| COMMENTS from TERRY WITT, OFS Executive Director: We hate to keep sounding the alarm, but your action is again needed on an EPA proposed change -— this one dealing with Spray Drift label language. Typically when the term “drift” is thought of, most think of a typical Ag or forestry aerial application. The proposed language pertains to all methods of application. It expands the original Worker Protection Standards by defining "commercial" to include applications to rights-of-way, golf courses, athletic fields, residential turf, landscapes, parks, grounds and other similar sites, commonly performed by hired personnel. It also adds label language to products intended solely for non-commercial application, such as residential use on lawns and gardens, by adding a statement, "Do not apply this product in a way that could contact people, or that results in spray [or dust] drift that could cause harm [emphasis added] to people, pets, property, aquatic life, wildlife, or wildlife habitat." Vague language such as “could cause” or “may cause” adverse effects does not belong on a pesticide label, as it is NOT in accordance with the FIFRA risk-based standard of ‘no unreasonable adverse effects.’ Additional information can be found below. Please read and craft a response voicing your opposition to EPA by March 5, 2010. Your comments do not have to be lengthy or highly technical. Numbers do count in the regulatory game -– so please take a few minutes now and fire off an e-comment to the governments “regulations” email address below. Also please forward this to other growers and applicators. WE NEED NUMBERS! *EPA needs to hear from you about how their proposed label language on spray drift will affect your business. The more people who submit comments, the more likely EPA will change the proposal.
Read the information below, then go to: http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#submitComment?R=0900006480a66c8d to submit comments expressing your opinion and how this EPA action would affect you. Deadline is March 5, 2010.
Background: EPA has proposed to change pesticide label language by expanding the Worker Protection Standard (WPS) for products intended for agricultural crop, nursery, forestry and greenhouse uses by adding to the current statement: “Do not apply this product in a way that will contact workers or other persons, either directly or through drift.” This additional language would be added: "In addition, do not apply this product in a manner that results in spray [or dust] drift that could cause [emphasis added] an adverse effect to people or any other non-target organism or site." Also, EPA expands the application of the original WPS plus this additional language to other areas that EPA now deems "commercial," including: "applications to rights-of-way, golf courses, athletic fields, residential turf, landscapes, parks, grounds and other similar sites, commonly performed by hired personnel." EPA adds the following label language to products intended solely for non-commercial application, such as residential use on lawns and gardens: "Do not apply this product in a way that could contact people, or that results in spray [or dust] drift that could cause harm [emphasis added] to people, pets, property, aquatic life, wildlife, or wildlife habitat." In the Labeling Interpretation document, EPA cites the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) risk-based legal standard of “unreasonable adverse effects”; however, EPA equates this to a new term “harm,” which is not in FIFRA, and continually leaves out “unreasonable” from label language and the Agency’s interpretation for enforcement. Some of the examples of "adverse effects” or "harm" that EPA provides are: --For humans, any negative physical impact, health symptom or illness, regardless of whether it requires medical treatment or is temporary in nature. --For wildlife, any negative effects on the viability of beneficial insects (e.g. pollinators), fish, birds or other wildlife, including but not limited to death. --For property, damage to agricultural commodities or ornamental plantings, including but not limited to the death, injury, stunting, deformation or discoloration of plants; any negative effects on the viability of domestic animals; structural or cosmetic damage to inanimate objects (e.g. corrosion, discoloration); --For the environment, damage to aquatic or wildlife habitat, including but not limited to the death, injury, stunting, deformation or discoloration of plants, or the contamination of water or soils at levels that would cause adverse effects on wildlife. The following points were developed by CropLife America to help you develop your own comments to the EPA. Remember that adding your own personal comments makes a more powerful statement.
(1) The issue of Spray Drift has been studied for years. The Washington State Department of Health Pesticide Program recently issued a study titled “Organophosphate Pesticide Air Monitoring Project” (Fenske et al., June, 2009), confirming that risks to bystanders from pesticide drift are well below levels that would pose a health concern; therefore, additional restrictions are unnecessary. (2) Vague language such as “could cause” or “may cause” adverse effects does not belong on a pesticide label because it is NOT in accordance with the FIFRA risk-based standard of ‘no unreasonable adverse effects’ and it forces state regulators into the role of risk assessor to determine what ‘may or could’ cause an effect, which they are not trained to do and is the role of EPA. (3) EPA’s guidance on how to enforce the proposed drift label language sets an unachievable zero-drift standard and sets the stage for frivolous lawsuits and enforcement actions. For example, a headache that is untreated or verified by a medical professional, may be the basis for an enforcement action or lawsuit. Protection of human health and of the environment is best accomplished through a Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) approved and enforced label for the pesticide product, which includes Directions for Use that are based upon a risk assessment and incorporates mitigations and application techniques designed to minimize drift. (4) EPA Office of Pesticide Programs should: --maintain the FIFRA risk-based standard of “no unreasonable adverse effects”; --acknowledge that some small level of pesticide drift may be unavoidable (in some cases) and does not pose an “unreasonable adverse effect”; --acknowledge that the mere detection of a pesticide off-target does not pose an unreasonable adverse effect and is not a violation of FIFRA that requires an enforcement action; --remove the new hazard-based standard of “harm” from the Drift Pesticide Registration Notice; and --remove the vague, unenforceable and unmanageable concepts of “could cause” or “may cause” adverse effects or “harm” from the Drift PRN. |
