Posted on May 22, 2023 by Lisa M. CampbellBy Heather F. Collins, M.S. and Barbara A. Christianson
On May 17, 2023, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced it released, and is seeking public comment on, draft guidance that claims to improve the efficiency of EPA’s Endangered Species Act (ESA) analyses for new pesticide active ingredient applications and active ingredients undergoing registration review. When the guidance is issued in final, EPA states that it will fulfill the requirements outlined in the Pesticide Registration Improvement Act of 2022 (PRIA 5) and extends the goals outlined in EPA’s 2022 ESA Workplan to protect listed species from exposure to pesticides.
EPA will accept public comments on the draft guidance document for 30 days in docket EPA-HQ-OPP-2023-0281. Comments are due on or before June 16, 2023.
One of the requirements under PRIA 5 is that EPA develop, receive comments with respect to, and finalize guidance to registrants regarding analyses necessary to support the evaluation of potential adverse effects from outdoor uses of conventional pesticides and biopesticide products on listed species and designated critical habitat. EPA states that “The information in this guidance reflects lessons EPA has learned over the past several years as it continues to make progress towards meeting its ESA obligations.” PRIA 5 specifies that the draft guidance must be available for public comment and must be issued in final within nine months of PRIA 5 issuance.
The draft guidance applies to:
- New conventional pesticide and biopesticide active ingredients that are intended for outdoor use; and
- Existing conventional pesticide and biopesticide active ingredients that are intended for outdoor use that are being reevaluated under registration review.
According to EPA, the guidance document does not create new requirements for applicants, but will help applicants, through recommendations outlined in the document, address potential effects to listed species for new active ingredients and registration review actions. In particular, the recommendations focus on actions that applicants can pursue voluntarily to inform their proposed mitigation measures for listed species. These actions include identifying where a pesticide will be used, how species may be exposed to the pesticide, and how to select mitigation to reduce the exposure. If followed, these recommendations should expedite the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) action and improve the efficiency of the overall ESA-FIFRA process.
EPA states that the guidance document for new uses of existing active ingredients will be made available at a later date.
Posted on March 06, 2023 by Lisa M. CampbellBy Lisa R. Burchi and Barbara A. Christianson
On February 22, 2023, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP) announced that it will co-host a virtual public meeting with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) Center of Veterinary Medicine (CVM) on March 22, 2023. As stated in our February 17, 2023, blog, EPA and FDA are considering how best to update their respective oversight responsibilities for specific products in an efficient and transparent manner and in alignment with each agency’s expertise. According to EPA, the purpose of the comment period and virtual public meeting is to obtain feedback from stakeholders on ideas for modernizing EPA’s and FDA’s approach to product oversight.
EPA also has opened a docket for the agencies to receive comments on their current approach to the oversight of various products regulated as either pesticides by EPA or new animal drugs by FDA, with a focus on parasite treatment products applied topically to animals and in genetically engineered pest animals for use as pest control tools. EPA posted to the docket, and is requesting comments on, a document entitled, “WHITEPAPER: A Modern Approach to EPA and FDA Product Oversight,” (Whitepaper) which describes the current challenges and highlights the potential benefits of a modernized approach to oversight of these products. The Whitepaper is available at EPA-HQ-OPP-2023-0103, and comments on the Whitepaper are due on or before April 24, 2023.
In the Whitepaper, EPA focuses on two particular product types:
- Products administered topically to animals (e.g., flea and tick collars): EPA states that the “agencies have historically determined oversight for products topically administered to animals to treat fleas and ticks based on whether the chemical is systemically absorbed into the bloodstream (FDA oversight) or remains on the skin (EPA oversight).” Based on new understandings that many of these topically administered products regulated by EPA are systemically absorbed into the bloodstream as well as agreement by the agencies that FDA is better equipped to evaluate and monitor products topically administered to animals, the agencies are considering the transfer of approximately 600 topically administered products for external parasites on animals currently regulated by EPA to FDA.
- Genetically engineered pest animals (e.g., mosquitoes genetically engineered to control the mosquito population in the environment): EPA states a new approach can “provide the agencies with more flexibility to update and align their regulatory oversight of relevant products consistent with each agency’s mission and expertise.” No specific proposal is offered, although EPA notes that it “may need resources to expand its existing biotechnology program for products to control populations of pest animals and clarify the program’s approach to meet the needs of this growing industry.”
