WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Debbie Stabenow, Ranking Member of the U.S. Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, & Forestry, today released the following opening statement – as prepared for delivery – at the hearing entitled, “Pesticide Registration under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act: Providing Stakeholders with Certainty through the Pesticide Registration Improvement Act.”
Stabenow’s statement, as prepared for delivery, follows:
Good morning, and thank you Mr. Chairman for holding this very important hearing. Our Committee has a long history of working in a bipartisan manner to reauthorize the Pesticide Registration Improvement Act, which many of you know as PRIA.
Most recently, our Committee took action in 2012 when I served as Chair, and today’s hearing is a critical step in this process and an opportunity to listen to expert stakeholders and the EPA. Today, we’ll hear about the importance of PRIA to farmers, farmer workers, and consumers.
Agriculture is a risky business. Our producers know there are few certainties, if any, that they can rely on in the field. From unexpected natural disasters intensified by climate change, to low commodity prices, unpredictable events are a harsh reality that directly affect farmers’ bottom lines and ultimately American jobs.
That said, for nearly 15 years, PRIA has served as a valuable tool for stakeholders, the EPA, and farmworkers -- providing certainty, which is needed to fight pest and weed infestation.
Pesticide registration fees also support important education and training programs that keep our farmworkers and their families safe.
PRIA also plays an important role off the farm. Products as common as household cleaners and disinfectants, to lifesaving treatments that combat Ebola, the Zika virus, and avian flu, all rely on regulatory certainty and science based decisions provided by PRIA.
PRIA also provides the financial and staffing stability that the EPA requires to fulfill its regulatory responsibilities, including both new registrations and re-registrations of pesticide products.
More important than getting products in the hands of consumers is ensuring these products are safe for both human health and the environment. In my opinion, any risk, however small, of an unsafe product entering the commercial market is avoidable if we make decisions that are rooted in science.
In fulfilling its regulatory responsibility, the EPA must stay true to sound science, and take every precaution to protect our nation's citizens, most importantly, our children. I have seen firsthand the devastating effects of excessive lead in Flint’s drinking water system, and I believe there can be no tolerance for exposures to products that have devastating developmental effects on children.
I have always been committed to supporting and advocating for smart federal regulations that are based on the principles of sound science. Whether it is certainty of man-made climate change or the safety of biotechnology; we must look first and foremost to science to drive our laws and regulations.
Unfortunately, it appears that scientific inquiry is being jeopardized at EPA. Late last week, in a very concerning and abrupt move, the agency dismissed several members of its Board of Scientific Counselors.
This is a highly unusual move that has raised strong concerns. Former Bush Administration EPA Administrator Whitman warned that it could send an alarming message to scientists that they must have industry ties to be taken seriously.
In order for the EPA to meet its mission, and its statutory responsibilities in programs like PRIA and others, the agency’s decisions must be based on sound, peer-reviewed science. Hastily dismissing numerous scientists from the agency’s technical advisory boards sends the wrong message to the public about the EPA’s integrity, and the safety of the products they approve.
I urge the agency to reverse their decision and allow these scientists to serve terms in line with historical norms under both Republican and Democratic administrations.
Mr. Chairman, science underpins everything we’re talking about here today. I was pleased to partner with you last year on a science-based biotechnology bill, and I look forward to a Farm Bill process that also recognizes the importance of good data and sound science.
I’m sure we’ll learn more about these matters today, so I look forward to hearing from our witnesses, and the Committee’s effort to reauthorize the Pesticide Registration Improvement Act in the near future.
#