RYAI7594 Discussion Draft SLE. Om (dare noma §1624 ‘To prohibit he use of chlorpyrifos on food, and for other purposes. IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES = + “ Mr. UpAut (for himself, Mr. Mr. Boower, Mr. Durst, Mrs, Me, Havi'ss GruLanRAND, and Mr, introduced the following bills which was. 4 Me. Coedin reat twvieo and referred to the Committee on A BILL To prohibit the use of chlorpyrifos on food, and for other purposes. 1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa- 2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 3. SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 4 ‘This Act may be cited as the “Protect Children, 5 Farmers, and Farmworkers from Nerve Agent Pesticides 6 Act of 2017", 7 SEC. 2, FINDINGS. 8 Congress finds as follo 9 (1) In 1996, Congress unanimously passed. the 10 Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (Public LawRYALI594 a oe co} 10 iL 12 13 14 15 16 iT 18 19 20 22 23 24 25, Disoussion Draft SLA, 2 104-170; 110 Stat. 1489) (referred to in this see- tion as “PQPA”), a comprehensive overhaul of Fed- That Act eral pesticide and food safety policy amonded the Federal Insecticide, Fungieide, and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. 136 et. seq.) (referred to in this section as “FIFRA”) and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetie Act (21 U.S.C, 301 et seq.}, the lnws that govern how the Environmental Protection Ageney (referred to in this section as the “EPA”) registers pesticides and pesticide labels for use in the United States and establishes tolerances or aceept- able levels for pesticide residues on food, (2) The FQPA directs the EPA to ensure with “veasonable certainty” that “no harm” will result from food, drinking water, and other exposures to a pesticide. If EPA cannot make this safety finding, it aust prohibit residues and use of the pesticide on food. The FQPA mandates that EPA must. consider children’s special sensitivity and exposure to pos ticide chemicals and must make an explicit deter- mination that the pesticide can be used with a “vea- sonable certainty of no harm” to children, In deter- mining acceptable levels of pesticide residue, EPA must account for the potential health barm from pre-and postnatal exposures. The economic benefitsRYAITSN Ca nraAunnr en 10 caf 12 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Discussion Draft BAC, 3 of pesticides cannot be used to override this health- based standard for children from food and other es- posures. (3) Chlorpyrifos is a widely used pesticide first vegistered by EPA in 1965. Chlorpyrifos is an organophosphate pesticide, a class of pesticides de- veloped as nerve agents in World War IL and adapt- ed for use as insecticides after the war. Chlorpyritos and other organophosphate pesticides affect the nervous system through inhibition of cholinesterase, an enzyme required for proper nerve funetioning Acute poisonings occur when nerve impulses pulsate through the body, causing symptoms like nausea, vomiting, convulsions, respiratory paralysis, and, in extreme eases, death. Based on dozens of peer-ve- viewed scientific articles, EPA determined that expo- sure during pregnaney to even low levels of chlorpyrifos that cansed only minimal cholinesterase inhibition (10 percent or loss) in the mothers could lead to measurable long-lasting and possibly perma- nent newrobehavioral and functional deficits in pre- natally exposed children. (4) People, including pregnant women, are ex- posed to chlorpyrifos through residues on food, eon- taminated drinking water, and toxic spray deift fromRYAITSOG Ce Aa Aw Rw Discussion Draft She. 4 nearhy pesticide applications. Chlorpyrifos is used on an extensive variety of exops, including fruit and nat trees, vegetables, wheat, alfalfa, and corn, Between 2006 and 2012, chlorpyrifos was applied to more than 50 pereent of the Nation’s apple and broccoli crops, 45 pereent of onion crops, 46 percent of wal nut crops, and 41, pereent of emuliflower crops, (5) Chlorpyrifos is acutely toxie and associated with neurodevelopmental harms in children. Prenatal exposure to chlorpyrifos is associated with clevated risks of reduced IQ, loss of working memory, delays in motor development, atiention-deficit disorders, and structural changes in the brain. (6) There is no nationwide chlorpyrifos use re- porting. The United States Geological Survey esti- mates annual pesticide use on agricultural land in the United States, and estimates that chlorpyrifos use on erops in 2014 ranged from 5,000,000. to 7,000,000 pounds of chlorpyrifos. (7) In its 2016 report, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act Scientific Advisory Panel recognized “the growing body of literature with laboratory animals (rats and