~ o
~ - oo oN ~ ~ ~ oo
c
o
-
~ ~ o o o o o o o o
.- ~ o o o o o o o o
~ ~ - - - - - ~ - -
:
-
a,
o
4,
r'
;^
s~
c~
a~
et c
s: ¢ ~ ~ ~ ~
1
c~
e
.
~ o o
:
1
o
~ -
o
OCR for page 123
COMPARING THE IMPACT OF THE SCENARIOS 123
between high- and low-risk exposures to residues is the principal flaw in
this scenario.
Scenario 4 displays greater consistency than scenario 2 because it
revokes relatively few tolerances for either high- or low-risk residues in
food. Consequently scenario 4 results in less risk reduction than any other
scenario.
In sum, an analysis by individual active ingredients reveals that
scenario 3 reduces more risk from herbicides, fungicides, and insecticides
than do scenarios 2 and 4, while allowing continued use of several
relatively low-risk compounds. Scenario 2 revokes more tolerances for
these low-risk active ingredients by eliminating all tolerances for all crops
with processed forms. Scenario 2 also revokes fewer tolerances for
certain high-risk compounds applied to foods with no processed form,
resulting in less overall risk reduction. Scenario 4 allows most tolerances
for high- and low-risk compounds to continue. Scenario 1, of course,
eliminates all tolerances for all oncogenic active ingredients.
A CROP-LEVEL ANALYSIS: THE IMPACTS OF THE SCENARIOS
ON BENEFITS AND RISKS
This section examines the immediate impact of the four scenarios on
risks and benefits associated with eight crop-pesticide combinations.
Longer-term impacts on crop production and the effect of the Delaney
Clause on new product development are discussed in the next chapter.
All calculations of risk in the following crop-level analyses reflect
estimated total risk for a crop adjusted (multiplied) by the percentage of
planted acres actually treated with the pesticides in question. Risk
reduction estimates are based on this adjusted risk estimate. Only the
crop-level analyses in this chapter and Chapter 4 incorporate the percent-
age of planted acres treated.
Benefits are measured by several rough indicators of pesticide use and
expenditures. The impact of the scenarios is measured by the acre
treatments and expenditures associated with pesticides that lose toler-
ances as a percentage of all herbicide, insecticide, or fungicide use on that
crop. The committee believes that a better measure of a pesticide benefit
is the difference between the total benefits received from its use, minus
the total benefits of using the next best pest control method. It lacked the
time and resources to perform such estimates, however.
The committee decided to study crops having processed-food forms.
Because of this choice, scenarios 1 and 2 produce nearly identical results.
Scenarios 3 and 4, on the other hand, differ markedly. Table 5-3 displays
the effects of the scenarios on these eight crops in terms of risk reduction
and acre treatments lost.
OCR for page 124
124 REGULATING PESTICIDES IN FOOD
Corn and Soybean Herbicides
Because of their zero-risk standards, scenarios 1 and 2 would revoke
tolerances for eight active ingredients, which account for 39 percent of all
corn herbicide acre treatments and 40 percent of expenditures.
Under scenario 3, however, corn tolerances for only one of the four
active ingredients for which risk estimates were possible would be
revoked. Eliminating use of this single pesticide would reduce dietary risk
from corn herbicides by 99 percent while affecting 30 percent of all corn
herbicide acre treatments and 27 percent of expenditures. Scenario 4
leaves all corn herbicide tolerances untouched because oncogenic risk
from herbicide residues in processed corn products in no case exceeds
lo-6.
Soybean producers would be harder hit than corn producers under
scenarios 1 and 2. Both scenarios would revoke tolerances for 11
herbicides, which currently account for 67 percent of all acre treatments
and 58 percent of all expenditures. Scenario 3 would eliminate two
herbicides, resulting in 99 percent risk reduction. Scenario 4 would
eliminate tolerances for only one herbicide, linuron, but this would
eliminate 94 percent of the estimated dietary risk from soybean herbi-
cides. This substantial risk reduction is striking considering linuron's
share of total acre treatments (9 percent) and expenditures (7 percent).
