    PESTICIDE BAN WINS REPRIEVE: EPA Bases Decision On Survey Paid 
For and Conducted by Four Leading Pesticide Manufacturers. 
    -- by Michael Weisskopf, The Washington Post.  (2/14/92)

    WASHINGTON -- The environmental Protection Agency Thursday 
reversed its plan to ban most uses of a popular pesticide, 
acknowledging it overestimated the cancer risks of the family of 
chemicals previously considered a major threat to the U.S. food 
supply.
    The decision to reinstate compounds containing EBDC (ethylene 
bisdithiocarbamate) for use on 25 common agricultural commodities 
represents a victory for pesticide manufacturers because it was 
based on a new mehod of assessing risk long promoted by the chemical 
industry.
    Instead of its practice of measuring residue on crops while 
they are in the field, the EPA agreed to judge EBDC levels by the 
amount of the chemicals remaining on produce in the supermarket.
    The $10 milliion "market-basket" survey -- paid for and 
conducted by four leading pesticide manufacturers -- found "no 
detectable" residues on 80 percent of the samples.
    Along with tests of previouslyu feared substances as dioxin and 
formaldehyde -- as well as recent proposals to lower standards for 
radio active materials in drinking water -- many envrionmental groups 
view the EBDC reversal as part of a larger regulatory retrenchment 
by the government.
    EPA Administrator William K> Reilly said he was guided by "sound 
science" in determining whether the risks of EPDCs outweigh their 
benefit in preserving vegetables and fruits quality.
    Normally, the EPA assesses risk by measuring pesticide residue 
found on crops at the farm. Building in conservative biases to 
protect the public health, the EPA assumes that the crops receive 
the maximum dose for the maximum number of applicatins allowed and 
that they are harvested soon after the last application. These 
so-called "field trials" are routinely compiled and paid for by 
pesticide producers.
    In December 1989, when Reilly proposed a ban on the use of EBDCs 
on 45 crops, the agency assumed that the chemicals would result in 
an "unacceptable" risk by adding one additional cancer for every 3,300 
people. The assumption was based on residue levels found at the farm.
    EBDCs were said to be especially potent carcinogens when they 
break down from decay or heat into ethylene thiourea ETU), which has 
been found to cause tumors in the liver,thyroid and pituitary gland 
of labratory animals.
    In 1989, Reilly also agreed to give industry enough time to prove 
its argumaent that chemical residues on foods deteriorate after they 
are exposed to air, water, and light. He approved the study by four 
produceers -- ASF Corp., E.I. Dupont de Nemours & Co., elf ATOCHEM 
North North America Inc. and Rhomand Haas Co.
    The survey of 5,700 samples resulted in such low residue 
findings for the 45 crops that the agency had to recalculate its 
cancer estimates, reducing them to 1.6 additional cancer cases from 
every one million people.
    Use of EBCDs on several other crops, however, did not meet 
those criteria, and the EPA Thursday banned the chemicals from use on 
11 frits an vegetables including apricots, celery, peaches, spinach 
and nectarines.

