This change, which gave EPA sole jurisdiction over all pesticide residues on food, was intended to eliminate the conflict that arises when two different safety standards are applicable to a particular pesticide residue, depending upon the type of food in which it resides. Unfortunately, FQPA did not completely eliminate the need to distinguish between RACs and processed foods. Consequently, both before and after FQPA, FDA regulates the use of antimicrobials on processed foods. Consequently, a number of food additive petitions that were pending at FDA when FQPA was passed were put on hold while the two agencies sorted out the new allocation of jurisdiction. A food processing facility is defined as a facility that includes operations other than washing, waxing, fumigating, and packing.
Products intended for such use are pesticides.
FDA's food additive procedures would apply to the residues on food, and there would be no need to obtain an EPA pesticide registration for the antimicrobial product. If an antimicrobial is impregnated into a food contact article in order to have an ongoing effect on the microorganisms on the surface, then the article is a pesticide. As noted above, FQPA was intended to eliminate the problems created when two different safety standards apply to a particular pesticide residue, depending on whether the food in which it appeared was raw or processed. Since the criteria for performing safety evaluations are different under sections 408 and 409, it is possible that an antimicrobial could be approved under one standard but fail to gain approval under the other. This is a conflict waiting to happen that will be avoided if EPA moves forward with its planned rulemaking.