Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to share my concerns as a nursery farmer regarding implementation of the Food Quality Protection Act. Shreckhise Nurseries is a wholesale nursery operation located in the central Shenandoah Valley of Virginia, within the bounds of Augusta and Rockingham Counties. We produce woody trees and shrubs, field-grown and in containers, for garden center and landscape customers in the mid-Atlantic region. My comments also reflect the concerns of the American Nursery & Landscape Association (ANLA), our national trade association. ANLA represents 2,700 growers, landscape firms, retail garden centers, and the 16,000 additional family farm and small business members of state and regional nursery and landscape associations.

According to USDA, the nursery and greenhouse industry is the fastest growing segment in American agriculture. Over the last 25 years, our industry's crop value as a percentage of all agricultural crops has increased from 4.1% to nearly 11%. Our industry ranks as the third largest plant crop, behind corn and soybeans, yet ahead of wheat, cotton, and tobacco. In Virginia, we rank as the Number 2 plant crop. The Virginia Dept. of Agriculture and Consumer Services conservatively estimated the value of Virginia's nursery industry at $155.3 million in 1996.

As with other types of crop agriculture, the growth and success of my business depends on my ability to effectively manage insects, diseases and weeds. In fact, our industry faces some unique challenges in this area. First, consumers expect high quality, pest-free plants and flowers. A pest infestation can quickly ruin a crop, with no recourse for the grower. Secondly, federal and state agencies regulate nursery plant shipments to minimize the spread of harmful plant pests like the imported fire ant and gypsy moth. In most cases, regulations require that plants are virtually free of plant pests; in quarantine situations, absolute freedom from pests is mandated.

The material & labor costs of making pesticide applications, regulatory requirements associated with the Worker Protection Standard, and stewardship goals are driving nursery and greenhouse growers to aggressively pursue Integrated Pest Management programs. Tactics we use in IPM programs include selection of pest-resistant varieties, cultural controls, and judicious use of pesticides. We're trying to use the "gentlest" products with the shortest Restricted Entry Interval wherever possible. Still, many of the pesticides being reviewed first under FQPA are critically important tools. They are used in IPM programs to manage resistance or to "clean up" a problem

only when other tactics fail. Sometimes, their use is mandated to meet a specific plant pest quarantine requirement.

You may wonder why our industry is concerned, and watching carefully how EPA implements the Food Quality Protection Act. We are not growing bearing edible food crops, and so we are not affected directly by dietary tolerances. Yet, we are a textbook example of a minor-use crop. The high costs of testing, registering, and marketing pesticides for our industry -- plus the perceived liability for any damage of our high-value crops -- deter many pesticide companies from labeling products for our uses. Often, new pesticide products are registered last -- or never -- for uses like ours. Our industry strongly supported the minor-use regulatory relief and incentives in the FQPA. But now, we are wondering if the potential benefits of the minor-use amendments will really happen, with all the focus on tolerance reassessment.

EPA officials have stated to growers of non-food crops that industries like ours will not be directly affected by FQPA implementation. Based on past experience with other regulations, we are not so sure. If EPA uses unrealistic worst-case assumptions in their risk assessment process, and overblown estimates of real risk force many food, home and landscape uses off a given pesticide label, product registrations may not be kept for only a few uses such as ours. Also, formulators and distributors maintain many nursery and greenhouse use labels. If the "risk cup" is overflowing for a pesticide, or group of pesticides considered together, what is the likelihood that distributors and formulators servicing our industry will be able to stay in the game?

Mr. Chairman, EPA must implement FQPA in the manner in which we believe Congress intended. The following specific issues must be addressed as EPA proceeds with the implementation process:

First, the Agency must use good science and reliable, real-world information. For uses other than food uses, we understand that the law clearly requires EPA to use reliable and available information. If such information doesn't exist now, the Agency should compel the development and submission of such information. In the interim, EPA should not use unrealistic and unreliable assumptions in its decision-making process. The implementation process must allow for information to be collected rather than using worst-case assumptions that overestimate risk.

Secondly, growers and other users must have a seat at the table and input into the process early enough to:

• refine actual use and usage information;
• recommend measures that will reduce theoretical risk to an acceptable level;
• prepare where necessary for an orderly transition to other tools or practices.

Thirdly, there should be no surprises -- EPA's decision-making processes must be clear and understandable to those who will be affected. This may mean that approaches to some of the more controversial or complex issues should be published for public review and comment.

Finally, many of the pesticides scheduled first for review have important food and non-food uses. An abundant and safe food supply is in the public's interest. Also, many non-food uses offer both producers and the general public many benefits. All uses affected by the FQPA tolerance reassessment process should be considered on equal footing, and with equal opportunity for information collection and risk reduction strategies where needed. New product registrations and new uses of existing products must be handled efficiently as well.

A coalition of farm, food, pest management, and manufacturing organizations known as the FQPA Implementation Working Group has developed a "roadmap" document that offers a framework for fair and reasonable implementation of the law. This "roadmap" offers a great opportunity for discussion of key implementation issues with EPA.

We hope that in a decade or so we will agree that FQPA has achieved what was intended -- confidence in a safe, wholesome and abundant food supply -- in a way that is fair and least-disruptive to U.S. growers and other pesticide users. This will only happen if implementation proceeds with clear and understandable processes, using reliable and available information, and with ample opportunity for user involvement. Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity to express my thoughts and those of my industry on Food Quality Protection Act implementation.

# # #

Mr. Shreckhise, I would like to hear your views, as a grower, on what is involved when transitioning to a new pesticide product or strategy?

As I mentioned earlier, new products usually become available for major row crops first. Years often pass before a new product is labeled for nursery and greenhouse use.

Once the product becomes legally available, we need to test it on a small scale. Many nurseries grow four hundred or more different plant varieties, and we need to test the product on our varieties under our conditions. Usually, increased testing over several growing seasons is needed. No one can risk moving to a new product or strategy too quickly, and experiencing crop damage! For example, we are increasing our use of horticultural oils as a safe and effective pest management tool. But, some plants can be sensitive to oils, so plenty of testing is critical.

For nurseries, a single chemical or other strategy is just one variable in a very complex management system. It takes time to evaluate the range of effects when one variable is changed.

Finally, I mentioned inspection and quarantine requirements. Many times, state or federal agencies require that a specific pesticide formulation is used. Switching to a new product often requires several years of research trials to prove that a proposed alternative is highly effective.