Overview
Title
Clopyralid; Pesticide Tolerances
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The EPA made some new rules to make sure a weed-killer called clopyralid is not too much in certain fruits and veggies, so it's safe to eat; these rules mainly tell farmers and food makers how much is okay.
Summary AI
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established new regulations for residues of the herbicide clopyralid on certain agricultural products, such as caneberries, bulb onions, and intermediate wheatgrass. These regulations are part of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and are intended to ensure that residue levels are safe for human consumption. The EPA assessed the safety of clopyralid residues and found no significant risk to the general population, including infants and children. No international residue limits have been set for clopyralid, and this regulation directly impacts growers, food processors, and retailers but does not affect states, tribal governments, or impose unfunded mandates.
Abstract
This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of clopyralid in or on the caneberry subgroup 13-07A, the bulb onion subgroup 3-07A, and intermediate wheatgrass bran, forage, germ, grain, middling, shorts, and straw. Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4) requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The document from the Federal Register issued by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announces the establishment of certain pesticide tolerances for clopyralid residues on various agricultural products, including caneberries, bulb onions, and different forms of intermediate wheatgrass. This regulation falls under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) framework, aiming to ensure that the chemical residues remaining on food products do not pose health risks to consumers.
General Summary
Clopyralid is a herbicide used in agriculture, and this regulation seeks to define the permissible levels of clopyralid residues on specific food items. The EPA's evaluation process included a comprehensive risk assessment which concluded that these new tolerances do not present significant risk to the general population or vulnerable groups such as infants and children. This decision was contingent on scientific data indicating a reasonable certainty of no harm due to "aggregate exposure," which includes dietary and environmental exposure but excludes occupational exposure.
Significant Issues and Concerns
Although the document aims to provide clarity on allowable pesticide levels, the regulatory language might be challenging for non-specialists to comprehend. It uses terminologies such as "aggregate exposure," "chronic PAD," and "MOE," which can be unfamiliar to readers without scientific or legal backgrounds. Furthermore, it assumes prior understanding of intricate regulatory processes and past rulemakings, potentially alienating those unfamiliar with such references.
The procedural details for filing objections or hearing requests follow a highly structured format, following specific regulations. This could be complex for individuals not accustomed to bureaucratic or legal terminologies. Additionally, the document refers back to prior tolerance assessments without providing sufficient background, potentially leaving readers without context.
Impact on the Public
The public's primary concern is the safety of the food supply. By establishing these tolerances, the EPA is ensuring that the food on supermarket shelves complies with safety standards, thereby maintaining public health protection as a priority. The absence of international residue limits for clopyralid suggests that these regulations are borne of domestic concerns and standards.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
This regulation directly affects agricultural producers, food processors, food handlers, and retailers, requiring them to adhere to these new pesticide residue limitations. Compliance with these standards might require them to adjust their current practices, potentially incurring additional costs or operational changes.
For consumers, the regulation serves as a reassurance that the government is actively monitoring and controlling chemical residues in the food supply. However, the lack of public engagement, as evidenced by no comments being received on the proposed rule, raises questions about public awareness and involvement in such regulatory processes.
Overall, while these regulations bring forth critical safety measures, enhancing the food safety framework, they also highlight the need for clearer communication strategies to ensure broader understanding and involvement from all stakeholders involved.
Issues
• The document uses technical terms such as 'aggregate exposure', 'chronic PAD', and 'MOE', which may not be easily understood by lay readers, potentially limiting accessibility to non-experts.
• There is an assumption of the reader's familiarity with the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) and specific U.S.C codes, which may not be the case for all readers.
• The document references past rulemakings and assumes familiarity with previous decisions and findings, which might not be accessible to all readers.
• The language concerning the procedure for filing objections or hearing requests in accordance with 40 CFR part 178 is highly procedural and may be complex for those unfamiliar with regulatory processes.
• The document does not provide an explanation for why no comments were received in response to the notice of filing, leaving out potential context on public engagement or lack thereof.