130 likes | 226 Views
Technology As A Tool For Regulation. The Arizona Department of Agriculture. Examples of Technology Influencing Regulatory Actions. Air quality monitors. Microbial detections in water & food. Pesticide residue on food or misapplied surfaces. National Mandate.
E N D
Technology As A Tool For Regulation The Arizona Department of Agriculture
Examples of Technology Influencing Regulatory Actions • Air quality monitors. • Microbial detections in water & food. • Pesticide residue on food or misapplied surfaces.
National Mandate • Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA). • Infant/compromised immune system tolerance standards. • National focus on Food Quality Protection Act’s implementation results.
Unintended Consequences of Mandate • Impact of removal of unsubstitutable product (OP) on a 6.3b dollar industry. • Industry advancement of technology related to detection tests. • More complex chemical compositions registered by EPA for national use. • State Lead Agencies to enforce registered uses on pesticides.
Liquid Chromatography/ Mass Spectrometer • A very powerful technique to identify the molecular weight of compounds. • The Liquid Chromatography part separates the chemical into components based on the adsorbing properties of each component, used for increased sensitivity. • The Mass Spectrometer part ionizes the liquid to produce a column of gaseous ions. • The gaseous ions are accelerated by an electric field to the analyzer.
Dwight Dwight Harder, Laboratory Director Doug Marsh, Laboratory Manager Arizona Department of Agriculture, State Agricultural Laboratory • “Developing detection methods went from a 1 year research project to less than a week to meet registration requirements.” Doug Marsh • “This is an excellent tool in terms of investigating whether or not something in the environment is causing problems. Especially getting something identified quickly.” Dwight Harder • “When it comes to homeland security issues and safety issues, this is a useful tool.” Dwight Harder • “There are no fed labs with LC-MS-MS.” Dwight Harder
Arizona Emphasis of FQPA Consequences • In the event of a misapplication or misuse, SLA tasked with identifying the offending chemical. • Without the advanced detection tests, existing SLA technology delivers inconclusive results. • Public health/safety is not protected . . . the intended result of the legislation.
Implementation In Arizona • The unfunded mandate is not enforced due to the inability of the ADA to obtain the necessary, expensive, technology. • The search for funds in a tightly constrained budget environment.
Policy Recommendations for AZ and Similarly Impacted States Governmental Funds Generation • Seek federal procurement of tools through Congressional appropriation. • Seek state funding for procurement of tools. • Allow the Department of Agriculture access to the Pesticide Fund for a one time purchase of equipment.
Increase ADA Internally Generated Funds • Increase fines on an OSHA like sliding scale with progressively higher fines for repeat violations. Link violation fines monies to a seed fund for new technology purchases. • Explore private sector funding through increased pesticide, seller, commercial and personal applicator license fees which are artificially low.
Suggestions for Collaboration • Explore possibility of regional cooperative agreements with neighboring states. • Develop relationships with private sector companies for access to equipment and idea exchange.
University Partnerships • Develop linkage program with ASU researchers. • Establish graduate research projects with the Arizona Department of Agriculture.