FR 2021-02648

The document under consideration is an announcement from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) about a petition regarding pesticide chemical residues on various food commodities. This petition proposes the establishment or modification of regulations and is open for public comments until March 26, 2021. The EPA is inviting the public to share their thoughts, especially concerning potential environmental justice issues. The petition includes specific requests such as tolerances for the insecticide pyrifluquinazon on persimmons and exemptions for the fungicide Kosakonia cowanii on all foods.

Summary of the Document

The main focus of this document is the EPA's receipt of a pesticide petition that might lead to changes in how pesticide residues are regulated in food products. The intent is to ensure that any changes in pesticide residue tolerances do not negatively impact public health. The petition includes requests for establishing tolerances for certain chemicals and exemptions from such requirements for others. The EPA's current action is to seek public input before making any regulatory adjustments.

Significant Issues and Concerns

Several issues arise from this document.

1. Lack of Detailed Justification: The document does not provide a detailed explanation or justification for why the petition was filed or what specific benefits or drawbacks these changes might bring. This lack of transparency may cause concern among those skeptical about the existing pesticides’ regulation system.

2. Technical Language: The document is laden with technical jargon, which might not be easily understood by those outside the fields of agricultural science or regulatory affairs. This language barrier might limit meaningful public participation in the comment process, as many might not comprehend the full implications of the petition's proposals.

3. Environmental Justice Considerations: While the EPA invites input on potential environmental justice issues, the document does not provide specific guidelines or strategies on how these concerns will be mitigated. This could be seen as a gap in addressing the implications for communities disproportionately affected by environmental hazards.

4. Unclear Timeline and Outcomes: Although the EPA is seeking public comments, there is no clear timeline or explanation of what subsequent steps will follow the comment period. Without a clear process, stakeholders are left uncertain about when or how their concerns will be addressed or when decisions will be made.

5. Complexity in Comment Submissions: The detailed instructions for submitting comments, particularly those involving Confidential Business Information (CBI), might be daunting for smaller entities or individuals unfamiliar with regulatory processes. This complexity could deter contributions from important but less resourced voices in the public.

Potential Impact on the Public

Broadly, the document may impact the public by adjusting the regulatory framework governing food safety and pesticide residues in the commodities they purchase and consume. An effective and well-considered regulation can safeguard public health but could also affect food prices and availability if changes lead to modifications in pesticide use practices.

Impact on Specific Stakeholders

• Agricultural Producers and Pesticide Manufacturers: These stakeholders may benefit from clarity in regulatory standards and the potential for expanded or modified use of certain pesticides. However, new regulations might require changes to current practices, potentially increasing their operational costs.

• Consumers: If resolved thoughtfully, these regulatory changes might offer better protection against harmful levels of pesticide residues, enhancing public health. Conversely, changes that increase production costs could lead to higher food prices.

• Environmental and Advocacy Groups: Such groups may view this as an opportunity to influence pesticide policy towards more sustainable practices. However, they may also be concerned about being largely unheard if the comment process is burdensome or opaque.

In summary, while the petition process provides a pathway for potentially beneficial regulatory updates, it also presents several challenges related to transparency, accessibility, and engagement. The EPA’s careful consideration and handling of these factors will be crucial in achieving a balanced outcome that both protects public health and considers stakeholders’ interests.