. . is no longer justified and logically should be revoked.” EPA added that “the agencies are concerned that having formal tolerances remaining in effect for canceled pesticides may serve to condone use of these pesticides in this country and/or in or on commodities imported from foreign countries.”

			EPA May Recommend Action Levels for Monitoring Unavoidable Residues

Although most pesticides break down fairly quickly in the environment, some pesticides degrade very slowly and persist in the environment long after their use has ended. Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Concerned that residues of canceled pesticides in food continue to pose a health risk to U.S. consumers, the Chairman, Environment, Energy, and Natural Resources Subcommittee, House Committee on Government Operations, asked GAO to (1) determine whether marketed foods contain unsafe levels of residues from canceled pesticides and (2) evaluate EPA’s procedures for revoking tolerances for canceled food-use pesticides. To determine whether marketed foods contain unsafe levels of residues from canceled pesticides, we focused on health risks from fish contaminated with residues of five canceled pesticides—DDT, chlordane, dieldrin, heptachlor, and mirex. In addition, EPA evaluated the economic effects of lower action levels. However, EPA has not formally recommended the lower action levels to FDA. The region is concerned that if the action levels for pesticides’ residues in fish are not lowered, then the states will not issue more protective fish consumption advisories. They have not been adjusted to reflect health risk assessments or subsequent declines in residue levels. This official believes that the food-use registrations for most of these pesticides have been canceled for over 2 years. EPA Assigns Revocation a Low Priority and Has No Procedures Linking Revocation to Cancellation

Since 1982, when it issued its policy on revoking tolerances, EPA has taken over 6 years, on average, to revoke a pesticide’s tolerances after canceling the pesticide’s registrations. EPA officials acknowledge that the agency’s current process for revoking tolerances takes too long and is inefficient.
Why GAO Did This Study

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed: (1) whether marketed foods contain unsafe levels of residues from cancelled pesticides; and (2) the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) procedures for revoking tolerances for cancelled food-use pesticides.

What GAO Found

GAO found that: (1) EPA believes that most marketed foods do not contain unsafe levels of residues from cancelled pesticides, since most pesticides do not persist in the environment for very long; (2) residues from a particular class of cancelled pesticides do persist, particularly in fish, and pose a health risk to some consumers over their lifetimes; (3) in 1991, EPA proposed lower action levels for five cancelled pesticides in fish to reflect the decline in actual residue levels; (4) the reduced action levels have not been implemented because the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) believes that EPA has not fully demonstrated the need for lower action levels; (5) many state monitoring programs would be affected by lower action levels, since they use federal standards in issuing fish consumption advisories; (6) EPA has taken over 6 years to revoke tolerances for cancelled pesticides; (7) the process for revoking tolerances takes too long and makes inefficient use of scare resources; (8) linking residue revocations to pesticide cancellations would be more efficient and would reduce consumers' exposure to pesticide residues in imported food; and (9) although EPA has made progress in revoking tolerances for cancelled pesticides, its revocation backlog is expected to increase because of additional pesticide registration cancellations.