Overview
Title
Receipt of a Pesticide Petition Filed for Residues of Pesticide Chemicals in or on Various Commodities (December 2024)
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The EPA is looking at a request to change the rules about how much of a particular chemical can be on foods like apples and cherries. They want people to tell them what they think by April 10, 2025, before they decide.
Summary AI
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has received a pesticide petition requesting new or modified regulations for pesticide residues on various foods. The public is invited to comment on these requests by April 10, 2025, through the regulations.gov website. The petition specifically aims to establish tolerance levels for the chemical Pyriofenone in foods like apples and cherries. The EPA has not yet fully assessed the petition's data and will consider public input before making a final decision.
Abstract
This document announces the Agency's receipt of an initial filing of a pesticide petition requesting the establishment or modification of regulations for residues of pesticide chemicals in or on various commodities.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The document from the Federal Register, published by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), outlines a new petition concerning pesticide regulations. The EPA has received a request to establish or modify rules for pesticide residues, specifically for the chemical Pyriofenone, on various food commodities like apples and cherries. The agency is inviting public comments on this matter by April 10, 2025, through the regulations.gov platform before making any determinations.
Summary of the Document
This EPA document announces that pesticide producers have filed a petition for establishing allowed levels of Pyriofenone residue on certain foods. The main goal is to ensure that residues of this pesticide chemical are present within safe and acceptable levels, which is crucial for protecting consumer health. The decision-making process involves public input, which is why the EPA is seeking comments from the public. The document notes that the EPA is yet to fully assess the data presented in the petition, indicating a preliminary stage in the regulatory process.
Significant Issues or Concerns
Several issues are noteworthy in this document:
Technical Jargon: The use of technical language, such as "LC-MS/MS" (a type of scientific measurement), may be confusing to those not familiar with scientific or regulatory terms. Simplifying this language could make the information more accessible to the general public.
Regulatory References: References to legislative codes, like FFDCA section 408 and 40 CFR part 180, are made without further explanation, which might not be easily understood by all readers. These legal citations provide the regulatory foundation but could benefit from additional context.
Specificity Lack on Financial Impact: There is no detailed mention of costs or financial implications of the proposed pesticide regulations, which could be crucial for stakeholders in agricultural industries.
Impact on the General Public
The document is important for the public as it deals with the safety of food products consumers routinely purchase. By setting tolerance levels for pesticide residues, the EPA ensures these foods remain safe for consumption. Public involvement is crucial since their comments can influence the decision-making process, potentially altering how pesticides are regulated in the food supply.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
For agricultural producers and food manufacturers, new regulations could mean adjustments in their pesticide usage and monitoring practices to comply with safety standards, which can incur additional costs. However, these adjustments can greatly improve food safety and consumer trust in their products.
Pesticide manufacturers may face both challenges and opportunities. On the one hand, additional regulations could lead to increased costs in research and development to ensure compliance. On the other hand, successful compliance can lead to their products being deemed safe for use, potentially increasing market trust and product approval.
Overall, while the document seeks to enhance food safety, the complexity of the language and regulatory references poses challenges to fully engaging the public in the comment process. More straightforward communication could enhance understanding and participation in this important regulatory stage.
Issues
• The document uses technical terms such as 'LC-MS/MS' without any explanation, which might be unclear for laypersons.
• The document identifies specific North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes without a detailed explanation, which might not be easily understood by all readers.
• There's an absence of specific information regarding the quantity of spending or costs associated with the implementation or enforcement of the proposed regulations.
• The document references multiple legislative and regulatory codes (e.g., FFDCA section 408, 21 U.S.C. 346a, 40 CFR part 180) which may be difficult to understand without further context or explanation.
• In some parts, the legal and technical language could be complex and difficult for individuals not familiar with regulatory documents to understand.