Because of the availability of a range of new, effective, non-oncogenic
herbicides, the impact of tolerance revocations on corn and soybean
producers would probably be modest even under scenarios 1 and 2, which
would repeal tolerances for all oncogenic compounds. It is also true,
however, that this result would eliminate less than 1 percent of total
estimated dietary risk.
Cotton Insecticides
Scenarios 1 and 2 would end the use of eight insecticides accounting for
about 80 percent of all cotton insecticide acre treatments and 61 percent
of all expenditures. The loss of cypermethrin, which accounts for about
45 percent of all acre treatments, would produce most of this impact. The
repeal of all cotton tolerances for oncogenic insecticides would reduce
total estimated dietary risk by only about 0.2 percent.
The loss of eight active ingredients accounting for nearly 80 percent of
all acre treatments would require a sizable adjustment in insect control for
cotton. Although state agricultural experiment stations and extension
entomologists recommend many of the 35 remaining registered com-
pounds for control of the Heliothis complex and other cotton insect pests,
a number of these compounds are not as economical as the agents that
OCR for page 125
COMPARING THE IMPACT OF THE SCENARIOS ~ 25
would lose tolerances particularly the synthetic pyrethroid cyper-
methrin.
It is also important to note that virtually all estimated dietary risk from
insecticides used on cotton is from chlordimeform, which accounts for
only 9 percent of all cotton acre treatments and 7 percent of cotton
insecticide expenditures. Eliminating the most widely used oncogenic
cotton insecticides, cypermethrin and parathion, under scenarios 1 and 2
would reduce estimated dietary risk from cotton insecticides by less than
1 percent and total risk by only 0.0002 percent.
Scenarios 3 and 4, which apply to the six cotton insecticides for which
risk estimates were possible, would revoke tolerances for only one
insecticide, chlordimeform. As in the case of the herbicide linuron on
soybeans, actions against one pesticide could dramatically reduce esti-
mated dietary risk from cotton, while affecting a relatively small share of
total expenditures on, and acre treatments with, cotton insecticides.
Apple Fungicides
Ten oncogenic active ingredients currently account for more than 50
percent of all expenditures on apple fungicides. Scenarios 1 and 2 would
eliminate all the benefits associated with this use. Chemicals accounting
for 59 percent of all acre treatments and 53 percent of all expenditures on
apple fungicides would lose tolerances. Total baseline risk would be
reduced by more than 5 percent. Applied to these same 10 fungicides,
scenarios 3 and 4 would affect fewer active ingredients and achieve
slightly less risk reduction by revoking tolerances representing 54 and 50
percent of acre treatments, respectively (see Table 5-31. In each scenario,
a significant percentage of all apple fungicides would be lost, creating the
possible need for replacement compounds or other control methods.
A substantial number of presumably non-oncogenic apple fungicides
are in development, currently registered, or both. Copper, sulfur, and the
fungicide triadimefon are the primary currently registered non-oncogenic
alternatives. The committee's survey of compounds in development
identified a relatively high rate of product discovery for new apple
fungicides. At least nine compounds are now being field tested for control
of the major apple fungal diseases. Nearly all appear to be better than the
best commercially available standard for eradicating apple scab and
powdery mildew. However, more than half of these are poor in protecting
against apple scab. None of the new compounds was found to be as good
as the commercial standard for treating the seven summer diseases: bitter
rot, black rot, white rot, sooty blotch, fly speck, brooks spot, and black
pox.
The revocation of tolerances for all oncogenic apple fungicides in
OCR for page 126
126 REGULATING PESTICIDES IN FOOD
scenarios 1 and 2 would be felt hardest in the Southeast, where adequate
replacement fungicides currently do not exist for all diseases. In the
northeastern and north central growing regions, apple production also
currently relies on oncogenic fungicides; however, non-oncogenic re-
placements for the dominant fungal diseases, powdery mildew and apple
scab, are more readily available.
The 10-6 risk standard of scenarios 3 and 4 would initially preserve
tolerances for certain oncogenic fungicides on apples. It is likely, how-
ever, that over time, few oncogenic apple fungicides would retain
tolerances. This would occur when the use of agents that do not now
trigger the 10-6 risk criterion increases after tolerances for other fungi-
cides are revoked.
