Posted on November 07, 2022 by Lisa M. Campbell
By Lisa R. Burchi and Barbara A. Christianson
On November 3, 2022, the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) announced it reached a settlement agreement with Amazon.com Services, LLC (Amazon) regarding the illegal sale of pesticides in California. According to DPR, its review of Amazon uncovered multiple violations. Among them, it sold unregistered pesticides in California, failed to report and pay required mill assessment fees associated with the sale of registered pesticides in California, and failed to hold a valid pesticide broker’s license.
Under the terms of the agreement, Amazon will pay DPR a total of $4.97 million -- $3.69 million in unpaid pesticide sales assessment fees and related late penalties, and $1.28 million in civil penalties associated with retail sales of unregistered pesticides into California. DPR states that Amazon also agreed to register as a pesticide broker and report and pay the mill assessment fees associated with all future retail sales of registered pesticides into California.
Under California law, pesticides that are registered by EPA also must be registered by the state before they are used, possessed, or offered for sale in California. Based on DPR’s evaluation of a product’s potential human health and environmental risks and efficacy, DPR may impose state-specific requirements, including additional data requirements or label use restrictions.
California also has its own state requirements for mill assessments, which is a fee to be paid for sales of pesticides that are registered with DPR and sold into California. Specifically, a mill assessment is charged at the first point of sale of a pesticide in California. Generally, the registrant is responsible for reporting sales and paying the mill assessment when it has knowledge, at the time of sales, that the pesticide is being sold in California. If the registrant does not have knowledge at the time of sale, the party that is the first to sell the pesticide in California is responsible for reporting and paying the mill assessment. If a party other than the registrant is the first to sell a pesticide into or within California, this first seller party must obtain either a pesticide broker or a pest control dealer license (whichever is appropriate) from DPR.
Additional information on DPR’s programs is available here.
Posted on June 06, 2022 by Lisa M. Campbell
By Lisa R. Burchi and Heather F. Collins, M.S.
On May 25, 2022, the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) announced that it will hold three public workshops to collect feedback on the next phase of design and development for DPR’s pesticide application notification system.
DPR states that the workshops will be hosted online via Zoom and facilitated by the UC Davis Center for Regional Change. Each workshop will follow the same format, including a brief overview of the proposed design for the statewide notification system and an opportunity for the public to provide input.
DPR began developing the statewide notification system in mid-2021, after the state budget allocated $10 million to DPR for system development. DPR designed the proposed system based in part on feedback from stakeholders during public focus groups and webinars. DPR states it will use the information collected during the forthcoming workshops for the next design phase of the statewide notification system.
DPR states on its website that “the tool will advance environmental justice and further protect public health by providing transparent and equitable access to information in advance of pesticide applications occurring near where people live, work or play.” DPR states further “That information will provide the public with the opportunity to make their own decisions about any additional precautions they may want to take to protect their health.”
The dates and times of the workshops are:
DPR states that registration is not required to attend. The workshops will be hosted online via Zoom. The Zoom link for each workshop is provided above on each date and time. Spanish interpretation will be provided at all workshops. A copy of materials presented during the workshops will be made available on DPR’s website following the workshops.
DPR states in its FAQs that it anticipates implementation for the system to occur in 2024. DPR states for more information and updates on statewide notification, please visit its website.
Registrants should monitor developments closely.
Posted on April 26, 2022 by Lisa M. Campbell
By Lisa M. Campbell and Lisa R. Burchi
On April 13, 2022, the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) issued a Notice of Modification to Proposed Regulation on Safe Harbor Warnings for Glyphosate and Addition of Documents to Rulemaking File (Notice). OEHHA first proposed this regulation by publishing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on July 23, 2021. OEHHA provided a 75-day comment period on the original proposal and its Initial Statement of Reasons (ISOR), including an extension to file comments until October 7, 2021. It held a public hearing on September 9, 2021.
Following its review of comments, OEHHA has determined modifications of the original regulatory text are needed. In addition, OEHHA stated it is relying upon additional documents in this rulemaking and is adding these documents to the rulemaking file. OEHHA originally opened a 15-day public comment period, running from April 13, 2022, through April 28, 2022, however, at the request of several stakeholders, OEHHA extended the comment period to May 5, 2022. Instructions for filing comments are set forth in the Notice. Consistent with the Administrative Procedure Act, OEHHA states it will only address comments received during this comment period that address the modifications to the text of the proposed regulation or documents added to the record. In the Final Statement of Reasons, OEHHA will respond to all comments received during the comment periods on the original July 2021 proposal and on the modified proposal.
