Innovations in agricultural chemicals have revolutionized and enhanced food production, but with progress come new challenges. Agricultural chemicals can have widespread impacts on ecosystems and human health, and marginalized communities -- children and farmworkers in particular -- can be especially vulnerable. Manufacturers, regulatory agencies, public health experts, and nonprofit organizations are working to address these challenges head-on by developing new products and devising robust protective measures.
Recent changes in federal regulations include the Worker Protection Standards under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), which expand the requirements for protecting agricultural workers from pesticide exposure. The Environmental Law Institute (ELI) presents "Pesticides, Farmworkers, Industry, and Environmental Justice," a webinar exploring the issues addressed in the new regulations and the implementation of these new obligations. James V. Aidala, Senior Government Affairs Consultant, Bergeson & Campbell, P.C. (B&C®), will moderate this discussion.
By Lisa M. Campbell, Lisa R. Burchi, Heather F. Collins, M.S., and Barbara A. Christianson
On August 24, 2020, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced the issuance of a Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) Section 18 emergency exemption to the state of Texas permitting it to allow American Airlines and Total Orthopedics Sports & Spine to use a new product that is believed to inactivate coronaviruses like the SARS-CoV-2 virus on surfaces for up to seven days. EPA states that after carefully reviewing the available data and information, it “determined that the product helps to address the current national emergency.” According to EPA, the product is “expected to provide longer-lasting protection in public spaces, increasing consumer confidence in resuming normal air travel and other activities.”
FIFRA Section 18 authorizes EPA to exempt federal or state agencies from any provision of FIFRA in the event that emergency conditions require such an exemption. EPA regulations (40 C.F.R. Part 166) specify when state or federal government agencies will be permitted to use unregistered pesticides in response to an emergency. EPA’s regulations provide that an emergency exists when:
- There is an “urgent, non-routine” situation requiring the use of a pesticide to control a new pest not previously prevalent in the United States, to control significant risks to health, the environment, beneficial organisms, or endangered species, or to prevent specified types of economic loss; and
- There is no registered pesticide or economically or environmentally feasible alternate method of control available.
40 C.F.R. § 166.3.
The exemptions granted can be very specific and time-limited; EPA has developed a database so companies can search (by chemical, site, pest, applicant, or date range) to determine if an emergency exemption has been issued and its expiration date.
In this case, EPA approved the Section 18 emergency exemption request for SurfaceWise2 -- a product manufactured by Allied BioScience -- a surface coating that Allied BioScience states inactivates viruses and bacteria within two hours of application and continues to work against them for up to seven days, between regular cleanings. EPA’s approval will allow Texas to permit American Airlines airport facilities and planes at specific locations and two Total Orthopedics Sports & Spine Clinics to use SurfaceWise2 under certain conditions. The approved Section 18 emergency requests are effective for one year. As new data emerge, EPA may alter the terms of the product’s emergency uses.
Over the coming months, Allied BioScience will pursue a non-emergency approval under FIFRA Section 3 by submitting additional data to meet EPA’s registration requirements as an antiviral and antibacterial surface coating. If the full registration process is completed, the product would become available for purchase by members of the public. SurfaceWise2 is not yet available to the general public because Allied Biosciences has not yet submitted the necessary data to qualify for registration under Section 3 of FIFRA.
EPA states that it has not received any other Section 18 applications for products with residual efficacy against coronaviruses like SARS-CoV-2, but that is likely to change following this approval and ongoing activities by companies seeking options for products to use against SARS-CoV-2. EPA states it will consider any such requests submitted related to the COVID-19 public health emergency, and also anticipates posting information for companies or individuals who are interested in pursuing a FIFRA Section 3 registration for antiviral surface coatings in the coming weeks.
States or federal agencies interested in pursuing a Section 18 emergency exemption request for products that claim residual efficacy against viruses should be prepared to include efficacy data demonstrating that the product is durable and effective against viruses for up to the periods of time after application. It will be essential to ensure that these data will be deemed sufficient by EPA to determine efficacy and durability, which may require discussion with EPA. EPA will review the results of these studies to ensure that surface coatings remain effective under the anticipated proposed conditions of use.