mice) indicating that gestational and/or early postnatal exposure to chlorpyrifos may cause persistent effects into adult-RYAIZS94 wc eau ank wn 10 11 1B 14 1S 16 17 18 19 20 22 23 24 25 Diseussion Draft SLC. 5 hood along with cpidemtology studies which have evaluated prenatal chlorpyritos exposure in mother- infant pais and reported nssociations with neurodevelopment onteomes in infants and chil- aren.”, (8) Chlorpyvifos has long been of concer to EPA. Residential uses of chlorpyrifos ended in 2000 after EPA found unsafe exposures to childven, EPA. also discontinued use of chlorpyrifos on tomatoes and restricted its use on apples and grapes in 2000, and obtained no-spray buffers around schools, homes, playticlds, day cares, hospitals, and other publie places, ranging from 10 to 100 feet. In 2015, EPA proposed to ban all chlorpyrifos food toler- ances, based on unsafe drinking water coutamina- fos on food in tion, which would end use of chlorp; the United States. After updating the risk assess- ment for chlorpyrifos in November 2016 to protect against prenatal expostwres associated with brain im- pacts, BPA found that expected residues from use on food crops exceeded the safoty standard, and ad- ditionally the majority of estimated drinking water exposures from currently allowed uses of chlorpyrifos also exceeded acceptable levels, reinforcing the necd to revoke all food tolerances for the pesticide.RYAI7594 Cem ann kN 10 1 13 4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 2 B 25 Discussion Draft SLE. 6 (9) Chlorpyrifos threatens the healthy develop- ment of children. Childven experience greater expo- sure to chlorpyrifos and other pesticides beeanse, relative to adults, they cat and drink more propor- tional to their body weight. A growing body of evi- devee shows that prenatal exposure to very low lev- ols of chlorpyrifos can lead to lasting and possibly permanent, neurological impaivments. In November 2016, EPA released a revised hnman health risk. as- sessment for chlorpyrifos that confirmed that there ave no acceptable uses for the pesticide, all food uses exeeed acceptable levels, with children ages 1 to 2 s that are 140 times exposed to levels of chlorpy what the EPA considers acceptable. (10) Chlorpprifos threatens agricultural work- ars. Farm workers are exposed to chlorpyrifos from mixing, handling, and applying the pesticide, as well as from entering ficlds where chlorpyrifos was ve- contly sprayed. Chlorpyrifos is one of the pesticides most often linked to acute pesticide poisonings, and in many States, it is regularly identified among the 5 pesticides linked to the highest munber of pes- ticide poisoning incidents, This is significant. given widespread under-reporting of pestivide poisonings due to such factors as inadequate reporting systems,YATTON wen Ae kw 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Discussion Draft she 7 fear of retaliation from employers, and veluctance to seck medical treatment. According to the EPA, all workers who tix and apply chlorpyrifos are exposed to unsafe levels of the pesticide even with maximum personal protective cquipment and engineering con- trols. Field workers are currently allowed to re-enter fields within 1 to 5 days after chlorpyrifos is sprayed based on emrent restricted entry intervals on the registered chlorpyrifos labels but unsafe exposures continue on average 18 days after applications. (11) Chlorpyrifos threatens families in agrieul- ‘tral communities. Rural families are exposed to un- safe levels of chlorpyrifos on their food and in their drinking water. They are also cxposed to toxie levels of chlorpyrifos when it drifts from the fields to homes, schools, and other places people gather. EPA’s 2016 revised human health risk: assessment found that chlorpyrifos dvift reaches unsafe levels at 300 fect away trom the cdge of the treated field, and the chemical chlorpyrifos is found at unsafe levels in the air at schools, homes, and communities in agri- cultural arcas, The small butiers pat in place in 2012 leave children unprotected trom this toxie pes- ticide drift.RYALTIOL Cow anunr on 10 it 12 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 21 2 B 24 25 Discussion Draft SLC. 8 (12) Chlorpyvifos threatens drinking wnter. EPA’s 2014 and 2016 risk assessments have found that chlorpyrifos levels in drinking water are unsafe, People living and working in agricultural commu- nities are likely to be exposed to higher levels of chlorpyrifos and other organophosphate pesticides in their drinking water. (13) In 2015, leading seicntifie and medical ex- perts, along with chiklren’s health advocates, came together, under “Projeet TENDR: Targeting Envi- vonmental Neuro-Developmental Risks” (referred to in this section as “TENDR”), to issue a eall to ac- tion to reduce widespread exposures to chemicals that interfere with fetal and children’s brain develop- ment. Based on the available and peer-reviewed sei- entific evideneo, the TENDR anthors identified prime examples of newrodevelopmentally toxie chemi- cals “that can contribute to learning, behavioral, or intellectual impairment, as well as — specific neurodevelopmental disorders sueh as ADED or au- tism spectrmm disorder,” and listed organophosphate pesticides, among them. In the United States, based on reporting from parents, 1 in 6 children have a developmental disability or other developmental detay. The TENDR Consensus Statement concladesRYAITSON Discussion Draft She. 9 that “to help reduce the unacceptably high preva- lence of nenrodevelopmental disorders in our chil- dren, we must climinate or significantly reduce expo- sures to chemicals that contribute to these condi- tions.”. SEC. 3. PROHIBITIONS RELATING TO CHLORPYRIFOS. Section 402 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 342) is amended by adding at the end the Cen an ken following: 10 “G)_ Notwithstanding any other provision of law, if 11 it bears or contains chlorpyrifos, inelnding any vesidue of 12. chlorpyrifos, or any other added substance that is present 13. on or in the food primarily as a result of the metabolism 14 or other degradation of chlorpyrifos.” 15. SEC. 4. REVIEW OF ORGANOPHOSPHATE PESTICIDES. 16 (a) IX GuNDRAL.—Not later than 90 days after the 17 date of enactment of this Aet, the Administrator of the 18 Environmental Protection Agency (referred to in this see- 19 tion as the “Administrator”) shall offer to enter into a 20 contract with the National Research Conneit to conduet, 21a cumulative and aggregate risk assessment that address- 22 ce all populations, and the most vulnerable subpopula- 23. tions, induding infants, childven, and fetuses, of exposure 24. to organophosphate pesticides.RYAIT59% Diseussion Draft SLC 10 i (b) ConTENTs oF ReviEw.—The review under stb- 2. section (a) shall— 3 (1) assess the neurodevelopmental effects and 4 other low-dose efffects of exposure to 5 organophosphate pesticides, including in the most 6 vulnerable subpopulations, including — 1 (A) during the prenatal, childhood, adoles- 8 cent, and cary life stages; and 9 (B) agvicultural workers; 10 (2) assess the cumulative and agyregate risks 11 from exposure deseribed in paragraph (1), which 12 shall aggregate all routes of exposure, incnding diet, 13 pesticide drift, volatilization, occupational, and take- 14 home exposures; and 15 (3) be completed and submitted to the Adminis- 16 trator not later than Qetober 1, 2019. V7 (c} RecenaTory ACTION.— 18 (1) Apeuicaninrty.—This subsection shall 19 apply if tho Administrator becomes aware of any ex- 20 posure to any organophosphate pesticide, inchuding 21 exposures described in paragraphs (1) and (2) of 22 subsection (b), that does uot meet, as applicable— 23 (A) the standard under section 408¢b)(2) mw of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act x & (21 U.S.C. 846a(b)(2)); orRYAITSOE eo YAH ew 10 aT 12 13 14 15 16 17 Discussion Draft LC di (B) any standard under the Federal Tnsee- livide, Fungicide, and Rodentieide Act (7 U.S.C. 136 et seq). (2) Action.—Not later than 90 days alter the date on which the Administrator becomes aware of any exposure under paragraph (1), the Adminis- trator shall take any appropriate regulatory action, vogardless of whether the review under subsection (a) is completed, induding—~ (A) revocation or modification of a tolor- ance ander section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Aet (21 U.S.C. 346a); or (B) modification, cancellation, or suspen- sion of a registration under the Federal Insecti~ cide, Pungicide, and Rodentieidle Act (7 U.S.C 136 et seq.). (d) Evrncr.—Nothing in this section authorizes or 18 vequires the Administrator to delay in carrying out or 19 completing; with respect to an organophosphate pesticide, 20 any registration review under section 3(g) of the Federal 21 Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. 22 136a(g)), any tolerance review under section 408 of the 23 Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 346a), 24 or any registration or modification, cancellation, or sus- 25 pension of a registration under section. 3 ov 6 of the Fed-RYALTON Discussion Draft SLE. 12 eval Inseeticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. 136a, 136d), if-— (1) the orgamophosphate pesticide does not, meet applicable requirements established mmder those provisions of law; or (2) the review, registration, modification, can- collation, or suspension is required— (A) by statute; Ce wr Ae he Ds (B) by jndicial order; or 10 (C) to respond to a petition