Chlorpyrifos News
EPA Seeks Public Comment on Industry - 7/28/10
The U.S. EPA has asked for public comment on an industry petition calling for more transparent procedures in the establishment of pesticide use restrictions under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Dow AgroSciences, Cheminova and Makhteshim-Agan of North America filed the petition in January 2010.
The petition was prompted by the essentially ad hoc process that EPA is currently using to impose label amendments and county-specific restrictions related to salmon in key agricultural and timber production areas of Washington, Oregon, Idaho and California. The haphazard approach now being pursued by the Agency sets a poor precedent for establishing similar restrictions on dozens of products in the Western U.S. and would also impact EPA’s approach for future restrictions addressing hundreds of threatened and endangered species across the U.S.
The petition calls for EPA to draw up clear rules for creating and amending endangered species protection program “county bulletins” and provide adequate opportunities for registrant, state agency, and grower inputs. The petition is open to public comment until September 27th, 2010.
Read EPA’s Federal Register Notice soliciting public comment on the petition.
Prepare for submitting comments to EPA by reviewing a Q&A document providing additional background and guidance.
Read the companies full petition announcement.
Read the rulemaking petition text.
Learn more about the Endangered Species Act and the EPA's proposed plans.
Perspective: Activists File Suit Against EPA Over Chlorpyrifos Registrations and Tolerances - 7/23/2010
Earthjustice announced Thursday, July 22, 2010, that the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Pesticide Action Network have filed suit against EPA in an attempt to force a court-ordered response to their 2007 petition to the Agency to take regulatory action against the insecticide chlorpyrifos. The following offers Dow AgroSciences’ perspective on that action.
EPA recently finalized a thorough scientific evaluation of chlorpyrifos in 2006 in which all current uses of the product were supported by the Agency. (Note: By law, EPA cannot authorize use of a pest control product to protect a food crop, unless it has determined that these uses pose a “reasonable certainty of no harm.”) Many, if not all, of NRDC’s concerns were thoroughly considered by EPA during that evaluation.
Since that time, as part of the normal regulatory review process, EPA has initiated yet another evaluation of chlorpyrifos, which began in March 2009. This review will - once again - consider all health, safety and environmental aspects of chlorpyrifos uses, updating the Agency’s prior assessments with new information and addressing all of the concerns raised by NRDC’s petition.
NRDC’s petition (and the lawsuit filed to require EPA to respond to it) contribute nothing to the thorough health, safety and environmental regulatory evaluations already underway. If anything, the petition and suit reflect an effort on the part of NRDC to use legal action to short-circuit the rational, science-based regulatory processes by which its concerns are already being addressed. Over the years, NRDC has submitted petitions to EPA on many other pest control products that it has concerns about, many of which EPA has denied.
Chlorpyrifos is important to U.S. agriculture because it controls a wide range of insects on citrus, tree nuts, grapes, soybeans, broccoli, cauliflower, onions, cabbage, Brussels sprouts, alfalfa, wheat and other important crops. The product is an important part of grower Integrated Pest Management programs. It is less disruptive to beneficial insects than other products and more effective against crop pests than many alternative treatments. For some crops and crop pests, there are no alternative products that have been both demonstrated to be effective and that are readily available to growers.
Chlorpyrifos is registered today in approximately 100 nations, including most developed nations, based on detailed review of extensive scientific studies by regulators charged with the protection of human health. Registered uses rest on four decades of experience with the product, health surveillance of manufacturing workers and applicators and an extensive database of studies on health and the environment. No pest control product has been more thoroughly studied.
Continued product support during ongoing regulatory review is a prerequisite today for maintaining product registrations of crop protection products. Dow AgroSciences is prepared to support continued registration of chlorpyrifos and has extensive scientific data and 40 years of experience with the product under labeled use to bring to these evaluations.
For further information, contact Garry Hamlin, Dow AgroSciences, Indianapolis (317-337-4799 ~ GarryHamlin@Dow.com).