Additional information on Section 18 emergency exemption requests and Sars-CoV-2 is available here.
By Lisa M. Campbell, James V. Aidala, Lisa R. Burchi, and Barbara A. Christianson
On August 20, 2020, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced that it is seeking to add chitosan to the list of active ingredients allowed for in minimum risk pesticides exempted from pesticide registration requirements under Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) Section 25(b). A minimum risk product must meet six specific conditions to be exempted from pesticide registration. One of those conditions is that the active ingredient in the minimum risk pesticide be one that is listed specifically by EPA. If added to the list of minimum risk pesticide active ingredients, pesticide products containing chitosan could qualify as minimum risk pesticides provided the other conditions are also satisfied (e.g., using inert ingredients approved by EPA for use in minimum risk pesticides, not making any public health claims).
Chitosan is a naturally occurring polymer that is derived from the shells of crustaceans. It is currently registered as a fungicide, antimicrobial agent, and plant growth regulator that boosts the ability of plants to defend against fungal infections. For uses as a plant growth regulator, chitosan is applied to treat field crops, ornamentals, turf, home gardens, and nurseries. Target pests include early and late blight, downy and powdery mildew, and gray mold. As an antimicrobial agent, chitosan is used on textiles to protection the fabric from bacterial and fungal growth. Chitosan is exempt from the requirement for a pesticide tolerance.
History -- The Caesar Salad Chemicals
The origin of the Section 25(b) list came from an effort by EPA to deregulate products which, while meeting the definition of being a pesticide (a product with the intended purpose of being sold or distributed to kill or repel a pest as defined under FIFRA), were common products of established safety. More precisely, products with a lack of toxicity such that it was a “waste of resources” for EPA to subject such products to the bureaucratic requirements of FIFRA registration.
In particular, at an oversight Congressional hearing on the lack of progress being made at the time on EPA’s attempt to complete re-registration (now referred to as registration review), the EPA witness was asked about some most recently released re-registration assessments. These referred to the four registered pesticides: garlic, capsicum, acetic acid, and citric acid. These are pesticides formulated into various products, and in the hearing were referred to by more common names: garlic, pepper, vinegar, and lemon juice. This led to a famous oversight question to the EPA witness: “Are you making progress or Caesar Salad?”
This led, in part, to the Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) allowing very low risk pesticides to be exempt from registration. It eventually issued the original Section 25(b) list to conserve review resources. At the same time, since these products no longer had to be registered, it allowed label language such as “natural,” “non-toxic,” and “safe around children and pets,” which are disallowed registered product label claims. Not surprisingly, label language allowing the word “safe” has proven to be a popular marketing claim for products that meet the exemption requirements.
At the same time, the fine print of the Section 25(b) exemption did not allow health and safety claims on such products even if they were made from Section 25(b) ingredients. In particular, this led to concerns about insect repellents that could be made from Section 25(b) ingredients and were labeled as repelling mosquitoes or ticks or other public health pests; they could include the word “safe” as long they did not also mention any disease or other public health claims. The average consumer, however, likely does not distinguish between insect repellents (or other products) that fit EPA’s definition of public health claims and those simply listing the target pest (e.g., mosquitoes, ticks, or rodents). The average consumer is unlikely to realize the distinction between a product labeled as “XX insect repellent -- repels mosquitoes -- all natural and safe,” which may not have evidence of efficacy, and another product that says “YY insect repellent -- made from natural ingredients and repels mosquitoes, which may carry West Nile Virus” -- which is required to be registered and include proof of efficacy for any public health claims.
This possible consumer confusion was the subject of a FIFRA petition filed in 2006 by the Consumer Specialty Products Association (CSPA). The petition suggests that EPA modify the Section 25(b) regulation to exclude products claiming to control public health pests from the Section 25(b) exemption -- which would then require registration, including data proving efficacy (Docket: EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0687-0002).
