a personwill have to a chemical. This includes non-food exposure, which is something that was notincluded in the past legislation. The next guideline is common mode of toxicity, which makes theEnvironmental Protection Agency look at the cumulative exposure of all pesticides not just specificones. The last guideline is the effects of pesticides on infants and children. There are new safetyrequirements that must be met regarding the amount of exposure that is safe for infants andchildren (Sray 49).Overall the Bill requires the Environmental Protection Agency to look at every chemicalused on food and determine if it is safe to use. The Bill gives incentives to chemical companieswho develop new less harmful chemicals. It also gives allowances to minor crops that are not asprofitable as large commodities. It allows the minor crops to have a longer grace period fordevelopment and implementation of these new laws (Sray 49).Proponents of this Bill consists of environmental groups, many childrens healthorganizations, and as the voting proved all of Congress and the President. Vice President Al Gorewho has supported this bill since its beginning said the law brings the latest science to thesupermarket (Waterfield C2). Gore was involved in hearings on the subject fifteen years ago andwas happy the reform Bill finally passed (WaterfieldC2). Supporters believe the old legislation was a crisis waiting to happen, and with the newFood Quality Protection Act children and consumers in general will be much safer. Childrensgroups are especially happy with the new focus on the level of chemical residue in many foods thatchildren eat. This is important because children differ in their exposure to toxic chemicals. Children spend much of their time crawling around on the ground and putting their hands in theirmouth, therefore exposing themselves to much toxic chemicals than the average adult. In theUnited States one million children are ex...
