By James V. Aidala and Margaret R. Graham
On January 12, 2017, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released its Policy to Mitigate the Acute Risk to Bees from Pesticide Products (Mitigation Policy) which describes methods for addressing acute risks to bees from pesticides. EPA states that this Mitigation Policy is “more flexible and practical than the proposed policy” that was issued on May 29, 2015, and it has “made modifications to its approach with the goal of better targeting compounds that pose an acute risk, and with the goal of reducing potential impact of this effort on growers.” EPA states that it will use its Tier 1 acute risk assessment to, in part, determine the products that trigger concerns about pollinator risk that the label restrictions are intended to address. EPA will begin implementing this Policy in 2017 by sending letters to registrants describing steps that must be taken to incorporate the new labeling. More information on the Mitigation Policy, including its supporting documents, and EPA’s response to comments submitted on the proposed policy, is available on www.regulations.gov under Docket ID EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0818.
Also on January 12, 2017, EPA published preliminary pollinator-only risk assessments for the neonicotinoid insecticides clothianidin, thiamethoxam, and dinotefuran, and an update to its preliminary risk assessment for imidacloprid, published in January 2016. EPA states that the preliminary assessments for clothianidin, thiamethoxam, and dinotefuran are similar to the preliminary pollinator assessment for imidacloprid, in that they showed that “most approved uses do not pose significant risks to bee colonies,” but “spray applications to a few crops, such as cucumbers, berries, and cotton, may pose risks to bees that come in direct contact with residue.” As for the updated imidacloprid assessment, EPA states that is looked at potential risks to aquatic species, and identified some risks for aquatic insects. Interested parties will have 60 days to comment on the preliminary risk assessments after notice is published in the Federal Register. In terms of comments, EPA states that it is especially interested in getting input from stakeholders “on the new method for assessing potential exposure and risk through pollen and nectar.” Links to risk assessment dockets for each individual insecticide are available on EPA’s website under Schedule for Review of Neonicotinoid Pesticides. EPA states it is hopes to release the final neonicotinoid risk assessments by mid-2018.
The revised Mitigation Policy has been long in coming since it was first released over eighteen months ago. The delay in revising its approach reflects the complexity of the comments submitted, and EPA’s deliberateness in more finely crafting its policies, given the passage of time and other considerations. This revised policy contains more flexibility and explicit discussion of the need for exceptions to blanket requirements in response to some of the comments received on the earlier proposal. There remains significant public and regulator concern about the possible impacts on pollinators from pesticide use, however, there is currently less of a manic tone to EPA’s statements and actions.
For example, when discussing how EPA will approach changing the labels of the affected universe of pesticide products, there is a much less onerous tone and no specific deadlines for registrants to submit revised labels “or else.” (The 2013 directives to registrants included demands for thousands of revised labels to be submitted within six weeks “or else” -- EPA would take “appropriate action” under FIFRA.) EPA reminds us all that it retains authority to impose these new requirements broadly, a statement that will strike some as regulatory overreach, but the tone and approach is more in line with past EPA “guidance” about how it will approach a new or revised regulatory concern.
Similar to what EPA previously concluded about imidacloprid, where that assessment concluded that the most controversial use -- corn seed treatments -- did not indicate a risk concern, EPA did include in its summary about the other three neonicotinoid pesticides that:
- The assessments for clothianidin, thiamethoxam, and dinotefuran, similar to the preliminary pollinator assessment for imidacloprid showed: most approved uses do not pose significant risks to bee colonies. However, spray applications to a few crops, such as cucumbers, berries, and cotton, may pose risks to bees that come in direct contact with residue.
This might unfairly be summarized as: after years of regulatory analysis EPA has concluded that if insecticides come into direct contact with insects, there is likely to be a risk to the exposed insect.
This conclusion would be too simplistic since EPA and other regulatory bodies have expressed concern about what unintended exposures to insecticides might cause, and more generally the possibility of colony level impacts on honeybee and other pollinator populations from pesticide use. Some critics will continue to insist that EPA broaden its regulatory approach to more than just pesticides used for crops under contracted pollinator services. The broader issue of pesticide drift and possible impacts on non-target species will continue to be a concern for all pesticides.
Perhaps the more deliberate consideration of needed data generation and assessment that seems to be the current approach will allow both more refined regulatory controls if needed, and a reduction in the sometimes hot rhetoric which has accompanied the pollinator issues.
