MCFA News. Bulletin of the Minor Crop Farmer Alliance

Transcription

1 Bulletin of the Minor Crop Farmer Alliance March 2011 MCFA Technical Committee Meets in Washington The Minor Crop Farmer Alliance Technical Committee met in Washington D.C. on February 17. The all day meeting included updates on the wide range of issues currently being addressed by MCFA. Of particular note are the number of reports and updates provided by governmental representatives with whom MCFA has been working on issues critical to minor crop farmers. The agenda for the Technical Committee meeting is attached reflecting that the number of issues facing the agriculture community continues to multiply. MCFA provides a forum to address significant issues and a voice for action in domestic and international venues. Commodity boards and food and agriculture trade associations who are not currently members of MCFA are urged to consider joining. For membership information contact MCFA chairman, Chris Schlect at schlect@nwhort.org. The following highlights some of the issues discussed at the meeting. ESA Workshop At the urging of MCFA, EPA, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the National Marine Fisheries Service have agreed to participate in a workshop to explore Endangered Species Act (ESA) implementation issues. The purpose of the workshop is to bring EPA, USDA and the Services involved in ESA regulatory actions together with minor crop users to increase understanding across organizations and a higher level of transparency in policy actions. The Technical Committee reviewed plans for an ESA Workshop to be co-sponsored by MCFA/EPA and Services. The main point of concern is that the methodology and assumptions used by the Services are not consistent with risk assessment procedures use by EPA and therefore may result in exaggerated risk assessment and restrictions. For example, it appears that the Services assume that the full label rate is used on all acreage for all crops approved for the compound. However, during FQPA implementation, EPA found that actual use data could be used in establishing dietary risk. This approach would be explored with the Services to see if it could serve as a framework for ESA analysis by the Services. The Services appear to be interested in participating in the workshops to help expand their understanding of issues and perspectives. The MCFA Workshop will help bring focus at national level and add transparency to the process on ESA risk analysis. The workshop is being planned for mid to late May in the Midwest at a site yet to be determined. MCFA will send out a meeting notice as soon as the date and location is determined. International Issues and Global MRLs Jim Cranney, California Citrus Quality Council and chairmen of the MCFA International Committee, reported on the continuing efforts to harmonize global MRLs. He noted that USDA/FAS has been working closely with MCFA on harmonization efforts and has funded The U.S. -Canada Grower Priority Database as well as MCFA missions to Taiwan and Japan through TASC Grants. FAS is also taking a more active role in pressing U.S. trading partners to harmonize standards to facilitate the free movement of agricultural products in world trade. In terms of specific country actions, Mr. Cranney reported that Taiwan is going through a re-evaluation and registration process, but faces a severe backlog log of AIs under review. In Japan, FAS and the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) are engaging Japan on a range economic harmonization issues including MRLs. The Korean Food and Drug Administration is examining how U.S. registration is conducted with particular attention to grapes and citrus providing some hope that harmonization with Korea is moving in the right direction. In addition, direct discussions are underway with Australian producers to work toward MRL harmonization. The harmonization within the European Union on pesticide tolerances continues to present problems. USTR is continuing to urge the EU to adopt import tolerances. However, the current EU policy is that, if the EU drops registration of a compound, they will

