$
<
73
\
Ml
(T
PRO^
b
2
ui
(J
T
J
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Catalyst for Improving the Environment
Supplemental Report
Details on Dietary Risk Data in Support of
Report No. 2006-P-00028,
"Measuring the Impact of the Food Quality
Protection Act: Challenges and Opportunities"
August 1, 2006

-------
Table of Contents
Methodology on Approach to Track Risk Mitigation
Using Dietary Pesticide Residual Data from
U.S. Department of Agriculture's Pesticide Data Program	 S-1
Aggregate Dietary Risk Index Values for Selected Foods	 S-7
Impact of EPA Actions on Risk Driver Pesticide-Food Combinations
from Domestic Commodities	 S-9
Impact of EPA Actions on Risk Driver Pesticide-Food Combinations
from Imported Samples	 S-11
Abbreviations
aPAD
Acute Population Adjusted Doses
aRfD
Acute Reference Doses
cPAD
Chronic Population Adjusted Doses
cRfC
Chronic Reference Concentration
cRfD
Chronic Reference Doses
CRS
Chronic Risk Share
DRI
Dietary Risk Index
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FQPA
Food Quality Protection Act
PAD
Population Adjusted Dose
PDP
Pesticide Data Program
PRLgg
Projected 99th Residue Level
cRfCSf
Single-food Chronic Reference Concentration
USDA
U.S. Department of Agriculture

-------
Methodology on Approach to Track Risk Mitigation
Using Dietary Pesticide Residuai Data from
U.S. Department of Agriculture's Pesticide Data Program
We conducted an analysis of the dietary pesticide residue data from the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's (USDA's) Pesticide Data Program (PDP) to evaluate the impact of the Food
Quality Protection Act (FQPA) on dietary pesticide exposure risk for children.1 A methodology
was developed to track changes in dietary pesticide risk levels between 1994 to 2003 in USDA's
pesticide residue data from the PDP.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulates dietary risks under the FQPA at the
99.9th percentile level of exposure, based on a probabilistic distribution of dietary exposures.
Monte Carlo simulation methods are used to generate hundreds of thousands to millions of
"eating day episodes" for a person of known weight. Each "eating day" estimate of pesticide
exposure is based on the actual foods reported as eaten in USDA's food consumption survey.
Each food reported as eaten is linked to a distinct record in the pesticide residue data file for the
same food. The computer randomly selects a residue value from the file, such that the most
common levels (usually zero residue) are chosen more frequently, and higher residue levels are
picked only as frequently as they appeared in PDP sampling. An estimate is made of a person's
daily exposure to a given pesticide by multiplying the amount of each food the person consumed
(in kilograms) by the concentration of the residue in each food (in parts per million, or
milligrams per kilogram). These estimates for a given pesticide are then aggregated across all
the foods the person consumed in a given day, and the results are arrayed from the highest to the
lowest, based on the milligrams of pesticide consumed per kilogram of body weight.
Under science policies developed to guide implementation of the FQPA, EPA strives to assure
that pesticide tolerances are set at levels safe for all population subgroups. Typically, the age
group that is exposed to the greatest amount of pesticides per kilogram of body weight is
l-to-2-year-old children. Hence, we focused on children's exposure and risk levels in this report.
A tolerance level is regarded as acceptable if the child at the 99.9th percentile level2 of the
exposure distribution curve is exposed to less of a pesticide than allowed, given the weight of the
child and the pesticide's acute Population Adjusted Doses (aPAD) or chronic Population
Adjusted Doses (cPAD). Risk reduction measures are typically invoked in cases where EPA
judges that risks at the 99.9th level are excessive.
Our contractor analyzed the distribution of both food consumption data and pesticide residue
levels to produce an estimate of dietary risk that reflects the upper end of the pesticide exposure
distribution. By "upper-end," we mean between the 95th and 99.9th levels of exposure. We
approximate the 99.9th level of exposure to a given pesticide by combining estimates of food
1	Some of the analysis work was conducted through a contract with Benbrook Consulting Services, Sandpoint,
Idaho.
2	Hereafter in this report, the 95th, 99th, or 99.9th percentile level of a distribution of values are referred to as just the
95th, 99th, or 99.9th level.
S-1

