A worker packs sweet potatoes at Peebles Organics in Arkansas, on Nov. 7, 2017. The biggest change by the EPA could affect how state regulators have stepped in to restrict the herbicide dicamba. | Nicholas Kamm/AFP/Getty Images EPA may thwart efforts by states to set stricter pesticide rules

State regulators are worried that the Environmental Protection Agency is getting ready to override them on a host of pesticide regulations by negating stricter rules intended to curb crop damage or prevent environmental hazards from pesticides.

The EPA quietly announced last week that it was considering a new way to handle requests by states that want to impose stricter rules or extra training than the federal government mandates on pesticides. The EPA said it won’t make any changes this growing season and will have a public comment period before changes are made, but the agency said it was evaluating “the circumstances under which it will exercise its authority to disapprove those requests.”


States can seek additional restrictions from the EPA for various reasons, such as accounting for local pests or environmental concerns. But the EPA noted that some requests it gets are to “narrow the federal label.”

That can be when a state sets a more restrictive cut-off date for when pesticides can be applied. Or, a state can set additional training and certification for pesticide applicators outside the range of EPA‘s requirements.

Morning Agriculture A daily briefing on agriculture and food policy — in your inbox. Email Sign Up By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from POLITICO. You can unsubscribe at any time. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Rose Kachadoorian, president of the Association of American Pesticide Control Officials, told POLITICO she doesn’t see what problem the agency is trying to address, adding that she believes the existing system is working well.

“A lot of these states want to ensure the continued availability of a technology,” she said, stressing that making adjustments would limit states’ rights. “By having the ability to have increased training, cut-off dates and other restrictions, it’s actually enabling states to use that technology and they want to be able to use it.”

"We look forward to a robust public dialogue on this matter," an EPA spokesperson said in a statement.

The biggest change could affect how state regulators have stepped in to restrict dicamba, a herbicide developed by Monsanto and BASF to combat pigweed and other undesired plants that have become resistant to Monsanto’s flagship weedkiller Roundup.

Dicamba is commonly applied to soybeans in the Midwest and South. For instance, Illinois announced this month five restrictions beyond the federal guidelines for the 2019 growing season, such as a June 30 cutoff date for spraying dicamba, and prohibition of spraying dicamba when the wind is blowing toward nearby residential areas.

The EPA says it receives about 300 requests a year from states looking to adjust federal regulations under so-called section 24(c) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, or FIFRA. The agency says it has the authority to set guidelines for how and when farmers can apply pesticides to their fields, under what’s referred to as the federal label.

But last week’s notice seems to suggest that the EPA has a problem with states’ efforts to impose more regulations “to narrow the federal label, such as to add a more restrictive cut-off date, to add training and certification requirements, or to restrict the use directions by limiting the number of treatments permitted by the federal label.“

The EPA notification said it “will make every effort to work with the states on the 24(c) program, but if there is the need, the [EPA] Administrator may suspend a state's registration authority due to lack of, or failure to exercise adequate control by the state.”

The EPA provision is not the only pesticide regulation tool states have. The Arkansas State Plant Board, which oversees one of the nation’s largest soybean-producing states, faced intense pressure from agrichemical companies after it took steps to restrict dicamba use amid reports of millions of acres of damage caused to crops not resistant to the herbicide. Monsanto, the maker of dicamba, promptly sued the state board before losing in court.

But those restrictions were developed under the state’s rule-making authority, so they wouldn’t be affected by any changes the EPA may make in section 24(c) rules, an Arkansas Department of Agriculture spokesperson confirmed. Other states, like Tennessee, however, did file a request with the EPA to impose stricter rules on dicamba use.

If the EPA decides to step in to overrule states on certain restrictions, Bayer, which recently purchased Monsanto and its product lines, could be one of the main beneficiaries of that change.

The company, which has been tangled in lawsuits and other battles over dicamba drift, argues that crop damage is related to farmers misapplying the product, and that its herbicide is safe to use. Bayer has said that additional state restrictions are unnecessary.

In October, the EPA conditionally approved the re-registration of XtendiMax, Bayer’s dicamba product. It continues to be used by farmers as long as they abide by certain limitations.

EPA’s approval of dicamba “reaffirms that this tool is vital for growers and can continue to be used safely according to federal label directions,” a Bayer spokesman said in a statement provided to POLITICO. "There is simply no scientific basis for state-level restrictions on this technology.”

Kachadoorian, who also serves as pesticide program manager at the Oregon Department of Agriculture, says states plan to share their concerns with EPA ahead of any potential rule changes.

“This has concerned a lot of states that EPA is now taking a focus on that because we rely on this as a mechanism to help ensure crop safety, environmental safety,” she said.

This article tagged under: EPA

Monsanto

Pesticides

Agriculture