[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 111 (Thursday, July 25, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8928-S8929]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      FOOD QUALITY PROTECTION ACT

  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, yesterday the Senate gave final 
approval to the Food Quality Protection Act (H.R. 1627). This 
legislation will reform the scientifically outdated Delaney clause. I 
ask to have printed in the Record letters of support from commodity 
groups, the Food Chain Coalition, Farm Bureau, and environmental and 
consumer organizations as well as a letter from Senator Kassebaum and a 
statement from the American Crop Protection Association.
  The letters follow:

                                                    July 24, 1996.
     Hon. Richard Lugar,
     Chairman, Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, 
         U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: We are writing to urge you to support 
     H.R. 1627 the ``Food Quality Protection Act'' when it is 
     considered by the Committee. The effort to achieve food 
     safety reform, which assures an abundant, affordable, and 
     safe food and fiber supply has been difficult, and we applaud 
     all those who worked to help reach an acceptable compromise.
       It is important that farmers continue to have the greatest 
     availability of crop production products which are safe, 
     affordable and effective to ensure that they are able to meet 
     the nation's demand for food and fiber. While we had concerns 
     initially with some provisions in the bill, the diligent work 
     by the Committee and assurances from EPA and USDA that the 
     new higher standard of protection will be interpreted with 
     common sense and reason have reassured us that this is 
     meaningful change.
       The Delaney Clause is outdated and could possibly cause the 
     loss of many crop protection products which pose no 
     significant health or safety risk. This legislation 
     represents the best opportunity in a decade to modernize the 
     Delaney Clause and strengthen federal food safety protection. 
     We will continue to work with you to see that the new 
     legislation accomplishes these goals and urge prompt Senate 
     action.
       Thank you for your attention to this matter.
           Sincerely,
         American Soybean Association, National Association of 
           Wheat Growers, National Cotton Council of America, 
           National Corn Growers Association, National Barley 
           Growers Association.
                                                                    ____



                                         Food Chain Coalition,

                                                    July 23, 1996.
     Hon. Richard G. Lugar,
     Chairman, Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, 
         U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: Last week, representatives of the 
     Administration, industry and the environmental community 
     reached compromise agreement on H.R. 1627, ``The Food Quality 
     Protection Act,'' after several weeks of negotiations. This 
     bill represents the best opportunity in a decade to modernize 
     the Delaney Clause and strengthen our nation's food laws.
       As Americans working to produce, process and market our 
     nation's food supply, we urge the Senate to act promptly to 
     pass this compromise agreement. We applaud the announcement 
     by the Senate Agriculture Committee that it will markup the 
     legislation on Wednesday, July 24.
       There is virtually unanimous agreement that an overhaul of 
     the outdated Delaney clause for pesticide residues is long 
     overdue. With the very limited number of legislative days 
     remaining this year, the need for action to accomplish that 
     objective is now more urgent than ever.
       EPA recently proposed disallowing the use of five 
     pesticides on a number of crops under the Delaney Clause, 
     even though the agency has repeatedly stated its belief that 
     those pesticides pose no significant health risk to 
     consumers. By April 1997, EPA is due to determine whether to 
     disallow up to 40 additional uses; without corrective action, 
     farmers could lose the use of a number of safe and effective 
     crop protection tools that keep the American food supply 
     abundant and affordable.
       The compromise version of ``The Food Quality Protection 
     Act'' has received bipartisan praise from both the House and 
     Senate, including Senate Agriculture Chairman Lugar, as well 
     as from EPA Administrator Carol Browner and Vice President 
     Albert Gore. Key Republican and Democratic leaders have 
     stated that it is their goal to see this legislation passed 
     and signed into law by the President this year. We urge its 
     prompt adoption by the Committee.
           Sincerely,
         Agricultural Council of California; Agri Bank; Agri-Mark, 
           Inc.; Agway, Inc.; American Bankers Association; 
           American Crystal Sugar Company; American Farm Bureau 
           Federation; American Meat Institute; American Feed 
           Industry Association; Apricot Producers of California; 
           Atlantic Dairy Cooperative; Biscuit & Cracker 
           Manufacturers Association; Blue Diamond Growers; 
           California Tomato Growers Association, Inc.; 
           Californian Pear Growers; Chemical Specialties 
           Manufacturers Association; Chocolate Manufacturers 
           Association; Gold Kist, Inc; Grocery Manufacturers of 
           America; GROWMARK; Harvest States; Independent Bakers 
           Association; International Apple Institute; 
           International Dairy Foods Association; Kansas Grain and 
           Feed Association; Kraft Foods, Incorporated; Land 
           O'Lakes; Michigan Agribusiness Association; Milk 
           Marketing Inc; National Agricultural Aviation 
           Association; National Cattlemen's Beef Association; 
           National Confectioners Association; National Council of 
           Farmer Cooperatives; National Farmers Union; National 
           Food Processors Association; National Grain and Feed 
           Association; National Grain Trade Council; National 
           Grange; National Grape Co-operative Association, Inc.; 
           National Pasta Association; Nebraska Cooperative 
           Council; North American Export Grain Association; 
           Oklahoma Grain and Feed Association; Produce Marketing 
           Association; Pro-Fac Cooperative; SF Services, Inc.; 
           Snack Food Association; South Dakota Association of 
           Cooperatives; Southern States Cooperative; Tortilla 
           Industry Association; USA Rice Federation; United Fresh 
           Fruit

