Enforcement tools

Pesticide residues will be considered illegal when pesticides are detected at levels that exceed the tolerance level, or when residues of a pesticide are detected, at any level, on a commodity for which a tolerance has not been established. Illegal residues should not be confused with unsafe residues, however, since pesticide tolerances are most appropriately viewed as enforcement tools rather than as safety standards. 

While all nations of the world possess the sovereign right to establish their own acceptable levels for pesticide residues in foods, many lack the resources to develop their own regulatory programs and instead rely upon a set of international standards developed by the Codex Alimentarius Commission, frequently referred to as Codex. The Codex international standards are termed maximum residue limits (MRLs) and, like U.S. tolerances, are established primarily as enforcement tools for determining whether pesticide applications are made according to established directions. While many countries have adopted Codex MRLs, others, such as the U.S. and several Asian countries, rely on their own standards. Thus, there is no uniformity among the world with respect to allowable levels of pesticides on foods. A pesticide-commodity... 

It is critical to realize that pesticide tolerances themselves are not safety standards but rather enforcement tools for indicating whether pesticides have been applied according to directions. Violative residues result when residue levels exceed the tolerance due to the misapplication of a pesticide, or when residues at any level are found on a commodity for which a tolerance was not established (which could result from product misuse). While a few isolated cases of violative residues have resulted in human harm, the vast majority of violative residues are of little or no toxicological consequence. 

It is correct to note that the specific tolerance levels requested by the manufacturer are determined solely on the basis of agricultural practices and not upon potential human health considerations. As such, tolerances represent enforcement tools to determine whether pesticide applications were made in accordance with the law but should not be considered as safety standards. In the case where a pesticide is used properly, the resulting residue level should be below the tolerance level. Residues detected in excess of the established tolerance are likely encountered only in cases where applications are not made in accordance with the legal directions. Results obtained from federal and state monitoring programs demonstrate that the incidence of residues detected in excess of tolerances is very low and suggest that most pesticide applications are made legally. 

It should be recognized that US pesticide tolerances established by the aforementioned process, in combination with regulatory monitoring programs, serve important roles as enforcement tools that provide economic disincentives for pesticide users to misuse pesticides. At the same time, the tolerances should not be considered as safety standards since violative residues rarely represent residues of toxicological concern (Winter, 1992a). 

In addition to the need for scientific improvements to allow probabilistic risk assessments to be properly performed and interpreted, there also exists a need to educate stakeholders about what the US system for tolerance establishment and monitoring does and does not do. In simplest terms, the US system can be described as a food quality system but not necessarily a food safety system. This results from the fact that the pesticide tolerances are not safety standards but rather exist as enforcement tools that allow an assessment of how well pesticide application regulations are adhered to. Violative residues demonstrate the likelihood of pesticide misuse but should not be considered, in the vast majority of cases, to represent unsafe residues. Safety considerations govern whether or not the use of pesticides on specified commodities will be permitted tolerances, when granted, serve as indicators of good agricultural practices rather than as toxicological benchmarks. 

The Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act provides for the seizure of foods, drugs, and devices that are adulterated or misbranded. While FDA has used this provision sparingly in the past several years, it continues to be a formidable enforcement tool that can have devastating effects for a company. 

During my tenure with the Center for Medical Devices, I was part of several injunctions that were referred to as corporate or corporatewide injunctions. These actions were intended to address what the agency believed to be a corporate culture that permitted, and possibly encouraged, company noncompliance. Corporate injunctions were invoked when compliance problems were found in different facilities of the same company. A pattern of noncompliance and negligence on behalf of the parent company led the agency to consider a corporate injunction as the regulatory enforcement tool. Corporate injunctions typically include the corporate parent, its senior officers, and all of its facilities around the world. It usually requires that some of those facilities cease operations for some period of time until compliance is achieved. Its characteristics are similar to the traditional injunction, with the exception that this particular enforcement targets the corporate umbrella. 

Clarification of the FDA s authority and additional enforcement tools for the agency. 