EPA announced that registration for the virtual public meeting is available and closes at 11:59 p.m. (EDT) on March 15, 2023. Requests for oral presentations must be made by March 15, 2023. Comments can be submitted in regulations.gov under docket EPA-HQ-OPP-2023-0103 until April 24, 2023. To register to attend the public meeting, visit https://www.eventbrite.com/e/547810324427.
Additional information is available at:
Commentary
Stakeholders are urged to review the information EPA has made available and consider commenting upon these proposed changes and potentially other EPA-FDA jurisdictional issues. The current focus on products administered topically to animals may seem narrow, but there are broader implications both for this category and for other EPA-FDA jurisdictional issues. It is unclear, for example, if the agencies have sufficiently considered EPA’s expertise in evaluating risks to the environment that may be at issue for many products administered topically to animals, as these products are not limited to flea and tick collars as described in the Whitepaper. Besides this one proposal to transfer jurisdiction for these products from FDA to EPA, there are few concrete details or proposals, leaving open the possibility to submit comments to the agencies regarding other areas where industry has struggled to determine which agency has authority over certain products, components, and devices.
Posted on February 17, 2023 by Lisa M. CampbellBy Lisa R. Burchi and Barbara A. Christianson
On February 15, 2023, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP) and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM) announced plans to seek public input on the best approaches for updating their respective oversight responsibilities for specific products. EPA states the goal is to determine responsibilities in an efficient and transparent manner and in alignment with each agency’s expertise, thereby improving protection of human, animal, and environmental health.
EPA and FDA will hold a joint virtual public meeting on March 22, 2023, to provide information and receive public comment on the agencies’ current approaches for the oversight of various products regulated as either pesticides or new animal drugs. EPA and FDA state that members of the public will have the opportunity to comment during the meeting, and a docket will be available for the submission of written comments.
As background, EPA and FDA currently determine regulatory oversight of pesticides and new animal drugs based on the rationale described in a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the agencies signed in 1971 and revised in 1973. Since that time, pesticide and animal drug technologies, and both agencies’ understanding of these technologies, have evolved. Examples provided include the following:
- Parasite treatment products applied topically to animals are regulated by EPA if they remain on the skin to control only external parasites (e.g., fleas, ticks) and by FDA if they are absorbed systemically into the bloodstream to control internal parasites (e.g., intestinal worms). The agencies state they now understand that many of the topically administered products currently regulated by EPA may not remain on the skin and are instead absorbed into the bloodstream. EPA and FDA are thus questioning the current approach and potentially different safety concerns.
- Genetically engineered (GE) pest animals, which are gaining interest as a pest control tool, were not envisioned 50 years ago when the original regulatory approach was developed. As agreed in the 2016 National Strategy for Modernizing the Regulatory System for Biotechnology Products, EPA and FDA have considered how to update their respective responsibilities with the goal of developing an efficient, transparent, and predictable approach for overseeing GE insects and other pest animals. Recently, Executive Order 14081, issued September 12, 2022, further directed the agencies to improve the clarity and efficiency of the regulatory process for biotechnology products, underscoring the need for continued coordination between the agencies on biotechnology.
In its notice, EPA acknowledges that the current approach to determining whether EPA or FDA is the appropriate regulator of certain products “does not effectively reflect or accommodate scientific advancement, and it has become clear in some cases that the current approach has resulted in misalignment between product characteristics and the agency better equipped to regulate the product.” EPA states further that “[a] modernized approach would ensure that the oversight of these products better aligns with each agency’s expertise, accounts for scientific advancement, avoids redundancy, better protects animal health and safety, and improves regulatory clarity for regulated entities, animal owners, veterinarians, and other stakeholders.”
Additional information about how to participate in the public meeting, including more detailed information describing challenges with the current approach, and how to submit public comments, will be posted on both FDA’s and EPA’s websites.
Commentary
The MOU at issue is outdated and presents considerable challenges for companies trying to determine the legal and regulatory construct for certain products. This notice thus is a significant development and potential opportunity to address numerous issues with the current jurisdictional divide between EPA and FDA. EPA has provided some clear examples where updated policies and approaches will be beneficial, but there are many more products to be considered. There also are other jurisdictional questions between EPA and FDA for other products that do not appear to be part of the current initiative, including antimicrobial products and medical/pesticide devices. The process being initiated now has the potential to provide much needed clarity for certain products and potentially pave the way for the agencies to consider further public input beyond the scope of the current notice.
