July 19, The Honorable Gina McCarthy Administrator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C.

Transcription

1 July 19, 2016 The Honorable Gina McCarthy Administrator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C Dear Madam Administrator: The undersigned individuals are the chief officers of our nation s largest farm organizations. Collectively, we represent the breadth and depth of U.S. agriculture. We are writing on a matter of critical urgency to our members: EPA s implementation of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA, 7 U.S.C. 136 et. seq.) and its impact on agricultural producers. We are requesting a personal meeting with you at your earliest convenience to discuss this issue. Under FIFRA, your agency is charged with regulating the distribution, sale and use of pesticides. No pesticide may be distributed or sold until EPA verifies that using the pesticide according to prescribed conditions will not generally cause unreasonable adverse effects on the environment. EPA s own website 1 defines this provision to mean (1) any unreasonable risk to man or the environment, taking into account the economic, social, and environmental costs and benefits of the use of any pesticide, or (2) a human dietary risk from residues that result from a use of a pesticide in or on any food inconsistent with the standard under section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. We are convinced that the agency s current implementation of the law, if left unchanged, will have profoundly negative, long-lasting impacts on U.S. agriculture. These impacts will affect not just farmers profitability. They will directly affect the livelihoods of farm families across the country, as well as the health and vibrancy of rural economies. While the agency s decisions on agricultural pesticides affect farmers ability to manage their crops and their land, the agency s actions have repercussions that go well beyond that. The agency must ensure that in implementing the law it respects the intent of Congress. The agency must also discharge its duties in a manner consistent with administration policies. On March 9, 2009, Obama issued his Memorandum on Scientific Integrity. That document correctly notes that the public must be able to trust the science and scientific process informing public policy decisions. Those in the regulated community, including farmers, feel increasingly threatened by the agency s decisions and fear that it has embarked on a course that undermines the scientific process while not giving full respect to congressional intent in FIFRA. We have appended to this letter some examples of the type of agency decision-making that has generated so much concern. We request a personal meeting with you, not to discuss a specific 1

2 agency decision on a given product, but to look for ways to re-establish an agency process that is respected, accepted and implemented by all stakeholders. Our staff will follow up with your office in an effort to find a mutually convenient date and time. Sincerely, Zippy Duvall American Farm Bureau Federation Steve Censky Chief Executive Officer American Soybean Association Chandler Goule CEO National Association of Wheat Growers Chris Novak CEO National Corn Growers Association Gary Adams and CEO National Cotton Council James Tiede National Potato Council Tom Stezel and CEO United Fresh Produce Association Tom Nassif and CEO Western Growers Association Joel Nelsen California Citrus Mutual

3 Situational Analysis Overview: Historically, administrations of both political parties have worked with the bipartisan leadership of the Congress and a broad array of agricultural, industry, and public interest constituencies to strengthen protection for all Americans from potential risks associated with the food they eat. This collaborative approach has served to protect the public health, encourage industry innovation and sustain the agricultural community s ability to maintain and increase food production. Recently, agricultural stakeholders have become concerned that this consensus approach to pesticide policy, based on sound science, is eroding. It is the agricultural community s hope that closer coordination among Federal agencies with responsibility for pesticide regulation, greater transparency in government decision-making, and more open collaboration with stakeholders in the evaluation of public health risks and execution of regulatory solutions will restore sciencebased balance to the process and improve the quality and efficacy of regulatory policy. Both the pesticide industry and its customers are currently facing great uncertainty which is stifling innovation and investment. Since 1962 and the publication of Silent Spring, the public has sought greater assurance of the safety of pesticide products, and over the years laws have been amended and standards and requirements for the manufacture of pesticides have been strengthened. The pesticide industry and those who rely on these products have responded to this changing regulatory environment by innovating products with improved environmental and safety profiles softer impacts, lower application rates, more targeted modes of action, reduced applicator risk, etc., and that public interest challenge is met every time a new product is developed. Despite this record of innovation, today this community faces an operating environment which is more unpredictable than at any time in recent memory, and concern is growing that some recent EPA decisions have been influenced more by public perception than justified by established science. EPA is changing policies without following established procedures or ensuring transparency, and it has become increasingly unclear to manufacturers what EPA will use as the basis for its decisions going forward. In March 2009, Obama issued his Memorandum on Scientific Integrity. That document correctly notes that the public must be able to trust the science and scientific process informing public policy decisions. In March 2011, the White House issued a Memorandum to all Executive Departments and Agencies entitled Principles for Regulation and Oversight of Emerging Technologies. It was released by the Office of Science and Technology Policy, OMB and USTR. The 2011 Memo said in pertinent part Federal regulations and oversight of emerging technologies should be based on the best available scientific evidence. We do not believe these Memoranda and other administration commitments to sound scientific principles are being followed at EPA. In the absence of greater transparency and more open communication with stakeholders, registrants will face an EPA review process that is unpredictable, protracted, and costly.