Even under scenario 4, which would initially revoke tolerances for only
two active ingredients, a substitution pattern could emerge in which risk
from residues of each remaining oncogenic apple fungicide would even-
tually exceed 10-6 and trigger tolerance revocation. In fact, revocation of
tolerances for the apple fungicides that currently present the greatest risk
could increase the total dietary risk if little-used, more potent fungicides
come into broader use. Several scenarios that could increase estimated
risk are presented below in the section on tolerance reduction. This
finding highlights the importance of ensuring that regulatory actions at the
crop level actually reduce risk, taking into account the probable actions of
growers to find and apply substitute chemicals.
Potato Fungicides
Nine oncogenic fungicides currently account for around 81 percent of
all expenditures and nearly 91 percent of all acre treatments for potato
diseases. Scenarios 1 and 2 would terminate uses of these agents,
eliminating all potato fungicide risk and reducing overall estimated risk by
2 percent.
The complete loss of all oncogenic fungicides currently used in potato
production would again have different regional impacts. Northeastern
potato growers currently apply around 55 percent of all oncogenic
fungicides on potatoes; midwestern growers apply around 33 percent.
Western potato growers apply less than 15 percent of the total, although
they plant more than 50 percent of all potato acres. Partly because blight
and other fungal diseases are not generally a problem in the West, potato
production has been moving there over the past 20 years.)
Most of the oncogenic fungicides used in potato production are applied
as preventatives on a routine basis. There is little field monitoring and
forecasting to make more accurate determinations of when fungicide
applications are necessary. It is increasingly possible, however, to use
OCR for page 127
COMPARING THE IMPACT OF THE SCENARIOS 127
information about weather and crop conditions to prescribe the use of
fungicides when most needed. This practice can reduce the use of
fungicides up to 30 percent in some areas in some years. It has not
become common practice, though, perhaps because growers lack confi-
dence in these forecasts.
Currently registered non-oncogenic potato fungicides are little used.
Generally these agents (triphenyltin hydroxide, metalaxyl, and sulfur) are
far less effective than currently used fungicides. Further, some alterna-
tives (triphenyltin hydroxide) pose other toxicological problems. Ridomil
(metalaxyl) shows some control of potato blight but is far more expensive
than the current fungicides of choice (EBDCs, chlorothalonil), is not
widely used, and is known to have led to pathogen resistance in other
crops.
Scenarios 3 and 4, which would apply to seven potato fungicides for
which risk estimates were possible, would have much different results
than scenarios 1 and 2. Scenario 3 would initially revoke tolerances for
only one fungicide, mancozeb, which accounts for about 68 percent of
potato fungicide risk and about 31 percent of acre treatments and
expenditures. Over time, however, scenario 3 would probably have the
same effect as scenarios 1 and 2. Because of the shortage of non-
oncogenic substitutes, the elimination of one oncogenic fungicide would
very likely increase the percentage of all acres that are treated with other
registered oncogenic compounds. The risks posed by these alternatives
would eventually exceed 10-6, leading to the loss of all tolerances for all
oncogenic potato fungicides.
Scenario 4, which revokes tolerances for a pesticide on a crop when the
risk derived from the processed form of the crop is greater than 10-6,
would revoke no tolerances for fungicides used on potatoes. The EPA's
Tolerance Assessment System (TAS) currently assumes that most pota-
toes are consumed in the nonprocessed form. They are usually cooked
fresh and consumed as baked, boiled, or fried potatoes. In the average
U.S. diet, the TAS calculates that less than 1 percent of all potatoes are
consumed in processed forms, such as chips or dried instant potatoes.
Accordingly, the risk from consumption of processed potatoes calculated
on the percentage of acres treated is less than 10-6 for all fungicides. Even
though the risk from at least one fungicide on whole potatoes exceeds
10-6, scenario 4 would revoke no tolerances for potato fungicides.