Posted on January 23, 2023 by Lisa M. CampbellBy Barbara A. Christianson
On January 13, 2023, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced it is notifying pesticide registrants that EPA will send supplemental invoices to reflect the new annual pesticide registration maintenance fee for fiscal year (FY) 2023. To meet new statutory requirements in the Pesticide Registration Improvement Act of 2022 (PRIA 5), which was signed into law on December 29, 2022, the revised fee for FY 2023 for each registered pesticide product will be $4,875, increased from the $3,400 level specified in the EPA invoices provided in early December 2022.
According to EPA, PRIA 5 directs EPA to collect, to the extent practicable, an average amount of $42 million in pesticide registration maintenance fees annually for FYs 2023-2027. The previous collection target for FY 2023 under the Pesticide Registration Improvement Extension Act of 2018 (PRIA 4) was $31 million. Additionally, EPA notes that maximum payment caps and small business caps are increased in PRIA 5 and will be reflected in the forthcoming reinvoicing.
EPA states that all registrants with FIFRA Section 3 and Section 24(c) pesticide product registrations will receive an e-mail to notify them of this change. Registrants will need to access their product filing forms, pay any outstanding portion of the revised maintenance fees, and return completed documents to EPA. EPA instructs that if a company has already made payment to EPA in response to the earlier invoicing, the company will need to pay the difference between that initial payment and the amount owed under the supplemental invoicing. As PRIA 5 was enacted following EPA’s initial invoicing and shortly before the statutory payment deadline of January 17, 2023, EPA states it understands that registrants may encounter difficulties with timely payment of appropriate FY 2023 maintenance fees but encourages registrants to submit the required fee and form to EPA as soon as possible after the supplemental invoicing. EPA also encourages registrants to reach out to it with any .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).
Posted on December 27, 2022 by Lisa M. CampbellBy James V. Aidala and Dennis R. Deziel
On December 14, 2022, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced the removal of 12 chemicals from the current list of non-food inert ingredients approved for use in pesticide products because the inert ingredients have been identified as per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and are no longer used in any registered pesticide product. 87 Fed. Reg. 76488. On September 13, 2022, EPA published a proposal to remove the 12 chemicals from the list of approved inert ingredients. In response to EPA’s request for comments, no specific information regarding those 12 chemical substances or any products that may include them was provided to EPA.
EPA is removing the following 12 chemicals from the current list of inert ingredients approved for use in pesticide products:
- 2-Chloro-1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane (Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Number® (CAS RN®) 2837-89-0);
- α-(Cyclohexylmethyl)-ω-hydropoly(difluoromethylene) (CAS RN 65530-85-0);
- Dichlorotetrafluoroethane (CAS N 1320-37-2);
- Ethane, 1,1,1,2,2-pentafluoro- (CAS RN 354-33-6);
- Hexafluoropropene, polymer with tetrafluoroethylene (CAS RN 25067-11-2);
- Montmorillonite-type clay treated with polytetrafluoroethylene (no CAS RN);
- Poly(difluoromethylene), α-chloro-ω-(1-chloro-1-fluoroethyl) (CAS RN 131324-06-6);
- Poly(difluoromethylene), α-chloro-ω-(2,2-dichloro-1,1,2-trifluoroethyl)- (CAS RN 79070-11-4);
- Poly(difluoromethylene), α-(2,2-dichloro-2-fluoroethyl)-, ω-hydro- (CAS RN 163440-89-9);
- Poly(difluoromethylene), α-fluoro-ω-[2-[(2-methyl-1-oxo-2-propenyl)oxy]ethyl]- (CAS RN 65530-66-7);
- Poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl), α-hydro-ω-hydroxy-, ether with α-fluoro-ω-(2-hydroxyethyl)poly(difluoromethylene) (1:1) (CAS RN 65545-80-4); and
- Propane, 1,1,1,2,3,3,3-heptafluoro- (CAS RN 431-89-0).
EPA states, in the PFAS Strategic Roadmap to address PFAS, it is removing these chemicals from the inert ingredient list to prevent the introduction of these PFAS into pesticide formulations without additional EPA review. This is in line with EPA’s strategic roadmap to address PFAS.
According to EPA, once an inert ingredient is removed from the list, any proposed future use of the inert ingredient would need to be supported by data, which may include studies to evaluate potential carcinogenicity, adverse reproductive effects, developmental toxicity, and genotoxicity, as well as data on environmental effects. The data must be provided to and reviewed by EPA as part of a new inert ingredient submission request.
The final notice and information on inert ingredients approved for use in pesticide products is available here.
Additional information on EPA’s action on PFAS in pesticide containers is available here.