Lastly, although this revised Mitigation Policy and the three new preliminary assessments are not unexpected next steps as part of the ongoing registration review program for pesticides, given their very late release -- less than ten days before the arrival of a new Administration -- some might question whether this is part of the “midnight regulations” pushing the political agenda of the outgoing Administration. The new leadership may revise what has been released, and may come to different conclusions about any needed restrictions. That said, the issue of whether certain pesticides are having a dangerous impact on honeybee populations will continue to be a concern for regulators both in the U.S. and globally.
By Lisa M. Campbell, Lisa R. Burchi, and Margaret R. Graham
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has recently announced the availability of two proposed test methods and associated testing guidance for evaluating antimicrobial pesticides against two biofilm bacteria, Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Staphylococcus aureus, for comments. EPA states that registrants of antimicrobial products with public health claims are “required to submit efficacy data to EPA in support of the product’s registration” under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). EPA is soliciting comments on the clarity of the standard operating procedures and the regulatory guidance. The two test methods are:
The Draft Guidance to Assess the Efficacy of Antimicrobial Pesticide Products Intended to Control Public Health Biofilms on Hard, Non-Porous Surfaces describes biofilms and their public health significance; the two test procedures for developing efficacy data supporting biofilm claims; products that may be eligible for biofilm claims; test criteria; data submission procedures for efficacy data; and labeling guidance.
The draft guidance states that the term biofilm “is reserved for claims against biofilm that contain specific bacteria that are directly or indirectly infectious or pathogenic to humans,” and “biofilm claims are considered to be public health claims for which the agency must review and approve appropriate efficacy data.” EPA states: “Examples of use sites that may be supported by the biofilm test methodologies herein, and found acceptable, include restrooms, shower stalls, sink basins or drains (excluding the drain pipe) and nearby hard, non-porous surfaces of walls, countertops, and instrument trays in patient care areas of hospitals. In contrast, claims against non-public health slimicides must also be supported by appropriate efficacy data, however, submission of the data is only required when requested by the EPA.”
The Draft Guidance also sets forth examples of acceptable label claims against public health biofilms and acceptable non-public health claims. The examples of acceptable label claims against public health biofilms are:
- Kills 99.9999% of bacteria* in biofilm on a hard, non-porous surface;
- Kills a minimum of 99.9999% of bacteria* in biofilm;
- Reduces at least 99.9999% of bacteria* growing in biofilm;
- Formulated to kill 99.9999% of bacteria* in biofilm;
- Other related claims:
- Kills biofilm bacteria*; and
- Penetrates biofilm, killing the bacteria* living there.
*[List of bacteria “tested as a biofilm”; at a minimum, Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Staphylococcus aureus].
Examples of acceptable non-public health claims supported by appropriate efficacy data include:
- Cleans away microorganism slime/grunge;
- Maintains control of slime; and
- Controls slime-forming microorganisms.
Comments will be accepted until December 5, 2016.
By Lisa M. Campbell and Lisa R. Burchi
The California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) recently proposed a regulation that it states is intended to “(1) provide minimum statewide standards for all agricultural pesticide applications near public K-12 schools and child day care facilities; (2) provide an extra margin of safety in case of unintended drift or when other problems with applications occur (e.g., equipment failure causes an unintended release of pesticide, or an abrupt change in weather conditions); (3) increase communication between growers and schools/child day care facilities; and (4) provide information to assist schools and child day care facilities in preparing for and responding to pesticide emergencies.”
This proposal has been long anticipated, is far reaching, and of significant concern to many growers and registrants.
In its Initial Statement of Reasons, DPR summarizes the proposed regulations, stating that they will: “require growers to notify public K-12 schools, child day care facilities (except family day care homes), and county agricultural commissioners when certain pesticide applications made for the production of an agricultural commodity near a schoolsite are planned in the coming year and also a few days prior to the applications.” The proposed regulation also would prohibit at certain times certain pesticide applications near these schoolsites. Specifically, the regulation is proposed to do the following:
- Prohibit many pesticide applications for the production of an “agricultural commodity” within a quarter mile of schoolsites from Monday through Friday between 6:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. “Schoolsites” are defined by Education Code section 17609(f) as: “‘any facility used as a child day care facility, as defined in Section 1596.750 of the Health and Safety Code, or for kindergarten, elementary, or secondary school purposes. The term includes the buildings or structures, playgrounds, athletic fields, vehicles, or any other area of property visited or used by pupils.” ‘Schoolsite’ does not include any postsecondary educational facility attended by secondary pupils or private kindergarten, elementary, or secondary school facilities.” DPR also proposed to exclude from the definition of schoolsite any family day care homes “because, unlike other schoolsites, the locations of these facilities are not publically available.” DPR states it considered other distances but proposed the one-quarter mile radius based on several factors, including but not limited the fact that this restriction is similar to the restrictions on fumigant labels that prohibit closer applications around schools and other difficult to evacuate sites and based on an analysis of pesticide illnesses due to drift from agricultural applications. The proposed prohibition would apply to applications by aircraft, sprinkler chemigation equipment, air-blast sprayers, and fumigant applications. In addition, dust and/or powder pesticide applications would also be prohibited during this time unless applied as a dust or powder using field soil injection equipment.
