|
From Consumer Union Washington, D. C. Office
March 2, 1998
Public Information and Records Integrity Branch
Information Resources and Services Division (7502C)
Office of Pesticide Programs
Environmental Protection Agency
401 M. Street., SW
Washington, DC 20460
Re: OPP-00520
To whom it may concern:
Consumers Union submits the following comments on the draft brochure Pesticides on Food: Consumer Information.
The draft brochure is seriously flawed. Its appears that this document has been drafted to reassure, not to inform, consumers. On critical issues regarding the nature of pesticides, the health risks they pose and the way they are regulated, the draft equivocates, leaving readers with very little new information. The draft brochure implies that the new health standards of the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) are already in effect, when EPA has yet to implement the most important health provisions of the Act. When providing information about the new health standard and the way government protects consumers from pesticides, the brochure omits the crucial information that pesticides currently used on food may not meet the FQPA health standard.
Consumers Union recognizes that EPA faces several constraints in providing complex and comprehensive information about pesticides in an understandable and readable format for consumers. However, this brochure must be not only visually appealing, readable, and understandable, but it must also convey accurate, helpful and meaningful information. In its current form, it will not accomplish that goal. As a first step to improve the brochure, we offer the following suggestions:
1) Clarify that EPA has not yet fully implemented the significant food safety gains of the Food Quality Protection Act.
The brochure, as currently drafted, misleads consumers into believing that the new health-based standard under the Food Quality Protection Act has been implemented and is protecting children. Despite the significant food safety gains mandated by the Food Quality Protection Act, EPA has not fully implemented the Act. In fact, at the time EPA expects to publish this brochure, the agency will still be one year away from the August 1999 deadline for reassessing the first one-third of existing tolerances under the new FQPA health standard.
As a result, existing pesticide tolerances largely reflect pre-FQPA regulatory procedures which allowed the consideration of a pesticide's benefits, did not consider aggregate exposure to pesticides or whether pesticides shared a common mechanism of toxicity, and did not require an extra safety factor to protect children when there is uncertainty about the safety of a compound for infants and children. However, throughout the brochure, consumers are provided with false assurances, either through omission or use of obfuscatory language and presentation, that all consumers are protected from pesticides. To clarify the actual state of pesticide regulation, we recommend the following changes:
a) Omit reference to federal regulatory activities under the heading entitled "Are Pesticides harmful?"
The last sentence of the section entitled "Are Pesticides Harmful?" states - inaccurately, and in our view, inappropriately - that government standards "make sure we and our children are protected". This assertion is untenable given the finding of the 1993 National Research Council report Pesticides in the Diets of Infants and Children that existing regulations do not consider the unique vulnerabilities and exposures of children. While the FQPA requires that all pesticides be safe for children, it is misleading to suggest that kids are already protected since the Act hasn't yet been implemented. EPA should omit the last sentence of this section.
b) Clarify that FQPA will modernize federal pesticide regulations referenced under the heading "How does the government protect consumers from harmful amounts of pesticides".
The section "How does the government protect consumers from harmful amounts of pesticides?" substantially overstates the level of health protection provided to consumers under current tolerances. It omits key information that existing tolerances and labeling requirements were established under pre-FQPA tolerance setting practices and may not meet the new FQPA health standard. As a result, many existing pesticide tolerances reflect a pesticide's economic benefits, do not account for the vulnerability of children, reflect only dietary exposure, and do not take in to account whether pesticides share a common mechanism of toxicity. Consumers should not be led to believe that the protections referenced in this section reflect modern health standards. EPA should clarify this section by adding the following (or similar) sentence:
"Most of the existing limits on pesticides will be modernized over the next 8 years to meet an improved safety standard that better protects adults and kids from pesticides [See box : "A Tough New Safety Standard for Pesticides"].
c) Provide complete information on the safety improvements and implementation time frames of FQPA under the section "A Tough New Safety Standard for Pesticides."