Commentary
EPA’s final removal of these ingredients from the current list of approved inert ingredients list is not surprising, although it raises important process questions that should be watched closely in future EPA Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) actions. The removal action helps EPA meet its political commitment related to PFAS consistent with the PFAS Roadmap, and as EPA states itself, the 12 PFAS that are the subject of the notice are no longer used in any registered pesticide products. Predictably, public comments focused on general risks of PFAS and not directly on EPA’s action related to inert ingredients listing removal. It is a win for EPA related to its commitment to take action to limit PFAS.
The process EPA used to remove these 12 chemicals from the list of inert ingredients is noteworthy and potentially concerning. EPA presented no risk-based evidence for this regulatory action and instead relied on a class-based aggregation of a subset of approved inert ingredients. It will be important to continue to monitor this issue.
Posted on December 21, 2022 by Lisa M. CampbellBy Heather F. Collins, M.S.
The January 17, 2023, deadline for payment of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) annual maintenance fee for pesticide registrations is approaching. The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) Section 4(i)(1)(A) requires everyone who holds an active or suspended pesticide registration granted under FIFRA Sections 3 and 24(c) (special local needs) to pay an annual maintenance fee to keep the registration in effect. The maintenance fee requirement does not apply to supplemental distributor registrations, which are identified by a three-element registration number.
EPA states that entire process remains electronic in 2023. EPA will not send maintenance fee information by mail again this year. The instructions, maintenance fee filing form, fee tables, and product listings grouped by company numbers are available to download on EPA’s website. When completed, the filing submission should be e-mailed to .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address). A paper copy should not be sent to EPA.
The fee for 2023 is $3,400 for each registration up to the maximum fees that can be assessed to a single registrant. Each registrant of a pesticide must pay the annual fee and e-mail the response to EPA by Tuesday, January 17, 2023. Registrations for which the fee is not paid will be canceled, by order and without a hearing. As in years past, payment must be made electronically online at www.pay.gov.
For certain qualified small businesses, the first product registration maintenance fee may be reduced by 25 percent, if the applicant meets the following criteria:
- The applicant has 500 or fewer employees globally;
- During the three-year period prior to the most recent maintenance fee billing cycle, the applicant has average annual gross revenue from all sources that does not exceed $10 million; and
- The applicant holds a total of five or fewer registrations subject to the maintenance fee.
There also are maintenance fee waivers for products that meet the criteria in two specific categories: minor agricultural use products and public health pesticides. The procedure for requesting a fee waiver for individual products is described in the instructions provided by EPA.
More information on the annual maintenance fees is available on EPA’s website.
Posted on November 07, 2022 by Lisa M. CampbellBy 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 July 14, 2022 by Lisa M. CampbellBy James V. Aidala, Lisa R. Burchi, and Barbara A. Christianson
On July 6, 2022, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released a proposed consent decree intended to resolve the case, Center for Food Safety, et al. v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (3:21-cv-09640-JSC), brought against EPA in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California alleging that EPA has unreasonably delayed responding to a petition for rulemaking relating to the regulatory exemption of pesticide treated seed. 87 Fed. Reg. 40233.
In accordance with EPA’s March 18, 2022, memorandum entitled “Consent Decrees and Settlement Agreements to Resolve Environmental Claims Against the Agency,” EPA issued a Federal Register notice providing the proposed consent decree to resolve Center for Food Safety, et al. v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and providing a comment period. Comments on the proposed consent decree from persons who are not named as parties to the litigation in question are due on or before August 5, 2022. The public can submit comments at www.regulations.gov in Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OGC-2022-0511.
This case was filed in connection with a petition (Petition) from the Center for Food Safety on or around April 26, 2017, requesting that EPA amend 40 C.F.R. Section 152.25(a) to exclude seeds for planting coated with systemic pesticides intended to kill pests of the plant, or, in the alternative, publish a formal agency interpretation in the Federal Register stating that 40 C.F.R. Section 152.25(a) does not apply to seeds for planting coated with systemic pesticides intended to kill pests of the plant, and enforce the numerous pesticide registration and labeling requirements for each separate crop seed product that is coated with a neonicotinoid or other systemic insecticidal chemical (2017 Petition Requests). EPA requested public comment on the 2017 Petition and received approximately 100 substantive comments. On December 14, 2021, Plaintiffs filed a Complaint alleging that EPA's failure to respond to the Petition constitutes an unreasonable delay under Section 706(1) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 706(1).