OEHHA’s proposal to adopt a new safe harbor warning regulation to address the content of warnings for exposure to glyphosate in consumer products is not without controversy. OEHHA’s initial listing of glyphosate as a substance known to the state to cause cancer was challenged in court. In the 2020 decision for National Association of Wheat Growers et al. v. Becerra et al., the District Court found that the Proposition 65 (Prop 65) safe harbor warning was false and misleading commercial speech under the First Amendment and enjoined enforcement of the warning requirement. More information regarding that decision is discussed in our blog. In addition, in 2019, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a letter stating that it would not approve labeling that includes the Prop 65 warning statement for glyphosate-containing products and that any such warnings would be considered false and misleading and thus misbranding violations under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). Additional information regarding EPA’s determination is discussed in our blog.
In proposing Prop 65 warning language for glyphosate, OEHHA states in the ISOR (page 12) that the proposal is intended to take into account the ruling and concerns expressed by the District Court:
OEHHA’s safe harbor regulations are nonmandatory guidance. OEHHA does not have enforcement authority under Proposition 65 and thus cannot require warnings to be given for an exposure to any listed chemical, including glyphosate. The injunction in the National Wheat Growers case is still in effect. Therefore, no enforcement actions can be taken against businesses who do not provide warnings for significant exposures to this chemical. OEHHA does not intend to suggest otherwise by proposing this regulatory action.
OEHHA states further (ISOR page 15):
OEHHA has determined that a tailored safe harbor warning for significant glyphosate exposures from consumer products can provide clear and factual and information for the benefit of those who could be exposed. As discussed above, where no consumer product warning is being given under FIFRA for significant exposures to glyphosate, the safe harbor language provides content and methods that businesses can use to provide a warning if they choose to do so. Also, under OEHHA’s implementing regulations, a business that determines it must provide a warning for a worker exposure that is not required under FIFRA may use the proposed consumer product safe harbor content and methods to provide the warning, if appropriate. (Section 25606(a)).
Summary of Proposed Modifications
OEHHA is modifying proposed Section 25607.49, subsection (a)(3) as shown below. Additions and deletions to the proposed text are shown in double-underline (example) and strike-out (
(3) The words, “Using this product can expose you to glyphosate. The International Agency for Research on Cancer classified glyphosate as probably carcinogenic to humans. US EPA has determined that glyphosate is not likely to be carcinogenic to humans; other authorities have made similar determinations.
Other authorities, including USEPA, have determined that glyphosate is unlikely to cause cancer, or that the evidence is inconclusive. A wide variety of factors affect your potential personal cancer risk, including the level and duration of exposure to the chemical. For more information, including ways to reduce your exposure, go to www.P65Warnings.ca.gov/glyphosate.”
A copy of the full proposed regulatory text (new sections 25607.48 and 25607.49), reflecting the modification, is available here.
OEHHA states the proposed modifications are intended to address issues raised in the comments to the initial proposal by: (1) separating the description of the conclusion reached by EPA from the description of the conclusions reached by other authorities; (2) more closely aligning the description of the conclusion reached by EPA with the language EPA used in its conclusion; and (3) changing the modifier of the term “risk” in a manner that accounts for the diverging conclusions EPA and other authorities reached.
OEHHA states it also sought input from EPA on whether it could approve the warning language as set forth in this modified proposal, if a pesticide registrant requested approval to include such language on labels of products containing glyphosate sold in California. EPA responded that it could approve the proposed language. Specifically, with regard to its prior 2019 letter and the current warning language, EPA stated:
While EPA’s scientific conclusions regarding the glyphosate cancer classification have not changed since the August 7, 2019, letter to glyphosate registrants, it has determined that the new glyphosate-specific safe harbor language proposed in OEHHA’s recent letter is sufficiently clear regarding EPA’s position and thus would not be considered false and misleading. Therefore, this revised language could be approved by EPA if pesticide registrants requested it for inclusion on glyphosate product labels, and the products would not be considered misbranded.
OEHHA has added the correspondence with EPA referenced above to the rulemaking file as documents relied on for this rulemaking.
Documents Added to the Record
In the interest of completeness and in accordance with Government Code Section 11347.1, subdivision (a), OEHHA also has added to the rulemaking record the following documents to those it relies in this rulemaking:
- U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs, Label Review Manual, Chapter 7 Precautionary Statements (Revised Mar. 2018), Section IV Determining the precautionary labeling, Part A, Signal word, Section 4 Related information on Proposition 65 warnings, page 7-4.
- OEHHA, letter from Lauren Zeise, Director, to Michal Freedhoff, U.S. EPA Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (Mar. 21, 2022).
- U.S. EPA Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, letter from Michal Freedhoff, Assistant Administrator, to Lauren Zeise, OEHHA Director (Apr. 8, 2022).