2 also drop MRL for imports. The EU is also moving toward a negligible risk standard for carcinogens and endocrine disruptors (0.01 ppm). It is also not yet clear whether the EU would accept CODEX MRLs. The U.S. - Canada Priority Database continues to provide valuable information for growers, regulators and registrant s in the effort to harmonize MRL s among NAFTA trading partners. Canadian producers are updating priority database and expect to have the work completed this summer. Technical Committee Chairman Dan Botts noted that is critical for U.S. producers to provide continuous input into the database. While the primary purpose of the database is harmonization between the U.S. and Canada, it has proven to be useful in addressing MRL harmonization worldwide. Mr. Cranney said that at the recent NAFTA Technical Working Group meeting in Mexico City, it was stressed that updating the priority database was particularly important for Mexican growers. Mr. Cranney reported that CODEX is struggling with prioritization and resources to keep up with demand for the establishment of MRLs. However, MCFA remains committed to efforts re-invigorate CODEX as the standard for international harmonization. It was also reported that plans are underway for another Global Minor Use Summit (GMUS). The first GMUS was held in Rome The U.S. IR-4 project in cooperation with USDA/FAS, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations and the U.S. EPA are jointly planning the Second Global Minor Use Summit (GMUS-2) which will also be held in Rome in early The aim of GMUS-2 will be to continue improving the availability of newer, safer and more effective crop protection tools and to facilitate trade in agricultural commodities internationally. MCFA will also contribute to the agenda for the meeting and plans to have a significant presence at the conference. Lori Berger, California Specialty Crop Coalition, also reported that plans are progressing for an International MRL conference in San Francisco, June 1, She noted that on this year s program they will be seeking more participation from producers and regulators from Canada. Trade Flow Matrix - Expanding on the U.S. Canada priority database, MCFA is working with EPA to develop an international trade flow matrix to identify MRL priorities by country by commodity by compound. As EPA reviews compounds for reregistration or other processes, the matrix will allow the agency to quickly identify international MRL priorities that should be considered. The concept of the Trade Flow Matrix was presented to the USDA/USTR joint working group ATAC. A working group of the MCFA International Committee will explore options to develop the Trade Flow Matrix and will seek TASC funding for project. NPDES Update As an April 9 court ordered deadline approaches for EPA to begin issuing NPDES permits for pesticides uses applied into, over or near waters of the United States, legislation to exempt pesticide applications from NPDES permits has been introduced in the House. In addition, at this point, EPA has not yet developed a permitting protocol. MCFA members have been asked to support the legislation and help identify potential sponsors. For most of the past four decades, water quality concerns from pesticide applications were addressed during the registration and labeling process under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) rather than a Clean Water Act permitting program. However, in January 2009, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned that longstanding practice in The National Cotton Council of America, et al., v. United States Environmental Protection Agency. The court ruled the EPA did not have the authority under the CWA to exempt application of pesticides from NPDES requirements and thus ordered EPA to begin issuing NPDES permits. The proposed legislation would make it clear that the use of a pesticide consistent with its registration under FIFRA should not be subject to a costly,

3 redundant, and unnecessary permit process under the CWA as well as such use would not be subject to citizen suits under the CWA. Finding sufficient bipartisan support for the legislation is critical if the bill is to move forward. At the same time, appeals to the National Cotton decision are continuing. USDA/Office of Pest Management Programs Report (OPMP) Sheryl Kunickis, Director of OPMP, and Teung Chin provided an update on issues being addressed by OPMP. Its efforts in addressing endangered species, worker safety and other environmental impact issues is increasing important to minor crop farmers. OPMP is an important resource for other agencies and the Services assisting in gathering information and advising them about the potential impacts to the agricultural community from the policies being developed, as well as identifying data needs which may impact the development of those policies. OPMP has been working with EPA and the Services concerning ESA Issues. The office has been providing input on the development Biological Opinions (BiOps) which have been issued without input from agriculture and an insufficient perspective on the impact of the BiOps decisions. OPMP has helped bring together various groups with EPA and the Services to provide input and raise questions about specific BiOps during meetings in Portland and Sacramento and OPMP will be involved in the planning and coordination of the ESA Workshop being organized by MCFA. USDA will be providing comments on proposed phase out Sulfuryl Fluoride (SF) noting that the compound has been widely used as an alternative to methyl bromide for post harvest treatments. In fact, several U.S. Critical Use Exemption (CUE) applications have been cut due to the availability of SF as an alternative. USDA has also questioned using the naturally occurring fluoride and fluoridation in the risk assessment of SF. It was reported that Health and Human Service (HHS) is reviewing the risk for fluoride in water which is driving EPA decision to phase out SF. Unfortunately, the HHS review will take a while, but EPA is in a 90 day comment period on the proposed phase-out, so the findings of the HHS analysis may well come after EPA issues its final rule. Teung Chin is working with EPA and users on the 2013 Critical Use Nomination (CUN) recently submitted to the Montreal Protocol Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee (MBTOC) and 2011 allocation rule soon to come out. Mr. Chin noted that the proposed rule will include a request for public comment on whether the issuance of CUEs should end after While the U.S. CUN has been submitted to MBTOC it is understood that EPA is prepared to modify the Nomination at the Open-Ended Working Group (OEWG) meeting this August in Bangkok. Finally, OPMP is working with EPA in the formulation of the final rule on NEPDES. Spray Drift EPA is concerned about harm caused by off-target pesticide spray drift that affects people, property, non-target organisms and the environment and is developing language for labels and enforcement to address spray drift. A working group of the Pesticide Program Dialog Committee (PPDC) has made recommendations to EPA and it was reported that EPA Director, Lisa Johnson, would like to get revised language out in At present pesticide labels essentially preclude drift. EPA has suggested new language to define liability for drift. MCFA and other agricultural groups have communicated on proposed language as have environmental groups, organic growers and others. MCFA position is that additional language is not necessary and is too broad. There is concern that the proposed language does not give farmers any more guidance in using pesticides in a manner to help reduce the potential for drift, and simply imposes an additional regulatory liability and legal risk to the pesticide user. Organic farmers have asserted that drift jeopardizes their organic certification and therefore should be actionable. However, there are tolerances for organic farmers for de minimis residues for active ingredients to account for incidental contamination from drift. State departments of agriculture appear to be split on the need for additional language.