-------
consumption that reflect approximately the 95th level of consumption, with an estimate of
pesticide residue levels at about the 99th level of the distribution of positive values.
Dietary Risk Index
Our basic unit of measure used to track pesticide dietary risks is called the Dietary Risk Index
(DRI). DRI values or scores are calculated for each pesticide-food combination covered in the
annual testing carried out by the PDP. For a given food and year, DRI values for each pesticide
found in the food are added together, to form an aggregate, food-level DRI score.
Single-food and aggregate DRI scores are calculated for three sets of residue data: food grown,
harvested, and processed in the United States (domestic production); residue in food that is
imported into the United States; and all samples tested by the PDP in a given year (domestic plus
imported samples, plus samples of unknown origin). Trends over time in aggregate food-level
DRI scores provide insights into changes in overall risk levels and the relative share of total risk
accounted for by residues in imports versus domestic foods.
Our contractor calculated DRIs using assumptions, methods, and data as close as possible to
those called for in FQPA science policies and adhered to in recent EPA dietary risk assessments.
The DRI is calculated from two variables:
•	"Percent Positive" - How frequently a pesticide residue is found in a food; and
•	"Chronic Risk Share" - The level of risk associated with the residues of a pesticide found
in a food, taking into account the pesticide's toxicity, the amount of food typically eaten
by children, and the mean of the residues found in positive samples.
The basic formula to calculate the DRI score for a given pesticide-food combination is
DRI = (Percent Positive) x (Chronic Risk Share)
The "Percent Positive" variable is calculated from PDP data and equals the number of positive
samples tested in a given year, divided by the total number of samples. For each pesticide-food
combination, there are up to three "Percent Positive" values: one representing the results for
domestic samples, one for imports, and one for all samples combined.3
DRI values can be calculated based on acute Reference Doses (aRfD) and aPAD, as well as
chronic Reference Doses (cRfD) and cPAD. The analysis of dietary risk trends in this report is
based on chronic risks, because EPA has not established aRfD for a majority of pesticides.
3
Each year, the PDP tests a few samples of "unknown origin." These samples are excluded from both the domestic
production and imports analyses, but are included in the "combined" analyses. This is why the sum of samples, and
the sum of positives in the domestic plus imported samples, sometimes is less than the number of samples and
positives in the combined analysis.
S-2

-------
Chronic Risk Share
The Chronic Risk Share (CRS) is a new analytical concept developed for this report. It is
designed to help answer a simple question - "How risky are the residues found in a given food?"
The CRS is a measure of the degree to which the residues found in the food, as reported in PDP
results, fill up the pesticide's "risk cup" for a person of known weight.4
A CRS for a given pesticide-food combination is calculated from two components. The first is
called the "Projected 99th Residue Level" (or PRL99), which is an estimate of the residue level
found in the food at about the 99th percentile level of the distribution of residues ranked from the
lowest to the highest.
The second component used to calculate the CRS is the pesticide's single-food chronic
Reference Concentration (cRfC). Four variables are needed to calculate a single-food cRfC for a
person of known weight - the average amount of food consumed by the person; the weight of the
person; the toxicity of the pesticide; and the magnitude of exposures from other foods,
beverages, or pesticide uses around the home, schools, or other residential settings. A single-
food cRfC is an estimate of the concentration of a pesticide that can be present in a serving of a
given food, without exceeding the person's chronic PAD. The CRS for a given pesticide-food
combination is calculated as follows
CRS = (PRLqq)
(Single-Food cRfC)
In cases where the PRL99 exceeds the applicable single-food cRfC, the value of the CRS will be
greater than one. In such cases, a small portion of the people consuming the food in a given day
is likely to receive a dose of the pesticide above the level EPA regards as acceptable. The
smaller the value of the CRS, the less worrisome the dietary risks stemming from the residues
present in a given food. For example, if even the 99th percentile residue level accounts for only
one-tenth of the pesticide's single food cRfC, there is little reason for concern from dietary
exposure, especially when EPA is confident that it has fully accounted for all other routes of
exposure in setting the single-food cRfC.
4
EPA introduced the "risk cup" concept to help explain the impact of the FQPA on the allowable level of exposure
to a given pesticide through all routes of exposure, taking into account whether any other pesticides pose risks
through a common mechanism of action. The "risk cup" is a graphical representation of the acceptable amount of
exposure to a given pesticide for a person of known weight. The size of the risk cup is typically reported in
milligrams of pesticide per day, and is based on the pesticide's inherent toxicity and the average weight of a child
exposed to the pesticide.
S-3