- U.S. EPA Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, letter from Michael L. Goodis, Director Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, to registrants of products that contain glyphosate (Aug. 7, 2019).
Copies of these materials are available through the links provided above or here on OEHHA’s website.
While the District Court decision enjoins enforcement of any Prop 65 warning requirement for glyphosate, OEHHA stated when it initially proposed the warning language for glyphosate that businesses are not enjoined from providing a warning if they choose to do so. Although OEHHA is proposing slight modifications to the warning language, these modifications do not squarely address the significant concerns raised regarding the initial proposal to the extent that the proposed warning, even as modified, could be considered false and misleading statements under the First Amendment and/or FIFRA. EPA’s April 8, 2022, letter indicates that OEHHA’s modifications to the warning language would be approvable as language that EPA does not consider to be false and misleading should a registrant propose it. If this regulation is approved, it appears that EPA would not reject any label amendments from registrants seeking to add the warning.
Posted on October 16, 2020 by Lisa M. Campbell
By Lisa R. Burchi and James V. Aidala
On October 6, 2020, the California Developmental and Reproductive Toxicant Identification Committee (DARTIC) announced it will be meeting on December 11, 2020, to discuss the possible developmental and reproductive toxicity (DART) of 22 chemical substances and chemical groups, including glyphosate and its salts, and three neonicotinoid pesticides (acetamiprid, clothianidin, and imidacloprid). DARTIC is composed of scientists who advise California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) on the prioritization of chemicals for potential Proposition 65 (Prop 65) listing and identification of chemicals that have been shown through scientifically valid testing according to generally accepted principles to cause reproductive toxicity.
Public comments on the 22 substances will be accepted until November 16, 2020, and OEHHA will forward those comments to DARTIC members prior to its meeting.
The full list of chemicals and chemical groups that DARTIC will discuss are:
- Bisphenol S;
- Domoic acid;
- Glyphosate and its salts;
- Neonicotinoid pesticides;
- Butyl paraben;
- Isobutyl paraben;
- Methyl paraben;
- Propyl paraben;
- Per- and polyfluorinated substances (PFAS);
- Perfluorodecanoic acid (PFDA);
- Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid (PFHxS);
- Perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA);
- Perfluoroundecanoic acid (PFUnDA);
- Titanium dioxide nanoparticles;
- Vinpocetine; and
OEHHA’s document, Prioritization: Chemicals Identified for Consultation with the Developmental and Reproductive Toxicant Identification Committee, presents information on these chemicals or chemical groups for DARTIC’s consideration. Specifically, OEHHA states: “For each, an initial, abbreviated appraisal of the scientific information identified through the screening-level literature search and the preliminary toxicological evaluation is presented.” With regard to glyphosate and its salts, OEHHA provides “a brief overview of the relevant studies published within the last five years and those included in the Toxicological Profile for Glyphosate by ATSDR (ATSDR 2020) that were identified during the preliminary toxicological evaluation.”
No listing decisions will be made by DARTIC at the December meeting. If OEHHA moves forward to propose to list any substances, it will separately issue a notice and seek public comments.
The fact that OEHHA is seeking DARTIC’s review of glyphosate is particularly interesting, as glyphosate is already listed under Prop 65 based on a finding that glyphosate is a chemical known to cause cancer. That listing is in jeopardy, however, based on a June 2020 court decision that prohibits OEHHA from requiring Prop 65 warnings because the basis for the listing, a determination by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) that the glyphosate is “probably” carcinogenic to humans, is not consistent with the findings of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other agencies. Additional information regarding glyphosate’s Prop 65 listing is available here. If OEHHA is not successful in its appeal of the court’s ruling and is successful in listing glyphosate based on its potential to cause developmental and reproductive toxicity effects, the result would be a new basis upon which to impose Prop 65 warning requirements. At the same time, EPA’s registration review of glyphosate encompasses, in EPA’s view, a health risk assessment, which includes a pesticide’s potential risks of developmental and reproductive effects. As a result, it is not clear if EPA’s arguments that its FIFRA labeling authority prohibits Prop 65 warnings also would apply to its registration review of health risks, which includes possible developmental and reproductive effects.
