Food Quality Protection Act

S.L. Johnson and J.E. Bailey, Food Quality Protection Act of 1996, in Pesticides Managing Risks and Optimizing Benefits, N.N. Ragsdale and J. N. Seiber (eds), ACS Symposium Series 734, American Chemical Society, Washington, DC, pp. 8-15 (1999). 

In 1996, the US Senate and House of Representatives passed the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA). In order to make their exposure and risk assessments as accurate as possible, the US ERA Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) has established guidelines to determine a value to assign for NDs. These guidelines can be summarized... 

Food Quality Protection Act, US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC (1996). Also available on the World Wide Web http //www.epa.gov.oppfeadl/fqpa. 

In addition to the processed commodities listed in the Series 860 Table 1, some registrants choose also to provide data on other processed fractions. With the advent of the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 and the emphasis on protecting the food supply for children, collecting residue data on additional processed commodities may be prudent. Fruit purees are popular as baby food in the USA and are an example of a processed commodity that could come under additional scrutiny since they make up a large portion of an infant diet. 

One common objective of an LSMBS is to refine the estimates of actual exposure of consumers to ingredients or impurities in one or more products. For example, study results might be intended to determine a realistic human dietary exposure to pesticide residues in fresh fruits and vegetables. The advent of the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA) has produced an enhanced focus on the exposure of children to pesticides. A well-designed and implemented LSMBS would afford the opportunity to delineate better the exposure and risk to children and other population subgroups. The LSMBS would provide consumer-level data at or near the point of consumption, allowing the refined, relevant, and realistic assessments of dietary exposure. 

In the USA, the passage of the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996 has had a significant impact on the determination of residues in drinking water. FQPA requires that all sources of a pesticide be included in its risk assessment, so the potential exposure from drinking water containing a particular pesticide could be a significant... 

The second milestone event in the USA in the 1990s was passage of the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) in 1996. The goal of the FQPA was to assure a reasonable certainty of no harm as a result of exposure to pesticides for all US population groups. The FQPA incorporated into federal law the major recommendations of the 1993 National Academy of Sciences (NAS)/NRC report, as well as the recommendations of a 1987 NAS/NRC report entitled Regulating Pesticides in Food The Delaney Paradox (National Research Council, 1987). 

Consumers Union (2001). A Report Card for the EPA Successes and Failures in Implementing the Food Quality Protection Act. Consumers Union of the United States, Yonkers, NY. 

Landrigan, P. and Benbrook, C. (2006). Impacts of the food quality protection act on children s exposures to pesticides . Delivered at the 2006 Annual Meeting of the AAAS Opportunities and Initiatives to Minimize Children s Exposure to Pesticides, St. Louis, Missouri, 19 February 2006. 

In recognition of the increased vulnerability of the developing organism, both the U.S. EPA Food Quality Protection Act [77] and the U.S. EPA Safe Drinking Water Act [78] mandate that infants and children warrant special consideration in the risk assessment process. Immune system ontogeny and the sensitivity of the developing immune system to xenobiotics are discussed in detail in chapter 20 of this volume. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, FQPA,. Food Quality Protection Act of 1996, U.S. Public Law 104-170. 

Implications of the Food Quality Protection Act Common Mechanism of Toxicity... 

The Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996 mandated that the US EPA carry out risk assessments that consider the cumulative effects of exposure to pesticides having a common mechanism of toxicity, as well as consider exposure to each pesticide by various routes of exposure (e.g., dermal, dietary, inhalation) and sources (e.g., residues in food and water) in an aggregate manner [19]. To accomplish this, there needs to be sufficient evidence supporting a common adverse effect that is associated with a common mechanism of action in specific target tissues. To date, the required criteria necessary to establish a common mechanism of toxicity with a specific toxic effect for the pyrethroids are not available [1,8,98]. 

Under the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA), the U.S. EPA evaluates the potential for people to be exposed to more than one pesticide at a time from a group of chemicals with an identified common mechanism of toxicity. As part of the examinations, to clarify whether some or all of the pyrethroids share a common mechanism of toxicity, a comparative FOB (functional observational battery) studies with 12 pyrethroids were carried out under standardized conditions [15]. The FOB was evaluated at peak effect time following oral administration of non-lethal doses of pyrethroids to rats using com oil as vehicle. Four principal components were observed in the FOB data [22], Two of these components described behaviors associated with CS syndrome (lower body temperature, excessive salivation, impaired mobility) and the others described behaviors associated with the T syndrome (elevated body temperature, tremor myoclonus). From the analysis, pyrethroids can be divided into two main groups (Type I T syndrome and Type II CS syndrome) and a third group (Mixed Type) that did not induce a clear typical response. Five other pyrethroids were also classified by an FOB study conducted in the same manner [16]. The results of these classifications are shown in Table 1. The FOB results for all non-cyano pyrethroids were classified as T syndrome, and the results of four ot-cyano pyrethroids were classified as CS syndrome however, three of the ot-cyano pyrethroids, esfenvalerate, cyphenothrin, and fenpropathrin, were classified as Mixed Type. 

Food laws, British, 23 160-161. See also Food Additives Amendment of 1958 Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997 (FDAMA) Food Chemicals Codex (FCC) Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA) Food manufacturing aids, 12 66-67... 

FDA regulation of, 21 578-579 gelatin in, 12 442 high pressure treatment of, 13 436 processed, 18 32-35 shipping containers for, 18 37 Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA), 18 538-539 21 591 minor use pesticides under, 18-539-540 Food refrigeration, 21 558-566 importance of, 21 559 Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS), 13 17... 

On August 3, 1996, President Clinton signed into law the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA). The new law required major changes in pesticide regulation and afforded the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) unprecedented opportunities to provide greater health and environmental protection, particularly for infants and children. The FQPA required the EPA to review the more than 9,700 tolerances established before August 3, 1996 (the... 

Food Quality Protection Act EPA Pesticide residues in food Risk... 

The question of an extra assessment factor in the hazard and risk assessment for chemicals of concern for children is specifically addressed in Section 5.2.1.13. The U.S. Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) (US-EPA 1996) directed the US-EPA to apply an extra safety factor of 10 in assessing the risks of pesticides to infants and children. The US-EPA (2002) noted the overlap of areas covered by the FQPA factor and those addressed by the traditional UFs, and it was concluded that an additional UF (children-specific) is not needed in the setting of reference values because the currently available UFs (interspecies, intraspecies, LQAEL-to-NOAEL, subchronic-to-chronic, and database-deficiency) were considered sufficient to account for uncertainties in the database from which the reference values are derived. Renwick et al. (2000) concluded that the available data did not provide a scientific rationale for an additional 10-fold UF for infants and children and pointed out that when adequate reproduction, multigeneration, or developmental studies are conducted, there will be no need for an additional 10-fold factor. 

---