{
  "id": "96-759",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "96-759",
  "active": false,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 100602,
      "date": "1998-09-11",
      "retrieved": "2016-05-24T20:51:43.965941",
      "title": "Pesticide Legislation: Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-170)",
      "summary": "The 104th Congress enacted significant changes to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and\nRodenticide Act (FIFRA), governing U.S. sale and use of pesticide products, and the Federal Food,\nDrug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), which limits pesticide residues on food. The vehicle of these\nchanges was  H.R. 1627 , the \"Food Quality Protection Act of 1996\" (FQPA), enacted\nAugust 3, 1996, as  P.L. 104-170 . Under FIFRA, the new law will facilitate registrations and\nreregistrations of pesticides for special (so-called \"minor\") uses and authorize collection of\nmaintenance fees to support pesticide reregistration. Coordination of regulations implementing\nFIFRA and FFDCA will be required. Food safety provisions will establish a single standard of safety\nfor pesticide residue on raw and processed foods; provide information through large food retail stores\nto consumers about the health risks of pesticide residues and how to avoid them; preempt state and\nlocal food safety laws if they are based on concentrations of pesticide residues below recently\nestablished federal residue limits (called \"tolerances\"); and ensure that tolerances protect the health\nof infants and children.\n  Contrary to widespread reports, the FQPA does not repeal the Delaney Clause or amend\nFFDCA Section 409: food additives that are not pesticide residues remain subject to the \"zero-risk\"\nDelaney standard. Rather,  P.L. 104-170  eliminated the distinction between raw and processed food\ntolerances so that all pesticide residues will be regulated under an amended FFDCA Section 408. \nNew Section 408 requires all tolerances to be \"safe,\" ensuring a \"reasonable certainty of no harm\"\nfrom pesticides. It authorizes slightly higher residue concentrations on foods when pesticide use\navoids greater health risks to consumers or significant disruptions to domestic production of an\nadequate, wholesome, and economical food supply. \n  The FQPA, as enacted, does not address two issues that were addressed by  H.R. 1627 , as introduced and reported in the House, but were deleted before the House and Senate\ndebates. The FQPA does not include a proposal to federally preempt local pesticide use regulations\nwhich was opposed by several states with laws either authorizing or preempting local regulation. The\nFQPA also omits a provision opposed by Indian tribes and the Administration that would have\nprohibited tribal enforcement of pesticide use laws on land within tribal boundaries if less than half\nthat land were owned by the tribe or tribal members. \n  The FQPA has widespread support in the community of growers, food processors, chemical\nsuppliers, environmental and consumer advocacy groups, and state government agriculture officials. \nThe Clinton Administration also generally supports its provisions.\n  For readers not familiar with the statutes, Appendix A describes key FIFRA and FFDCA\nauthorities and provisions. Appendix B provides a brief section-by-section summary of  P.L. 104-170 .",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/96-759",
          "sha1": "cae29ffc2edda2c1edd8ea3578133e1cf1d09374",
          "filename": "files/19980911_96-759_cae29ffc2edda2c1edd8ea3578133e1cf1d09374.pdf",
          "images": null
        },
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "filename": "files/19980911_96-759_cae29ffc2edda2c1edd8ea3578133e1cf1d09374.html"
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    }
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Energy Policy",
    "Environmental Policy"
  ]
}