Overview
Title
Ethiprole; Pesticide Tolerances
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The EPA has decided it's okay to have a tiny bit of a chemical called ethiprole on sugarcane that comes from other countries because they checked and said it's safe for everyone, including little kids. Bayer CropScience asked for this decision, and it starts at the end of December 2024.
Summary AI
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established a rule allowing a specific level of the pesticide ethiprole on imported sugarcane, upon request from Bayer CropScience LP, in accordance with the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). The rule, effective from December 27, 2024, sets a maximum residue level of 0.07 parts per million. This comes after a review showing no expected harm to the general public, including infants and children, from exposure to this pesticide. The rule does not require any proposed rule issuance, nor does it impact states or tribal governments.
Abstract
This regulation establishes a tolerance (without U.S. registrations) for residues of ethiprole in or on sugarcane. Bayer CropScience LP requested this tolerance under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
General Overview
The document from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) outlines a new regulation setting a permissible level for the pesticide ethiprole on imported sugarcane. This action, requested by Bayer CropScience LP, is set under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) to ensure consumer safety while facilitating international agricultural trade. The rule, effective from December 27, 2024, establishes a residue tolerance level of 0.07 parts per million, which is deemed safe based on current scientific assessments.
Significant Issues and Concerns
A notable point of concern is the document's allowance for ethiprole, a pesticide not registered in the United States, on imported crops. Some stakeholders might perceive this as an endorsement of foreign agricultural products over domestic ones, potentially raising consternation among U.S. producers. The regulation is complex in its language and includes technical jargon, such as "OECD MRL calculator" and "cPAD", likely unfamiliar to members of the general public, making comprehension potentially challenging.
Another concern is the decision to reduce the safety factor for children from tenfold to a single fold with insufficient layman explanations. Such reductions in safety benchmarks might unsettle parents and policymakers unless accompanied by thorough, understandable justifications. Moreover, the document details the process for objections or hearing requests using intricate regulatory language that could deter public participation or response.
Public Impact
Broadly, the rule aims to ensure food safety while accommodating international trade needs. This regulation seems to reassure consumers of low health risks from consuming sugarcane adhering to the specified pesticide tolerance. It implies no harm will come to infants and children—a key demographic for whom safety is a primary concern according to the EPA's assessments.
However, the general public might feel disconnected or even skeptical of such assurances without accessible explanations of the risks and the adequacy of safety measures in straightforward terms. Additionally, those keen to engage with this regulatory process might be discouraged by the complex and potentially opaque procedural instructions.
Impact on Stakeholders
For the agricultural sector, specifically domestic producers, this regulation could stir unease over competition with non-domestic crops possibly perceived as unfairly advantaged. The lack of applied U.S. registrations and the acceptance of foreign tolerance levels might raise economic and trade fairness issues.
Conversely, for international stakeholders, especially those aligning production with U.S. import standards, this rule reflects a potentially positive alignment towards streamlined agricultural trade, possibly strengthening market access and export opportunities.
Conclusion
While the regulation promises consumer safety and sustains the import of sugarcane under safe conditions, it balances between fostering international trade and addressing domestic interests. Key to its successful integration will be transparent communication and robust stakeholder engagement to mitigate potential misunderstandings or concerns surrounding its impacts. Ensuring the public and all stakeholders fully grasp the implications and safety measures in a clear, concise manner will be fundamental to fostering trust and compliance with this regulation.
Issues
• The regulation establishes a tolerance for ethiprole without U.S. registrations, which could imply endorsement or facilitation of non-domestic products, potentially affecting U.S. agricultural producers without clear benefit to them.
• The document uses technical jargon and complex terms which may not be easily understood by the general public, such as 'OECD MRL calculator', 'aPAD', and 'cPAD'.
• There is a mention of a reduction in safety factors for infants and children ('FQPA safety factor were reduced from 10X to 1X') without clear, layman-friendly explanation or justification why such a reduction is safely warranted.
• The process for filing an objection or hearing request is described in a complex manner which may be difficult for laypersons to navigate, especially for those not familiar with regulatory language or processes.
• The document discusses cumulative risk assessments using scientific frameworks and methodologies that may not be comprehensible to those without a technical background.
• The declaration of 'no major rule' under the Congressional Review Act may be contested due to potential impacts on international trade and agricultural economics, but the reasoning is not fully spelled out.
• The document outlines safety determinations and risk assessments but could use more explicit presentation of potential health impacts or real-world examples to better communicate risks to public health.