EPA has formally denied CropLife America’s July 2008 petition, filed by the association to help ensure that EPA’s Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP) is successfully implemented and to reduce potential financial, time, and resource burdens on both industry and the agency. CropLife America is concerned that the program lacks transparenty and sound science.
“We’re disappointed with the EPA’s decision to deny our petition which was intended to help keep the EDSP on schedule,” says Jay Vroom, CropLife America president and CEO. “In arriving at this formal response, we worry EPA have not taken into account the unique aspects of pesticide regulatory requirements as they intersect with the overarching, new endocrine screening process. In addition, it is still unclear how Tier 2 testing will be triggered by Tier 1 results as no comprehensive evaluation procedures have been made publically available. Perhaps of greatest concern is that the EPA admitted in their response to our petition that test orders may be issued that contain assays not yet validated, which is mandated by the Food Quality Protection Act.”
The association’s petition to EPA highlighted the issue of using only validated test systems and minimizing duplicative testing, along with concerns regarding the unnecessary use of test animals, and the impact to small businesses, among others.
“While concerned with what effects the EPA’s decision and subsequent reasoning to deny our petition may have on the Program’s efficacy, we are encouraged that the agency has made a positive commitment to use a weight-of-evidence approach to evaluate Tier 1 data,” notes Vroom.
“We are also pleased to note that the EPA will allow citation of existing data in response to test orders as well as the use of newer computational tools, such as the ToxCast initiative, to help pre-screen compounds slated for endocrine testing,” Vroom adds. “We view these positive changes as products of our petition and ongoing dialogue with the agency — not withstanding the fact that these positive steps were not singled out in the formal denial message. We will continue to be an active participant in ensuring the successful implementation of this program.”