-------
Projected 99th Residue Levels
The Consumers Union5 studied the distribution of residue levels found in 53 food-pesticide
combinations based on PDP testing in 1997 (Consumers Union/Natural Resources Defense
Council, 1999).6 For each pesticide food combination, the Consumers Union identified the
minimum and maximum residue, the mean of the positives, and the residue level at the 99.9th,
99th, and 95th levels of the distribution. Ratios were also calculated showing the difference
between the 99.9th level and the mean, the 99th level and the mean, and the 95th level and the
mean.
The average difference between the 99.9th residue and the mean of the positives across the
53 food-pesticide combinations was 8.5. The difference between the 99th and the mean residue
level was 6.1. To estimate dietary risks close to the 99.9th level chosen by EPA as the threshold
of regulation, we selected a value of 7 as the average difference between the mean residue level
and the PRL99 value. Accordingly, the formula for estimating the PRL99 level for a given
pesticide-food combination is:
PRL99 = (Mean residue) x 7
Single-Food Chronic Reference Concentrations
The single-food chronic Reference Concentration, or cRfCsf, can be thought of as an initial
estimate of the maximum level of a pesticide that can be present in a given food without
violating the FQPA's basic "reasonable certainty of no harm" standard. This key concept is
useful both in tracking changes in pesticide dietary risks and in setting the maximum levels for
pesticide tolerances in food as eaten.
A cRfCsf for a given pesticide will change as a function of the weight of a child and the amount
(weight) of a specific food the child consumes during a day. In carrying out an analysis of
changes over time in pesticide dietary risks, the assumptions used to set cRfCsf levels are less
important than using consistent assumptions across all foods. This is because the goal is to
identify changes in relative risk levels over time and across foods and pesticides, rather than
estimating risk levels at a specific point in time, for comparison to some quantitative standard.
The formula to calculate a cRfC for all foods and routes of exposure is:
cRfC (mg/kg) x Serving Size Foody (grams/day) =
Weight of Child (kg) x cPAD for Pesticidex (mg/kg/day)
5	Consumers Union is an independent nonprofit organization with a mission "to work for a fair, just, and safe
marketplace for all consumers and to empower consumers to protect themselves." The organization accepts no
outside advertising and no free test samples. Consumers Union supports itself through the sale of information
products and services, individual contributions, and a few noncommercial grants. It has published a long list of
FQPA-relevant reports since 1996.
6	For a complete discussion of the Consumers Union/Natural Resources Defense Council analysis of the distribution
of PDP residue levels, see the comments submitted to EPA on June 6, 1999, on the Science Policy Paper, "Choosing
a Percentile of Acute Dietary Exposure as a Threshold of Regulatory Concern" (Consumers Union, 1999; posted at
http://www.ecologicipm.com/999 comments.pdf).
S-4