As drafted, the box "A Tough New Safety Standard for Pesticides" is misleading. This section trumpets the safety improvements made by FQPA but fails to inform consumers that it hasn't yet been implemented. It also fails to provide information on the many ways the Act improved pesticide regulation and food safety. Instead, information on time frames for FQPA implementation is buried under a separate and apparently unrelated section - "For your information" - in the draft brochure. Based on the current format of the brochure, the
"For your information" section will appear on the reverse side of the brochure from the FQPA box making it less likely that consumers will actually read the text on FQPA implementation. Consumers should not be provided with false assurances that passage and enactment of FQPA alone has improved the safety of pesticides used on food.
The following language substituted for the current text of the box entitled "A Tough New Safety Standard for Pesticides" may clarify this section:
"In 1996, Congress passed and the President signed a new federal law that sets a tough new safety standard that EPA must follow before both new and existing pesticides are allowed for use on foods. The Food Quality Protection Act requires the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to consider the public's overall exposure to a pesticide (in food, water, homes, lawns, etc.,) when deciding whether pesticides can be used on food. EPA must also consider the human health impacts of exposure to several similar pesticides rather than looking at each pesticide on its own. In addition, every pesticide decision must protect infants and children because they are more vulnerable to the health effects of pesticides and consume more pesticides than adults."
To address Consumers Union's concern regarding lack of information on implementation the following language could be included as a subsection within, or following, the FQPA box :
"When will the new safety standard be in place?"
Most pesticides have not been reevaluated under the new safety standard. EPA has begun to review pesticides currently allowed for use on food that may cause the greatest risk to human health to determine whether these pesticides meet the new safety standard. By late 1999, EPA will decide how current limits on use of these pesticides must be changed to comply with the new safety standard. All other pesticides currently used on food will be reviewed over the next eight years, to make sure they also meet the new safety standard."
d) Clarify FQPA's benefits consideration provisions by redrafting the "For your information" section.
The section heading "For your information" tells readers nothing about the text that follows the heading and even suggests that it is unimportant. EPA should revise this heading to clarify that this section addresses EPA's ability to allow some pesticides to violate the safety standard in certain narrow circumstances. As mentioned above, the information on FQPA implementation in the "For your information" section should be included as part of the FQPA discussion and not within the section on benefits consideration.
Consumers Union also recommends that this section clarify that the prohibition on benefits consideration was an FQPA improvement. The brochure should reflect the fact that some existing pesticide tolerances were set at levels higher than safety considerations would allow because of their economic benefits. As such, this section should be modified to read as follows:
"Can pesticides exceed the new safety standard?Under the new law, EPA can allow pesticide residues to be higher than allowed under the new safety standard only if the pesticide plays a crucial role in protecting public health or avoiding a significant disruption in the nation's food supply. If EPA authorizes the use of a pesticide that does not meet the new safety standard, future versions of this brochure will include the name of the pesticide, information on how harmful it is and EPA's reason(s) for allowing its use on food. The brochure will also include a list of foods that may contain these pesticides and equally nutritious foods that do not contain these pesticides. This brochure will be updated each year so that you have the most current information on pesticides. "
2) Modify the section entitled "What are pesticides and why are they in food?" to provide more information on pesticides.
The section entitled "What are pesticides and why are they in food?" is unacceptable. It provides some useful information about pesticides but is not complete or balanced. It fails to directly convey what pesticides are (poisons) and the extent of their use on both food crops and to control pests in residential and business environments. In addition, this section implies that pesticide use is necessary for all food production and appears to promote the use of pesticides. Given the growth in the organic food industry and growing adoption of integrated pest management systems, this section should point out that many farmers are growing foods with limited or no pesticide use. The following substitute language may improve the balance and clarity of this section:
In the United States, we can enjoy a nutritious diet because we have a safe, abundant and affordable food supply. Pesticides used to protect food crops often contribute to this abundance.Pesticides are poisonous compounds that farmers apply to food crops to kill insects, weeds, and rodents that may cause crop damage. Food processors, shippers and retailers may also apply pesticides to foods to reduce the growth of pests such as bacteria and mold. In addition, these chemicals are sprayed in homes and on lawns and gardens to control pests.
