Reforming the Law on Pesticides
By John Carlucci
INTRODUCTION
Pesticides are designed to kill. They are intentionally formulated to destroy living organisms and vital cells, and to ravage nerve, respiratory, and digestive systems. The potency of synthetic chemical pesticides renders them the most widely used technique for exterminating and controlling pests. Each year, over one billion pounds of chemical pesticides are applied to the farms, forests, parks, schools, restaurants, homes, and workplaces of this nation. As a consequence, more than half of the average American's food intake contains chemical residues.
Questions concerning the effects of these curious poisons on the public and on environmental health and safety dominate the regulation of pesticides today. The paradox inherent in the practice of intentionally utilizing toxic substances to safeguard health and welfare is perhaps the single most formidable obstacle to formulating a coherent, effective policy to regulate pesticides. An environmental toxicologist once cryptically expressed this dilemma, stating that “by and large, humans and pests are not that different.” In other words, because humans occupy a part of the web of nature, poisoning pests could ultimately backfire and poison us.
Attempts to quantify the actual risks that pesticides present to human health and the environment, and to weigh these risks against the benefits of pesticides, is the basis of current pesticide regulation in the United States. The complications inherent in such an undertaking have resulted in an exceptional regulatory morass -- a patchwork constructed out of two contradictory statutes, legislatively mandated science, creative agency interpretations of law, rules configured by courts, and the pesticide crisis of the moment.
Recent developments have further undermined the workability of current policy, fueling an outcry for comprehensive reform of pesticide regulation from all interested parties, including farmers, chemical manufacturers, environmentalists, consumer advocates, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and even the Clinton Administration. Pesticide policy has therefore become a priority on the legislative agenda this year. The reform effort continues to rely on the risk-benefit approach and has focused on esoteric disputes concerning the definition of reasonable risks.
This limited focus of current reform proposals is unfortunate because it ignores the failure of the current regulatory strategy to provide adequate protection for agricultural interests, the environment, and human health. The prediction of the incidence of human illnesses or damage to ecosystems as a function of the use of particular pesticides involves considerable uncertainty, debatable assumptions, and controversial judgments. Moreover, the risks and benefits of pesticide use are unevenly distributed in our society, both in terms of who bears the risks and benefits, and when such risks and benefits accrue. It is undeniable that pesticides function to both benefit and injure our surroundings at the same time, but this inherent incongruity does not render risk-benefit analysis the exclusive or most appropriate approach to regulation. Risk-benefit analysis is particularly unsuitable for situations where risks are uncertain but strongly feared because they are at once grave, unfamiliar, and unavoidable, while benefits are disproportionately allocated and perhaps overstated. Pesticides are therefore especially suited for the “pollution prevention” approaches to regulation that have gained support in recent years as alternatives to the conventional “pollution management.”
A regulatory regime that minimizes dependence on chemical pesticides, while promoting effective alternative pest management strategies, may be the best way to achieve a balance among agricultural productivity, environmental safety, and public health. This Note offers suggestions for a new regulatory framework that reduces the use of broad-spectrum, persistent biocides to manage pests.
Part II outlines the framework of pesticide regulation in the United States, highlighting the central issues that pesticide policy must confront. Part III examines the incapability of the current regulatory strategy to protect the three major interests driving pesticide policy, agricultural productivity, the environment, and human health. In response to the failures of the current system, Part IV proposes an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) approach that minimizes dependence on chemical pesticides and describes several regulatory strategies for implementing this approach. Part V concludes that IPM should be the cornerstone of any regulatory reform.
Pesticides are designed to kill. They are intentionally formulated to destroy living organisms and vital cells, and to ravage nerve, respiratory, and digestive systems. The potency of synthetic chemical pesticides renders them the most widely used technique for exterminating and controlling pests. Each year, over one billion pounds of chemical pesticides are applied to the farms, forests, parks, schools, restaurants, homes, and workplaces of this nation. As a consequence, more than half of the average American's food intake contains chemical residues.
Questions concerning the effects of these curious poisons on the public and on environmental health and safety dominate the regulation of pesticides today. The paradox inherent in the practice of intentionally utilizing toxic substances to safeguard health and welfare is perhaps the single most formidable obstacle to formulating a coherent, effective policy to regulate pesticides. An environmental toxicologist once cryptically expressed this dilemma, stating that “by and large, humans and pests are not that different.” In other words, because humans occupy a part of the web of nature, poisoning pests could ultimately backfire and poison us.
Attempts to quantify the actual risks that pesticides present to human health and the environment, and to weigh these risks against the benefits of pesticides, is the basis of current pesticide regulation in the United States. The complications inherent in such an undertaking have resulted in an exceptional regulatory morass -- a patchwork constructed out of two contradictory statutes, legislatively mandated science, creative agency interpretations of law, rules configured by courts, and the pesticide crisis of the moment.
Recent developments have further undermined the workability of current policy, fueling an outcry for comprehensive reform of pesticide regulation from all interested parties, including farmers, chemical manufacturers, environmentalists, consumer advocates, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and even the Clinton Administration. Pesticide policy has therefore become a priority on the legislative agenda this year. The reform effort continues to rely on the risk-benefit approach and has focused on esoteric disputes concerning the definition of reasonable risks.
This limited focus of current reform proposals is unfortunate because it ignores the failure of the current regulatory strategy to provide adequate protection for agricultural interests, the environment, and human health. The prediction of the incidence of human illnesses or damage to ecosystems as a function of the use of particular pesticides involves considerable uncertainty, debatable assumptions, and controversial judgments. Moreover, the risks and benefits of pesticide use are unevenly distributed in our society, both in terms of who bears the risks and benefits, and when such risks and benefits accrue. It is undeniable that pesticides function to both benefit and injure our surroundings at the same time, but this inherent incongruity does not render risk-benefit analysis the exclusive or most appropriate approach to regulation. Risk-benefit analysis is particularly unsuitable for situations where risks are uncertain but strongly feared because they are at once grave, unfamiliar, and unavoidable, while benefits are disproportionately allocated and perhaps overstated. Pesticides are therefore especially suited for the “pollution prevention” approaches to regulation that have gained support in recent years as alternatives to the conventional “pollution management.”
A regulatory regime that minimizes dependence on chemical pesticides, while promoting effective alternative pest management strategies, may be the best way to achieve a balance among agricultural productivity, environmental safety, and public health. This Note offers suggestions for a new regulatory framework that reduces the use of broad-spectrum, persistent biocides to manage pests.
Part II outlines the framework of pesticide regulation in the United States, highlighting the central issues that pesticide policy must confront. Part III examines the incapability of the current regulatory strategy to protect the three major interests driving pesticide policy, agricultural productivity, the environment, and human health. In response to the failures of the current system, Part IV proposes an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) approach that minimizes dependence on chemical pesticides and describes several regulatory strategies for implementing this approach. Part V concludes that IPM should be the cornerstone of any regulatory reform.