EPA responded to the CSPA petition in 2007, essentially agreeing about the problem of possible consumer confusion. In a letter to CSPA, EPA stated:
…. whether we decide to pursue rulemaking or some other avenue, we intend to move as expeditiously as possible to identify the most efficient approach to protect the public from unknowingly relying on products that target public health pests and have not been shown to work.
EPA later announced that it would embark on rulemaking to address this possible consumer confusion. It is, however, unclear whether this is still a pending matter on EPA’s agenda. No docket materials have been added in many years. As part of its Semiannual Regulatory Agenda in fall 2011, EPA included an entry that stated a Section 25(b) proposed rule would be issued before February 2013. It is not clear if EPA continues to have plans to issue such a proposal.
EPA’s August 20 proposal is an interesting development, as EPA’s other revisions and proposals for minimum risk pesticides trend toward adding restrictions to the conditions to be satisfied, thus limiting exemptions. The current proposal would expand the exemptions by adding another active ingredient to the otherwise limited approved list. Since changes to the Section 25(b) list will require a rulemaking, it is unclear what happened to the earlier plan to issue a proposed rule addressing the long-ago CSPA petition response.
EPA states that it has forwarded to the Secretary of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) a draft regulatory document concerning “Pesticides; Addition of Chitosan to the List of Active Ingredients Allowed in Exempted Minimum Risk Pesticides Products.” EPA will not make this draft regulatory document available to the public until after it has been signed. When it is available, that document and additional information will be available in docket EPA-HQ-OPP-2019-0701.
By Lisa M. Campbell, Lisa R. Burchi and Barbara A. Christianson
On July 6, 2020, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced that it approved amended labels for two products, Lysol Disinfectant Spray (EPA Reg. No. 777-99) and Lysol Disinfectant Max Cover Mist (EPA Reg. No. 777-127), based on laboratory testing that shows the products are effective against SARS-CoV-2. These are the first products for which EPA has reviewed laboratory testing data and approved label claims against SARS-CoV-2.
In January 2020, at the beginning of the SARS-CoV-2 public health emergency, EPA activated its Emerging Viral Pathogens guidance (Guidance), This Guidance was developed in April 2016 to set forth procedures for EPA to respond to the potential need for products to combat emerging viral pathogens that are not on EPA-registered disinfectant labels. The Guidance allows product registrants to make limited claims of their product’s efficacy against SARS-CoV-2, provided in part that there are efficacy data that have already been reviewed by EPA and demonstrate their products are effective against harder-to-kill viruses than SARS-CoV-2.
Since activating its Guidance for the first time, EPA has reviewed amendments for already EPA-registered surface disinfectants on an expedited basis and developed a list -- List N -- of products that meet its criteria under the Guidance for use against SARS-CoV-2. List N currently includes 431 products and is updated weekly. In many cases, EPA states that it was able to approve claims in as little as 14 days.
This week, EPA updated the entries for the two Lysol products on List N to indicate they have now been tested directly against SARS-CoV-2. This is significant since they are the first List N products for which EPA has reviewed laboratory testing data specifically against SARS-CoV-2, and not listed based on EPA’s determination that a product can be used against SARS-CoV-2 because of the product’s effectiveness against a harder-to-kill virus.
EPA states that it expects to approve such claims for additional List N products in the coming weeks.
By Lisa M. Campbell, Timothy D. Backstrom, and Carla N. Hutton
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced on July 2, 2020, that it has registered NSPW Nanosilver (a new nanosilver formulation) to suppress odor-causing bacteria and algae, fungus, mold, and mildew that can cause deterioration or staining in textiles. Textiles that may be treated with NSPW Nanosilver include fabrics, sportswear, footwear, linens, and awnings. NSPW Nanosilver is the active ingredient in the pesticide product POLYGUARD-NSPW MASTER BATCH (Polyguard). The NSPW Nanosilver in Polyguard will be embedded within beads or pellets of a polymeric material in a “master batch,” and these beads of pellets will then be incorporated into treated textiles through a closed-loop manufacturing process. EPA states that once the beads or pellets containing NSPW Nanosilver are introduced into this manufacturing process, no beads or pellets can escape into the environment. EPA also states that the available data indicate that the leach rate of nanosilver from NSPW Nanosilver-treated textiles is below the limit of detection.