Because farmers use pesticides, some residues may remain in or on produce, meat, milk, poultry or packaged food. Consumers may not know whether the food they buy contains pesticide residues because residues can't be seen, tasted or smelled. Some farmers produce food with no or few pesticides by relying on non-chemical pest control methods such as organic production or integrated pest management systems.
3) Modify section entitled "Are Pesticides Harmful?" to address children's health concerns and clarify why pesticides are potentially harmful.
The section "Are pesticides harmful" does not provide a clear and complete explanation about the harms of pesticides. It fails to clearly state why pesticides can be harmful to humans, omits information clearly describing the sources of exposure, and fails to inform consumers that risk rises as exposure increases. Moreover, the text on special risks to children describes the physical vulnerabilities of kids but does not describe their higher levels of exposure.
To improve clarity and completeness, the following text could be substituted for the existing text under "Are pesticides harmful?":
"Because pesticides are poisons, they can be harmful to people. Some pesticides have been shown to cause health problems such as birth defects, nerve damage, cancer and other toxic effects in laboratory animals. Because pesticides are commonly used in food production, in homes and on lawns and gardens, people may eat, drink and breathe pesticides from many sources. How harmful a pesticide is to humans depends on how toxic it is and how much of the pesticide a person consumes. In addition, infants and children may be more vulnerable to pesticides because their bodies are still developing and because they consume more pesticides relative to adults."
4) Modify the section entitled "Are foods grown with pesticides safe to eat?" to clarify that some pesticide residues cannot be removed.
The section "Are foods grown with pesticides safe to eat?" does not answer that question; it stresses the benefits of eating fruits and vegetables instead. While Consumers Union concurs that the health benefits of a diet high in fruits and vegetables exceed the risk from pesticide residues, the question that heads this section deserves an answer.
We recommend that this subsection make clear that while health risks posed by pesticide residues may be small, reducing pesticide exposure reduces risk. This would lead into the next section on ways consumers can reduce their exposure.
In addition, this section should clarify that consumers may be unable to reduce the level of pesticide residues in some foods (i.e., use of systemic pesticides). This section should also inform consumers that risks from pesticides can be reduced by eating a wide variety of fruits and vegetables. Because some foods tend to contain higher levels of pesticides than others, a varied diet can reduce exposure to those foods.
Finally, we recommend that this section not only inform consumers that there are ways to reduce the levels of residues on foods, but also to avoid pesticide residues by purchasing organic foods. Consumer Reports recently tested organic produce, conventionally grown produce and so-called "green labeled produce" for the presence of pesticide residues. Our results showed that while some foods labeled "organic" did contain low levels of residues, 75% of the organic produce were free of residues. By contrast, only 23% of the conventionally grown produce were residue-free. This suggests consumers are more likely to avoid pesticide residues by buying organic foods.
5) Modify the section "Tips for Reducing Pesticide Risk"
Consumers Union strongly supports the inclusion of this section in the brochure. In our publication, Consumer Reports, Consumers Union tries, where ever possible, to not only inform consumers about the relative value, safety and efficacy of the products (including food, non-food items and services) we test but also to provide practical suggestions that consumers can follow to address possible concerns raised by our product test results. EPA's suggestions to consumers on methods to reduce pesticide residues are consistent with this approach. However, we recommend that EPA modify some of the recommendations to provide more accurate and clear information to consumers.
a) Modify the subsection "Washing"
In our January article on organic food mentioned above, we included information from the Southwest Research Institute of San Antonio which found that washing fruits and vegetables with extremely diluted Palmolive liquid dish soap, rinsing them and then further preparing the food (peeling carrots, boiling green beans, etc.,) dramatically reduced pesticide residues on the foods tested. We encourage EPA to consider including information on this method in the subsection "Washing".