Tomato Fungicides
Scenarios 1 and 2 would revoke tolerances for 11 oncogenic active
ingredients accounting for approximately 50 percent of all acre treatments
and 51 percent of all tomato fungicide expenditures. All dietary oncogenic
OCR for page 128
128 REGULATING PESTICIDES IN FOOD
risk from tomatoes would be eliminated, and 11 of the 20 fungicides
registered for use on tomatoes would lose tolerances. Scenarios 3 and 4,
which would apply to 10 of these 11 oncogenic fungicides for which risk
estimates were possible, would revoke tolerances for only five active
ingredients but the impact would be nearly the same. The estimated
dietary oncogenic risk from fungicides on tomatoes would be reduced by
99 percent, and tolerances would be lost for active ingredients accounting
for 49 percent of all acre treatments and 51 percent of expenditures. As
with all the fungicide-crop combinations examined, the impact of scenar-
ios 3 and 4 would most likely continue past these initial tolerance
revocations. Tolerance revocations for the five compounds would result
in the increased use of other oncogenic tomato fungicides. As this
occurred, the risk from these replacement compounds would probably
exceed 10-6 and trigger tolerance revocations for them as well.
The midwestern and southeastern growing regions would feel the loss
of these oncogenic tomato fungicides the most. Growers in the Midwest,
East, and Southeast apply 85 percent of all oncogenic fungicides to
tomatoes, even though less than one-third of all tomatoes are grown in
these regions.2 Approximately 80 percent of these applications are made
in southeastern states. Nearly two-thirds of all tomatoes consumed in the
United States are grown in California, yet less than 10 percent of the total
pounds of oncogenic fungicides used on tomatoes are applied there.3
The committee's survey of non-oncogenic tomato fungicides in devel-
opment or in field testing indicates a moderate degree of activity in this
area. Nonetheless, the committee is unable to judge the relative efficacy
of these compounds. It appears that as many as eight new compounds are
currently being tested for control of the eight major tomato diseases,
however. This finding suggests that additional non-oncogenic alternative
fungicides for control of tomato diseases may be available within several
years.
Peanut Fungicides
Because TAS assumes no processed peanut food forms for the 53
oncogenic pesticides examined, the results of the scenarios on peanuts
differ from the committee's other crop-level analyses. Neither scenario 2
nor 4 would result in any lost tolerances. Because no single fungicide risk
exceeds 10-6, no tolerances would be revoked under scenario 3. Only
scenario 1 would revoke peanut fungicide tolerances.
Oncogenic compounds account for about 86 percent of all acre treat-
ments and 83 percent of all expenditures for fungicides on peanuts. Under
scenario 1, all benefits associated with these fungicides would be lost.
Because peanuts are grown entirely in the Southeast, and federal mar-
OCR for page 129
COMPARING THE IMPACT OF THE SCENARIOS 129
keting orders bar expansion or movement of peanut cultivation to other
regions, the impact of scenario 1 would be concentrated in these south-
eastern states.
The committee's survey of plant pathologists and examination of the
most recent test results in Fungicide and Nematicide Tests indicate that
there are three or four new fungicides that control major peanut diseases
as well as the currently used oncogenic fungicides.4 Although none of
these have tolerances for use on peanuts yet, it appears that non-
oncogenic fungicides could become available in the near future.
ALTERNATIVES TO THE SCENARIOS
On the basis of an analysis of the eight crops discussed, the potential
agricultural impact of all scenarios seems severe when measured by the
percentage of acre treatments and expenditures associated with revoked
tolerances. Efforts to eliminate oncogenic residues in fungicide-treated
crops could yield the greatest public health benefits, but could also force
significant adjustments in agricultural practices. In light of this finding, the
committee decided to explore the impact of cropwide tolerance reduction
as a way to reduce risk from fungicide residues in food.
Fungicides: A Special Case
Fungicide sales in 1985 totaled $269 million, or slightly more than 7
percent of all agricultural pesticides sales.5 In contrast to their small
market share, fungicides account for 60 percent of all estimated oncogenic
risk. They also provide significant benefits per acre for producers of
high-value fruit and vegetable crops. Many growers rely heavily on
fungicides, particularly in humid regions.