-------
This equation can be solved for cRfC by converting the grams of food on the left side of the
equation to kilograms of food, and then dividing by "Serving Size Foodx:
cRfC (mg/kg) = Weight of Child (kg) x cPAD (mg/kg/dav)
Serving Size Foody (kg/day)
The weight of the child used in this report to calculate cRfC values is 16 kilograms. This is the
value corresponding to the 50th percentile of growth for a 4-year-old male, as reported on the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Growth Chart. EPA sets pesticide cPADs based on
animal experiments, after applying a set of safety factors to the "No Observable Adverse Effect
Level" for the most sensitive biological impact considered relevant in assessing the pesticide's
toxicity.
Our contractor analyzed the distribution of food consumption values for children's foods based
on USDA's "Continuing Survey of Food Intake by Individuals" (commonly referred to as the
CSFII survey). The survey contains 5,372 valid eating days for l-to-5-year-old children. For
each of these foods, the most common amount reported was either exactly equal to, or close to
what the USDA reports as, the typical serving size in its National Nutrient Database for Standard
Reference (Release 17).7 In general, the 95th level of consumption is at least two-thirds larger
than the typical serving size reported by USDA. We have listed in the table below foods and
their portion sizes used in our calculations. When we lacked data from USDA on the portion
size at the 95th level of consumption, we multiplied the typical serving size by 1.667.
Estimated 95tn Percentile Food Consumption Levels Used in Calculating
Chronic Risk Shares and Dietary Risk Index Values
Approximate Equivalent Serving
at 95th Level of Consumption
95th Percentile
(grams)
Apple Juice
3 cups
744
Apples
1 large
212
Bananas
1 large
136
Broccoli, raw
1.667 stalks
247
Cantaloupe, fresh
1.33 cups
223
Carrots
1 large
72
Celery
2.5 large stalks
183
Cucumbers
1-8"
301
Grapes, red or green, raw
1.33 cups
210
Green Beans, fresh, raw
1.667 cups
183
Lettuce
2 cups
148
Oranges
1 large
184
Peaches
1 large
157
Pears
2 medium
332
Potatoes, baked with skin
1 large
300
Spinach, raw
1.667 cups
50
Sweet Bell Peppers
1 medium
119
Tomatoes, raw
2 medium
247
7 Accessible at http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/Data/SR17/srl7.html
S-5

-------
Children are typically exposed to a given pesticide through more than one food. Pesticides that
appear in foods may also sometimes be present in fruit juices, other beverages, and drinking
water. In addition, the FQPA directed EPA to take into account residential, schoolyard, and all
other potential routes of exposure to a pesticide in setting and reviewing tolerances. For these
reasons, if a single food accounts for the total allowed exposure to a pesticide on a given day, the
child would almost certainly be overexposed because of residues in other foods and drinks, and
possibly residential exposures.
In its October 13, 2000 comments to EPA on chlorpyrifos risk mitigation (Consumers Union,
2000),8 the Consumers Union recommended that EPA not allow any single food use of a
pesticide, including chlorpyrifos, to account for more than 10 percent of the pesticide's risk cup,
at least not until EPA completed its cumulative risk assessment of the organophosphates and had
taken all regulatory actions needed to meet the FQPA's "reasonable certainty of no harm"
standard. We have incorporated this recommendation into the calculation of "Single-Food
Chronic Reference Concentrations," which equal the total cRfC for a pesticide divided by 10.9
g
Accessible at http://www.ecologic-ipm.com/Chlorpyrifos comments 2000.1x11'
9
This assumption likely biases single-food cRfC values upward for pesticides that appear routinely as residues in
more than 10 foods. Likewise, cRfCsfvalues for pesticides found in just a few foods, and also not used in residential
settings, are probably biased downward. These sources of bias do not impact the validity of results when single food
cRfC values are used consistently in projecting relative dietary risk levels over time and across foods and pesticides.
S-6

-------
Aggregate Dietary Risk Index Values for Selected Foods
Aggregate Dietary Ri
Domestically Grown
sk Index Values for Se
Plus Imported Foods:
lected Foods Grown Domestically
PDP Test Results for 1994-2003, \A
Imported to the Ur
fith Interpolated Va
lited States, and for
ues for Un-sampled Years
Crop