b) Modify the subsection "Cooking"
While we agree that cooking can reduce the level of pesticide residues on some foods, this section should make clear that cooking may not help reduce pesticide residues for all foods. Washing, peeling and cooking may not reduce residues on foods produced with systemic pesticides. The agency should also consider including in this subsection information on the tendency of some pesticide residues to concentrate, not diminish, through cooking and processing.
c) Modify subsection "Buying Organic Foods"
We strongly support the inclusion of this subsection within the brochure including the recommendation that consumers contact their grocer for more information about organic foods. While organic farms account for only 2% of U.S. crop acreage, market place incentives will encourage the growth in organic farming and increase the supply of foods produced with fewer chemical inputs. However, we recommend that the word "still" within the first sentence of this subsection be deleted. Its inclusion suggests that the purpose of the brochure is to mollify, not inform, consumers.
6) Maintain box entitled "National Organic Standards Under Development"
Consumers Union supports the inclusion of the box entitled "National Organic Standards Under Development". This box provides consumers with important information that while federal labeling and production standards are not yet in place, regulations are being developed. CU supports the development of national standards to ensure the integrity of organic foods and the truthful and non-misleading labeling of foods.
Consumers Union recommends that EPA include text in this subsection to inform consumers that the federal law authorizing the National Organic Program prohibits the use of most synthetic pesticides on any foods labeled "organic". This would help clarify the significance of this box in a brochure intended to inform consumers about pesticides and how they can reduce their exposure to them.
7) Use the active, not passive, voice.
The draft brochure contains many sentences written in the passive, rather than active, voice. The active voice more clearly conveys information to the reader. Consumers Union recommends that EPA eliminate, when possible, use of the passive voice and substitute more direct and clear statements. The following example is just one of the many statements that EPA should modify for clarity:
Statement: Pesticides are substances used to help lessen damage and loss caused by pests such as insects, rodents and weeds. Pesticides are also used to protect food from pests such as mold and bacteria during shipment and storage. (under "What are pesticides and why are they on food?)Change to: Pesticides are poisonous compounds that farmers apply to food crops to kill insects, weeds, and rodents that may cause crop damage. Food processors, shippers and retailers may also apply pesticides to foods to reduce the growth of pests such as bacteria and mold.
8) Replace euphemisms in the text with clear and direct language.
Euphemisms occur throughout the text of the draft brochure. They may confuse the reader and obscure the meaning of the information provided. EPA should replace these words with text that more clearly conveys the intended message. Consumers Union recommends the following changes:
a) When the word "substances" describes pesticides, replace it with "poisons", "poisonous substances" or "toxic substances". The government does not regulate all substances. But, EPA does regulate pesticides because of their toxic nature. Use of the word "substance" does not adequately convey this distinction.
b) Replace "Pesticide residues can move through our environment and may reach us in a variety of ways through food, water and air" with "Because pesticides are commonly used in food production, in homes and on lawns and gardens, people can eat, drink and breathe pesticides from many sources."
c) Replace "intake" with "consume" or other words that more accurately portray the ways in which people are exposed to pesticides (i.e., eat, drink, breathe, absorb).
9) Conduct focus group research to determine which set of graphics are more appealing to consumers.
Consumers Union is aware that the graphics within the brochure have been the subject of controversy. CU encourages the agency to continue testing the two sets of proposed graphics (photos and cartoons) as well as other graphics with focus groups to determine what type of graphic is most appealing to consumers and will encourage consumers to read the text of the brochure.
Conclusion
Consumers Union believes that EPA must significantly modify the brochure to address the shortcomings we have identified in these comments. While the draft brochure addresses the economic benefits of pesticide use, it obfuscates the risks of pesticides in the food supply. As a result, in the absence of significant changes, this document will not comply with the directive of the FQPA to provide a "discussion of the risks and benefits of pesticide chemical residues in or on food purchased by consumers." We urge EPA to redraft this brochure to comply with the requirements of the law. We appreciate this opportunity to provide input on the Consumer Right to Know brochure "Pesticides on Food: Consumer Information".
Sincerely,
Jeannine Kenney
Policy Analyst for Pesticides
