In the United States, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has primary authority to register and regulate pesticides. The agency’s oversight of pesticides is authorized by the following federal laws:
- The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) allows EPA to register pesticides and label them using risk/benefit standards;
- The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act sets maximum tolerance levels for pesticide residues on food;
- The Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA) amends previous laws by establishing a single safety standard to increase protection of children from dietary, water and residential exposures; and
- The Endangered Species Act of 1973 requires that pesticides that will harm an endangered species will not be registered.
Some states have additional, stricter rules restricting pesticide use, and in a handful of states, local cities and counties can put even stricter rules in place.
A brief history of FIFRA
The 1910 Insecticide Act put labeling guidelines in place to protect farmers from “hucksters” selling ineffective, misbranded or adulterated pesticide products. Since then, the U.S. has continued to control pesticides through a system of registration and labeling.
The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), passed by Congress in 1947, is the primary national law governing pesticides. FIFRA has been updated several times in the last 65 years, most significantly in 1972 and again in 1996 with the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA).
Following passage of the FQPA in 1996, the process for registering (and re-registering) pesticides changed dramatically. Under FQPA, risk assessments must include consideration of impacts on sensitive groups (children, in particular), and take into consideration aggregate exposure to a single chemical from all possible sources. In addition, exposures to pesticides which have the same toxicological mode of action must be considered together. Where data gaps exist, extra safety factors are supposed to be used. In practice, however, the safety factors for sensitive groups and data gaps are often set aside.
Use guidelines and restrictions are specified on product labels. EPA is charged with periodically reviewing the health and environmental impacts of the more than 17,000 pesticide products currently on the market, as well as evaluating the risks posed by new products.
The chemicals listed as “EPA registered” on Pesticide Info are those that have been registered under FIFRA and can be legally used in the U.S., except in states where state laws are stricter than federal laws and prohibit such use. Because EPA does not publish a list of registered active ingredients, PAN maintains the list of EPA registered active ingredients using the following:
- California’s list of registered active ingredients. According to California Department of Pesticide Regulation staff, if a pesticide active ingredient is registered for use in California, it is registered in the U.S.
- EPA’s list of registered pesticide products. If the chemical is contained in a currently registered product, it is assumed to be a registered active ingredient.
Critiques of U.S. Rules
The U.S. system for pesticide evaluation and registration has serious weaknesses. A few key problems with the current process include:
- It doesn’t allow for quick response to emerging science;
- It doesn’t assess risk based on real-world exposures; and
- It relies heavily on corporate safety data that is not peer-reviewed or available to the public.
A fundamental problem with EPA’s risk management process for pesticides is that compliance with label instructions is assumed when calculating “acceptable” risks. In fact, people often do not read the label on a pesticide product and even if they do, they may not follow the label instructions. People who are unaware that a pesticide has recently been applied in a particular area will not know to take precautions. Thus, “acceptable” exposures produced by risk assessment are based on flawed assumptions.
In addition, there are serious challenges with enforcement. It is up to state governments to enforce the requirements specified on product labels, which are sometimes quite complex. Unfortunately, state agencies rarely have adequate resources for the job.
Even if enforcement were strong enough to stop violations, in case after case pesticides “applied as directed” have been shown to cause harm. For example, even when label instructions for drift-prone pesticides are followed precisely, the chemicals are often detected in air samples taken at nearby schools, homes and farms — at levels known to cause health harm and/or crop damage.
Pesticide Residue Tolerances
Even when applied legally, many pesticides leave residues in or on treated food such as fruits, vegetables, grains and other commodities. Pesticide residues may remain in both fresh produce (like apples or tomatoes) and processed foods (like applesauce or tomato catsup). Residues are difficult (if not impossible) to remove by washing the produce, since most pesticides do not dissolve readily in water.
Peeling fruits and vegetables may offer some reduction in pesticide residues; however, some pesticides are taken up systemically by the plant and are distributed throughout the plant tissue. For these pesticides, neither washing nor peeling is effective in reducing residue levels.
EPA sets tolerances, or Maximum Residue Limits (MRLs), on the amount of pesticide residue that can lawfully remain in or on each treated food commodity. In establishing tolerances, EPA considers the toxicity of each pesticide, how much of the pesticide is typically applied, how much of the pesticide remains in or on the produce, and how much of the produce is typically consumed.
