Regulating pesticides in food : the Delaney paradox

Resource Information

The work Regulating pesticides in food : the Delaney paradox represents a distinct intellectual or artistic creation found in University of Missouri-St. Louis Libraries.

Label

Regulating pesticides in food : the Delaney paradox

Title remainder

the Delaney paradox

Statement of responsibility

Committee on Scientific and Regulatory Issues Underlying Pesticide Use Patterns and Agricultural Innovation, Board on Agriculture, National Research Council

Contributor

• National Research Council (U.S.), Committee on Scientific and Regulatory Issues Underlying Pesticide Use Patterns and Agricultural Innovation

Subject

• Agriculture -- legislation & jurisprudence
• Agriculture -- legislation & jurisprudence
• Carcinogens -- toxicity
• Carcinogens -- toxicity
• Food Contamination -- legislation & jurisprudence
• Food Contamination -- legislation & jurisprudence
• Legislation, Food
• Legislation, Food
• Pesticides -- toxicity
• Pesticides -- toxicity
• United States
• United States

Language

eng

Summary

• Concern about health effects from exposure to pesticides in foods is growing as scientists learn more about the toxic properties of pesticides. The Delaney Clause, a provision of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, prohibits tolerances for any pesticide that causes cancer in test animals or in humans if the pesticide concentrates in processed food or feeds. This volume examines the impacts of the Delaney Clause on agricultural innovation and on the public's dietary exposure to potentially carcinogenic pesticide residues. Four regulatory scenarios are described to illustrate the effects of varying approaches to managing oncogenic pesticide residues in food
• Concern about health effects from exposure to pesticides in foods is growing as scientists learn more about the toxic properties of pesticides. The Delaney Clause, a provision of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, prohibits tolerances for any pesticide that causes cancer in test animals or in humans if the pesticide concentrates in processed food or feeds. This volume examines the impacts of the Delaney Clause on agricultural innovation and on the public's dietary exposure to potentially carcinogenic pesticide residues. Four regulatory scenarios are described to illustrate the effects of varying approaches to managing oncogenic pesticide residues in food
• Concern about health effects from exposure to pesticides in foods is growing as scientists learn more about the toxic properties of pesticides. The Delaney Clause, a provision of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, prohibits tolerances for any pesticide that causes cancer in test animals or in humans if the pesticide concentrates in processed food or feeds. This volume examines the impacts of the Delaney Clause on agricultural innovation and on the public's dietary exposure to potentially carcinogenic pesticide residues. Four regulatory scenarios are described to illustrate the effects of varying approaches to managing oncogenic pesticide residues in food
• Concern about health effects from exposure to pesticides in foods is growing as scientists learn more about the toxic properties of pesticides. The Delaney Clause, a provision of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, prohibits tolerances for any pesticide that causes cancer in test animals or in humans if the pesticide concentrates in processed food or feeds. This volume examines the impacts of the Delaney Clause on agricultural innovation and on the public's dietary exposure to potentially carcinogenic pesticide residues. Four regulatory scenarios are described to illustrate the effects of varying approaches to managing oncogenic pesticide residues in food

Cataloging source

DNLM

Funding information

This project was supported by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Although the research described in this document has been funded wholly or in part by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under assistance agreement CR-812181-01 to the National Academy of Sciences, it has not been subjected to the agency's peer and administrative review and therefore may not necessarily reflect the views of the agency, and no official endorsement should be inferred. Preparation of this publication was supported by funds from the W. K. Kellogg Foundation; Dow Chemical U.S.A.; CIBA-GEIGY Corp., Agricultural Division; General Foods Corp.; ICI Americas Inc., Agricultural Chemicals Division; Lilly Research Laboratories; Mobay Chemical Corp., Agricultural Chemicals Division; Rhone-Poulenc, Inc., Agrochemical Division; Rohm and Haas Co.; and Shell Companies Foundation.

NLM call number

WA 697