Implementation of any of the scenarios could present problems because
relatively few new fungicides have gained registration or been granted
tolerances in recent years. Although 14 percent of all R&D expeditures by
major U.S. pesticide manufacturers were spent on new fungicide research
and development- a commitment roughly twice the percentage of fungi-
cide sales- the fungicide market remains an elusive target for most major
agrichemical firms.6 Only four products registered since 1972 have gained
market shares greater than 5 percent for any food crop.7 In contrast,
several herbicides and insecticides introduced during the same time have
gained significant market shares, especially the pyrethroid insecticides for
use on cotton and vegetables and several new corn and soybean herbi-
cides.
Almost all newer fungicides are systemic in action; that is, the material
translocates to another part of the plant from where it was applied and
OCR for page 130
1 3 0 REG ULA TING PES TI CIDES IN FOOD
residues are generally found inside the plant rather than on its surface.
Because of this, systemic fungicides often encourage pathogen resistance.
On the other hand, fewer of the new fungicides are oncogenic, and those
that are oncogenic tend to be less potent. Older oncogenic fungicides tend
to be nonsystemic in action, and most have yet to develop any serious
resistance problems.
The problems of resistance and the lack of product diversity and depth
are complicated by the following circumstances peculiar to fungicides as
a class:
· Approximately 90 percent of all fungicides used in agriculture are
animal oncogens. Many of these compounds are substitutes for each
other. Regulatory action taken to reduce oncogenic risks from use of one
fungicide will often result in wider use of another oncogen. Indeed, unless
the sequence and timing of regulatory actions are carefully planned, total
dietary cancer risk from fungicide residues could rise.
· In general, raw commodity tolerances for most oncogenic fungicides
(except benomyl and some EBDCs on certain crops) were established in
the absence of modern residue chemistry data. These tolerances are
generally well above actual residue levels and tend to overstate risks from
residues of these fungicides on crops.
· The dietary risk from residues of these compounds in certain
processed foods is probably understated, however, because of the scar-
city of processing studies and consequent lack of processed-food toler-
ances. Complete data on residue concentration in processed foods exist
only for benomyl. Except for tolerances for captan on raisins and
mancozeb on raisins, rye, oats, and wheat, no oncogenic fungicide other
than benomyl has any section 409 tolerances. Yet it is certain that
fungicide residues concentrate in processed foods made from several
crops. Fungicide tolerances for residues in animal products are also
incomplete.
· The use of fungicides in agriculture is concentrated in humid regions
of the country, principally the East and particularly the Southeast.
Important regional implications need to be considered in evaluating
alternative regulatory policies.
The combination of these factors makes regulation of oncogenic risk
from fungicides a complex and delicate problem. The committee believes
that the Delaney Clause, as traditionally interpreted, is not responsive to
these considerations. Literal implementation could complicate EPA at-
tempts to reduce dietary cancer risk from fungicides.
The following analyses are the results of the committee's effort to better
understand the challenge confronting the EPA. The committee empha-
sizes the need for an approach to reduce fungicide risk that takes all the
OCR for page 131
COMPARING THE IMPACT OF THE SCENARIOS 131
above factors into account. The approach considered here cropwide
tolerance reduction differs significantly from the automatic tolerance
revocations by the scenarios analyzed above and from current EPA
practice.
Cropwide Tolerance Reduction
The most compelling argument for addressing the risk posed by all
oncogenic pesticides of a given class, such as fungicides, on a given crop
is the difficulty of ensuring that regulatory actions against a single
compound will reduce dietary risks. Addressing the risk posed by all
oncogenic agents in a single class used on a crop requires consideration of
different risk reduction measures than those typically used for one
compound. Strategies of tolerance reduction or even establishment of
zero tolerances have particular appeal here for several reasons:
· Zero and level-of-detection tolerances, which are tolerances set
when the only residue allowed is that undetectable at the limit of
detection, as well as tolerance reductions, have been applied in regulating
some of the oncogenic fungicides on tobacco and certain vegetable crops
exported to Canada and elsewhere.
· The EPA has used level-of-detection tolerances to bypass the
Delaney Clause (see the permethrin case study in Appendix C) and to
allow the use of an economically valuable oncogenic compound.
· Tolerance revocations for individual fungicides, implemented one
compound at a time, could actually cause estimated dietary risk to rise.