Pesticide tolerances are enforced by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which also carries out the Total Diet Study in order to estimate typical dietary intakes of pesticides. In theory, produce with residues exceeding tolerance levels is not allowed to go to market. In practice, however, only a small fraction of marketed produce is actually tested, so the system does not guarantee that all produce will be safe to eat. In fact, a simulation of pesticide residues encountered in a typical diet shows that it is possible to exceed “safe” levels of pesticide residues, particularly for children.
In addition, current risk assessment assumes exposure to a single chemical. Food residue data show that we are frequently exposed to multiple pesticides simultaneously in our food. Other routes of exposure besides food exist as well — drinking water, flea collars, other home pest control products, and agricultural pesticide applications for those who live in or near rural areas. In short, the real world is very different than the situation assumed by risk assessors.
Tolerance data are not currently included in the PesticideInfo Database; for more information, see the Pesticides on Food resource page.
EPA Regulatory Categories
In the process of registration, chemicals fall into several categories which can include restrictions on or additional allowances for their use. A few are highlighted below.
Restricted Use Pesticides (RUPs): EPA restricts use of some pesticide products because they are acutely toxic to humans or beneficial insects; have been shown to cause worker illnesses, groundwater contamination, bird or fish kills; or their drift damages other crops. RUPs can be used only by certified and licensed applicators, and then only under specific conditions.
“Minimum Risk” pesticides: Section 25(b) of FIFRA exempts certain pesticides from regulations requiring registration of the product. To qualify as a “minimum risk” pesticide, a product can contain only approved active ingredients, a list of approximately 30 compounds that are mostly of botanical origin and frequently found in edible foods. In addition, such products can only contain “minimum risk” inert ingredients.
Section 18 Emergency Exemptions: Under Section 18 of FIFRA, EPA can allow states to use a pesticide for an unregistered use for a limited time if the agency determines that emergency conditions exist. Emergency situations can include the need to control unexpected pest outbreaks or to prevent the spread of disease. Though exemptions are for a limited period, in practice “emergency exemptions” are often renewed multiple times, and there is no limit to the number of times the “emergency” exemption may be used. Section 18 Emergency Exemption information is not currently included in Pesticide Info.
Conditional Registration: FIFRA authorizes EPA to “conditionally register” pesticides for specific uses, without undergoing the full risk assessment process or meeting all data requirements. Before granting a conditional registration, EPA must determine that use of the pesticide would “not significantly increase the risk of unreasonable adverse effects on people or the environment.” Analysis from the Natural Resources Defence Council found that while intended by Congress to be used sparingly, this provision has become a significant “loophole” in EPA’s regulatory process.
Other regulatory categories under FIFRA include Special Local Needs registration, EPA Hazardous Air Contaminants, and pesticides under Special Review. See the EPA Pesticides webpage for more information.
Time for reform
PAN and other advocates are pressing for fundamental reform of the system governing pesticide use in the U.S. to provide incentive for safe approaches to pest control and better protect farmers, farmworkers, rural communities and children. Critical, overdue improvements would direct regulators to:
- Take swift action when new, independent science exposes risks presented by pesticides;
- Keep new products linked to cancer, neurodevelopmental or reproductive harms off the market;
- Strengthen standards for pesticide residues on food to protect the most vulnerable;
- Establish and enforce protective no-spray zones for drift-prone pesticides; and
- Put strong measures in place to reduce farmworkers’ on-the-job exposures.
National legislation introduced in 2020, the Protect America’s Children from Toxic Pesticides Act (PACTPA), would be a step in the right direction. If passed, this bill would phase out products scientifically proven to be particularly harmful to human health and the environment, including organophosphate insecticides, neonicotinoid insecticides and paraquat.
The proposed law also provides significant protections for communities that bear the brunt of pesticide exposure, prohibits the use of old stockpiles of banned pesticides, requires listing of “inert” ingredients on all pesticide products, and closes dangerous loopholes for emergency exemptions and conditional registrations.
It also immediately suspends use of pesticides deemed unsafe by the EU or Canada until they are thoroughly reviewed by EPA.
Many advocates are also pressing for an aggressive national pesticide use-reduction goal, backed up with use reporting to monitor progress and policies that support safer pest control, including meaningful investments in agroecological farming.
Resources
NRDC Report: Conditional Registration
USA lags behind other countries in banning harmful pesticides