FDA has explicit statutory authority to issue information to the public. The courts have upheld the right of FDA to publicise illegal activity and to issue publicity about products and practices that it concludes to be harmful to the public health. This is regarded by many as the most potent enforcement tool available to FDA. 

Budowle, B., Moretti, T. R., Niezgoda, S. J., et al., CODIS and PCR-based short tandem repeat loci Law enforcement tools.. Forensic Science Research and Training Center, FBI Academy, 73-77. 

The EPA was created with several environmental responsibilities (see Figure 20-1). The EPA enforces environmental regulations through a combination of civil and criminal penalties, including compliance and prohibition orders, fines, and imprisonment. Compliance orders require that persons, states, or businesses follow the requirements of the regulations. Prohibition orders require that persons, states, or businesses stop actions that violate regulations. Compliance and prohibition orders are the most commonly used enforcement tools. Penalties that result in fines can be very expensive, depending on the severity of noncompliance. 

In the 1987 amendments of the CWA, Congress incorporated Seetion 319 to establish a national program to eontrol non-point source discharges whieh provided a regulatory schedule for storm water. These amendments also established a revolving loan fund for eon-struetion of sewage treatonent plants and provided EPA with enhaneed enforcement tools. ... 

OSHA can refer a willful citation resulting a fatality to the Justice Department for consideration for criminal prosecution. Any criminal prosecution by the Department of Justice (DOJ) does not impact OSHA authority to issue civil citations and penalties. OSHA can use criminal referral as an enforcement tool. However, most cases involving willful citations do not merit criminal prosecution. 

The enforcement styles favoured by the Railway Inspectorate during the fieldwork period are very familiar to students of regulation in Britain as they are typically accommodative in style. If we return to the models of enforcement outlined in Chapter 1, then the Railway Inspectorate falls clearly within the accommodative/compliance/behavioural model. This can be demonstrated with reference to the use they make of the enforcement tools at their disposal and the theory—or enforcement philosophy —they claim to adhere to. 

A move to expand the range of enforcement tools has been proposed, for example, in the context of market abuse in the Financial Services and Markets Bill in Britain. There is evidence from the United States that federal regulators have been using civil injunctions against corporate violators. 

Yes. OSHA uses the newest version of the ANSI emergency eyewash and shower standard as an enforcement tool to determine a unit s suitability as required under 1910.151(c). If a unit does not meet the standards outlined by ANSI, then OSHA may consider the unit to be unsuitable, and therefore in violation of the OSHA standard. 

Daily Penalty Assessments Under the Mine Act, MSHA has authority to propose daily civil penalties for every day that an operator fails to correct a violation. In practice, daily civil penalties are rarely used. Operators are not inclined to engage in a course of conduct that would luilawfully defy MSHA, even if they think the agency is completely wrong about something because MSHA has so many enforcement tools at its disposal. In any event, daily penalties are one more way for MSHA to enforce the Mine Act. 

The NPDES permit, containing effluent limitations on what may be discharged by a source, is the Act s principal enforcement tool. EPA may issue a compliance order or bring a civil suit in U.S. district courts against persons who violate the terms of a permit. The penalty for such a violation can be as much as 25,000 per day. Stiffer penalties are authorized for criminal violations of the Act—for negligent or knowing violations—of as much as 50,000 per day, 3 years imprisonment. 

States that currently do not use the FMCSA s monitoring and enforcement tools, such as the SafeStat system, are not expected to use the new tools offered under CSA. As noted above, intrastate motor carriers hauling placarded hazmat are subject to the enforcement model and actions taken by the FMCSA. 

If the violation caused the death of a worker, OSHA can refer the matter to the Department of Justice (DOJ) for criminal prosecution. Criminal referral remains a strong enforcement tool that OSHA can use in serious cases. Each criminal violation allegation to include willfulness must go to a jury and meet the beyond a reasonable doubt threshold. An other than serious violation has a direct relationship to job safety and health, but probably would not cause death or serious physical harm. 

---