Posted on June 30, 2020 by Lisa M. Campbell
By Lisa M. Campbell, Timothy D. Backstrom, and Lisa R. Burchi
On June 22, 2020, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California granted summary judgment for the Plaintiffs in National Association of Wheat Growers et. al. v. Becerra, and entered a permanent injunction against enforcement of a Proposition 65 (Prop 65) warning label for pesticide products containing glyphosate. The court found that requiring the registrants of glyphosate products to include such a warning could not be justified as a valid restriction on commercial speech and therefore is contrary to the First Amendment of the Constitution. The same District Court had previously entered a preliminary injunction against the Prop 65 warning in 2018, and the required warning has consequently never been in effect. (See our February 28, 2018, blog entitled “Eastern District of California Rules on Motion to Enjoin Prop 65 Listing and Warning on Glyphosate Products.”) The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) also has stated that it would not allow a Prop 65 warning to be added to the labeling for any registered glyphosate product because such a warning is misleading and would cause the product to be “misbranded” under Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) Section 2(q)(1)(A). (See our August 15, 2019, blog entitled “EPA Issues Guidance Regarding Prop 65 Labeling Requirements for Glyphosate Products and OEHHA Responds.”)
A Prop 65 warning is required when the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) determines that a product contains a substance that has been classified as a human carcinogen by certain authoritative bodies, including the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). Based on an IARC determination that glyphosate is “probably carcinogenic” in humans, OEHHA listed glyphosate in July 2017 as a chemical known to the State of California to cause cancer, thereby triggering Prop 65 warning requirements. Despite the IARC determination, every other authoritative body that has considered the matter (including EPA, the European Commission, and the World Health Organization) has reached a contrary determination that glyphosate is not likely to be carcinogenic in humans. California’s imposition of a Prop 65 warning for glyphosate was challenged in 2018 by the registrant Bayer and a coalition of farming groups and industry stakeholders, who obtained a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the warning.
Before entering the new permanent injunction, the District Court considered whether California’s regulation of commercial speech should be scrutinized under the lower standard set by the Supreme Court in Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel or the intermediate standard set by Central Hudson Gas & Electric v. Public Service Commission. The Zauderer standard only applies to mandatory disclosure of “purely factual and uncontroversial information,” and the Court found that the Prop 65 warning for glyphosate is “misleading” and therefore neither factual nor uncontroversial. Under the Central Hudson level of scrutiny, a governmental agency may only restrict commercial speech when the restriction directly advances an important governmental interest and where the restriction is not more extensive than necessary to serve that interest. The Court found that the Prop 65 warning for glyphosate is misleading, and therefore does not directly advance the interest of the state in informing consumers regarding potential cancer hazards, and that the asserted state interest could be effectively advanced by other measures that do not burden freedom of speech in the same manner.
California argued that no Prop 65 warning would actually be required for glyphosate in practice because OEHHA has set a quantitative “safe harbor” level for glyphosate exposure, but the court found that this would not prevent parties other than California from bringing separate enforcement actions to enforce the listing. Since a Prop 65 warning only needs to be “clear and reasonable,” California also proposed several alternative forms for a warning that would meet state requirements, but the court found these alternate warnings to all be misleading as well. Based on all of these factors, the court decided to enjoin permanently the enforcement of Prop 65 warning requirements for glyphosate as an unconstitutional burden on commercial speech.
Under FIFRA Section 24(b), no state may impose any labeling for a registered pesticide that differs from the labeling approved by EPA. Although EPA has sometimes been willing to accommodate state labeling requirements or preferences within the labeling approved under FIFRA, there are necessary limits to this practice. When label language sought by a state becomes misleading, approving it would also be expressly contrary to FIFRA. How much precedential effect this decision may have with respect to other state requirements for labeling in the future is an issue that registrants should monitor closely.
Posted on February 14, 2020 by editor
By Lisa M. Campbell, Timothy D. Backstrom, and James V. Aidala
On February 6, 2020, Corteva Agriscience (Corteva), announced it will discontinue all production of the organophosphate (OP) insecticide chlorpyrifos by the end of the year. Corteva and its corporate predecessor, Dow AgroSciences, have been the principal global manufacturers of chlorpyrifos. Corteva announced that its decision to stop selling chlorpyrifos was based entirely on financial considerations. This announcement came on the same day that Corteva had previously agreed it would end further sales of chlorpyrifos in California, and less than a week after the date the European Union (EU) ended all sales of chlorpyrifos in member states. These actions followed a number of prior actions taken by other national and state governments to ban or severely restrict chlorpyrifos. Corteva emphasized in its public statements that the science demonstrates that chlorpyrifos can be safely used, but that the company made a business decision based on the declining markets for the product. In an interview reported by the Washington Post, Susanne Wasson, Corteva's President for Crop Protection said, “It’s a tough decision for us to make, but we don’t feel like it’s viable going forward.” In other statements, Corteva noted that in the last ten years their share of the global chlorpyrifos market had declined from 75% to less than 20%.
