& # 8211 ; H.R. 1627 Essay, Research Paper

The Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 ( H.R. 1627 )

The Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 or H.R.1627 was introduced by Representative

Thomas Bliley ( R ) on May 12, 1996. It was supported by 243 co-sponsors. The measure was reported

to the House of Representatives after having an 18-0 ballot in Committee of Agriculture. The

House of Representatives voted nem con in favour of the Food Quality Protection Act of

1996. The following twenty-four hours the step was considered by the Senate, and besides passed with consentaneous

ballot. The measure was so signed by President Clinton on July 24, 1996 and go Public Law

104-170 on August 3, 1996 ( Detailed Legislative History ) . It has been said the measure would hold

died in the Senate if it had been held over merely one twenty-four hours lone wolf due to quickly mounting terror and

resistance from some major participants in the pesticide industry. This would been a major loss

sing Congressman Bliley had been contending for this reform statute law since the 102nd

Congress ( Sray 49 ) .

The Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 amends the Food Drug and Cosmetic Act and

the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenicide Act that had been a load to both agriculturists

and consumers. The measure Requires the Environmental Protection Agency to develop unvarying

criterions in puting all chemical tolerances allowed in nutrient. The Administrator of the

Environmental Protection Agency must find if the tolerance is safe, intending there is

sensible certainty that no injury will ensue from sum exposure to the pesticide chemical

residue, and any other type of exposure there is dependable information on ( Sray 49 ) . The measure

requires all pesticides to be re-registered under the guidelines that determine if they should be

used or non. The three guidelines for re-registration are the aggregative effects of a pesticide, the

common manner of toxicology, and the effects on babies and kids.

The first guideline, aggregative effects of a pesticide, is the entire life-time exposure a individual

will hold to a chemical. This includes non-food exposure, which is something that was non

included in the past statute law. The following guideline is common manner of toxicity, which makes

the Environmental Protection Agency look at the cumulative exposure of all pesticides non merely

specific 1s. The last guideline is the effects of pesticides on babies and kids. There are

new safety demands that must be met sing the sum of exposure that is safe for

babies and kids ( Sray 49 ) .

Overall the Bill requires the Environmental Protection Agency to look at every chemical

used on nutrient and determine if it is safe to utilize. The Bill gives inducements to chemical companies

who develop new less harmful chemicals. It besides gives allowances to? minor harvests? that are non

every bit profitable as big trade goods. It allows the? minor harvests? to hold a longer grace period for

development and execution of these new Torahs ( Sray 49 ) .

Advocates of this Bill consists of environmental groups, many kids? s wellness

organisations, and as the vote proved all of Congress and the President. Vice President Al

Gore who has supported this measure since its beginning said the jurisprudence? brings the latest scientific discipline to

the supermarket? ( Waterfield C2 ) . Gore was involved in hearings on the topic 15 old ages

ago and was happy the reform Bill eventually passed ( WaterfieldC2 ) .

Supporters believe the old statute law was a crisis waiting to go on, and with the new

Food Quality Protection Act kids and consumers in general will be much safer. Children? s

groups are particularly happy with the new focal point on the degree of chemical residue in many nutrients

that kids eat. This is of import because kids differ in their exposure to toxic chemicals.

Children spend much of their clip creeping about on the land and seting their custodies in their

oral cavity, hence exposing themselves to much toxic chemicals than the mean grownup. In the

United States one million kids are exposed to insecure degrees of pesticides in fruit, veggies,

or pamper nutrient every twelvemonth, harmonizing to a study by the Environmental Working Group ( Grossfield

B1 ) . Children besides breathe otherwise. A one twelvemonth old kid breathes 50 % more air each minute

relation to their weight than make grownups ( Reigart D3 ) . Supporters believe this new jurisprudence would restrict

the sum of chemical residue a kid is exposed to throughout its life-time.