Impasse Reached on West Coast Endangered Species Act Restrictions – 05/10/10
Four crop protection product manufacturers – Dow AgroSciences, Makhteshim-Agan of North America, Cheminova and Gharda Chemicals Ltd. – advised EPA on Friday, May 7, 2010, that they would not voluntarily agree to new restrictions based on a National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) assessment on the use of the insecticides chlorpyrifos, diazinon and malathion in the Western U.S.
“Solid scientific analysis…supports [the] view,” the companies noted in their response “that the use of [these] products is not taking or jeopardizing any protected species and not adversely affecting any critical habitat.”
The companies also noted that EPA itself has strongly criticized the NMFS assessment of endangered salmon species on which the new restrictions are based – and that the companies have challenged that NMFS assessment based on many of the same deficiencies pointed out by EPA and lead state regulatory agencies.
If the companies were to comply, grower access to these important pest control products would be severely limited within the 176,000 square mile area of California, Idaho, Oregon and Washington where these restrictions would take effect. Compliance would also create an adverse regulatory precedent for growers using other crop protection products in the years ahead.
The companies note that agreeing to the restrictions would be inconsistent with legal and regulatory filings that they have outstanding on these issues. Among these is a suit against NMFS over the flawed assessment that is currently driving EPA’s action; and a petition to EPA calling on the Agency to adopt transparent policies in establishing Endangered Species Act restrictions.
The companies stress that they “remain willing to consider adjustments to product labels that are consistent with the facts and the needs of growers and vector control programs” and they call on EPA to undertake a fundamental reassessment of its approach to integrating its responsibilities under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act with its obligations under the Endangered Species Act.
EPA may decide to initiate a regulatory process to force restrictions on these three insecticides. Should this occur the companies believe that the deficiencies of the NMFS assessment would become glaringly obvious in the science-based hearings that would follow. The companies continue to press for a resolution of these issues resulting in a more open process for Endangered Species Act regulations where the input of registrants, growers, agricultural experts and other interested parties is more readily considered in regulatory decision-making.
Read the companies’ response to the EPA.
Access the EPA’s letter requesting companies change their labels.
Visit our Endangered Species Act page to learn more about the history of the issue and its legal implications
See why farmers, commodity and grower associations as well as state regulatory officials are concerned about EPA’s plans.
Read excerpts of the criticisms that EPA and other regulatory bodies have made about the NMFS assessment
View grower comments about their need for chlorpyrifos.
Contact Garry Hamlin (317-337-4799; GarryHamlin@Dow.com) for additional information.
CropLife America and Three Registrants Give Notice That They Are Prepared to Sue EPA Over Endangered Species Act Restrictions – 04/16/10
CropLife America and three pesticide registrants – Cheminova, Inc.; Dow AgroSciences; and Makhteshim Agan of North America – have filed notice that they are prepared to sue the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) over its failure to fulfill its statutory obligations under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Endangered Species Act (ESA), specifically as it relates to salmon habitat in the western U.S.
The filers claim that EPA’s response to these statutory obligations has been thoroughly hijacked by pesticide opposition group litigation so that the Agency is now preparing to impose new use restrictions on crop protection products based on a hastily contrived assessment that – contrary to specific requirements of the ESA – fails to consider the best scientific and commercial information available.
Read the full statement.
Read the Notice of Intent letter.
Learn more about the Legislative History of Section 1010.
Visit our Endangered Species Act page to learn more about the history of the issue and its legal implications.
From Capitol Press: States Weigh in on EPA’s No-spray Buffers – 03/21/10
The directors of Washington and Oregon state agriculture departments have made it very clear to the EPA that the agency has not been diligent about following the dictates of the Endangered Species Act where it concerns impact to the agricultural industry.