1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
Apple Juice
Domestic
00
©
CO
o
18.08
18.08
32.73
26.67
21.25
15.83
10.41
4.99
4.99
Import
97.44
97.44
97.44
67.15
28.27
22.45
16.64
10.82
5.00
5.00
Apples
Domestic
316.00
295.48
359.35
299.63
239.90
180.18
144.33
144.15
43.65
43.65
Import
236.67
289.35
510.83
581.63
652.43
723.23
410.10
96.97
30.21
30.21
Broccoli
Domestic
8.83
11.58
14.33
17.09
19.84
22.59
25.35
28.10
12.91
12.91
Import
97.05
98.82
100.59
102.36
104.13
105.89
107.66
109.43
62.29
62.29
Cantaloupe
Domestic
36.66
36.66
36.66
36.66
36.66
55.46
85.46
62.15
38.85
15.54
Import
56.23
56.23
56.23
56.23
56.23
100.55
118.69
89.42
60.15
30.87
Carrots
Domestic
11.40
11.17
13.79
13.29
12.79
12.29
11.78
9.46
9.82
9.82
Import
37.34
38.26
28.92
38.10
47.27
56.45
65.62
25.08
30.26
30.26
Celery
Domestic
91.60
90.43
89.26
88.09
86.91
85.74
84.57
83.40
104.49
104.49
Import
50.41
143.18
235.95
328.72
421.49
514.26
607.03
699.80
170.00
170.00
Cucumbers
Domestic
343.42
343.42
343.42
343.42
343.42
343.42
236.64
157.04
77.45
92.75
Import
460.92
460.92
460.92
460.92
460.92
460.92
443.69
354.86
266.03
317.16
Grapes
Domestic
404.46
177.58
128.55
101.78
75.00
48.22
21.44
18.54
18.54
18.54
Import
194.17
240.79
381.66
402.80
423.94
445.07
466.21
281.75
281.75
281.75
Green Beans
Domestic
378.04
293.97
311.45
328.94
346.42
363.91
381.39
330.10
330.10
330.10
Import
80.65
40.49
48.71
56.92
65.13
73.34
81.55
93.31
93.31
93.31
Lettuce
Domestic
152.13
123.96
95.79
67.62
39.46
11.29
12.87
54.60
54.60
54.60
Import
90.38
90.38
90.38
90.38
90.38
90.38
325.58
925.79
925.79
925.79
Oranges
Domestic
37.47
16.03
28.48
22.27
16.06
9.85
3.64
4.00
4.00
4.00
Import
2.26
2.26
2.08
1.91
1.73
1.55
1.37
1.65
1.65
1.65
111 The DRI values in red are interpolated or extrapolated from the values in years when PDP tested the food based on two assumptions:
1.	The DRI value in the first year a food was tested was assigned to any earlier years back to 1994, and the DRI value in the last year the food was tested
was assigned to any years after, up to and including 2003.
2.	In cases with a gap between PDP samplings, we assumed that DRI values changed linearly during the time period when the food was not included in the
program.
S-7

-------
Aggregate Dietary Ri
Domestically Grown
sk Index Values for Se
Plus Imported Foods:
lected Foods Grown Domestically
PDP Test Results for 1994-2003, \A
Imported to the Ur
fith Interpolated Va
lited States, and for
ues for Un-sampled Years
Crop

1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
Peaches
Domestic
766.07
942.95
836.73
687.27
537.80
388.34
238.88
89.42
54.06
54.06
Import
84.63
129.21
150.63
167.28
183.93
200.58
217.23
233.88
266.11
266.11
Potatoes
Domestic
84.86
72.73
64.45
56.16
47.88
39.60
31.32
64.11
73.80
73.80
Import
6.00
12.53
14.41
16.28
18.16
20.03
21.91
23.78
22.45
22.45
Spinach
Domestic
52.59
52.59
37.71
28.84
27.36
25.88
24.41
22.93
21.45
17.88
Import
27.47
27.47
83.69
16.21
13.57
10.93
8.29
5.65
3.01
9.08
Sweet bell
peppers
Domestic
243.25
243.25
243.25
243.25
243.25
243.25
180.80
164.49
148.18
132.02
Import
1,067.45
1,067.45
1,067.45
1,067.45
1,067.45
1,067.45
874.19
658.74
443.29
720.25
Tomatoes
Domestic
175.92
175.92
175.92
189.91
123.37
103.36
94.62
85.88
77.14
68.40
Import
543.88
543.88
543.88
580.21
453.44
478.62
394.37
310.12
225.87
141.62
Total and Average Dietary Risk Index Values
(With Values Interpolated for Un-sampled Years)
TOTAL
DIETARY
RISK INDEX
(DRI)*
Domestic
3,120.76
2,905.78
2,797.21
2,556.94
2,222.81
1,954.64
1,593.34
1,328.78
1,074.01
1,037.53
Import
3,132.95
3,338.68
3,873.76
4,034.53
4,088.44
4,371.69
4,160.12
3,921.04
2,887.16
3,107.81
Average DRI
Values
Domestic
195.05
181.61
174.83
159.81
138.93
122.16
99.58
83.05
67.13
64.85
Import
195.81
208.67
242.11
252.16
255.53
273.23
260.01
245.06
180.45
194.24
Total and Average Dietary Risk Index Values
(With Missing Values for Un-sampled Years)
TOTAL
DIETARY
RISK INDEX
(DRI)*
Domestic
2,250.84
1,862.48
1,598.61
251.49
186.71
936.96
1,109.68
825.87
550.78
326.58
Import
786.92
780.38
1,797.05
663.57
537.94
2,921.15
2,376.90
2,491.43
1,298.64
1,218.99
Number of
Foods
Tested
Domestic
10
8
8
3
3
6
10
10
10
5
Import
8
8
7
3
3
6
8
10
10
5
Average DRI
Values
Domestic
225.08
232.81
199.83
83.83
62.24
156.16
110.97
82.59
55.08
65.32
Import
98.37
97.55
256.72
221.19
179.31
486.86
297.11
249.14
129.86
243.80
S-8