- Require California growers and pest control contractors to notify public K-12 schools and child day-care facilities and county agricultural commissioners (CAC) when certain pesticide applications are made within a quarter mile of these schools and facilities.
Under the proposed regulation, California growers would be required to provide two types of notifications to a school or child day-care facility:
An annual notification that lists all the pesticides expected to be used during the upcoming year. This must be provided to the school or child day care facility administrator by April 30 each year. The notice must include, among other things:
The name of pesticide products (and the main active ingredient) to be used;
A map showing the location of the field to be treated;
Contact information for the grower/operator and the County Agricultural Commissioner; and
The web address for the National Pesticide Information Center where additional sources of information or facts on pesticides may be obtained.
An application-specific notification which must be provided to the school or child day-care facility 48 hours before each application is made. This begins January 1, 2018, and must include, among other things:
- Name of pesticide products (and the main active ingredient) to be used;
- Specific location of the application and the number of acres to be treated; and
- Earliest date and time of the application.
Comments on the proposed regulation are due by November 17, 2016. DPR states that a final regulation is expected to become effective in September 2017.
Many have concerns with the proposed regulation, which DPR has been discussing publicly for some time. These concerns include what many believe are significant economic impacts to growers and others that they believe may not have been adequately considered and are not necessary for appropriate use of registered pesticides. Registrants and others should review the proposal carefully.
By Lisa M. Campbell and Lisa R. Burchi
The following documents have been filed in the Anderson v. McCarthy proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California: (1) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Notice of Motion and Motion for Summary Judgment; (2) Defendant-Intervenors CropLife America, et al.’s Notice of Motion and Motion for Summary Judgment; and (3) Plaintiffs’ Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment.
EPA’s documents are of particular interest to those who have been following this case and are concerned about the assertions in the case regarding the treated article exemption. In its motion, EPA argues that the Ninth Circuit lacks jurisdiction to hear Plaintiffs’ claims, as the “EPA guidance document they challenge is not a judicially reviewable agency action -- much less a final action -- regarding the regulatory status of treated seed,” and Plaintiffs “have not identified any discrete, mandatory duty or action that EPA has failed to perform under [the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)].”
EPA’s main arguments in support of its motion include:
- Plaintiffs have not identified any final agency actions. The Inspection Guidance is not an agency action, and even if the Inspection Guidance were an agency action, it is not final.
- Count II (Plaintiffs’ allegation of EPA’s failure to regulate and enforce FIFRA with respect to pesticide-treated seeds) must be dismissed because there is no nondiscretionary duty identified by Plaintiffs that is unreasonably delayed or unlawfully withheld.
- Enforcement of FIFRA is a discretionary action not subject to review.
In its motion, Defendant-Intervenors argue: “Each of Plaintiffs’ claims constitutes an impermissible programmatic attack on EPA’s existing pesticide regulatory program --specifically, the interplay between EPA’s regulation of pesticides registered to be applied as seed treatments and what Plaintiffs characterize as its categorical application of the treated article exemption to the treated seed. As a result, each of these claims is non-justiciable as a matter of law, entitling Defendants to summary judgment in their favor.” Defendant-Intervenors note that pesticides used for seed treatments are subject to “rigorous, scientifically robust review and approval under FIFRA,” making Plaintiffs’ attempt to impose a regulatory process “entirely duplicative of EPA’s existing exercise of its authority under FIFRA, while having no impact on human health or environmental safety.”
