Overview
Title
Cyprodinil; Pesticide Tolerances
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The EPA has set a new rule that allows a specific amount of a pesticide called cyprodinil to be on cranberries to make sure it's safe to eat, and this level is small enough not to harm anyone, including kids.
Summary AI
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established a new regulation allowing a specific tolerance level for the pesticide cyprodinil on cranberries. This rule, requested by the Interregional Research Project No. 4 (IR-4), sets the maximum permitted residue level on cranberries at 0.4 parts per million to ensure safety in compliance with the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. EPA's assessment concluded that there is a reasonable certainty of no harm to humans, including children, from this exposure level. The regulation ensures that all necessary safety and risk assessments have been properly conducted and that the new tolerance standard does not exceed the established safe limits.
Abstract
This regulation establishes a tolerance for residues of cyprodinil in or on cranberry. The Interregional Project Number 4 (IR- 4) requested this tolerance under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
General Summary
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has introduced a new regulation concerning the pesticide cyprodinil, particularly its application to cranberries. This regulation establishes a permitted tolerance level for cyprodinil residues on cranberries at 0.4 parts per million (ppm). The rule was requested by the Interregional Project Number 4 (IR-4) and evaluated under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) to ensure public safety. The EPA's assessment indicates that this level is considered safe for humans, including sensitive groups like infants and children, following comprehensive risk and safety evaluations.
Significant Issues and Concerns
One of the main issues with the document is the technical complexity in describing the calculations and assumptions behind the percentages of crops treated (PCT). This information can be difficult for a layperson to understand without prior expertise or background in agricultural science or regulatory standards. Additionally, while the EPA discusses its safety findings extensively, the document could improve transparency regarding why certain studies, like the subchronic inhalation toxicity study, were waived.
Furthermore, there are concerns related to differences between U.S. tolerance levels and international standards set by the Codex Alimentarius Commission. Such discrepancies might impact international trade or create confusion among exporters and importers handling cranberries.
The document also outlines the procedure for filing objections or requesting hearings. This process involves referencing other legal documents and may be perplexing for those unfamiliar with regulatory procedures, presenting a barrier for stakeholders who wish to engage in the regulatory process.
Impact on the Public and Stakeholders
For the general public, particularly consumers of cranberries, this regulation assures them that the pesticide levels on cranberries entering the market have been evaluated for safety under rigorous standards. This might enhance consumer confidence in food safety.
However, for agricultural producers, the regulation has practical implications in terms of ensuring that their products meet the new pesticide residue limits. Though the regulation sets a clear maximum residue level, it does not delve into how producers can achieve these levels or improve agricultural practices to reduce cyprodinil residues. This could potentially necessitate adjustments in pesticide use or farming methods, potentially affecting production costs.
For international stakeholders, such as importers and exporters, discrepancies between the U.S. standards and Codex MRLs are noteworthy. These differences could necessitate additional compliance checks and create logistical challenges in trade practices, especially for stakeholders dealing with multiple international markets.
Finally, the procedural details regarding how objections or requests for hearings should be submitted, with a preference for electronic submissions, highlight an ongoing shift toward digital processes within regulatory frameworks. This transition could disadvantage those without reliable internet access or those unfamiliar with electronic systems, thus emphasizing the need for clear guidelines and support for electronic and physical submissions.
Issues
• The document mentions an amendment to tolerance levels but does not clearly articulate the practical implications for agricultural producers or the expected outcomes in terms of pesticide residue reduction or safety enhancements.
• Language regarding the calculations and assumptions for percentage of crops treated (PCT) is technical and may be difficult for non-experts to understand.
• The process for filing objections or requesting hearings (referenced in other documents) might be confusing for individuals who are not familiar with legal or regulatory procedures.
• Potential concerns regarding whether basing U.S. tolerance levels on different assumptions or data than international standards (Codex MRLs) could impact trade or create confusion for exporters and importers.
• The issue of electronic versus physical submission for objections/hearings could be ambiguous, particularly for stakeholders without easy Internet access.
• The reasons for waiving the subchronic inhalation toxicity study could be articulated more clearly, offering better transparency into decision-making.
• Specific percentages of crops treated are detailed, but they might not be intuitive to a broad audience without context or explanation of why those percentages were selected.