[[Page S8929]]

           and Vegetable Association; Upstate Milk Cooperatives, 
           Inc.; Utah Council of Farmer Cooperatives; Wisconsin 
           Agri-Service Association.
                                                                    ____

                                                    July 23, 1996.
       Dear Representative: Last week, the House Commerce 
     Committee reported by a vote of 45-0 compromise language on 
     H.R. 1627, ``The Food Quality Protection Act.'' We 
     congratulate Chairman Bliley, Chairman Bilirakis, Mr. 
     Dingell, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Waxman and many other members of 
     the House who have worked to resolve the ``Delaney paradox'' 
     and the problems it presents for farmers and consumers.
       Although the agreement contains provisions we do not 
     support, it does address many issues which are of critical 
     importance to agriculture:
       Safety Standard: The bill replaces the antiquated, ``zero 
     tolerance'' Delaney standard with a health-based ``safe'' 
     standard for food pesticide residues. ``Safe'' is defined as 
     ``reasonable certainly of no harm'' which is interpreted as a 
     one in a million additional lifetime risk. This is a standard 
     which is essentially the same as the ``negligible risk'' 
     standard in the original bill. This key provision removes the 
     threat of unjustified cancellation of more than 50 safe crop 
     protection products which are now jeopardized by the Delaney 
     Clause.
       Benefits Consideration: Tolerances could be exceeded to 
     avoid a significant disruption in domestic production of an 
     adequate, wholesome and economical food supply or if the 
     pesticide protects consumers from a greater health risk. 
     Benefits consideration is broadened from current law in that 
     it is extended from raw agricultural products to include 
     processed food. However, benefits consideration is limited 
     under the agreement to 10 times a negligible risk for one 
     year or more than two times a negligible risk over a 
     lifetime. Although Farm Bureau does not support this new 
     limitation, we are pleased that the bill preserves benefits 
     consideration and extends it to processed food.
       National Uniformity: The bill establishes national 
     uniformity for food pesticide residues. States could not 
     adopt tolerances which are more stringent than those set by 
     EPA, except with respect to tolerances established through 
     benefits consideration. In those circumstances, states would 
     be required to petition EPA and establish that there was an 
     imminent dietary risk to the public.
       Minor Use Pesticides: It is our understanding that the 
     FIFRA provisions of H.R. 1627 which have been reported by the 
     House Agriculture Committee will be attached to the Commerce 
     Committee provisions. Included are new incentives and 
     streamlined procedures for so-called ``minor crop'' 
     chemicals--crop protection products whose relatively small 
     market does not justify the high cost of registration. This 
     provision is essential to fruit, vegetable and horticultural 
     growers in virtually every state.
       Miscellaneous Provisions: Although we support the above 
     provisions, Farm Bureau has some concerns with certain 
     provisions of the Committee agreement. These include 
     provisions relating to estrogenic effects of agricultural 
     chemicals, infants and children, civil penalties for food 
     adulteration and a ``right to know'' provision for consumers.
       At this time, no one can determine with certainty the long-
     term, cumulative impact of these changes on specific 
     commodities and on the availability of crop protectants 
     necessary for farmers to produce the wide variety of safe, 
     affordable and abundant agricultural commodities that the 
     public demands. While we support many of the reforms in this 
     package, we also recognize that there will be unanticipated 
     problems stemming from regulatory and business implementation 
     of this legislation. On balance, however, we believe that 
     this legislation represents an improvement over current law 
     and we support moving the legislation to the Senate.
                                               Richard W. Newpher,
     Executive Director, Washington Office.
                                                                    ____