The same type of nanosilver was the active ingredient in another product that EPA previously conditionally registered under FIFRA Section 3(c)(7)(C) in 2015. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a decision vacating that conditional registration because the court concluded that the mandatory public interest finding by EPA was not adequately supported by the administrative record. According to EPA, the new registration for NSPW Nanosilver involves a modified use pattern that will limit exposures compared to the product that received the previously vacated conditional registration. Based on additional data that the applicant has submitted to support the use pattern as modified, EPA has prepared an updated risk assessment for NSPW Nanosilver and has determined based on that risk assessment that the product as modified meets the standard for an unconditional registration under FIFRA Section 3(c)(5). Materials supporting this action will be posted in Docket ID EPA-HQ-OPP-2020-0043.
Registering any new metallic silver product that satisfies the EPA criteria for classification as nanosilver for use as an antimicrobial pesticide presents special challenges, because EPA has adopted a policy that it will construe each new nanosilver product as a new pesticidal active ingredient. The predecessor to NSPW Nanosilver (Nanosilva) was granted a conditional registration, a procedure that EPA uses when there are data gaps that must be filled before EPA is ready to make the determinations that would support issuance of an unconditional registration. EPA may only issue a conditional registration for a product containing a new pesticidal active ingredient when EPA makes a determination that “use of the pesticide is in the public interest,” and the Ninth Circuit Court determined that EPA did not compile an administrative record adequate to support that finding.
Colloidal metallic silver products that meet the definition of nanosilver were first synthesized in the late 19th century. Some industry stakeholders question whether the differences between different pesticide products that satisfy the EPA definition of nanosilver are sufficiently great to treat each new product as a new active ingredient, but it is also clear that the size and shape of the particles in these products do vary. In this instance, EPA has determined that the supporting data for the application allow EPA to issue an unconditional registration. Accordingly, the legal issue on which the Ninth Circuit based its prior decision to vacate the conditional registration for Nanosilva is not pertinent to the current registration decision. Given the challenge to the prior registration decision, it will be important to monitor any opposition to the newly issued registration.
By Lisa M. Campbell, Timothy D. Backstrom, and James V. Aidala
On June 8, 2020, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced the issuance of an existing stocks order under Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) Section 6(a)(1) governing further sale, distribution, and use of existing stocks of three reduced volatility dicamba products (XtendiMax®, EngeniaTM, and FeXapanTM) with conditional registrations that were vacated by the June 3, 2020, decision of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in National Family Farm Coalition v. EPA. EPA explained its action by stating that the existing stocks order would provide “clarity to farmers” in light of the Court decision. Because EPA believes that vacatur made those stocks of the three dicamba products that were already in channels of trade unregistered pesticides, and the Court’s decision did not specifically address or establish any regimen to govern these unregistered existing stocks, EPA concluded that issuance of an existing stocks order was a practical necessity. The existing stocks order includes provisions that: (1) prohibit all sale and distribution of existing stocks of the three vacated dicamba products by the registrants, and by persons other than commercial applicators except for disposal of the products or returning the products to the registrants or their contract agents, (2) allow commercial applicators to use existing stocks of the vacated dicamba products in their possession in a manner consistent with existing labeling until July 31, 2020, and (3) prohibit end users from using existing stocks of the vacated dicamba products in their possession except in a manner consistent with existing labeling and from using such stocks in any manner after July 31, 2020.