Chlorpyrifos has been registered for use in the U.S. for over 50 years, but has become increasingly controversial in the dozen years since the Pesticide Action Network of North America and the Natural Resources Defense Council filed a petition in 2007 to cancel all registrations and revoke all tolerances for chlorpyrifos. Following a protracted court battle and a decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to force the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to take final administrative action concerning the 2007 petition, EPA proposed near the end of the Obama Administration to revoke all existing tolerances for chlorpyrifos. A significant basis for this proposal was a controversial decision by a panel of EPA scientists that the default tenfold safety factor established by the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) for infants and children, which EPA had previously waived based on studies establishing a threshold for acetylcholinesterase (AChE) inhibition, should be reinstated.
The new EPA safety factor determination was based in large measure on epidemiology studies that reported an association between exposure to chlorpyrifos at levels below the presumed threshold for AChE inhibition and adverse neurodevelopmental effects in children. Many industry scientists disputed the scientific basis for this EPA determination because confounding exposures and methodological biases in the epidemiology studies may have influenced the reported association with neurodevelopmental effects and because the EPA determination made unprecedented use of epidemiology data. Beyond the effect on chlorpyrifos, the EPA decision will likely continue to be controversial because EPA included a similar safety factor determination for all OP pesticides, even though the mechanism responsible for the reported neurodevelopmental effects attributed to chlorpyrifos has not been identified and the other OP products were not studied in the epidemiology studies.
In the first year of the Trump Administration, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt decided not to adopt EPA’s previously proposed tolerance revocation and instead to deny formally the 2007 petition, citing unresolved scientific issues. This reversal of course, however, was not accompanied by any new scientific assessment or by any explicit revision of the prior FQPA safety factor determination. Later, the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) decided to designate chlorpyrifos as a Toxic Air Contaminant, a decision that was noteworthy because it was based primarily on new toxicology studies that DPR stated reported neurodevelopmental effects well below the threshold for AChE inhibition. DPR deemphasized the epidemiology data relied on in the EPA safety factor determination in its decision. Although EPA later stated that it would address these new toxicology studies as part of an accelerated registration review process, there were intervening decisions by the EU and by California to ban new sales, which may have contributed to Corteva’s February 6, 2020, decision to cease chlorpyrifos production.
The decision by Corteva to cease manufacturing chlorpyrifos reminds us that the decision to continue marketing any chemical substance cannot be based solely on the scientific data, but must also consider the regulatory climate and the economic viability of the product. For those of us with a long memory, the decision by Corteva is reminiscent of the decision nearly 40 years ago by the Dow Chemical Company to pull the plug on 2,4,5-T and silvex, after Dow had expended millions of dollars and many years of effort to contest an emergency suspension and subsequent cancellation of these herbicides. Dow made this decision even though it believed that the available data demonstrated the safety of those products.
Posted on August 16, 2019 by Lisa M. Campbell
By Lisa M. Campbell and Timothy D. Backstrom
On August 14, 2019, the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) issued cancellation notices to thirteen California registrants of pesticide products containing chlorpyrifos, including Dow Agrosciences LLC (now Corteva). Each of these notices is referred to as an "Accusation," and each affected registrant has 15 days to request a hearing concerning the proposed cancellation. DPR's issuance of these notices followed a final decision by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to deny an administrative petition to revoke the tolerances and cancel the U.S. registrations for chlorpyrifos. DPR states: "Despite the Trump administration's reversal of a decision to ban the pesticide at the federal level, California continues to move forward to protect public health, workers, and the environment." Although it is unusual for a State to act unilaterally to cancel a State registration for a pesticide that is still registered under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), FIFRA Section 24(a) provides that States may separately regulate Federally registered pesticides so long as they do not purport to authorize any sale or use that is otherwise prohibited under FIFRA.
The risk assessment that supports DPR's proposal to cancel chlorpyrifos products is based on five animal studies published in 2016, 2017, and 2018, that report neurotoxicity from chlorpyrifos at exposure levels that are considerably lower than the levels that cause acetylcholinesterase inhibition. Based on its evaluation these studies, DPR has concluded that developmental neurotoxicity is the critical endpoint for chlorpyrifos and has derived a point of departure for chlorpyrifos risk assessment. Based on this assessment, DPR previously concluded that chlorpyrifos should be designated as a Toxic Air Contaminant (TAC). DPR presented its TAC findings to California's Scientific Review Panel at a meeting on July 30, 2018, and the Panel subsequently concluded that the DPR assessment of the developmental neurotoxicity of chlorpyrifos was "based on sound scientific knowledge, and represents a balanced assessment of our current scientific understanding."