Advocates of the Food Quali

ty Protection Act of 1996 believe that the hazard to farm

workers and their households will be greatly reduced. One Hundred Thousand farm workers are

treated yearly for pesticide related illness harmonizing to the American Association of Poison

Control Centers ( Grossfeild B1 ) . Advocates believe the research conducted due to the Food

Quality Protection Act of 1996 would cut down the dainty of unwellness to the farm worker.

Environmentalist besides back up this jurisprudence, because it makes chemical companies provide

informations sing the toxic life the many chemical and the re-registration of all chemicals. The

re-registration is really of import to environmental groups, because new research has been done

that shows many chemicals that could potentially be harmful were non restricted in the old Torahs.

The new jurisprudence will necessitate every chemical to be looked at and determined if it is harmful or non.

Farm chemical organisations and many husbandmans oppose this measure chiefly for two grounds.

The first being the vagueness in the manner that the measure is written. Chemical companies believe

how the Environmental Protection Agency implements the Food Quality Protection Act will

critically impact the hereafter of cardinal pesticides critical to keeping a safe and abundant nutrient

supply. Oppositions believe there is no manner to accurately mensurate the long term effects of these

chemicals and the Food Quality Protection Act requires them to make this, which is following to

impossible ( Sray 49 ) . Alan Schreiber of the Agrichemical Environmental News says, ? the most

fazing facet of the this statute law is what we do non cognize about it. ? He calls the Food

Quality Protection Act of 1996 the Trojan iceberg. Like the Trojan Equus caballus, I has several desirable

features, nevertheless merely as 90 % of the iceberg can non be seen so will the impact of the Food

Protection Act of 1996 ( Schreiber 21 ) .

The 2nd ground for husbandmans and chemical manufacturers resistance to this jurisprudence is the consequence

it will hold on little harvests. They believe this jurisprudence will restrict or in some instances eliminate some

pesticides used in little harvests. Small harvests don? t make adequate money to fund research and

development on new, safe chemicals. Therefore restricting the picks agriculturists have, which

greatly affect that industry.

I feel that I stand someplace in the center on this issue. It has many strong points both

in favour and against. I believe that the re-registration of chemicals is really of import, and I besides

believe it would be helpful to to the full understand these pesticides consequence on worlds over a long

period of clip. I wonder if it is possible to obtain accurate information due to so many different

variables. Improper application, over exposure, and abuse are things that should be taken into

consideration when finding if a chemical is safe to utilize. Many times we frequently merely look at

the surface on issues such as this. I do believe it is a good thought to modulate pesticides in a manner that

is the most good to consumers, but I besides believe that if this ordinance is non carried out

decently, husbandmans consumers, and everyone will be greatly affected. This jurisprudence can assist people,

but is besides can ache many husbandmans by puting unrealistic outlooks of holding absolutely safe

pesticides. California entirely produces 20 % of the universes nutrient and without these chemicals this

would non be possible. Pesticides, although harmful in some instances are overall good to

California agribusiness and the universe.

Myself turning up on a farm I understand how of import these chemicals are to doing

a life, and bring forthing the best merchandise possible. I besides realize the demand for new safety step

for the chemicals. I believe that the Food Protection Act of 1996 meets both of these issues

instead good. If impemeted decently the Food Protection Act of 1996 can profit husbandmans,

chemical companies, kids, households, and the universe.

Grossfield, Stan. ( Puting Poisons in the Fields ; Safeguarding What We Eat. ) The Boston

Globe 20 September 1998: B1

Reigart, Routt. ( Don? T Wait For a Crisis ) The Oregonian 10 October 1998: D3

Schreiber, Alan. ? The Food Quality Protection Act: A Trojan iceberg. ? Agrichemical and

Environmental News Aug. 1996:21.

Sray, Al. ? Turning Politics into Policy. ? Farm Chemicals Dec. 1996:49.

United States. Library of Congress. ? Detailed Legislative Status of H.R.1627. ? 104th

Congress. Thomas. 20 September 1999..

Waterfield, Larry. ( Bill called a blessing to consumers. ) The Packer 12 August 1996: C2