In letters dated November 12, 2009 and March 1, 2010, respectively, Dan Newhouse of the State of Washington Department of Agriculture and Katy Coba of the Oregon Department of Agriculture strongly questioned both the NMFS’ definition of salmon waters and the EPA’s plan to mandate product labeling changes for buffer zones and no-spray buffers for chlorpyrifos, malathion, and diazinon.
Newhouse’s letter to Gary Locke of the U.S. Department of Commerce not only challenges the NMFS’s approach to evaluating the impact of these pesticides on salmon populations but also invokes regulations under Section 7 of the ESA. Section 7 dictates that “reasonable and prudent alternatives” (RPAs) to pesticide use must be provided and must also take into consideration the economic impact of those alternatives. Newhouse asks, “Given the broad definition of habitat and likely prohibition of use, did NMFS consider the cost associated with changing pest management strategies?”
Coba’s letter voices similar concerns: “While Oregon is committed to ensuring that the use of pesticides are managed to limit the risks to listed fish and aquatic health, we are concerned that the proposed approach places undue burden on the forestry and agricultural communities and as proposed is not workable on the ground.”
Read the full text of Newhouse’s and Coba’s letters.
Read the Capitol Press article, summarizing their concerns.
Visit our Endangered Species Act page to learn more about the history of the issue and its legal implications.
Dow AgroSciences, Makhteshim-Agan and Cheminova Petition EPA to Consider Ag Stakeholder Input on Endangered Species Restrictions – 01/20/10
Three crop protection product manufacturers – Dow AgroSciences, Makhteshim-Agan of North America and Cheminova – have filed a petition calling on EPA to adopt transparent procedures allowing public notice and comment on Endangered Species Act decisions. The petition is prompted by the essentially ad hoc process that EPA is currently using to impose label amendments and county-specific restrictions related to salmon in more than 112 million acres of key agricultural and timber production areas of Washington, Oregon, Idaho and California.
The petition calls on EPA to:
- Provide manufacturers with timely notice of proposed amendments to county bulletins
- Solicit input from manufacturers and agricultural stakeholders prior to implementing changes
- Use standard regulatory procedures in addressing disputes about bulletin content
- Provide specific guidance on how these regulatory procedures will be applied
While EPA’s imminent actions concern three products – chlorpyrifos, diazinon, and malathion – the process the Agency is using will set a precedent for establishing similar restrictions on hundreds of other products in the Western U.S. over the next few years.
Read the full petition announcement.
Read the rulemaking petition text.
Learn more about the Endangered Species Act and the EPA's proposed plans.
National Marine Fisheries Service and EPA Action to Protect Salmon Jeopardizes Western U.S. Agriculture -- 12/01/09
Based on environmental activist litigation around the ESA stretching back to 2001, U.S. EPA recently announced a set of intended restrictions for the use of chlorpyrifos, diazinon, and malathion designed to protect Pacific salmon. Dow AgroSciences was initially encouraged that the Agency appeared to be taking a more pragmatic, scientifically defensible approach. Although we thought that EPA’s highly precautionary plan was unlikely to provide additional protection to salmon, which are already protected under existing labeling requirements, we believed that it could be implemented without wholesale disruption to agriculture stemming from the loss of important crop protection tools. Based on that understanding, we pledged to work with the Agency on its implementation plan, and we continue to do so to this day.
As always, however, the devil is in the details. At the moment, EPA seems reluctant to refine important terms in its implementation of the NMFS proposal. The most serious deficiency is a current definition of salmon habitat that would expand no-use buffer zones to essentially every ditch, drain, canal and irrigation furrow that might eventually drain from an agricultural field into water where salmon could be present.
This is a decision that would result in a virtual prohibition of product [pesticide] use on more than 112 million western acres, including some of the most valuable and productive farm and forestry land in the U.S. – and it is being made by regulatory authorities without consultation with agricultural stakeholders or consideration of the adverse impacts on their livelihood.
See why farmers, commodity and grower associations as well as state regulatory officials are concerned about EPA’s plans.
Learn more about EPA’s announced plans.