Under the proposed consent decree, EPA would, no later than September 30, 2022, either grant, deny, or grant in part and deny in part each of the Petition Requests. Court approval of this proposed consent decree would resolve all claims in this case except for the claim for the costs of litigation, including reasonable attorneys’ fees. EPA or the Department of Justice may withdraw or withhold consent to the proposed consent decree if the comments disclose facts or considerations that indicate that such consent is inappropriate, improper, inadequate, or inconsistent with the requirements of the APA or the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). Unless EPA or the Department of Justice determines that consent should be withdrawn, the terms of the proposed consent decree will be affirmed and entered with the court.
Commentary
The treated article exemption under FIFRA, as EPA has applied it over the years, has been relevant mostly to uncontroversial products such as shower curtains (the pesticide applied to such a product is intended to preserve the shower curtain and not considered using a pesticide when one uses the shower curtain). Meanwhile, the practice of coating seeds with pesticides became more controversial in recent years about possible impacts on honeybees from fugitive dust from neonicotinoid-treated crop seeds. The concern is whether such non-target movement of pesticide residues (the dust) might be partly responsible for the apparent decline in honeybee populations. Critics view EPA’s policy about treated articles as not incorporating a sufficiently robust assessment of the impacts of this pesticide use pattern -- that is, the dust from the treated seeds and the systemic nature of neonicotinoid products used this way have impacts that EPA “ignores” due to the treated article exemption.
Interestingly, any residues remaining in the food produced using such products still must meet the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) safety standard of “reasonable certainty of no harm” from consuming the food -- but critics view the neonicotinoid products as causing unreasonable environmental impacts -- even if the finished food product is safe. In this view, critics of the current treated article exemption definition argue that the environmental impacts of neonicotinoid pesticides are left insufficiently regulated. One problem EPA faces, however, is that the treated article exemption applies to a much larger universe of pesticide applications than seed treatments, so changes to better evaluate the environmental impact of neonicotinoids could impact other products currently not viewed as controversial. This partly explains why EPA has delayed its response to the Petition as it considers how to respond. Changes to the current policy could result in many more products or applications needing EPA review, which would expand the pesticide registration universe at a time when EPA struggles to meet evaluation deadlines for currently registered products. EPA now will have to decide how to move forward on this issue, which will likely have more complex implications for products beyond neonicotinoid pesticides.
Posted on June 06, 2022 by Lisa M. CampbellBy 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 May 10, 2022 by Lisa M. CampbellBy Lynn L. Bergeson and Carla N. Hutton
According to a May 9, 2022, news item published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), “Advancing EPA’s Understanding of the Next Generation of Pesticides,” over the past decade, EPA “has received an increasing number of pesticide product applications that potentially contain nanomaterials.” The article notes that EPA’s current pesticide review method was not designed for nanomaterials, so each product is reviewed on a case-by-case basis. An EPA research team led by EPA scientist Dr. Chunming Su conducted an exhaustive search for patents and published literature related to nanopesticides to understand the state of the science. The item states that the team found and analyzed more than 36,000 patents and 500 peer-reviewed journal articles. The team established two general categories of nanopesticides to help inform EPA’s regulatory reviews: products with mostly metal-based nanomaterials as the active ingredient, like nanosilver and nanocopper oxide/hydroxide; and products that encapsulate and carry the active ingredient using nanomaterials (mostly carbon based) like graphene and carbon nanotubes. According to the item, the research team also developed a review framework “that includes a simple decision tree to determine what products should be classified and evaluated as a nanopesticide.” Products determined to contain nanomaterials are subject to additional assessment or data needs from the manufacturer. Dr. Andrew Byro of EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) states that the framework “represents a major steppingstone in the development of a method for identification of nanomaterials.” EPA will use this framework as a platform to help inform its data needs and future determinations regarding the evaluation of nanomaterials in antimicrobial pesticides.
EPA’s research team collected their findings related to the physical and chemical properties and efficacy of nanopesticides in a peer-reviewed journal article in Nature Nanotechnology, “Nano-enabled pesticides for sustainable agriculture and global food security.” According to EPA’s news item, the team “found that nano-enabled pesticides adhere better to plant surfaces and have a reduced impact on non-target organisms. Nanopesticides may also enhance plant resilience against stressors from heat or drought.” EPA states that these benefits “could lead to higher crop yield and provide more agricultural resilience to address climate change and weather extremes.” EPA notes that the research team’s findings “also highlight the data gaps and the need for additional research on potential adverse impacts of nanopesticides.”
|