On the same day DPR issued its cancellation notices for chlorpyrifos, DPR also announced it has established an Alternatives to Chlorpyrifos Work Group with experts from "agriculture, California universities, environmental justice groups, farmworker health and safety organizations, and pesticide manufacturers…" DPR has asked this Work Group to develop short-term practical alternatives to chlorpyrifos, along with a five-year action plan. The Work Group is supposed to conclude its work by the spring of 2020. The budget for 2019-2020 approved by the California Legislature also includes $5 million in grant funding to develop sustainable alternatives to chlorpyrifos.
The DPR decision to cancel chlorpyrifos relies primarily on new animal studies that report that chlorpyrifos causes neurodevelopmental effects at levels that are well below those that inhibit cholinesterase. DPR refers in passing to the epidemiology studies for chlorpyrifos that EPA used to make its Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) determination for all organophosphate (OP) pesticides, but these data were not used by DPR to derive its point of departure for chlorpyrifos risk assessment.
EPA scientists have not yet prepared a formal evaluation of the new animal studies for chlorpyrifos, but EPA's decision to deny the petition to revoke tolerances and cancel registrations for chlorpyrifos states that EPA intends to evaluate the new animal studies as part of its registration review deliberations for chlorpyrifos. The FIFRA registrations for chlorpyrifos may also be affected by pending judicial actions challenging EPA's decision to deny the petition to revoke the tolerances and cancel the registrations for chlorpyrifos. In this complicated environment, it will be important to monitor the registrants’ and industry’s response to DPR's cancellation actions, as well as their efforts on the pending Federal court litigation and EPA's registration review process for chlorpyrifos.
Posted on August 15, 2019 by Lisa M. Campbell
By Lisa M. Campbell, Timothy D. Backstrom, Lisa R. Burchi, and James V. Aidala
On August 7, 2019, EPA took long awaited action concerning the inclusion of Prop 65 warning statements for glyphosate on EPA registered pesticide labels, which will likely impact the broader ongoing debate over EPA approval of Prop 65 warnings on pesticide labels. EPA’s August 7, 2019, letter to glyphosate registrants states that EPA “will no longer approve labeling that includes the Proposition 65 warning statement for glyphosate-containing products.” EPA stated further that “[t]he warning statement must also be removed from all product labels where the only basis for the warning is glyphosate and from any materials considered labeling under FIFRA for those products.” Moreover, EPA unequivocally states that “pesticide products bearing the Proposition 65 warning statement due to the presence of glyphosate are misbranded” under FIFRA Section 2(q)(1)(A). Registrants with glyphosate products currently bearing Prop 65 warning language, where the exclusive basis for such warning is based on the presence of glyphosate, must submit draft amended labeling that removes this language by November 5, 2019.
By way of background, California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) listed glyphosate as a chemical known to the state of California to cause cancer on July 7, 2017. OEHHA’s listing of glyphosate as a substance under Prop 65 is based on the International Agency on the Research for Cancer (IARC) classifying it as “probably carcinogenic to humans.” EPA scientists subsequently completed an independent review of the available scientific data on the potential carcinogenicity of glyphosate and do not agree with the IARC classification. Additional information regarding glyphosate is available at B&C’s blog.
Also of note is a February 26, 2018, preliminary injunction issued by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District Court of California, in response to a motion filed by a coalition including Monsanto, CropLife America, and several growers associations alleging that the IARC classification decision for glyphosate is contrary to the international scientific consensus, that the required Prop 65 warning would be misleading to the ordinary consumer, that compelling the manufacturers of glyphosate to provide such a warning would violate the First Amendment because the warning is not factual and uncontroversial, and that the applicable criteria for injunctive relief were met. The February 26, injunction precluded OEHHA from enforcing its Prop 65 warning requirements against glyphosate registrants that otherwise would have taken effect on July 7, 2018. The Court did not rule that glyphosate should be removed from the Prop 65 list as a chemical known to the State of California to cause cancer, but did state that products containing glyphosate would not be required to comply with the warning requirements. In issuing the preliminary injunction, the Court stated that the required warnings are “false and misleading” and that plaintiffs “have shown that they are likely to succeed on the merits of their First Amendment claim, are likely to suffer irreparable harm absent an injunction, and that the balance of equities and public interest favor an injunction, the court will grant plaintiffs’ request to enjoin [Prop 65]’s warning requirement for glyphosate.” More information on that case is available at B&C’s blog. That injunction has not been appealed and remains in place.
Although the glyphosate warning that EPA has refused to allow is based on OEHHA’s recent listing under Prop 65, Prop 65 warnings on pesticide labels generally have been a significant issue since 2016 when OEHHA issued revised regulations regarding the content and transmission of Prop 65 warnings. As a result of these revisions, many registrants sought to add Prop 65 warning requirements to pesticide labels to meet Prop 65 requirements, but many registrants have not been able to obtain EPA approval for such warnings, resulting in much controversy and discussion. More information regarding the changes to Prop 65 warning requirements also are available at B&C’s blog.