Plaintiffs’ memorandum sets forth its arguments for why the court should “find in favor of Plaintiffs on their four claims for relief: that EPA failed to enforce FIFRA against an entire class of pesticides; that EPA improperly amended the treated article exemption without following proper [Administrative Procedure Act (APA)] rulemaking procedures; that EPA’s exemption of neonicotinoid-coated seeds was ultra vires and/or arbitrary and capricious under the APA; and that EPA’s labeling requirements for unregistered pesticide-coated seed bags was arbitrary and capricious under the APA and FIFRA.” Specifically, Plaintiffs address why they believe EPA has failed to enforce FIFRA against neonicotinoid-coated seeds, why this asserted failure amounts to what they believe is “an unlawful abdication of [EPA’s] statutory responsibilities” and why they believe “EPA’s failure to enforce FIFRA against neonicotinoid-coated seeds and pesticidal dust-off is a ‘consciously and expressly adopted general policy,’ which ‘amounts to an abdication of its statutory responsibilities’ that this Court has the power to remedy.”
A hearing on EPA’s motion was set for October 27, 2016, but due to scheduling conflicts has been rescheduled for November 3, 2016. It will be important to monitor the court’s consideration of these important issues closely. More information on these proceedings can be found in our pesticide blog items District Court Declines to Rule on Jurisdictional Issues in Neonicotinoid Case until Summary Judgment and EPA Requests Dismissal of Complaint For Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction.
By Lisa M. Campbell, James V. Aidala, and Carla N. Hutton
On March 25, 2016, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Office of Inspector General (OIG) sent a memorandum to Jim Jones, Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP), announcing that it plans to begin preliminary research to assess EPA’s management and oversight of resistance issues related to herbicide tolerant genetically engineered (GE) crops. OIG states that its review will include the Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), as well as other applicable headquarters and regional offices. OIG’s objectives are to determine:
- What processes and practices, including alternatives, EPA has provided to delay herbicide resistance;
- What steps EPA has taken to determine and validate the accurate risk to human health and the environment for approved pesticides to be used to combat herbicide resistant weeds; and
- Whether EPA independently collects and assesses data on, and mitigates actual occurrences of, herbicide resistance in the field.
OIG states that the anticipated benefit of the project “is a greater understanding of herbicide resistance[,] which will lead to an enhancement of EPA’s herbicide resistance management and oversight.”
Pesticide resistance is not a new issue and is one that EPA has affirmatively addressed when granting registrations for new products, GE or not, for some time. In fact, that newer chemistries often have a more niche mode of action to reduce potential toxicity concerns has led some observers to speculate that greater resistance is one potential trade-off for the development of less toxic materials.
This “investigation” may appear to some to be a response to concerns raised by critics of GE crops generally and to a recent EPA decision to approve Enlist Duo herbicide, a new formulation of 2,4,D- and glyphosate designed to address the problem of weed resistance to glyphosate-tolerant crops. Glyphosate tolerant crops were first approved some years ago, and their use was so broadly and readily adopted that issues have arisen with regard to potential resistance to some weed species. EPA is currently expected to approve another GE strain, Dicamba-tolerant crops, to control glyphosate tolerant weeds.
To critics of GE crops, using more herbicides to control problems caused by what they claim is overuse of another herbicide is evidence of a troubling “pesticide treadmill,” which they believe should not have been allowed to occur in the first place. Rebutting this criticism, others assert that resistance is a problem for all pesticides, not only genetically modified ones, and that with sufficient controls, resistance can be delayed, if not avoided. Registrants point out that it is very much in their self-interest to take steps to avoid resistance to their products -- once that occurs, the market viability of the product is significantly reduced.
By Lisa M. Campbell and Lisa R. Burchi
On February 2, 2016, the Executive Board of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Technical Working Group on Pesticides (TWG) released details of its proposed strategic framework the next five years. The environmental regulatory authorities in the U.S., Canada, and Mexico comprise the TWG and developed the strategy. They are the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Health Canada’s Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA), and Mexico’s Secretaría de Agricultura, Ganadería, Desarrollo Rural, Pesca y Alimentación (SAGARPA) and its Secretaría de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales (SEMARNAT) .
The message from the Executive Board states that the main goal is to “align the North American registration systems for pesticides and products treated with pesticides and make work-sharing a way of doing business.” There are three strategic objectives listed in the message, as described below. Information regarding some of these strategic objectives is discussed in our blog.