4 In a letter to EPA, MCFA stated, while the revised language would likely proliferate the number of enforcement actions, it fails to provide any meaningful guidance to the applicators to avoid a drift incident. MCFA s members do support the inclusion of label language appropriately tailored to help assure the necessary protection of man or the environment arising from the use of a pesticide product, including the potential for drift MCFA suggests that the efforts of the Agency to minimize pesticide drift initially be directed to organizing label language, making certain that use directions are clear, understandable and readily accessible. Pesticides and Pollinators Gabriel Ludwig, California Almond Board, reported that an EPA conference with international scientists to determine what research is needed to do a risk assessment regarding disruption of honey bee and pollinators from pesticides was held in Florida. Proceedings from this conference will be available shortly and it is expected that this process will give EPA more information on how to address potential harm to Honey Bees and pollinators in the risk assessment process. She noted that no agricultural groups were invited to participate in conference although invitees included beekeepers and environmental groups. It is anticipated that PPDC will continue to investigate potential risk assessment changes to protect pollinators from potential harm from pesticides. Fumigant Label Deadlines New labels for fumigants were due out in December 1, 2010, but state approvals were not done in a timely manner to meet the December 1 deadline. MCFA requested an extension of the label implementation and EPA granted that request. During the extension period, labels were issued and are in effect. However, labels are now out and in effect. New labels include a great deal of information required by EPA with very little guidance form EPA on how the grower or applicators can comply. A fumigation management plan and new worker protection standards are required and post treatment reports are required and critical to avoid liability. Training and compliance issues are still a point of concern for growers in actual implementation of the label requirements. Despite the on-going issue with the first phase of the label changes, the next round of label changes, due in 2012, are in process. The next round will include more specific buffer zones, additional record keeping, off-site movement potential and notification requirements. USDA/OPMP has been engaged with grower groups and EPA on the implementation of the fumigant REDs. Issues about training of applicators, the definition of sensitive sites and community notification requirements will be addressed in the next round. Pesticide Data Program (PDP) Outreach Each year, upon the release of USDA Pesticide Data Program (PDP) report, which identifies pesticide residue levels found on agricultural commodities, some advocate organizations such as the Environmental Working Group (EWG) launch aggressive campaigns to indict pesticide use and urge consumers to avoid those commodities with the highest frequency of reported residues the so-called Dirty Dozen List. Chris Schlect, Northwest Horticultural Council and MCFA Chairman, reported that industry needs to work more closely with USDA/AMS so that it can more directly respond to any mischaracterizations of the PDP report. It was noted that the AMS concurs that agency needs to defend safety of U.S. food and U.S. regulatory process and has been open to input. Most importantly, USDA/AMS should be prepared to respond to adverse publicity efforts within the same news cycle. MCFA and other organizations are hopeful that communication with the agency prior to the release of the PDP report will enable AMS to more effectively defend the governmental process and affirm the safety of the American food supply, confront misuse of the data, and use risk communication principles to put report in the proper context. IR-4 Public Policy Determination The IR-4 program is critically important for establishing tolerances for pesticides for specialty crops. However, EPA s draft policy regarding the Public Interest Determination for IR-4 under the

5 Pesticide Registration Improvement Renewal Act (PRIA) could negatively impact the IR-4 project and its ability to meet its core mission for specialty crop growers. It would also negatively affect joint initiatives with IE-4 and EPA such as crop grouping and international harmonization of MRLs. IR-4 has requested that EPA set aside the draft policy and work with IR-4 to develop a more workable policy. Among the problems with the draft Determination are limitations on the acreage for crops that would be eligible under IR-4, jeopardy to work share and joint review programs for international MRLs as well as work share projects with the various states. MCFA has recognized the critical importance of the IR-4 program for the registration of compounds for specialty crop use and will continue work with the project to ensure that it remains a viable resource for minor crop users. For more information contact Dave Riggs (daveriggs@quailrun.net)

