Overview
Title
Ethaboxam; Pesticide Tolerances
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has said it's okay for a tiny bit of a special kind of bug spray called ethaboxam to be left on sugar beets because they've checked and found it's safe. They made this change because a company asked them to, and they made sure it was safe for everyone, even kids.
Summary AI
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established new tolerances for the residues of the pesticide ethaboxam on sugar beet roots, allowing a maximum of 0.03 parts per million. This decision was made after evaluating the safety of the pesticide under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), ensuring that there's a reasonable certainty of no harm to the general population, including infants and children. The EPA's ruling was in response to a petition by Valent U.S.A. LLC and is consistent with similar residue limits (MRLs) set by Canada. The new rule is effective as of February 9, 2021.
Abstract
This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of ethaboxam in or on beet, sugar, roots. Valent U.S.A. LLC., requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The document from the Federal Register establishes new pesticide tolerances for ethaboxam residues on sugar beet roots. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has set a maximum allowable residue level at 0.03 parts per million (ppm). This regulation was requested by Valent U.S.A. LLC and finalizes the tolerance levels as deemed safe under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). As of February 9, 2021, this new regulation is effective.
General Summary
The regulation primarily addresses the issue of pesticide residue limits on agricultural produce, specifically sugar beet roots. The EPA's decision to allow a higher residue level of ethaboxam is claimed to be based on safety assessments ensuring there's "reasonable certainty" of no harm to humans, including sensitive groups like infants and children. The rule aligns with Canada's efforts to regulate similar pesticide limits, promoting consistency across North American agricultural trade standards.
Significant Issues and Concerns
One pressing concern lies in the document's complexity due to the references to scientific assessments, legal provisions, and regulatory terminologies. Readers not familiar with these specifics might find it challenging to fully understand the document's implications without additional context.
Moreover, while the EPA raises the tolerance level from 0.01 ppm to 0.03 ppm, the justification pivoting on field trial data is not thoroughly detailed. Further clarification on how these trials substantiate safety could enhance transparency for skeptical stakeholders.
The document offers procedural guidance on how to object or request a hearing about the regulation but stops short of providing an easily understandable, step-by-step explanation, potentially leaving stakeholders unclear on how to proceed.
Public Impact
In general terms, the public's confidence in the safety of sugar beet consumption should remain heightened, given the EPA's assurance of no attributable harm from the increased pesticide level. Nonetheless, the overall lack of transparency might cultivate doubt among individuals sensitive to changes in food safety regulations.
Impact on Stakeholders
For agricultural producers and pesticide manufacturers, this regulation could bring about positive impacts by ensuring their operations are legally compliant while aligning with international standards. This harmonization can facilitate smoother, unchallenged trade across borders, especially with Canada.
Conversely, stakeholders involved in food safety advocacy might find the decision less favorable given the opacity around safety assessment details. Ensuring robust safety measures is critical, and information gaps may lead to critiques of the regulatory process or heightened calls for more exhaustive evaluations.
Conclusion
To sum up, this regulation attempts to maintain a balance between agricultural viability and public health safety. While positive strides are acknowledged in standardizing pesticide regulations, complexities in the language and insufficient clarity on critical decisions present areas requiring attention for greater stakeholder assurance and public trust.
Issues
• Section I.C. provides instructions on filing objections and requests for hearings but could benefit from clearer, step-by-step guidance for individuals unfamiliar with the process.
• The document mentions the use of a high-performance liquid chromatography method for residue analysis but does not provide detailed information on the availability or cost of this method for stakeholders.
• The document references several previous Federal Register notices and documents (e.g., August 8, 2017, rule at 82 FR 36086) but does not summarize their relevant content, which could make the text difficult to follow without cross-referencing those documents.
• The technical terminology and references to specific sections of the FFDCA can be challenging for readers without a legal or scientific background.
• There is a lack of explicit justification for the increase in tolerance level from 0.01 ppm to 0.03 ppm, aside from a mention of field trial data, which might benefit from further explanation for transparency.