Objective 1: Identify trade barriers and approaches to promote equal access and simultaneous introduction for pest management tools, which includes:
- MRL Alignment: This objective includes the alignment of maximum residue limits (MRL) to encourage registrants to consider potential export markets of agricultural commodities intended for treatment with proposed new pesticides or new uses as a way to reduce the number of use expansion submissions and reduce potential trade barriers.
- Expansion, Development and Harmonization of Crop Groups with Specified Representative Crops for Field Crop Residues Studies: The TWG plans to continue ongoing work, through the International Crop Grouping Consulting Committee (ICGCC) for harmonizing crops, on the process for developing new/additional crop groups and to revise the existing guidance document as new scientific information becomes available.
Objective 2: Encourage cooperation on joint reviews of new pesticides and uses, and the reevaluation/re-registration review of pesticides to increase efficiency and quality of decision making, which includes:
- Increasing Simultaneous Registration of Biopesticides: The TWG will seek opportunities with biopesticide manufacturers for their simultaneous submission of registration applications to NAFTA countries to provide opportunities for joint review.
- Minor Use Joint Reviews: The TWG will continue the focus on pesticide registration for minor uses, and will work with the minor crop grower communities, the U.S. IR-4 program, and the Canadian Pest Management Centre program to: identify pest control gaps; follow the established minor use joint review procedures to enable joint submissions of registration applications in U.S. and Canada; and make simultaneous regulatory decisions in both countries within a 10-month timeframe.
- Coordination of Registration Review and Re-evaluation: The TWG will continue to identify opportunities for countries to work-share on pesticides; work shares that are currently ongoing include the glyphosate and neonicotinoid pesticides.
Objective 3: Work cooperatively on priority science and regulatory issues and practices including data requirements, science approaches and policies for data interpretation, and risk assessment and communications of regulatory decisions, which includes:
- Pollinator Protection: The TWG will share information on policies, risk assessments, initiatives, and actions to improve the countries’ protection of pollinators, and EPA and PMRA will provide training to SAGARPA and SEMARNAT on the process for conducting pollinator risk assessments.
- Alignment of Data Requirements/Science Policies: The TWG will facilitate a common approach and efficiencies in joint reviews and worksharing among the EPA, PMRA, and Mexico; all countries will continue to consider the alignment of data requirements and science policies. This will include developing and completing guidance for the review and interpretation of specific data and guidance related to risk assessment methodologies (e.g., cumulative exposure) and novel technologies such as RNAi (Ribonucleic acid Interference).
- Integrated Approaches to Testing and Assessment (IATA): EPA and PMRA will continue to work on initiatives related to Chemical Testing in the 21st Century, e.g., a bilateral effort by EPA and PMRA to develop an OECD Guidance Document that builds upon the existing EPA and PMRA guidelines on waiving/bridging acute toxicity studies, and a continuation of their joint efforts to work with stakeholders on alternative approaches for the acute toxicity studies.
The objectives and specific focus areas are ambitious. To achieve some of these objectives will require addressing some controversial issues, for example, the confidential treatment of data that underlie these programs (e.g., MRLs, residue studies, biopesticide registrations).
More information on the strategy is available on Health Canada’s website.
By Lisa M. Campbell and Lisa R. Burchi
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently launched a new Pesticide Worker Protection Dashboard (Dashboard). EPA states this Dashboard is “focused on the universe of agricultural operations regulated and farm workers and pesticide handlers covered by the Worker Protection Standard.” EPA states that the Dashboard provides charts and graphs presenting certain key enforcement and compliance information related to the Worker Protection Standard (WPS) program under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). Specifically, the Dashboard has screens which show the number of WPS inspections conducted, the number of violations found during inspections, the types of violations found, and the types and numbers of enforcement actions taken. Since the Dashboard is interactive, users can find answers to questions such as:
- How many facilities in the United States employ workers or handlers covered by the WPS;
- How many inspections are reported; and
- How many violations have been found, and what enforcement actions have been taken by states, tribes and/or EPA.
EPA states that Dashboard information from states and tribes is compiled from data on state and tribal inspections and regulatory actions submitted annually (Form: 5700-33H) to EPA. This form provides information regarding the number of WPS inspections conducted, the types and numbers of violations found, and the number and types of regulatory actions taken during the year. EPA inspection data is obtained from EPA’s Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS) database. Other information is compiled from data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National Agricultural Statistics Service’s Agricultural Statistics, 2007 and 2012 Census of Agriculture database.