A cropwide tolerance reduction strategy is useful for fungicides be-
cause the market is dominated by oncogenic compounds that are ready
substitutes for each other; few viable non-oncogenic alternative fungi-
cides are in development; and tolerances for many of the widely used
older compounds are well above the levels that properly treated crops at
the time of harvest should have. In contrast, cropwide tolerance reduc-
tion is probably not the optimal strategy for reducing dietary oncogenic
risk from corn and soybean herbicides and cotton insecticides because
there are numerous non-oncogenic substitutes; risk is attributable to one
or two compounds; and tolerances, because they are generally newer,
more accurately reflect actual residue levels in food.
Table 5-4 presents the order in which the EPA will face regulatory
decisions on oncogenic fungicides. As described in Chapter 3, these dates
represent the time by which the EPA expects to have completed a special
review and registration standard for each of these oncogenic fungicides.
At the conclusion of these processes, the EPA will probably know with
relative certainty whether a pesticide is an animal oncogen and whether
OCR for page 132
132 REGULATING PESTICIDES IN FOOD
TABLE 5-4 Potential Short-Term Impact of the Delaney Clause on
Selected Fungicides
Fungicide
Date of Market
Possible Estimated Risk Share
Active Tolerance (% pounds
Ingredient Action Action Raw Processed Total applied)
Benomyl 1986 Rsa 3.42 x 10-5 7.91 x 10-5 1.13 x 10-4 10
Captafol 1987 sRb 4.34 x 10-4 1.59 x 10-4 5.94 x 10-4 5
EBDCs 35
Mancozeb 1987 RS 2.43 x 10-4 9.44 X 10-5 3.38 x 10-4
Maneb 1987 RS 3.90 x 10-4 5.22 x 10-5 4.42 x 10-4
Metiram 1987 RS 7.65 x 10-5 3.91 x 10-5 1.15 x 10-4
Zineb 1987 RS 4.71 x 10-4 2.45 x 10-4 7.17 x 10-4
Folpet 1987 RS 1.81 x 10-4 1.43 x 10-4 3.24 x 10-4 5
Captan 1988 SR 2.80 x 10-4 1.93 x 10-4 4.74 x 10-4 15
Chlorothalonil 1988 SR 1.89 x 10-4 4.82 x 10-5 2.37 x 10-4 10
NOTE: These risk estimates are derived using EPA data and methods described on pages
5(K6 and in Appendix B.
aRS is registration standard.
bSR is special review.
residues of that pesticide concentrate in processed foods. With such
information available, the EPA will have to decide whether or not to
revoke or modify tolerances under the Delaney Clause.
To determine whether tolerance revocations might increase the risk
presented by oncogenic fungicide residues in major fruit and vegetable
crops, the committee performed a simple analysis for benomyl and the
EBDCS. For selected crops, the percentage of acres treated with a
fungicide is assumed to be zero to simulate the effect of tolerance
revocation. Then, the shares of total acres treated with the likely
replacements are raised to compensate for the loss of the compound
eliminated. A new estimate of dietary risk is then computed.
All risk estimates analyzed below assume residues at the tolerance level,
incorporate TAS residue estimates for processed foods for which no sec-
tion 409 tolerances have been established, and are adjusted to reflect the
percentage of planted acres assumed to be treated with each fungicide.
BENOMYL
The fungicide benomyl is the first fungicide active ingredient registered
before 1978 for which complete residue and oncogenicity data are
available. Benomyl residues concentrate in several processed foods, and
OCR for page 133
COMPARING THE IMPACT OF THE SCENARIOS 133
TABLE 5-5 Estimated Change in Dietary Oncogenic Risk in Some
Crops from Revoking Benomyl Tolerances
Benomyl Acres
Treated with Dietary Oncogenic Risk (5~) in
Replacement
Fungicide (Jo) Apples Peanuts Potatoes Tomatoes
No replacement -4.8 -1.1 NA -1.5
Captan (50) +26.4 NA NA +3.2
Mancozeb (50)
Chlorothalonil (100) NA +14.8 NA +1.5
NOTE: NA means the pesticide is not used or is not considered a likely substitute
pesticide on that crop.
benomyl is a confirmed animal oncogen. If benomyl tolerances were
revoked pursuant to the Delaney Clause (residues are assumed to
concentrate in all crops examined), little or no reduction in risk would be
achieved (see Table 5-51. This is because, on the basis of current data,
benomyl generally poses a lower dietary risk than the most likely
substitute fungicides.
