Overview
Title
Orthosulfamuron; Pesticide Tolerances
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The EPA has made new rules about using a chemical called orthosulfamuron on certain foods, like almond shells and some fruits. They checked to make sure it's safe for people to eat these foods.
Summary AI
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established new tolerances for residues of the herbicide orthosulfamuron on certain agricultural commodities like almond hulls, tree nuts, and small fruit vine climbing plants, excluding fuzzy kiwifruit. Nichino America, Inc. requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). This decision follows a review of scientific data, ensuring that the pesticide is safe for humans, including sensitive groups like infants and children. The regulation is effective as of February 17, 2021, while any objections or requests for a hearing are due by April 19, 2021.
Abstract
This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of orthosulfamuron (1-(4,6-dimethoxypyrimidin-2-yl)-3-{[2- (dimethylcarbamoyl)phenyl]csulfamoyl{time} urea) in or on Almond, hulls; Fruit, small, vine climbing, except fuzzy kiwifruit, subgroup 13-07F; Nut, tree, group 14-12. Nichino America, Inc. requested tolerances for these commodities under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
This document from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) establishes new tolerances for the herbicide orthosulfamuron, specifically for its use on almond hulls, tree nuts, and small fruit vine climbing plants, excluding fuzzy kiwifruit. Nichino America, Inc. requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). The EPA's analysis ensures that this herbicide is safe for humans, including vulnerable populations such as infants and children. The regulation is active as of February 17, 2021, with a deadline for objections set for April 19, 2021.
Key Issues and Concerns
Several aspects of the document raise concerns. The language and terminology used are highly technical, which may alienate readers without a background in pesticide regulations. Acronyms like PCT (percent crop treated), EDWCs (estimated drinking water concentrations), and others are used without immediate definitions, creating confusion. This could hinder transparency and public engagement, as understanding the content may require specialized knowledge.
Another significant concern is the potential complexity of the objection and hearing request process, which might deter stakeholders from participating. While the document details this process, it remains bureaucratically dense, potentially barring meaningful input from the public or concerned parties.
Public Impact
This regulation potentially impacts a wide range of stakeholders, including agricultural producers, food manufacturers, and the general public consuming these commodities. For consumers, the regulation promises safety in pesticide residues, maintaining health standards, particularly for sensitive groups like children.
Impact on Stakeholders
Agricultural and Food Industries: The introduction of these regulations might streamline production processes, as tolerated levels provide clarity and assurance. However, there could also be increased scrutiny and pressure to meet these regulatory standards, impacting operational practices.
Consumers: By establishing safety limits, consumers gain confidence in food safety. However, the document lacks discussion on environmental impacts, which could influence consumer perception if these weren't adequately safeguarded.
EPA and Regulatory Bodies: This document showcases the EPA’s commitment to health safety, yet the lack of mention of environmental impacts or potential conflicts of interest with Nichino America, Inc. could affect its credibility and impartiality in the public's eyes.
Overall, this regulatory document attempts to strike a balance between facilitating agricultural practices and safeguarding public health. However, its effectiveness may be hampered by its technical nature and lack of accessibility for broader public engagement. The regulation’s real impact will depend on how well these standards protect consumers while ensuring compliance is manageable for agricultural sectors.
Issues
• The document contains very technical language and complex terminology that might be difficult for individuals without specific expertise in pesticide regulations to understand, such as the explanations of toxicological evaluations and exposure assessments.
• The use of acronyms like PCT, EDWCs, PRZM-GW, cRfD, MOE, and FQPA without immediately clear definitions can cause confusion for readers not familiar with these terms.
• While there is detail on how citizens can file objections or hearing requests, the process seems potentially complex and could deter participation from concerned individuals due to bureaucratic complexity.
• The document closely follows a legal and formal style, which might be necessary for official processes but reduces accessibility for a general audience who may be impacted by the regulations.
• The document does not appear to discuss any potential conflicts of interest, despite mentioning that Nichino America, Inc. requested these tolerances. This could raise concerns about favoritism towards this company.
• There is no mention of the potential environmental impacts explicitly, which might be an area of concern given the nature of EPA's work and the potential widespread use of substances like orthosulfamuron.
• The document does not explore implications or alternatives to setting these pesticide tolerances, potentially missing a more comprehensive view of its effects.