-------
Impact of EPA Actions on Risk Driver
Pesticide-Food Combinations
from Domestic Commodities
Impact of EPA Actions
fror
(Ranked by Percentage Cham
on Risk Driver Pesticide-Food Combinations
n Domestic Commodities
ge in Dietary Risk Index Levels from the Pre-FQPA Period)
Commodity
Pesticide
DRI Score
Year
Change in DRI Score
Grapes
Parathion methyl
0.0
2001
-100%
329.1
1994
Green Beans,
Processed
Parathion methyl
0.0
2004
-100%
22.6
1996
Peaches
Parathion methyl
0.0
2004
-100%
799.4
1996
Pears
Parathion methyl
0.0
2003
-100%
78.1
1997
Apples
Parathion methyl
0.0
2004
-100%
52.0
1996
Tomatoes
Chlorpyrifos
0.0
2004
-100%
36.8
1997
Wheat Flour
Chlorpyrifos methyl
0.0
2004
-100%
149.2
1996
Spinach, Processed
Parathion ethyl
0.6
1999
-99%
88.2
1998
Apples
Chlorpyrifos
3.6
2002
-98%
207.3
1996
Strawberries
Vinclozolin
4.4
2000
-93%
65.7
1998
Grapes
Dicofol p,p'
12.3
2001
-85%
82.7
1996
Green Beans,
Processed
Methamidophos
15.2
2003
-83%
89.1
1996
Strawberries
Dicofol p,p'
13.4
2000
-80%
67.3
1998
Tomatoes
Methamidophos
34.9
2003
-76%
143.4
1996
Cucumbers
Dieldrin
33.6
2003
-70%
111.3
1999
Sweet Bell Peppers
Chlorpyrifos
20.7
2003
-68%
65.0
1999
Pears
Azinphos methyl
19.6
2003
-67%
58.6
1997
S-9

-------
Impact of EPA Actions on Risk Driver Pesticide-Food Combinations

from Domestic Commodities
(Ranked by Percentage Cham
ge in Dietary Risk Index Levels from the Pre-FQPA Period)
Commodity
Pesticide
DRI Score
Year
Change in DRI Score
Winter Squash
Dieldrin
77.8
1999
-57%
179.3
1997
Cucumbers
Methamidophos
13.4
2003
-55%
29.8
1999
Sweet Bell Peppers
Methamidophos
60.9
2003
-49%
119.1
1999
Green Beans
Endosulfans or
20.0
2001
-47%
endosulfan sulfate
37.6
1995
Strawberries,
Dicofol p,p'
22.8
2000
-37%
Processed
36.1
1998
Winter Squash,
Dieldrin
228.5
1999
-36%
Processed
354.4
1997
Green Beans
Dimethoate
20.6
2001
-31%
30.0
1994
Green Beans
Acephate
55.5
2001
9%
51.0
1994
Green Beans
Methamidophos
205.1
2001
23%
166.3
1995
Celery
Acephate
36.5
2002
25%
29.2
1994
Strawberries,
Vinclozolin
31.6
2000
77%
Processed
17.9
1998
Potatoes
Chlorpropham
61.1
2002
114%
28.5
1995
Peaches
Dicofol p,p'
16.6
2001
1975%
0.8
1996