4 Concerns: Shifting Science Recent experience indicates a number of examples where, we believe, EPA has been implementing policies at odds with established procedures. For example, EPA s reliance on epidemiological data in the case of its assessment of chlorpyrifos did not follow long-established Agency standards for sound scientific risk assessment and failed to address concerns expressed in previous Scientific Advisory Panels convened by the Agency about the use of epidemiology data in general or about chlorpyrifos in particular. EPA s announced policy shift also implicates the current registration for all of the organophosphate insecticides, giving credence to the fear that this effort is motivated by ideology more than science. Policy Development Shortcuts EPA actions on pollinators have also appeared to be ad-hoc and responsive more to considerations of public perception and not based on established science underlying the issue. Honeybee health is impacted by numerous factors, with pesticide use not among the most serious challenges. Yet EPA has with regularity announced new pesticide policies and data requirements with a one size fits all approach in lieu of the evaluation of individual formulations as required by the law and established registration procedures. In particular, EPA s designation of 76 active ingredients needing additional pollinator related language on the label included products unlikely to cause any significant risk to bees or products that were otherwise incorrectly included on the EPA list. In addition, EPA has typically announced its new requirements for pollinators by fiat with a regulation by letter approach mandating new labels to be developed within weeks disregarding product-specific considerations. We believe this does not follow the requirements of FIFRA, the law Congress authorized to govern the use and approval of pesticides. Lack of Transparency and Stakeholder Input Changing science policies and policy interpretations by fiat have also limited the ability of stakeholders to participate in a transparent and orderly process for developing Agency policies, which has had a negative effect on the quality of public input to the process. For example, the pollinator activities have led the FIFRA state lead agencies to raise concerns about the need for, and enforcement of, new EPA pollinator initiatives. A more deliberate, thoughtful process could lead to more tailored responses to any need for mitigation strategies or to respond to other concerns. Instead, registrants, growers, state officials, and others have not been continually part of the process, leading to policies with significant and avoidable flaws. EPA has also minimized institutional cooperation with USDA, to the point where the Department had to go on record in the public docket with remarks such as EPA s conclusions are not supported by data or analysis (commenting on EPA s assessment of the economic benefits of soybean seed treatments). FIFRA Integrity

5 FIFRA includes specific procedures to follow if EPA has concerns about the current registration of a pesticide. EPA has stated that it finds these procedures difficult and burdensome. As a result, EPA has sought to avoid the FIFRA procedures, which are designed to allow a full airing of any concerns along with an evaluation of the benefits of the product. In the case of chlorpyrifos, relying on the questionable use of epidemiology data, EPA has instead sought to revoke the tolerance of the pesticide which would eliminate the use of the pesticide and avoid the FIFRA procedures. The most serious challenge to the integrity of pesticide registrations approved under FIFRA is ESA litigation. The ESA consultation process as currently coordinated between EPA and other agencies has led to a years-long evaluation process of over 30,000 pages of material for the first three pesticides. Such an assessment process taking so long and costing so much is not practical; it would cost hundreds of millions in taxpayer dollars and take decades to complete. But it is currently the template of what it takes to conduct an ESA consultation for pesticide products. The current status quo serves neither the regulated community nor those charged with protecting threatened or endangered species. A sustainable, comprehensive, and responsible resolution is required and demanded by all stakeholders at the intersection of pesticide policy and species protection. Meanwhile, there is a possibility that the outcome of various pending legal proceedings could result in the functional stopping of new product approvals due to ESA issues. EPA has not helped the situation by suggesting vacatur of registrations as a remedy to some ESA registration concerns (that is, the Enlist case). Regardless, the ESA litigation issues may result in stopping innovation and introduction of new pesticide products. Conclusion: EPA should return to the standards put forward by the White House in 2009 and 2011 and make regulatory decisions based on sound science, not public opinion. The agency should also cooperate with USDA and the other regulatory agencies. USDA should not have to comment in an EPA public docket that EPA s conclusions are not supported by data or analysis (commenting on EPA s assessment of the economic benefits of soybean seed treatments). While we are at the end of the current administration, it is still important going forward that EPA reestablish procedures we can all rely upon.