Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
NPMA Report: What's Next in Washington: Ecotoxicity, Bees and
PMPs!
Gene Harrington, NPMA55th Annual SCPCA Winter Meeting and Pest Management Professionals School
February 12, 2014Columbia, SC
Overview
• Sulfuryl fluoride• Bee Health/Upcoming label changes• Efforts to exempt lawful pesticide applications
from CWA permitting requirements• Endangered Species Act litigation/Update• USDA/WS Policy Statement on Urban Wildlife
Damage Management
Sulfuryl fluoride
• EPA issued a proposed order in January 2011 withdrawing the food uses for sulfuryl fluoride
• Agency claims it was forced take this action because of threat of activist group litigation
• Primary risk involved is excessively high levels of naturally occurring fluoride in certain public drinking water systems and fluoride in dental care products, and the increased threat of dental fluorosis to children
• NPMA spearheaded federal legislation to retain the food uses for sulfuryl fluoride, that President Obama signed into law on February 7 as part of the Farm Bill
Pollinator protection/Upcoming label changes
• The bee health issue is a longstanding issue• Has become arguably the most pressing pesticide
regulatory issue• June 2013 bee kill incident in Oregon shifted focus of
issue more toward urban/suburban pesticide use• Product label states “Do not apply this product or
allow it to drift to blooming crops or weeds if bees are visiting the treatment area.”
• Shortly after incident, Oregon Department of Agriculture issued emergency rulemaking suspending the use of 18 dinotefuran products for 180 days
Pollinator protection/Upcoming label changes
• In mid July 2013, Save America’s Pollinators Act introduced in Congress; Has attracted 50 Democratic and Republican cosponsors
• Language included in a nonbinding report accompanying FY 2014 government funding bill directs EPA to “improve its risk assessment approaches as a part of its pesticide registration process to protect honey bees, bumble bees, and solitary bees in all life stages.” The report also notes “EPA has already taken action in regard to improving pesticide labels and is expected to continue to regularly evaluate its policies to ensure theprotection of pollinators and all species critical to food production.”
• In late July 2013, EPA issued a data call in to registrants of nitro neonicotinoid products (imidacloprid, dinotefuran, clothianidin, thiamethoxam)
Pollinator protection/Upcoming label changes
• In mid August 2013, EPA issued revised label language for all products that have outdoor foliar use directions (except granulars) containing the active ingredients imidacloprid, dinotefuran, clothianidin or thiamethoxam regardless of formulation, concentration, or intended user
• The new language that will appear in the Directions for Use section on non-agricultural product labels states "Do not apply [insert name of product] while bees are foraging. Do not apply [insert name of product] to plants that are flowering. Only apply after all flower petals have fallen off."
• Language will appear on labels in time for 2014 growing season
Bee Hazard IconLook for the bee hazard icon in the Directions for Use for each application site for
specific use restrictions and instructions to protect bees and other insect pollinators.
New EPA Bee Advisory Box
Pollinator protection/Upcoming label changes
• Language will likely serve as a template for labels of non-neonicotinoid products
• NPMA working with the Association of State Pest Control Regulatory Officials to put on an educational workshop for EPA staff about PMP uses and pollinator health
• Several states – Alaska, Maine, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Vermont as well as Puerto Rico – are considering bills banning or severely restricting the use of neonicotinoid pesticides
Efforts to Exempt Lawful Pesticide Applications from CWA Permitting Requirements
• Clean Water Act permits now required for certain pesticide applications directly to or near bodies of water
• Four pesticide use patterns are covered under the PGP: mosquito and other flying insect pest control; aquatic weed and algae control; aquatic nuisance animal control; and forest canopy pest control
• Being subject to the permit requirement triggers a number of other regulatory requirements, although it provides protection from activist lawsuits
• EPA’s Pesticide General Permit applies directly to several states including Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Idaho, Oklahoma, Alaska, Washington, D.C., most U.S. territories and Indian country lands, and many federal facilities.
• Farm Bill that passed the U.S. House in late July exempts lawful pesticide applications from CWA permitting requirements; Provision not included in Farm Bill law enacted in early February.
Endangered Species Act litigation/Update
• In April 2013, federal judge dismissed so called “Mega-suit” because it was vague and failed to present specific allegations for each individual pesticide
• Activist groups refiled a narrower, amended suit in June
• Still includes rodenticides and many commonly used general pest control products
• Industry and federal government continue to oppose suit
• EPA recently termed the amended suit “a wild goose chase”
USDA/Wildlife Services Policy on WildlifeDamage Management in Urban Areas
• NPMA members have long expressed concern about unfair competition from USDA/WS for nuisance wildlife work
• On August 14, 2013, USDA/WS published a policy statement clarifying when WS may or may not conduct rodent control activities.
• Policy precludes WS from directly control mice, rats, voles, squirrels, chipmunks, gophers, and woodchucks/groundhogs in a city or town with a population greater than 50,000 inhabitants, as well as the urbanized area contiguous and adjacent to such a city or town
• Policy includes some exemptions• Policy effective as of October 1, 2013