Need for an Existing Stocks Order
To understand EPA’s position concerning the need for an existing stocks order for the three dicamba products with registrations vacated by the Ninth Circuit decision, it is important to review the legal status of those existing stocks after issuance of the decision. In the absence of further EPA action, all stocks of the three dicamba products subject to the vacatur order that were already in channels of trade became unregistered pesticides. Under FIFRA, as unregistered pesticides, these products could not be distributed or sold, which would prohibit stock of the unregistered products from being returned to the registrants or disposed, absent further EPA action. Stocks of the three products that were labeled for uses other than soybeans and cotton (the uses extended by the conditional registration decision vacated by the Court) also became unregistered and thus also could not be distributed or sold absent further action by EPA. Without further action by EPA, stocks of the three products already in the hands of end users could be lawfully used without any kind of restriction because although FIFRA Section 3(a) prohibits sale or distribution of unregistered pesticides, FIFRA does not include any provision prohibiting or limiting use of unregistered pesticides. Thus, the Court’s vacatur action created a situation in which EPA needed to act expeditiously to establish a rational regimen governing existing stocks of the three dicamba products. EPA was able to issue an order creating such a regimen because EPA construes the vacatur of the product registrations by Court action as a type of cancellation, which is how EPA has construed vacatur orders in the past. FIFRA Section 6(a)(1) expressly authorizes EPA to issue orders governing sale, distribution, and use of canceled pesticides.
EPA Policy for Existing Stocks Orders
EPA adopted a policy in 1991 (56 Fed. Reg. 29362) outlining six factors it generally considers in adopting existing stocks orders for canceled pesticides under FIFRA Section 6(a)(1): (1) the quantity of existing stocks at each level in channels of trade, (2) the risks resulting from use of existing stocks, (3) the benefits resulting from use of existing stocks, (4) financial expenditures users and others have already spent on existing stocks, (5) the risks and costs of disposal or alternative disposition of existing stocks, and (6) the practicality of implementing restrictions on the distribution, sale, or use of existing stocks. EPA applied this policy to the current situation and determined that “[e]ach of the six factors weighs heavily in support of allowing end users to use existing stocks of these dicamba products that are in their possession.” Since use of these unregistered pesticides is not otherwise prohibited by FIFRA as discussed above, EPA adopted prohibitions of use of the products not in accordance with the current labeling and of any use after July 31, 2020. The only action taken by EPA to authorize further use of the three products involved stocks held by commercial applicators, which EPA allowed the commercial applicators to use according to the current labeling until July 31, 2020.
EPA Administrator Wheeler stated, “At the height of the growing season, the Court’s decision has threatened the livelihood of our nation’s farmers and the global food supply. Today’s cancellation and existing stocks order is consistent with EPA’s standard practice following registration invalidation, and is designed to advance compliance, ensure regulatory certainty and to prevent the misuse of existing stocks.”
Three days after EPA issued the dicamba existing stocks order, on June 11, 2020, the Petitioners in the National Family Farm Coalition case submitted a motion requesting that the Court provide emergency relief “to enforce its vacatur” decision and that the Court hold EPA and Administrator Wheeler in contempt. According to the Petitioners, EPA’s entire rationale for issuing an existing stocks order is based on false premises. In the Petitioners’ view, existing stocks of the three dicamba products are not “unregistered” because the vacatur order only invalidated certain newly authorized uses, and the existing stocks should not be deemed to be “cancelled” either, although the conditional registration decision for the products has been vacated. In their motion, the Petitioners also assert that EPA is wrong because, “When read in context, FIFRA clearly prohibits the use of unregistered pesticides.” In addition to their request that the Court take emergency action to enforce its decision and hold EPA in contempt, the Petitioners also requested that the Court adjudicate their Endangered Species Act (ESA) claims, an action that would require that the Court recall the mandate and issue another decision on the ESA claims it previously declined to reach.
On June 12, 2020, the Court issued an order requiring EPA to file its response to the motion by 5:00 p.m. PDT on June 16, 2020, and the Petitioners to file any reply by 5:00 p.m. PDT on June 18, 2020.
In another development, BASF Corporation and E.I. DuPont de Nemours each filed separate “emergency motions” to intervene in the case on June 12, 2020. Each company asserts that it was not afforded notice that the Court might take adverse action concerning the registration for its dicamba product until after the decision vacating that registration was issued by the Court. At this juncture, the Court has not yet indicated whether it will consider these emergency intervention motions or whether it would be willing to allow any further briefing on the merits of the case.
Additional information on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision is available on our blog.