For each of the crops analyzed, substitution of other compounds for the
revoked benomyl tolerances raised the estimated dietary oncogenic risk.
Significant increases are evident in apples where benomyl-treated acres
were evenly divided between captan and the EBDC fungicide mancozeb.
Following this substitution, risk from apple fungicides rose more than 26
percent. In peanuts, dietary oncogenic risk would rise nearly 15 percent
if all acres now treated with benomyl were subsequently treated with
chlorothalonil.
EBDCs
Revocation of tolerances for the EBDC fungicides would yield mixed
results. For some crops the dietary risk from fungicides would rise, for
others it would stay about the same, and for some it would be reduced
significantly.
Captafol and chlorothalonil are considered the most likely replace-
ments for EBDC use on tomatoes. If the acres previously treated with
EBDCs were evenly divided between captafol and chlorothalonil, the risk
from fungicide residues in or on tomato products would rise almost 50
percent (see Table 5-61.
There are more replacement fungicides for use on apples than other
crops; thus, many more substitution scenarios could unfold. In all cases
examined by the committee, the risk from fungicide residues in apples
OCR for page 134
~34 REGULATING PESTICIDES IN FOOD
TABLE 5-6 Estimated Change in Dietary Oncogenic Risk in Some
Crops from Revoking EBDC Tolerances
EBDC Acres
Treated with Dietary Oncogenic Risk (%) in
Replacement
Fungicide (56) Apples Potatoes Tomatoes
Chlorothalonil (50) NA NA +46
Captan (100) - 18 NA NA
Captan (40) -6.7 NA NA
Captan (60) -33 NA
Benomy} (40) NA
Chlorothalonil (100) NA -62.1 NA
NOTE: NA means the pesticide is not used or is not considered a likely substitute
pesticide on that crop.
was reduced. This reduction was not always significant, however. When
captan was applied to 40 percent of EBDC acres and folpet to 60 percent,
the result was a 6.7 percent risk reduction. The greatest risk reduction, 33
percent, would occur if 60 percent of the former EBDC acres were treated
with captan and 40 percent with benomyl.
Revocation of EBDC tolerances achieved the greatest reduction in
dietary oncogenic risk for potatoes. The committee assumed that all acres
treated with EBDCs would be treated with chlorothalonil. This assump-
tion reduced estimated risk by 62 percent.
The point of these projections is that any regulatory strategy, whether
based on the Delaney Clause or any other standard, that attempts to
reduce dietary oncogenic risk from fungicides by addressing compounds
one at a time will not produce significantly lower risks. The one-pesticide-
at-a-time approach may actually increase risk for many widely consumed
crops that currently present significant dietary oncogenic risks. The
Delaney Clause could worsen this phenomenon if the EPA revoked
tolerances for oncogenic fungicides in the order in which data are
available to make such decisions. The committee concludes that reducing
tolerance levels for all oncogenic fungicides crop by crop will yield
greater risk reductions than sequential actions to control individual
fungicides across all of their uses. Furthermore, tolerance reductions and
even zero tolerances are viable options that could be applied to many
pesticides on many crops.
OCR for page 135
COMPARING THE IMPACT OF THE SCENARIOS 135
NOTES
1. U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1985. Agricultural Statistics 1985. Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Government Printing Office.
2. U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1984. Vegetables. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government
Printing Office.
3. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1986. Unpublished data. Washington, D.C.
4. Ritchie, D., ed. 1985. Fungicide and Nematicide Tests. Vol. 40. St. Paul, Minn.:
American Phytopathological Society.
5. National Agricultural Chemicals Association. 1985. P. 3 in Impact of Current Law on
Agricultural Pesticide Research Productivity. Washington, D.C. Photocopy.
6. Ibid., p. 13.
7. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1986. Unpublished data. Washington, D.C.
Representative terms from entire chapter:
acre treatments