                                                    July 18, 1996.
     Hon. Thomas J. Bliley, Jr.
     Chairman, Committee on Commerce, Rayburn House Office 
         Building, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: The following environmental, education, 
     public health, and consumer advocacy organizations would like 
     to offer our support for the compromise substitute amendment 
     for H.R. 1627, ``The Food Quality Protection Act of 1995'' 
     that goes a long way towards better protecting the health of 
     consumers from toxic pesticides on their food.
       The compromise addresses the deadlock between the industry 
     who oppose the Delaney clause and the organizations that 
     support better protection for children and the public health, 
     by establishing a comprehensive federal program to make 
     pesticide levels in food and the environment safe for infants 
     and children. The bill establishes a health-based standard 
     and a strict timetable for pesticide tolerance setting that 
     adheres tightly to the recommendations of the 1993 National 
     Academy of Sciences Committee on Pesticides in the Diets of 
     Infants and Children.
       Although we are pleased with the extent to which the bill 
     was changed to better protect public health, we have 
     reservations with the sections that will allow benefits 
     consideration for cancer-causing pesticides and preemption of 
     states rights to set more protective tolerances than federal 
     limits for pesticides. We are hopeful that these provisions 
     will be revised upon further consideration of this 
     legislation.
       Our support for this bill is contingent upon the 
     understanding that the bill will not be changed in any way 
     that would allow for a weakening of public health 
     protections.
       Again we would like to extend our thanks and appreciation 
     to the members of Congress and their staff who played a part 
     in producing this bill.
           Sincerely,
         American Preventative Medical Association; Center for 
           Science in the Public Interest; Citizen Action; 
           Environmental Working Group; National Audubon Society; 
           National Wildlife Federation; National Parent Teacher 
           Association; Natural Resources Defense Council; 
           Physicians for Social Responsibility; Public Voice; 
           World Wildlife Fund.
                                                                    ____


American Crop Protection Association Praises Comprehensive Food Safety 
                                 Action

       Washington, DC, July 24, 1996.--The American Crop 
     Protection Association voiced its support of the ``Food 
     Quality Protection Act of 1996,'' a bi-partisan bill to 
     reform the nation's food safety laws that Tuesday was passed 
     by the House of Representatives 417-0.
       Jay J. Vroom, ACPA president, said, ``The action is an 
     overwhelming affirmation of the value and benefits of modern 
     agricultural technology to the consumer, our children and the 
     American farmer. With our allies and friends across food and 
     agriculture, the crop protection industry is proud to have 
     helped lead the way for modern, science-based food safety 
     reform.''
       The Senate is expected shortly to follow the House's lead 
     and vote to replace the 1958 Delaney clause with a single 
     safety standard for pesticide residues on both raw and 
     processed foods. Under the legislation, which was more than 
     10 years in the making, pesticides will be deemed safe when 
     they are approved by the Environmental Protection Agency as 
     meeting a new, health-based safety standard, defined as a 
     ``reasonable certainty of no harm.''
       The bill mandates implementation by the EPA of the 1993 
     recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences for 
     providing additional safeguards for infants and children. 
     ``The Academy's recommendations have been at the heart of 
     ACPA's fight for food safety reform,'' said Vroom. ``This is 
     particularly gratifying victory for us because it assures 
     that modern, sound science will undergird our food safety 
     laws and that farmers will continue to have the tools to 
     produce the most abundant and affordable supplies of food and 
     fiber in the world.''
       Regarding industry's relationship with the EPA, Vroom said, 
     ``We want to continue the productive working dialogue we have 
     established with the Agency during the course of negotiations 
     for this legislation. For example, one of our hopes is to 
     successfully conclude work underway by EPA, ACPA and other 
     registrant groups to provide additional user fee resources to 
     the Agency for enhancing new product application decision 
     making.''

                          ____________________