Statement of

William Lovelady

on behalf of the

National Cotton Council of America

before the

Subcommittee on Department Operations, Nutrition & Foreign Agriculture

Thursday, June 25, 1998

9:30 am

My name is Bill Lovelady. I am Chairman of the Board of the National Cotton Council and a cotton and pecan farmer from Tornillo, Texas near El Paso. I also am currently serving as NCC’s representative on EPA’s Tolerance Reassessment Advisory Committee (TRAC).

Cotton has perhaps been the commodity most effected by EPA’s implementation of the Food Quality Protection Act. In 19967, FQPA requirements resulted in EPA denying the extensions of a fungicide, and a herbicidetwo tolerances and initial denial of Section 18 emergency use applications for a critically needed insecticide product in six states. .Ironically, under pre-FQPA rules, EPA had approved use of the product in these states for the two previous years. Theough insecticide, carbofuran (Furadan) was later made available by the states of Texas and Oklahoma through a Special Local Need (24 - c) and it provided critical protection against the cotton aphid. - where it literally saved last year’s crop- Tthese agency’s actions have alarmed cotton producers and have seriously challenged theirour confidence in the agency’s pesticide registration process.

In my remarks today, I will discuss decisions on specific crop protection products that have been problematical, explain why EPA’s application of the statute in each case was of concern,. I also will and outline the steps the grower and pesticide user community are taking to restore the underlying principles of sound science, transparency, balance, and workability to EPA’s decision making process.

In February of 19967, cottonbelt states filed Emergency Exemption (Ssection 18) applications for use of carbofuran (Furadan) for aphid control on cotton. Though the product manufacturer, FMC, submitted a full section 3 registration application 24 months earlier in March of 1995, the agency hads not yet acted on it. After numerous requests from the agency for more information and more refined risk assessments from FMC, and several meetings with NCC producer representatives, EPA denied the Section 18's in July of that year. Beyond the critical timing problem this caused, the mechanism for making the decisions was and is still is somewhat confusing.

Furadan was deemed to be "unsafe" because of a twenty year old database of residues in drinking water concerns and because ofbased on the a newly applied and incorrect overly conservative wrong margin of safety. As best we understand, the detections of concern in drinking water occurred before 1980 in the Northeast for a different formulation of carbofuran than is currently applied to cotton.

While the registrant was setting the record straight on the water issue, EPA then surprisingly denied the petition based on a need to set a residue tolerance on gin trash, a cotton processing byproduct. Using the drinking water database, the carbofuran risk cup was exceeded and FQPA, according to Agency attorneys, will not allow a new tolerance to be set.

We objected to this new requirement since tolerances existed for the cotton food and feed products cottonseed, cottonseed meal, and hulls. Further, the states offered to include a gin trash feeding restriction as part of the Section 18 label. None of the attempts to address this concern were acceptable to the agency, and, as mentioned earlier, Texas and Oklahoma finally had no choice but to use FIFRA state authority to allow use of this critical product. The state actions averted a near disaster aphid problem in Texas and Oklahoma last year.

Unfortunately, Tthe concern over the agency’s decision making was not alleviated this year. Though we began discussing timelines and needs of carbofuran with EPA in January, there is still no final decision on a Section 3 and the Section 18 process was, again, problematical.

Though the agency issued the emergency use for Texas ( whicho needs Furadan earlier than most other producing areas) in mid April, an unnecessary restriction related to soil type added at the last minute on the initial label would have disallowed its use on approximately 95% of the cotton acreage. Yet another week of valuable EPA, NCC, and state agency resources were eaten up correcting the decision. The restriction was different than the recommendation from FMC and in our view would not have impacted exposure to groundwater from the pesticide.

Finally, another roadblock the agency has erected in our effort to gain access to this critical crop protection tool was demonstrated in the publication of the 1998 Section 18 requests in the Federal Register. The Federal Register notice indicatesd the need to publish the applications for comments based on a special review conducted from 1985-91 for a different formulation of carbofuran for its effect on avians species. This issue was not raised in last year’s denials, was not proven out as a concern in past years in state bird monitorying programs and is another example of the ever changing rules at the agency. I will submit a copy of our comments to the Federal Register notice and a detailed timeline of carbofuran decisions for the record.

