Overview
Title
Benzovindiflupyr; Pesticide Tolerances
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The EPA has set new rules about how much of a chemical called benzovindiflupyr can be on certain foods like blueberries, ginseng, and parts of sugar beets. This is to make sure these foods are safe to eat, and they checked that it won't hurt anyone, including kids.
Summary AI
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has issued a final rule that sets limits for the amount of benzovindiflupyr, a pesticide residue, allowed in lowbush blueberries, ginseng, and sugar beet parts. This rule is based on safety evaluations conducted by the EPA which determined that these limits pose no health risk to the general public, including children. The rule followed requests from research groups and was established under the guidelines of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). The new tolerances for benzovindiflupyr are effective immediately and are designed to align with safety and agricultural standards.
Abstract
This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of benzovindiflupyr in or on lowbush blueberries, ginseng, and sugar beet roots, leaves, and dried pulp. Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4) and Syngenta Crop Protection requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The recent publication from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the Federal Register addresses new pesticide tolerances for the chemical benzovindiflupyr. This rule establishes specific limits on the amount of this chemical that can remain on lowbush blueberries, ginseng, and parts of sugar beets after being treated with pesticides. The rule was requested by organizations including Syngenta Crop Protection and is grounded in the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
General Summary
This regulation is a response to the need for setting safe tolerance levels for benzovindiflupyr, ensuring that residues from pesticide use remain within limits that are considered safe for human consumption. The EPA has conducted a thorough evaluation to ascertain these limits, concluding there is a reasonable certainty that the established tolerances pose no health risks to the general public.
Significant Issues or Concerns
One of the most notable aspects of this document is its technical nature, which may challenge general comprehension. The text frequently references specific legal codes, documents, and docket numbers without providing simplified explanations. This includes terms like aPAD (Acute Population Adjusted Dose), cPAD (Chronic Population Adjusted Dose), and MOE (Margin of Exposure) which are not clearly explained within the context, making it difficult for a lay audience to follow.
Additionally, the document references multiple past documents and legal frameworks, such as earlier snapshots of Federal Register notices, without a concise summary, potentially leading to confusion about how these references interconnect with the current rule.
Impacts on the Public
Broadly, this document impacts the public by ensuring that the food products they consume adhere to safety standards that prevent potential harm from pesticide residuals. Ensuring safety standards can foster trust in the agricultural production processes, and in turn, the safety of food items available to consumers. However, the technical nature and legal language used throughout the document could limit understanding among those without a background in regulatory affairs or agriculture.
Stakeholder Impacts
For agricultural producers and pesticide manufacturers, this regulation provides clarity on regulatory compliance requirements, potentially affecting growing practices and pesticide application. Food manufacturers and retailers may similarly benefit from a clear understanding of pesticide limitations to guarantee that their products meet quality and safety standards. The establishments of such tolerances can positively affect stakeholders by potentially reducing regulatory complaints when international residue limits are harmonized, but only if the limits align with industry practices and consumer safety expectations.
Conversely, for stakeholders advocating for more stringent pesticide controls, the rule may be seen as insufficient in addressing broader environmental or health concerns associated with pesticide use. The EPA's response to public comments within the document acknowledges these concerns but adheres to the current legal framework, indicating a continued reliance on existing methodologies for evaluating pesticide safety.
Issues
• The document uses technical terms and references specific sections of legal codes (e.g., 40 CFR part 178, FFDCA) without offering plain language explanations, which may be difficult for the general public to understand.
• The document includes references to various other Federal Register notices and docket numbers without summarizing the relevant points, potentially hindering comprehension for those unfamiliar with previous documents.
• The document addresses multiple docket IDs and petitions from different dates, which may be confusing without a clear timeline or context for readers not familiar with the history of the petitions.
• The discussion on 'Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety' includes terms like aPAD, cPAD, and MOE without explaining them clearly, which might be difficult for lay readers to follow.
• The section on 'Statutory and Executive Order Reviews' lists multiple executive orders without explaining the implications or relevance of these orders to the rule, potentially obscuring the document's impact on policy.