Guest guest Posted October 14, 2003 Report Share Posted October 14, 2003 The Farmworker Justice Fund Inc. is working with the Natural Resources Defense Council and others to promotoe a pesticide fee registration bill (see story below). One important aspect of the bill is that for 5 years it would create a fund of about $1 million for EPA to enhance its farmworker protection activities. Please see article below and contact your congressperson and urge him/her to support this bill. Thanks, Coalition Supports Pesticide Fee Increases By 10/7/2003 URL: <http://www.lawnandlandscape.com/news/news.asp?ID=1788>http://www.lawnandlan dscape.com/news/news.asp?ID=1788/ WASHINGTON – In an unusual cooperative effort and after months of intensive negotiations, a broad coalition of 30 industrial, environmental and agricultural groups has agreed to support a federal legislative proposal to raise more than $200 million to fund pesticide regulation and registration programs. The Pesticide Registration Improvement Act, sponsored by Senator Thad Cochran (R-Miss.) and Senator Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), uses a legislative approach generally consistent with the Food and Drug Administration’s prescription drug fee authority to generate user fee-derived funds to improve and expedite pesticide regulation and the registration process. The bill would raise $85 million to $90 million in new enhanced registration and service fees during the next five years. It also would extend pesticide product maintenance fees for five years, generating an additional $116 million. “The Consumer Specialty Products Association (CSPA) sees this package as a win-win-win,” observed CSPA President Cathcart. “It is a win for EPA in getting long-term funding; a win for industry in getting predictable and shorter timeframes for review of pesticide applications that are judicially enforceable; and a win for the environmental community in shorter timeframes for reduced risk pesticides and early, stable funding for tolerance reassessment.” Specifically, predictability and shorter timeframes are essential in the battle against insect-borne diseases such as West Nile virus, Lyme disease and hantavirus, Cathcart added. “This year alone there have been more than 5,700 cases of West Nile virus reported to the Centers for Disease Control, resulting in 110 deaths,” he outlined. “This legislation will help our industry’s efforts to develop innovative products.” Funds raised by the proposal would provide immediate and predictable funding to the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Office of Pesticide Programs. The bill would also ensure that the Food Quality Protection Act's (FQPA) 2006 deadlines for completing pesticide tolerance reassessment of all food use pesticides and re-registration eligibility decisions are met. © 1997-2003, GIE Media, Inc. All rights reserved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 6, 2003 Report Share Posted December 6, 2003 Great work , It sounds like would could finally be a little closer to a true national pesticide reporting system which would be a great leap forward. Ed L. Zuroweste, MD Medical Director Migrant Clinicians Network 878 N. St. State College, PA 16803 814-238-6566 kugelzur@... www.migrantclinician.org ----- Original Message ----- From: " " <sdavis@...> < > Sent: Friday, December 05, 2003 12:54 PM Subject: [ ] pesticides > Just wanted to let you know that there is a pesticide registration fee > provision in the current Omnibus Appropriations bill that will benefit > farmworkers. In the past, pesticide manufacturers have paid a fee to the > US treasury to get a pesticide registration/license from EPA (which is > required in order to sell or distribute pesticides). The problem with the > system was that the registration fee was too low and that the fee didn't go > to EPA to improve its process. In the new compromise provision -- worked > out by environmental and labor groups (including FJF) and the pesticide > industry, the registration fees are increased and the money will go to EPA > to improve the process and shorten the time it takes less toxic products to > get to market. One provision of especial interest to farmworkers, however, > is that there will be a fund created of between $750,000 and $1 million per > year to improve worker protection activities. We are working with EPA to > get the Agency to use that money to create a national pesticide incident > reporting system. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. > > > Co-Executive Director > Farmworker Justice Fund Inc. > 1010 Vermont Avenue NW, Suite 915 > Washington D.C. 20005 > ph 202 783 2628 > > www.fwjustice.org > sdavis@... > > > > To Post a message, send it to: Groups > > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: -unsubscribe > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 8, 2003 Report Share Posted December 8, 2003 asked a few followup questions on the pesticide fee bill that I thought I'd respond to for everyone. 1. How would a national pesticide incident reporting system work: Right now only a handful of states have active pesticide incident reporting systems -- the best are in California and Washington State. A good system would incorporate receipt of reports from clinicians and victims as well as automatic receipt of any relevant workers compensation claims. Then the system should include an investigative piece to make a determination as to whether the incident is a possible, probable, definite (or unlikely) pesticide exposure. In terms of a national incident reporting system, since it doesn't currently exist, the exact mechanisms how yet to be created. Undoubtedly it will try to incorporate (and standardize) the existing state programs as well as NIOSH's SENSOR program (which funds followup investigations of reported pesticide incidents in about 6 states). One of the key issues will be to work out the definition of a reportable event. In California, both " exposures " and adverse health consequences are included, whereas the current SENSOR program requires some adverse health impacts. Once the bill is passed (which probably won't be until January), we will be working with EPA to create the system. Input from others will be welcome and anyone with a strong interest in this area should definitely contact me. 2. How quickly will " less toxic " pesticides get to market: A second aspect of the pesticide fee bill is to reduce the time it takes to register " less toxic " pesticides. Now it takes a company about 2 - 3 years to get a pesticide registered. Those that meet EPA's definition of " less toxic " are given a priority (which still takes about 2 years). We shouldn't take too much comfort, however, in the label " less toxic. " One thing that we have learned is that gauging toxicity depends to a large extent on what kinds of testing is done to measure it. At present the EPA's test protocols are not as rigorous as we would like especially in the area of developmental effects and occupational exposure assessments. Moreover, many products now on the market (and getting new registrations), have no corresponding clinical tests that a clinician could readily perform to determine when there has been an overexposure or poisoning. As such, how can we really know if they are less toxic? That said, these " less toxic " products will probably get registered in 18 months. Finally, EPA is now working on a new method for assessing occupational risks to farmworkers and agricultural pesticide handlers using a probabilistic method. I am working with a few farmworker advocates to review and comment on the proposed methodology as it gets developed. Dr Fenske of the University of Washington is on the outside review committee. If there are folks out there with expertise in risk assessment or statistics who would like to be involed, I would welcome your help. A report on the first stage of this process will probably come out in January 2004 and I will alert the list to it and invite folks to comment. Co-Executive Director Farmworker Justice Fund Inc. 1010 Vermont Avenue N.W., Suite 915 Washington DC 20005 ph 202 783 2628 www.fwjustice.org At 02:04 PM 12/7/2003 -0700, you wrote: >. > >Thank you for information on legislative activities and for work on these >initiatives that are so important on behalf of farm workers. > >I have two questions. You mentioned creation of a national pesticide >incident reporting system. How will the current system of reporting > " poisoning " be incorporated, or revised and incorporated, into that system? >I recall from one state where I worked that " poisoning " also included >exposure to pesticides by farm workers in the field. Second question >concerns average turnaround time for a review of pesticides, before the >less toxic are released to the market. How much might the improved process >reduce the turnaround time or prevent release of the more toxic? > > V Bletzer >Medical Anthropologist > > > >To Post a message, send it to: Groups > >To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: -unsubscribe > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.