The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is giving more time for the industry to react to chemical-use assumptions it is making under the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) that could result in label changes to pesticides.

“We have more time to say ‘that’s not the way it really works,’” said David Lavway, governmental relations director for the National Potato Council (NPC).

The EPA had made some use and application assumptions when looking at chemicals in the early stages of the FQPA because of data gaps. Unfortunately the industry didn’t find out until too late in some cases.

Before the recent decision to update the industry sooner, a technical briefing would have been held followed by a 60-day final assessment phase. Then EPA would publish its final risk assessment for the chemical and announce any use changes that might be necessary to meet the new guidelines.

The problem with the schedule is that the industry had very little time to react if EPA had made its assumptions based on out-of-date chemical use data or other factors, Lavway said.

The USDA played a major role in opening up the process sooner. Now the EPA will hold a conference call with industry officials, chemical company representatives, researchers and USDA before it releases its technical briefing.

“One of the main goals of the conference call is to look at areas that need more work,” Lavway said. “The data can be sent out to land grant universities with specific questions and give them more time to refine the data.”

The first conference call involved the insecticide Di-syston. Lavway participated in the call because it is used on a few potatoes each year.

“Everyone on the call was pleased with the opportunity to respond to the technical briefing,” he said. “It is a really good communication tool. The process is probably working as well as it’s going to work. EPA and USDA are feverisly making sure no one is left out of the mix.”

Chemical status

Several chemicals important to the potato industry are in different stages of the re-registration process under the FQPA or are involved in a re-registration eligibility document (RED). An update on their status follows, according to Jerry Hill, Washington D.C. counsel for the NPC.

• Ethoprop (Mocap) and phorate (Thimet) are on the same schedule under the FQPA review. The final assessments for both were scheduled to be released by the end of January. Hill said he was cautiously optimistic about the outcome for both of the chemicals. “They’ve been very receptive in listening to us and looking at our suggested information and data that would mitigate the risk,” he said. EPA’s major concern for the both chemicals was occupational exposure and ecological concerns, Hill said. There was no dietary concern. NPC provided EPA information on how to mitigate the concerns.

• Monitor (methamidophos) will have its revised risk assessment released soon. A technical briefing will probably be held by early February. “We’ve continued to update the data for EPA, but we don’t know much right now,” Hill said.

• Aldicarb (Temik) is scheduled for a RED review sometime in 2000, but there is no information on the timing.