In its press release announcing its guidance to glyphosate registrants, EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler states: “It is irresponsible to require labels on products that are inaccurate when EPA knows the product does not pose a cancer risk. We will not allow California’s flawed program to dictate federal policy.” EPA states that its “independent evaluation of available scientific data included a more extensive and relevant dataset than IARC considered during its evaluation of glyphosate, from which the agency concluded that glyphosate is ‘not likely to be carcinogenic to humans.’” Wheeler is further quoted as stating: “It is critical that federal regulatory agencies like EPA relay to consumers accurate, scientific based information about risks that pesticides may pose to them. EPA’s notification to glyphosate registrants is an important step to ensuring the information shared with the public on a federal pesticide label is correct and not misleading.”
OEHHA immediately released its own press release on August 13, 2019, in which it “objects to US EPA’s characterization of any warning concerning glyphosate’s carcinogenicity as a false claim.’” After reiterating OEHHA’s listing glyphosate based on the IARC determination, OEHHA states that EPA’s position “conflicts with the determination made by IARC” and that “it is disrespectful of the scientific process for US EPA to categorically dismiss any warnings based on IARC’s determinations as false.”
The Court’s February 26, 2018, preliminary injunction was considered a significant development both for glyphosate specifically and perhaps for Prop 65 warning requirements generally, especially considering the recent influx to EPA of label amendments seeking EPA approval of revised Prop 65 warning language to address OEHHA’s revised regulatory changes. EPA’s guidance is equally significant, as EPA has now rejected the inclusion of a Prop 65 warning that EPA believes is misleading on a federal pesticide product label.
FIFRA Section 24(b) expressly prohibits any State from requiring any label language for a registered pesticide product beyond the labeling approved by EPA, and EPA has now declined to approve pesticide labeling that includes the Prop 65 warning for glyphosate. In some instances, EPA has been willing as a courtesy to approve labeling changes requested by a State, but the glyphosate determination demonstrates that EPA will not accept any label revisions that conflict materially with its own determinations. Although glyphosate is a fairly complex and controversial case, it will be important for registrants to monitor the evolution of EPA’s standard for when it will or will not approve a Prop 65 warning on a federal label, since this issue has been the subject of considerable controversy over the past several years.
Posted on May 30, 2019 by Lisa M. Campbell
By Lisa M. Campbell and Lisa R. Burchi
On May 29, 2019, the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) released California Notice 2019-05: Changes to California Notice 2018-06: California-like Conditions for Terrestrial Field Dissipation Studies (Notice 2019-05), which updates the guidance in California Notice 2018-06: California-like Conditions for Terrestrial Field Dissipation Studies (Notice 2018-06).
Notice 2018-06, issued in January of 2018, provided to applicants for California registration of new agricultural use pesticides guidance specifically related to the requirement to submit at least one terrestrial field dissipation (TFD) study conducted under “California or similar environmental use conditions.” DPR states it is revising this guidance based on comments from the Western Plant Health Association. The updated guidance is summarized below.
Notice 2019-05 also extends the effective date to July 1, 2020; for applications submitted July 1, 2020, or later, DPR states it will consider a TFD study to have been conducted under “California or similar environmental use conditions” if the study was conducted within or outside of California in accordance with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) study guidelines and under certain criteria, as provided below.
1. Timing: April 1 shall be the earliest study start date and September 30 shall be the latest start date. This timing ensures a potential leaching environment with respect to the amount of percolating water produced relative to evapotranspiration (ET).
- The study is conducted in a coarse-texture soil in accordance with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) soil textural classification (see Table 1). The minimum depth-weighted average sand content for representative samples taken across the test site should be no less than 68 percent as measured within the top 30 cm of soil. The allowable minimum soil sand content that is included in the average is 61 percent.
- The soils used for the study do not have a restrictive layer to the movement of water as indicated within the soil profile, such as a hardpan, compacted layer, or an abrupt change in texture.
- The maximum depth-weighted average organic matter content for representative samples taken across the test site should be no greater than 1.4 percent as measured within the top 30 cm of soil. The allowable maximum organic matter content that is included in the average is 1.6 percent.
- Studies shall be conducted on bare soil plots. Exceptions are possible for studies conducted in the presence of a crop or turf with sufficient justification.
