the intent of the bill was to reduce public exposure to a wide range of health effects, including nerve damage, reproductive failure, birth defects, and cancer due to hazardous pesticides. Although these health effects have not been proven in human life form, it has been proven that some pesticides are carcinogenic in lab animals. However, the bill overlooked many aspects of the agricultural industry and encompassed many loopholes. For instance, there were no requirements for the protection of infants and children. Pesticide residues, or rather allowable tolerances, were based on economic benefits. In other words, would it have an impact on the prices or availability of food to the consumer? If the pesticide was deemed carcinogenic, it was prohibited to weigh the benefits in the production of raw and processed foods. Furthermore, farmers had no obligation to inform consumers of the pesticide tolerances and residue levels. The bill, “prohibited the approval of food or feed tolerances for pesticide residues in processed food or animal feed if the pesticide is found to induce cancer in man or animals, regardless of the level of risk.” (Congressional Research Service: Report for Congress. 1995.) Nonetheless, the EPA interpreted the language of the amendment to mean “de minimis”, meaning low carcinogenic levels. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Les vs. Reilly, did not agree with the EPA’s interpretation of “de minimus” and rather ruled a strict literal interpretation of the 1958 amendment to mean, “zero risk”. The court case Les vs. Reilly challenged the EPA’s legal responsibility to research, test, approve or revoke agricultural pesticides. Petitioners seek review of a final order of the EPA permitting the use of four pesticides [Benomyl on citrus and rice, Mancozeb on barley, grapes, and rye, Phosmet an insecticide, and Triflualin a Herbicide] as food additives...