EPA makes several caveats to the data presented, including: (1) EPA does not require regional offices to enter all regulatory actions into ICIS, so many “informal” actions are not recorded; (2) the data included in the Dashboard do not reflect all compliance monitoring/inspections or enforcement activities, nor the full extent of enforcement activity within a state or tribe; and (3) tribal inspections and enforcement actions conducted under sovereign tribal authority and regulations are not EPA reviewed or reported, and are not included in the Dashboard.
The Dashboard shows data from 2010 to 2014 to provide context at the national level, or within a state or tribe. EPA plans to update the information annually when new data are available (e.g., after annual state and tribal reporting forms are submitted to EPA).
The Dashboard provides interesting information and should be monitored, as many groups will likely use it in support of their unique interests.
More information on the WPS is available in our blog item EPA Publishes Worker Protection Standard Final Rule.
By Lisa R. Burchi and Lisa M. Campbell
On December 11, 2015, the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) issued California Notice 2015-13 that will require each person/company with products made from pesticide impregnated material that are sold into or within California under their own company name to register their product(s) as a pesticide. Examples of pesticide impregnated materials affected by this Notice include apparel (e.g., jackets, shirts, hats, socks, pants, shorts) and non-apparel (e.g., bedding, tents, seat covers, chopping blocks, shower curtains, mouse pads) that make pesticidal claims.
The requirements will be effective November 1, 2016.
DPR currently registers a number of pesticide impregnated textiles bearing pesticidal claims. DPR notes that while these products have been registered either by the manufacturer of the pesticide impregnated material or by the company impregnating the bolts of fabric or clothing, individual companies selling items made from pesticide impregnated textiles were not required to register the materials. Instead, such companies were required only to obtain a pesticide broker’s license from DPR. Under DPR’s new policy, “obtaining a broker’s license will no longer be sufficient for companies selling products under their own company label” (emphasis in original). DPR states it is making this change to “facilitate tracking the use of these products in California and aid in the understanding of potential impacts on water quality and human health.”
With regard to registration requirements for pesticide impregnated products, DPR states that the number of registrations required will depend on several factors, including whether there are different pesticide active ingredients, different percentages of active ingredients, different types of fabrics, and/or different product uses. DPR states that if the product contains the same type and percentage of active ingredient, one registration can be used to cover various types of pesticide impregnated apparel or non-apparel product use categories, but such determination will be made on a case-by-case basis. As an example of products requiring separate registrations, DPR states: “If, for example, a person/company sells apparel impregnated with 0.52% of the active ingredient permethrin and other apparel impregnated with 0.48% of the active ingredient permethrin, two separate apparel registrations will be required because they contain different percentages of active ingredient. The same holds true for a category of non-apparel products.”
This Notice is a significant change in policy, and will impose potentially complicated and costly registration requirements on companies that sell pesticide impregnated material under their own company name but are not necessary familiar with pesticide registration requirements. The number of new registrations that could be required could be substantial considering the number of factors DPR has specified that could trigger separate registrations.
Importantly, DPR clarifies that this Notice is not intended to change its general policy exempting from registration those products that satisfy the requirements to be a treated article. DPR notes that for treated articles, the pesticide, and any related claims, must be related to protection of the article/substance itself. These products are thus distinguishable from pesticide impregnated materials that include pesticidal claims that are not limited to protection of the material.
By Lisa M. Campbell, Lisa R. Burchi, and James V. Aidala
In a press release issued on November 22, 2015, the Canadian province of Québec (Quebec) announced its release of Québec Pesticide Strategy 2015-2018. Although the Strategy itself is available only in French, Québec has provided a summary of the Strategy in English, which is available here.
Québec’s press release states that the Strategy “sets out the major directions and goals that will guide government action to protect public health, pollinators, and the environment in the coming years.” One of the ways the Strategy seeks to do this is to impose additional restrictions on the use of the "highest-risk pesticides" which the Strategy states includes atrazine, chlorpyrifos, and neonicotinoid insecticides. To reduce use of high risk pesticides, the Strategy’s “Objectives” to be implemented through legislative and regulatory changes include:
- Requiring agricultural application of such highest-risk pesticides to be "justified by an agronomist in advance of 100% of cases";
- Tripling of the number of pesticides that are banned in urban environments for use on lawns and green spaces;
- Obliging owners of golf courses that use the greatest amount of pesticides to reduce their use of the highest-risk products by 25 percent; and
- Authorizing the "unrestricted sale of all biopesticides by all retailers" and encouraging “the application of the lowest-risk pesticides through economic incentives (levies, permits and compensation fees).”
