Thank you. Let me begin by saying how good it is to see so many old friends here this afternoon.
One of the greatest pleasures in my career in OPP was the opportunity to work with our State lead agencies. You probably know that one of the
principles of this Administration is to work in partnerships ... partnerships
first and foremost with the States, as well as partnerships with the private
sector. Well, I believe that OPP and AAPCO and SFIREG must be ahead of
the times, because partnership has been what our relationship has been all
about for quite sometime now. I want you to know that I very much respect
the work you do, and am proud of all that we've accomplished together over
the years.
The vast array of your responsibilities is impressive. Enforcing pesticide use
requirements, training and certification of pesticide applicators, worker protection, groundwater protection, endangered species protection,
emergency exemptions, special local needs, and for many of you running
your own registration programs -- whew. It's you to whom farm workers,
growers and the public first look for assistance and protection. Neither of us can do our jobs well without each other. That's why the partnerhsip between the Federal and State governments is so important,
and why coming together in this forum and others throughout the year is so
critical for a holistic and successful pesticide program.
Our challenges going into the 21st century have never been more complex
or compelling. We are in a watershed year for FQPA. How we implement
this law will chart the course for years and decades to come. We must all
do our part well -- and with full consideration of our many stakeholders -- to
bring about the important changes the law requires, and to assure thecontinued success of American agriculture.
I'd like to spend much of my time with you this afternoon talking about
FQPA.
Almost one year ago Vice President Gore instructed EPA and the
Department of Agriculture to work more closely together to implement
FQPA, and to follow four principles:
First, decisions must be based on sound science.
Second, our decisions must be transparent and open.
Third, decisions must involve consultation with all our stakeholders.
And fourth, we need to allow a reasonable transition period for agriculture.
A year later, I can tell you that those words -- sound science, transparency,
consultation, and transition -- have become our mantra. And they have
changed the way we do business.
In response to the Vice President's principles, EPA and USDA have been involving stakeholders in a whole range of ways -- probably the most visible
is the Tolerance Reassessment Advisory Committee, or "TRAC."
TRAC is co-chaired by EPA Acting Deputy Administrator Peter Robertson
and USDA Deputy Secretary Richard Rominger, and includes pesticide
registrants, growers, food processors, environmental and consumer groups,
public health professionals -- and, of course, state regulatory officials.
Due largely to our interaction with TRAC members, EPA's pesticide
program is quite different than it was a year ago:
- We have far greater public involvement.
- We have made the risk assessment process much more accessible,
as we invite both peer review and public review of our science policies
as well as inviting public comment on the risk assessments for
individual chemicals; and,
- We are working much more closely with USDA and our stakeholders.
Let me talk a bit more about some of these changes.
As the Vice President intended, TRAC has fostered a much closer working
relationship between EPA and USDA:
- USDA is providing better data on what people eat.
- USDA is providing better data on what residues are actually found in
the real world.
- USDA is providing better data on what pesticides farmers use and how they are used.
- USDA and EPA -- in cooperation with our stakeholders -- will be
working together to identify risk management and transition
opportunities.
Because of TRAC, we have established a pilot effort to expand public
participation in the review of the organophosphates to make the risk
assessment process more transparent.
Under this approach, EPA is providing an opportunity for the public to
comment on each of the preliminary risk assessments for each of the 41
individual organophosphate pesticides under review. So far, the agency has
placed 28 OP risk assessments in the public docket, as well as on the
Internet.
The science policies underlying the risks assessments are equally
important, and are undergoing science peer review as well as notice and
comment from the public. We are breaking new ground with such policies
as:
- 10X children's factor
- Aggregate risk, and
- Cumulative risk
We need and welcome full partication in developing these key policies.
But life goes on as we continue to grapple with the FQPA policy issues. EPA has continued to make decisions using interim policies and common sense. In fact, even though the decisions are far more complex, the pace of decisionmaking has improved since the initial impact of FQPA.
In the past fiscal year
- We registered 27 new pesticide active ingredients.
- We approved slightly over 600 additional pesticide uses for individual minor crops; and,
- We authorized 410 Section 18 exemptions and denied requests for 27.
We intend to meet our August statutory deadline to assess at least one-third
of the existing 9,728 tolerances. And I am pleased to say that we will do this
in a way that allows good science and data to drive decisions, not deadlines.
We have already assessed about 2,300 tolerances, and expect to do
another 1,000 by our statutory deadline of August.
Not all of the pesticides reassessed in the first third will be from the higher-risk group, which includes the organophosphates, carbamates and
quantified carcinogens. Yet, we will be making a major dent in that group,
and we plan to meet the law's deadline to complete reassessment of all the
tolerances by the year 2006.