Impact of EPA
Actions
1649.0
%
The two columns to the right show how nine EPA actions
reduced DRI scores in this table. Nine EPA actions reduced
DRI scores by about 1650; EPA revoked the tolerances for
7 of the 30 risk pairs listed (6 parathion food uses and
Parathions
1369.4
83%
Chlorpyrifos
240.5
15%
chlorpyrifos in tomatoes), substantially lowered the tolerance
for chlorpyrifos in apples, and modestly lowered the tolerance
for azinphos-methyl for pears. The actions taken on methyl or
ethyl parathion resulted in an aggregate drop in DRI scores of
about 1370, or 83 percent of the total impact triggered by
tolerance revocations. The changes in chlorpyrifos tolerances
reduced aggregate DRI scores by 240. Taken together,
tolerance revocations and reductions imposed on eight uses of
methyl and ethyl parathion and chlorpyrifos accounted for 98
percent of the total impact of EPA actions on the above set of
information.
Para+chlor
1610.0
98%
S-10

-------
Impact of EPA Actions on Risk Driver
Pesticide-Food Combinations
from imported Sampies
Impact of EPA Actions on Risk Driver Pesticide-Food Combinations
from Imported Samples
(Ranked by Percentage Change in Dietary Risk Index Levels from the Pre-FQPA Period)
Commodity
Pesticide
DRI Score
Year
Change in DRI Score
Green Beans,
Processed
Parathion methyl
0.0
2003
-100%
200.6
1997
Broccoli
Mevinphos
0.0
2002
-100%
95.0
1994
Grapes
Mevinphos
0.0
2001
-100%
34.5
1994
Apples
Chlorpyrifos
13.9
2002
-97%
454.9
1996
Tomatoes
Chlorpyrifos
68.8
2003
-85%
451.8
1996
Apple Juice
Dimethoate
11.1
1998
-83%
65.0
1996
Sweet Bell Peppers
Methamidophos
92.3
2003
-72%
327.8
1999
Winter Squash
Dieldrin
1.1
1999
-68%
3.4
1997
Cucumbers
Endosulfan I
15.0
2003
-55%
33.5
1999
Grapes
Dimethoate
21.6
2001
-38%
35.1
1996
Pears
Azinphos methyl
30.7
1999
-33%
45.8
1997
Cucumbers
Methamidophos
179.8
2003
-32%
264.4
1999
Green Beans,
Processed
Methamidophos
27.6
2003
-10%
30.5
1997
Tomatoes
Methamidophos
44.1
2003
-8%
48.0
1996
Sweet Bell Peppers
Chlorpyrifos
586.6
2003
-2%
595.6
1999
Celery
Acephate
16.6
2002
8%
15.4
1994
Peaches
Dicofol p,p'
22.3
2002
18%
18.9
1996
S-11

-------
Impact of EPA Actions on Risk Driver Pesticide-Food Combinations
from Imported Samples
(Ranked by Percentage Change in Dietary Risk Index Levels from the Pre-FQPA Period)
Commodity
Pesticide
DRI Score
Year
Change in DRI Score
Celery
Methamidophos
104.3
2002
225%
17.2
2001
Pears
Dicofol p,p'
120.6
1999
323%
28.5
1998
Cantaloupe
Methamidophos
92.7
2000
409%
18.2
1998
Strawberries
Endosulfan I
71.3
1999
413%
13.9
1998
Potatoes
Chlorpropham
14.5
2002
1971%
0.7
1995
Peaches
Methamidophos
31.1
2002
10267 %
0.3
1996





Impact of EPA
Actions
1039.7
%

Parathions
200.6
19%
Chlorpyrifos
824.0
79%
Para+chlor
1024.6
99%
S-12

-------