CropLife America pans CLA tactic on crop protection products

Janet Collins, SVP of science and regulatory affairs for CropLife America (CLA), recently issued a statement in response to the International Agency for Research on Cancer’s (IARC) “hazard-based approach” to assessing crop protection chemicals.  
 
Asserting that CLA has let down a number of stakeholders with its particular methodology, Collins stated that public information was not presented realistically in terms of “perspective regarding actual exposure and real human health risk.”
 
“(CropLife America is) disappointed that the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has continued its hazard-based approach to the assessment of crop protection chemicals,” Collins said in her statement. “Over the past 18 months, the IARC approach to the assessment of the hazard of specific cancers from chemical substances has been decried by a number of governments and as well as by industry associations.”
 
CLA’s leader stressed that it is crucial for organizations to present data thoroughly and accurately. Specifically, she said, the IARC’s message regarding the products — published in The Lancet — omitted a monograph, which typically contains more detailed information.
 
Collins explained that her organization favors risk-based human health assessment, utilized throughout the U.S. regulatory system — and particularly, she added, by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and its Office of Pesticide Programs — over hazard-based assessment.
 
The key issue for CropLife America was the IARC’s hazard-based approach.
 
“The assessment of risk rather than hazard is key as crop protection materials are regulated based on exposure measures in the U.S.,” Collins said. “The crop protection industry continues to work with the EPA to ensure each and every product goes through their rigorous testing procedures and only enters the market if it can be used safely. CLA welcomes the interests of a variety of congressional committees that may provide oversight on all manner of pesticide policy matters, including the interest shown about IARC funding.”