When the National Academy of Sciences concluded in June that current levels of pesticide residues on fruits and vegetables may pose high risks of cancer and other disease to infants and children, the Clinton Administration promptly pledged to tighten regulatory policies. However, the Adminisis expected to seek Congressional approval for what amounts to weakened regulation of carcinogenic pesticides in the nation's food supplies.

The Administration's proposal:

* Would allow economic benefits for the agri-chemical industry to outweigh health risks to consumers.

* Fails to set goals and incentives for phasing out carcinogenic pesticides.

* Gives the Environmental Protection Agency discretion to set safety standards at any level of cancer risk.

* Is based on safety standards that regulate each pesticide in isolation, rather than cumulative residues on a plateful of food.

* Is based on Food and Drug Administration monitoring that misses half of commonly used pesticides.

* Ignores the safety standards for children recommended by the NAS.

The pressure to weaken pesticide regulations stems from agri-chemical industry pressures and from a 1992 ruling by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. The court at that time ordered the EPA to enforce the 1958 law known as "Delaney," which bans residues of those carcinogenic pesticides that concentrate in processed foods such as fruit juice or tomato paste. Rather than complying, the Administration is seeking legislative revocation of Delaney. The validity of the law's basis, that there is no scientific way to determine safe levels or tolerances for carcinogens, has been repeatedly examined and endorsed over the last three decades by a succession of independent expert committees. Nevertheless, the Clinton proposal recommends replacing Delaney, designed to prevent any avoidable exposures to dietary carcinogens, with standards that would allow residues posing "acceptable" or "negligible" risks of cancer, generally one in a million extra cancers.

Such risks are determined by what's known as "quantitative risk assessment," a pseudo-science based on questionable assumptions and mathematical models derived from animal carcinogenicity tests. While those tests reliably determine whether or not a chemical is carcinogenic, there is no way of predicting the relative sensitivities of humans and animals. In fact, recent studies suggest that humans may be many times more sensitive to particular carcinogens than are rodents.