3. Water Inputs:
- Water applications to the study site are sufficient to create levels of percolating water that reflect the potential amount lost from crop irrigations (i.e., 160 percent of ET). Approximately 60 percent of applied water is available for movement below the coring depth, which would equate to water applications of approximately 160 percent of ET. Therefore, a scheduled water input would approximate the cumulative daily ET since the previous water input multiplied by an excess demand factor of 1.6. For bare soil plots, ET can represent reference ET or, if preferred, soil evaporation when calculated using a scientifically defensible methodology. These water inputs supersede those in EPA’s guidance document for TFD studies.
- The initial water application to the study site occurs within one week of chemical application. Subsequent water applications shall be at seven-day intervals or less for the duration of the study.
- Water inputs from rain are subtracted from scheduled water input amounts.
DPR states that if a TFD study submitted to DPR to meet the statutory requirement of having been conducted under “California or similar environmental use conditions” does not meet one or more of the above criteria, the applicant may include in its submission a justification for any different criteria to avoid a determination that the study is unacceptable.
Table 1. USDA textural classes1 of soils acceptable for TFD studies
1Based on USDA particle-size classification.
Posted on May 29, 2019 by Lisa M. Campbell
By Lisa M. Campbell and Lisa R. Burchi
On May 28, 2019, the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) posted a new presentation identifying the top ten agricultural pesticide use violations of 2018. Its announcement states that “DPR suggests reviewing these common violations of pesticide laws and regulations to help ensure … compliance.” The presentation, “Top 10 Agricultural Pesticide Use Violations of 2018,” is available here. The violations are listed from the least common (number 10) to the most common (number 1):
10. Handler Training, regulated under Title 3 of the California Code of Regulations (C.C.R.) § 6724. Examples of handler training violations listed in the presentation are: not updating employee training before a new pesticide is handled; and not providing employees handler training before they work on or repair equipment previously used to apply pesticides.
9. Application-Specific Information (ASI) for Fieldworkers, regulated under 3 C.C.R. § 6761.1. Examples of violations listed in the presentation are: not including a specific description of the location of the ASI on the Pesticide Safety Information Series (PSIS) A-9 leaflet so that workers have unimpeded access; and not displaying the ASI before fieldworkers work in a treated field.
8. Hazard Communication for Fieldworkers, regulated under 3 C.C.R. § 6761. Examples of these types of violations listed in the presentation are: not retaining Safety Data Sheets (SDS) for the pesticides listed in the pesticide use records within the past two years; and not informing employees or the Farm Labor Contractor (FLC) of the location of the pesticide use records before the employees enter a treated field.
7. Handler Decontamination Facilities, regulated under 3 C.C.R. § 6734. Examples of these types of violations listed in the presentation are: not having an emergency eye flush station able to rinse the eye gently for 15 minutes at the mix and load site, when protective eyewear is required by the pesticide labeling; and handlers using hand sanitizer for decontamination instead of soap and water.
6. Availability of Labeling, regulated under 3 C.C.R. § 6602. Examples of labeling availability violations listed in the presentation are: not having relevant Special Local Needs (SLN) labeling at the site when mixing, loading, or applying; and not having the labeling booklets on-site when mixing, loading, or applying.
5. Service Container Labeling, regulated under 3 C.C.R. § 6678. Examples of service container labeling violations listed in the presentation are: not including the signal word on a service container label; and not including the address of the company or person responsible for the container on the label.
4. Annual Registration with County Agricultural Commissioner by Anyone Who Intends to Advertise, Solicit, or Operate as a Pest Control Business in California, regulated under California Food and Agriculture Code (FAC) § 11732. An example of a violation is performing pest control activities in a county before registering with the County Agricultural Commissioner (CAC).
3. Emergency Medical Care Requirements, regulated under 3 C.C.R. § 6726. Examples of violations listed in the presentation are: not taking employees suspected of a pesticide illness to the doctor immediately; and failure to post the handler emergency medical care information.
2. Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) Requirements, regulated under 3 C.C.R. § 6738. Examples of violations listed in the presentation are: storing PPE in the same place pesticides are stored; and an employer not providing the proper PPE required by the labeling.
1. Labeling and Permit Conditions Compliance, regulated under FAC § 12973. Examples of violations listed in the presentation are: not following the pesticide storage requirements listed on the labeling; and applying a pesticide to a site or crop not listed on the labeling.
Additionally, DPR has created an informative presentation about the 2019 license renewal process to help spread awareness to those renewing this year (last names and business names starting with M-Z). DPR states that it encourages continuing education (CE) sponsors, CAC staff, and others to use the presentation to inform license and certificate holders renewing this year about DPR’s renewal process, CE requirements, important dates, and the benefits of renewing early. The 2019 Renewal Process presentation is available here.