6 Minor Crop Farmer Alliance Technical Committee Meeting AGENDA 9:00 am -- 3:00 pm, Thursday, February 17, 2011 McDermott, Will and Emery, LLC th Street, NW, Washington, DC Agenda Item Time Description Discussion Leader 1 9:00 9:05 Call to Order and Introductions Dan Botts 2 9:05 9:10 Review Agenda Dan Botts 3 9:10 9:30 USDA Office of Pest Management Sheryl Kunickis/Teung Policy Chin 4 9:30 10:00 ESA Workshop Rick Keigwin, Don Brady, Dan Botts 5 10:00 10:15 CBD/PANNA Lawsuit Dan Botts 6 10:15 10:30 PRIA Public Interest Finding Marty Monell Jim Cranney, Mike 7 10:30 11:45 International Activity Willett, Dan Botts 7(a) US Canada Grower Priority Database Dan Botts 7(b) Global Minor Use Summit Dan Kunkel, Dan Botts 7(c) Korea, Taiwan & China Jim Cranney, et. al. 7(d) MRL Early Warning System Mike Willett 7(e) Trade Flow MRL Project Wally Ewart 8 11:45 12:30 IR-4 Coordination and Jerry Baron, Dan Cooperation Kunkel, Dan botts 12:30 1:00 Lunch 9 1:00 1:15 Spray Drift Ed Ruckert 10 1:15 1:45 Fumigant RED Implementation Dan Botts, Ed Ruckert 11 1:45 2:00 Pesticide Data Program Outreach Chris Schlect 12 2:00 2:15 NPDES General Permit Ed Ruckert 13 2:15 2:30 Pollinator Update Gabriele Ludwig 14 2:30 2:45 PPDC Update 15 2:45 3:00 Other Business Mike Willett, Gabriele Ludwig

7 MINOR CROP FARMER ALLIANCE 2011 Fact Sheet The Minor Crop Farmer Alliance was founded in 1991 to address legislative and administrative policies to ensure the continued availability of crop protection chemicals for minor use crops. The original work of the MCFA focused on aspects of proposed federal legislation that eventually became Title 2 of The Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA). However, even in the coalition s early years such issues as federal funding for agricultural research, harmonization of international chemical standards and support for integrated pest management were within the scope of its efforts. While the initial optimistic goal of accomplishing the original mission and then disbanding within three years was not met, the stature and credibility earned by the MCFA during six years of intense policy debate over the comprehensive reform of federal pesticide legislation led to a decision by the coalition s members to continue its existence during the implementation of FQPA. Over the years, MCFA has acquired and continues to maintain a high level of recognition and credibility at national and international levels with public regulatory and policy officials. For example, MCFA advice on crop protection issues of importance to the specialty crop industry has been actively and regularly sought by both the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the United States Department of Agriculture. During the span of its existence the MCFA has stayed true to its initial pledge not to have an office or permanent staff. From the coalition s inception, it has continued to serve as a coordinating mechanism for the many state, regional, and national agricultural firms, associations and commissions who make up the bulk of the membership. When the need for the MCFA ceases to exist, it will disband. In terms of organization, two key committees exist. These are a policy-setting Executive Committee, made up of representatives of members donating at least $5,000 in annual dues to the MCFA, and a Technical Committee comprising a cross section of industry experts and led by Dan Botts of the Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association. Most work is handled by the Technical Committee, which is quite active in expressing the views of the coalition to experts at federal level departments and agencies such as EPA and USDA, as well as to the professional staff of Congressional committees of jurisdiction over agricultural chemical issues affecting specialty crop agriculture. In addition, of late

8 the MCFA has been more active on international issues with, for example, Canada, Japan, Taiwan and the European Union, and international bodies such as the Codex Alimentarius in Rome. (The setting of chemical MRLs and the establishment of new registrations has a direct impact on the export trade of many members and, in turn, the growers and shippers they represent.) Those Minor Crop Farmer Alliance members with representatives on the 2011 Executive Committee include the Almond Board of California; American Farm Bureau Federation; California Citrus Quality Council; California Grape and Tree Fruit League; California Dried Plum Board; California Specialty Crop Council; California Strawberry Commission; California Tree Fruit Agreement; Cherry Marketing Institute; The Cranberry Institute; Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association; Florida Tomato Exchange; Idaho Potato Commission; Michigan Vegetable Council, Inc.; National Council of Farmer Cooperatives; National Potato Council; Northwest Horticultural Council; Produce Marketing Association; United Fresh Produce Association; United States Apple Association; Washington State Potato Commission; Western Growers; and Wild Blueberry Commission of Maine. The 2011 officers of the Minor Crop Farmer Alliance are: Chairman Christian Schlect (Northwest Horticultural Council/Yakima, Washington) Vice Chairman Phil Korson (Cherry Marketing Institute, Inc. /Lansing, Michigan) Treasurer Robert Guenther (United Fresh Produce Association/Washington, D.C.) Secretary Jim Cranney (California Citrus Quality Council/Auburn, California) The Minor Crop Farmer Alliance is incorporated and, as an exempt organization, annually files a Form 990 with the Internal Revenue Service. Legal counsel is provided by the law firm of McDermott Will and Emery in Washington, D.C. For work in producing the MCFA s quarterly bulletins, a contract is in place with Quail Run Business Solutions. For membership information or other questions concerning the MCFA, please contact Christian Schlect at (509) or Schlect@nwhort.org. 3/2/11 by CES