EquallyEven more troubling wasis the manner in which the tolerance extension decision on a herbicide, Buctril (bromoxynilmil), used on a genetically modified cottonseed, called BXN, washas been handled by the agency. With the advent of BXN, a Buctril tolerant plant, producers are able to A novelrelatively new method of weed control which allows cotton producers to use this post-emergencentncy herbicide sprayed over the top of cotton plants rather than more traditional strategies of directed chemical application,such as cultivation and hand hoeing. The industry has been very pleased with this technology. It reduces cost, total herbicide usage, worker exposure, assists in soil erosion control, and has helped similar technologies to remain more competitively priced. While the series of EPA actions on Buctril was as confusing as those on carbofuran, the most concerning aspect of the decision to deny the tolerance extension late last year was the change in EPA policy it represented.

In the denial letters sent to cotton farmers and the product manufacturer Rhone Poulenc on December 24, 1997, Dr. Lynn Goldman indicated that she could not make an FQPA safety finding of "reasonable certainty of no harm" because of the need to apply the additional ten-fold safety factor allowed by the law. However, iIn extending the temporary tolerance for seven months earlier, the agency outlined in the draft Registration Eligibility Decision why the additional 10X safety factor was not necessary. AlTthough the tolerance has now been reestablished, as a result of additional data being reviewed subsequent to the denial and a revised risk assessment, it caused the company that produces BXN cottonseed at least $5 million and created great uncertainty for cotton farmers, cottonseed processors, and state regulators.

Cotton producers are very concerned that such confusing and , inconsistent, application of the statute willcould lead to unnecessary loss of crop protection tools. As others will outline in their testimony, loss of the products could have dire economic and public benefit consequences. For instance, the product crucial to the Beltwide Boll Weevil Eradication Programs is the OP insecticide malathion. If we lose its use, it would cripple our efforts to eliminatecontrol a pest that came close to ending cotton production in the southeast.

In the states of Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Florida, cotton production has increased drastically since the weevil has been eradicated. As a result, totalOther insecticide use has been reduced from 50% to by over 880%, and rural economies have been revitalized. With the other serious financial and economic problems facing our industry at present, we simply cannot lose the ability to eradicatecontrol the boll weevil.

After our experience last year, the National Cotton Council became active with National Food Processors, Minor Crop Farmer Alliance, American Crop Protection Association and others through the Implementation Working Group to make recommendations to EPA and USDA regarding FQPA implementation. The IWG is a broad coalition of farm, food, manufacturing, and pest management organizations. Last week, the IWG released the " FQPA Implementation Roadmap": a science- based, workable framework for implementation of the Food Quality Protection Act. The Road Map is based on the four guiding principles of sound science, transparency balance and workability. It is a comprehensive report that outlines the issues critical to reasonable FQPA implementation and explains our current concerns with EPA policy.

It provides an overview and analysis of key concerns to the registrant and user communities and a set of recommendations for addressing those concerns. For each major issue identified, a white paper is included which outlines recommendations more comprehensively and explains specific scientific and policy issues. The Road Map is a consensus document which demonstrates a widespread desire in the user community to work constructively to assure the regulatory policy for administering FQPA is adequately protective, is consistent with the statute, and allows domestic producers to continue to provide a safe and affordable supply of food, fiber, and other agricultural products.

The IWG looks forward to extensive discussions with EPA and USDA regarding these recommendations. We are hopeful that we can find areas of agreement, and the agency will quickly adopt these as official policies. Where there are differences in interpretation, we expect the agency to articulate the policy they plan to use instead with the explanation for not accepting suggestions outlined in the Road Map. IWG believes that the document clearly demonstrates that our recommendations are supported by Congressional intent and will formally submit them as appropriate procedure if the agency is reluctant to enter into a dialogue otherwise. Your oversight and assistance in those discussions will be appreciated.

We also acknowledge the attention this matter has received from the Vice President. The directive issued in April outlining the need for use of sound science in FQPA implementation has been helpful. Congressmen Berry and Stenholm deserve a lion’s share of the credit for focusing the Administration's attention to the critical matters surrounding FQPA implementation. The TRAC committee that was established as a result of the directive is a useful exercise and has helped us better understand how EPA is making decisions. We are also encouraged that the agency indicates that it will publish guidance on critical science issues in the Fall. We look forward to reviewing those documents and urge you to insist that the timeline is met.

Finally, we believe whatever regulatory policy related to critical issues such as aggregate risk assessment and applications of the additional I1O0X safety factor EPA adopts, it must be vetted through a formal notice and comment policy process. Transparency in this form is critical before confidence is restored in the process.

For producers to be able to accept the regulatory decisions the agency makes, the process for making those decisions must be transparent. We must understand what the rules are and have confidence that those rules are being applied consistently.

Thank you again for your interest to this important issue. I will be happy to answer any questions.