The Court’s June 3, 2020, decision stated, “We are aware of the practical effects of our decision,” but it is not clear from the discussion that follows whether the Court fully considered the chaotic effects of issuing a vacatur decision that did not specifically address the fate of existing stocks of the dicamba products with vacated registrations. On May 21, 2020, EPA asked for leave to file information on its plans to issue a cancellation order governing existing stocks of products with vacated registrations, but the Court declined to allow that filing. In any case, it should not have been surprising that EPA would construe its vacatur order as a form of cancellation, because that is what EPA did when the Ninth Circuit previously issued a vacatur order for sulfoxaflor products in 2015.
The Petitioners’ motion rejecting the basic legal premises underlying the EPA existing stocks order reflects a novel view of pesticide registration that is difficult to reconcile with the plain language and established constructions of FIFRA. Under FIFRA, EPA issues registrations for specific pesticide products, which may be labeled only for those uses that EPA has previously determined meet applicable requirements. Under FIFRA Section 6(b), EPA can decide that particular uses no longer meet the standard for registration and must be removed from an existing product label, but the only means by which EPA can effectuate that determination is by taking action to cancel any product for which the registrant does not agree to make the necessary changes. The Court vacated EPA’s conditional registration decision that authorized three registered dicamba products to be labeled for use on dicamba-tolerant soybeans and cotton but did not direct or establish any process for EPA to consider amending the product labeling or restoring the prior registrations. Under these facts, EPA has concluded that under FIFRA, existing stocks that are labeled for those uses became unregistered pesticide products because the labeling no longer conforms to the product registrations as they have been altered by the Court. In the absence of an existing stocks order, stocks of the affected products labeled for the disallowed uses could not be lawfully distributed for any purpose, including voluntary recall by the registrant, disposal, or relabeling to remove the disallowed uses.
Despite the assertions by the Petitioners that FIFRA prohibits use of unregistered pesticides, FIFRA has not been construed in this manner. While it a violation of FIFRA to distribute or sell any pesticide product with labeling that does not conform to a valid registration, FIFRA does not include any similar prohibition on use of an unregistered pesticide. Thus, in the absence of an existing stocks order, stocks of the three dicamba products with vacated registrations that are already in the hands of end users could be lawfully used without restriction. This notion is reflected in the provisions addressing end users in the order. No provision in the order authorizes end users who have the three dicamba products in their possession to do anything. Rather, the order prohibits end users from using the three products except in compliance with the existing labeling and from using the products at all after July 31, 2020.
Of course, it is not surprising that EPA applied its established criteria for existing stocks orders in the manner that it did. Representatives of affected growers argued that prohibiting all use of the products in the middle of the 2020 growing season would lead to billions of dollars in damages, at a time when the entire agricultural economy has already been severely impacted by the Covid-19 pandemic.
In addition to arguing that an existing stocks order was necessary to establish a practical regimen governing distribution and use of those stocks of the three dicamba products in channels of trade when the Court’s decision was issued, EPA will likely argue that the Circuit Court lacks jurisdiction to review the existing stocks order.
From new product or new use approvals, to impact on chemical supply chains, Bergeson & Campbell, P.C. (B&C®) monitors key federal and international chemical legislative and regulatory initiatives to keep firm clients and friends informed. We have compiled a comprehensive and frequently updated listing of our content related to the coronavirus crisis that we hope will serve as a useful, one-click source of information: www.lawbc.com/uploads/docs/COVID-19.pdf.
By Heather F. Collins, M.S. and Barbara A. Christianson
On April 29, 2020, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) released updated guidance to give assistance to facility operators and families on how to clean and disinfect spaces properly. Developed in cooperation with the White House, the updated guidance provides step-by-step instructions for public spaces, workplaces, businesses, schools, and homes, and falls in line with the Opening up America Again guidelines, the three-phased approach, based on the advice of public health experts, to help state and local officials when reopening its economies, getting people back to work, and continuing to protect American lives.
The comprehensive plan was developed in consultation with EPA’s expertise on the safe and effective use of disinfectants against the SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. The guidance offers a three-step process for preparing spaces for reopening:
- Develop a plan
- Determine what needs to be cleaned;
- Determine how areas will be disinfected; and
- Consider the resources and equipment needed.
