PRODUCERS BLAST EPA DRAFT OF 'PESTICIDES ON FOOD' BROCHURE

JENNIFER OWENS

WASHINGTON -- Fresh-fruit and vegetable producers blasted the Environmental Protection Agency's draft of a brochure intended to educate consumers about pesticides and food, saying the proposed brochure is alarmist and threatens to undermine consumer confidence in the safety of the food supply.

Required under the 1996 Food Quality Protection Act, the brochure is being developed for dissemination through retail food stores. The law requires that the EPA make the finished brochure available to consumers through supermarkets by Aug. 3, 1998.

Titled "Pesticides on Food: Consumer Information," the draft brochure was open for public comment from Jan. 14 to March 2. The EPA did not return calls seeking comment on the extent and nature of the public comments received.

Food-trade associations, however, attacked the draft brochure as too negative in tone, and claimed the EPA used language in the document that was not called for by the law.

"Nowhere [in the 1996 Act] did Congress express an interest in or indicate a need for the brochure to promote 'environmentally conscious decisions' or to 'ensure consumer safety,' " said John Aguirre, vice president of government affairs for the United Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Association, in comments to the EPA. "Overall, the effect of the draft brochure is to discourage fresh-fruit and vegetable consumption."

For the Alexandria, Va.-based industry group, the brochure's greatest problems are in a section called "Tips," which suggests that consumers "peel fruits and vegetables when possible to remove wax, dirt and pesticides. Discard outer leaves of leafy vegetables. But, remember that some nutrients and fiber may be lost when you take these steps."

United said it opposes the suggestion, saying it "believes the recommendation may result in a net loss of important health benefits." United added that the tip "depicts produce as a highly inconvenient food. This is a very serious issue. One of the leading reasons that consumers do not eat more produce is the perceived inconvenience associated with consuming these foods."

Both the Food Marketing Institute here and the Produce Marketing Association in Newark, Del., also raised issues with the brochure's content and its tone as well.

Both groups objected to the EPA's use of the term "harmful" -- used twice in the opening section and five times on the first two panels. The effect, said the PMA, "might imply that EPA is not doing its job. If a pesticide is truly harmful, the consumer may ask, why is it allowed to be used? We recommend more specific language such as 'unsafe levels' or 'excessive amounts' in place of the word 'harmful.' "

All three industry groups also said they dislike what seems to be an EPA endorsement for organically grown foods.

The FMI also weighed in on the Food Quality Protection Act's display requirements, which the EPA has defined to mean "to place the brochure in a manner that makes it available and visible to all shoppers, either in the produce department, entrance or checkout."

The FMI argued that the EPA's interpretation goes beyond the Act's requirements and said that in mandating placement, the agency is overlooking many practical problems.