To lower exposures, the Strategy calls for ensuring adequate qualification levels for employees that apply pesticides and increasing mandatory minimum distance when pesticides are applied near inhabited areas.
With specific regard to neonicotinoid insecticides, Québec seeks to reduce such use with the following “Objectives,” some of which overlap with the Objectives noted above for high risk pesticides:
- Banning the use of all neonicotinoids for lawn and flower bed maintenance;
- Requiring agricultural application of such neonicotinoids to be "justified by an agronomist in advance of 100% of cases"; and
- Encouraging the use of seeds uncoated with neonicotinoids through economic incentives such as levies, permits, and compensation fees.
Québec also intends to obtain additional information about use of treated seeds in Quebec by requiring companies to submit reports on Québec sales of neonicotinoid-treated seeds.
Québec in its Strategy summary also describes the following specific activities it plans to undertake in 2016:
- Amend the Pesticides Management Code to “tighten the conditions under which pesticides may be used”;
- Modernize the Pesticides Act to incorporate coated seeds and strengthen compliance through a system of administrative penalties; and
- Hold pesticide users accountable by “having users of highest-risk pesticides assume a greater share of associated environmental and public health costs.”
Québec’s Strategy to impose additional restrictions on the use of the "highest-risk pesticides," including neonicotinoid insecticides, is part of its efforts following a 2011 strategy aimed at reducing the risks related to pesticide use by 25 percent by 2021. The Canadian province of Ontario also issued final regulations in June 2015 aimed at reducing the area planted with maize and soybean seed treated with neonicotinoid insecticides as discussed in our blog item Canadian Province Finalizes Neonic Reduction Rule, although Quebec’s Strategy goes arguably farther by broadening the scope of the pesticides at issue to include atrazine and chlorpyrifos. It remains to be seen whether different rules in different provinces will create any confusion or other regulatory issues for companies seeking to comply with these restrictions.
In the U.S., the issue of forbidding “prophylactic” use of pesticides has been raised to date primarily at the local level in a relatively few number municipalities. Regarding pollinator issues more generally in the U.S., the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is in the process of reviewing comments it received on its “Proposal to Mitigate the Exposure to Bees from Acutely Toxic Pesticide Products” released earlier this year. The next milestone in EPA activity related to neonicotinoid pesticides is the expected release of a registration review risk assessment document for imadicloprid, a widely used neonicotinoid insecticide, before the end of the calendar year.
More information on pesticides and pollinators is available on our blog under topics "pesticides" and "pollinators."
By Lisa M. Campbell and Lisa R. Burchi
On November 6, 2015, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced that it has a new webpage that compiles information about secondary containers and service containers for pesticides. Secondary and service containers are containers that are used by the pesticide industry as part of the process of applying pesticides, not for further sale or distribution. EPA states that the website combines and replaces information previously found on the Labeling Questions and Answers page and in the Label Review Manual, and addresses frequently asked questions. The announcement states “this is not new guidance, but the EPA hopes this new resource will make information on secondary and service containers easier to find and will lead to improved handling of these containers.” According to EPA, the webpage is designed to help pesticide registrants and applicators:
- Understand EPA’s definition of secondary and service containers;
- Learn about EPA’s recommendations for good management practices when labeling secondary and service containers; and
- Learn how to properly identify the contents of a secondary or service container, including when the pesticide is diluted.
Although registrants are not required to submit labels to secondary containers to EPA for review, EPA provides the following Q&A for when EPA will approve such labels if submitted to EPA for review:
Q: If a registrant wishes to submit and have EPA review the secondary container label, what does EPA require?
A: As it isn't required that a secondary container label be submitted, there are no requirements per se. EPA will review them on a case-by-case basis and would be likely to accept them if:
- The EPA-approved master label includes directions for diluting the product.
- The secondary container label is submitted as part of the master label.
- The master label bears a statement that the secondary container must be labeled as presented on the master label (e.g., “When this product is diluted in accordance with the directions on this label, the dilution container must bear the following statements:”)
- The secondary container contains a statement prohibiting further sale or distribution.
- The secondary container may have reduced precautionary language (if supported by dilution-specific acute toxicity data), but not a reduced signal word.
Requirements governing secondary containers are often a source of questions within the regulated community; many may find EPA’s new website a useful source of information on this topic.