- Implement the plan
- Clean visibly dirty surfaces with soap and water;
- Use the appropriate cleaning or disinfectant product; and
- Always follow the directions on the label.
- Maintain and revise the plan
- Continue routine cleaning and disinfection;
- Maintain safe practices; and
- Continue practices that reduce the potential for exposure.
EPA states that cleaning and disinfecting surfaces is an important, two-step process essential to any effort to reduce the risk of exposure to SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19.
- Clean: Use soap and water to remove germs, dirt, and impurities from surfaces. It lowers the risk of spreading infection.
- Disinfect: Use disinfectant products to kill germs on surfaces. By killing germs on a surface after cleaning, it can further lower the risk of spreading infection.
EPA has compiled a list of disinfectants for use against SARS-CoV-2, List N: Disinfectants for Use Against SARS-CoV-2, which include ready-to-use sprays, concentrates, and wipes. EPA emphasizes to follow the product label instructions and safety information, including leaving the product on the surface long enough to kill germs, rinsing off the product to avoid ingesting it, and putting the product out of reach of children right away.
EPA also states that it is important to avoid over-using or stockpiling disinfectants or personal protective equipment, which can result in shortages of critical products needed for emergencies. In the event that disinfectant products on the EPA list are not available, the guidance provides other techniques for disinfecting surfaces that are as effective in reducing the risk of exposure to SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19.
EPA’s guidance documents are available here.
Bergeson & Campbell, P.C. (B&C®) is pleased to release a timely episode of the All Things Chemical™ podcast, “Chemical Distribution in the Time of COVID-19 — A Conversation with Eric R. Byer, NACD.” In this episode, Lynn L. Bergeson, Managing Partner, B&C, and Eric Byer, President and CEO of the National Association of Chemical Distributors (NACD), sat down to discuss current challenges facing small and large chemical distributors, and how NACD member companies are able to continue to distribute much needed chemical products, including sanitizers and other cleaning products, in response to the pandemic.
Lynn and Eric’s conversation focuses on unique “in the moment” issues and a broad range of federal, state, and international issues on which NACD is focused, including extending the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS) program, Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) implementation initiatives, and the impact of tariffs on imports from China on NACD member companies. Eric is an amazing leader of an essential trade association, and this conversation provides insights into his success as President and CEO of NACD.
The full podcast episode is available to stream online, where listeners can also find the recent podcast “COVID-19, FIFRA, and EPA — A Conversation with Lisa Campbell” Additional updates on chemical regulatory activity related to COVID-19 can be found on B&C’s Pesticide Law and Policy Blog® and on the Regulatory Developments page of B&C's website, including these recent updates:
All Things Chemical™ engages listeners in intelligent, insightful conversation about everything related to industrial, pesticidal, and specialty chemicals and the law and business issues surrounding chemicals. B&C’s talented team of lawyers, scientists, and consultants will keep listeners abreast of the changing world of both domestic and international chemical regulation and provide analysis of the many intriguing and complicated issues surrounding this space. All Things Chemical™ is available now on iTunes, Spotify, Stitcher, and Google Play Music. Subscribe so you never miss an episode.
Register now for the American Bar Association (ABA) webinar “Navigating the Jurisdictional Tightrope Between Biopesticides, Biostimulants, and Related Emerging Technologies” with Bergeson & Campbell P.C. (B&C®) professionals deconstructing the jurisdictional boundaries distinguishing pesticides, biopesticides, plant regulators, biostimulants, and related technologies. The webinar will focus on draft EPA guidance intended to clarify the lines between and among those products that are subject to FIFRA registration as plant regulators and those biostimulant products not subject to FIFRA registration. The webinar also will focus on new and evolving chemistry and technology issues that may blur some jurisdictional lines or potentially move products from one category to another. Lynn L. Bergeson, Managing Partner, B&C; Lisa R. Burchi, Of Counsel, B&C; and Sheryl Dolan, Senior Regulatory Consultant, B&C, will present.