NPC Report: Confusion, Not Clarity On Drift
April 1, 2010 For at least a decade EPA has struggled with the idea that they needed to do more to provide clarity on the regulatory structure for spray drift. EPA defines spray drift as “the physical movement of pesticide droplets or particles through the air at the time of pesticide application or soon thereafter from the target site to any non- or off-target site.”
Recently, EPA published a Pesticide Registration Notice (PRN) that outlined a draft guidance on spray drift that proposes sweeping changes in the regulatory philosophy that currently guides risk evaluations under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).
In the PRN, EPA identifies its primary objective as providing guidance on “pesticide labeling instructions concerning spray and dust drift to minimize drift and to protect people, other non-target organisms, and the environment from adverse effects that may be caused by off-target pesticide drift” and “to improve clarity and consistency of pesticide labels.” Unfortunately, the draft guidance brought forth by EPA will result in regulatory confusion and conflict — not clarity.
Concerns Over Adverse Effect
The greatest damage that would come from the application of the draft guidance would be the replacement of the FIFRA policy for balancing the risks and benefits of pesticide registration and use based on the “unreasonable adverse effects” standard. EPA proposes to substitute for that standard several, as yet undefined, legal terms that focus on the idea of “no harm” or “could cause an adverse effect.”
The proposed guidance fails to acknowledge the realities of pesticide application and the structure of the current pesticide registration and labeling regulations. The EPA seems to believe that a regulatory policy for drift can be based on the premise that in all cases, drift can be eliminated.
Small or incidental levels of drift can and will occur. FIFRA has a review process that considers the likelihood of drift and the probability of “unreasonable adverse effects.” The current FIFRA process mandates a product-specific review that balances the assessment of possible risks resulting from product use with the benefits from use and applies label requirements for mitigation measures where appropriate.
The draft guidance “could cause an adverse effect” standard makes the presence of an off-target droplet of a compound an actionable violation regardless of the risks. Applicators using the best technology and following label instruction would still be potential targets of regulatory action.
All this makes no sense. NPC and a myriad of other agriculture interests are urging EPA to scrap the draft guidance and go back to the drawing board.
Subscribe Today For