Ultimately the success of a transition strategy away from the use of higher
risk chemicals will depend on the development of new products and
sustainable agricultural methods.
We are providing incentives to industry to bring safer pesticides to us for
registration. We have been developing a track record for the past three
years of making faster decisions on reduced-risk pesticides.
- Almost half of the 27 new pesticides we approved in fiscal 1998 are
considered reduced-risk.
- In fiscal 1999, we expect to review at least 24 new pesticides, of which about two-thirds will be reduced-risk;
- EPA registered more than 100 new food uses in fiscal 1998 under FQPA standards;
- And our average processing time for reduced risk products is about 14
months, about half the time as for conventional pesticides.
But, as you know, developing safer alternatives and better IPM techniques is
an evolutionary process.
One approach to moving cooperatively toward this goal is EPA's Pesticide
Environmental Stewardship Program, which is a voluntary program that
forms partnerships with pesticide users dedicated to furthering the use of
IPM . Today there are 105 PESP partners and 21 supporters, and the
program is making good progress. But we need to see other types of
partnerships emerge to give IPM a boost.
Partnerships at state and local levels among various interests -- for
example, state agriculture departments, public interest groups, land grant
universities and growers -- could reap tremendous benefits.
Let me mention one such creative partnership that is a real success story.
It's comprised of the Wisconsin Potato and Vegetable Growers Association,
the University of Wisconsin IPM Research Team, and the World Wildlife
Fund.
- This group stands out because they recognized the importance of
establishing a sense of trust and mission among themselves.
- The growers pledged, with the support of the extension service and
WWF, to eliminate the use of 11 high risk pesticides by the 2001.
- With seed money from EPA and with additional grants, they then
established a method of charting their progress in reducing risks.
- And they are getting the job done. In the past two years, they have
reduced "risk units" from pesticides on Wisconsin potatoes by 25percent.
We are doing our part in food safety in an even larger context.
- As many of you know, last August the President established the
Council on Food Safety to develop a comprehensive strategic plan,
submit unified budgets, and oversee research for a seamless food
safety system in this country.
- EPA is an active member of the Council. We are full partners with
HHS, USDA and other Council members in devising the new strategy,
and we would like the states to participate also.
- A seamless food safety system means weaving together the
responsibilities of many Federal and State agencies to deal with a
wide variety of programs, involving both microbial and chemical
issues.
- Our aim is to continue -- with the states -- to highlight the importance
of pesticide and chemical components in the strategy.
We also ask you to help us keep consumer confidence high as we reduce
risks from pesticides. As the events of the past couple weeks have shown,
this is an issue in which the public has a keen and continuing interest.
- One way to increase consumer confidence in the government's
handling of pesticide issues is to provide the best service possible
when the pubic encounters a pesticide related problem. It might be a
response to concerns over emergency spraying or even to a disposal
issue.
- One way to boost the quality of your response is to team up with state
health agencies and tackle some of the problems together.
I was delighted to speak on food safety the week before last, before the Ag
Commissioners and Health Commissioners from the 50 states. We need
more of that kind of dialogue and cooperation.
We have a lot to do over the next year, and our partnership will be more
important than ever.
- We will continue to involve states as early as possible in regulatory
decisions.
- We have appreciated your close involvement over the past years in
the development of the Pesticides and Groundwater Program, and will
continue that work into 1999.
- The Certification program has undergone a rigorous review under the
Certification and Training Assessment Group -- CTAG. I'm looking
forward to working with you and that group as we, along with USDA,
review the results and respond to the findings.
- As you may know, EPA has agreed to the recommendation by the
agency's Children's Health Protection Advisory Committee to review a
number of key rules that affect children --one of them was the worker
protection rule. So we look forward to working with you on that review,
which will focus especially on how to protect children of agriculture
workers.
- We also look forward to working with you to advance protection of
endangered species. We were glad to receive advice from many of
you who participated in last's year's national workshop.
Finally, we recognize that groups such as SFIREG, the Pesticide Program
Dialogue Committee, and CTAG have enabled us to work together much
more effectively, so we will continue to support such collaboration. Clearly,
implementing the challenging mandates of FQPA will require that we
continue to move forward as professionals in the spirit of solving problems -- and that is exactly what you are doing here.
I believe that we all strive to be public servants in the best sense of the word
... professionals making a difference, and serving the needs and interests of
the American people. I have every confidence that we will continue our great
traditions of service and teamwork as we move, together, into the 21st
century. Thank you.
