The U.S. Court of Appeals
for the 9th Circuit last week ruled
in a 2-1 decision that the EPA must revoke
all food tolerances and cancel all registrations for the pesticide chlorpyrifos
within 60 days. This ruling stems from the Trump administration’s decision to deny
a longstanding petition from environmental activists. The administration cited a lack of data on potential adverse health effects.
A statement from Corteva Agriscience, a
manufacturer of chlorpyrifos, said “Chlorpyrifos is a critical pest management
tool used by growers around the world to manage a large number
of pests, and regulatory bodies in 79 countries have looked at the
science, carefully evaluated the product and its significant benefits and
continued to approve its use. We note that this was a split decision of the
panel and we agree with the dissenting judge’s opinion. We expect that all
appellate options to challenge the majority’s decision will be considered. We will continue to support the growers who need this important product.”
The statement also said all uses and tolerance remain
intact until the EPA makes a final decision, and the EPA “has options to
challenge this decision.”
The ruling is expected to have a wide-ranging impact on
the agriculture industry. Chlorpyrifos is used in more than 50 fruit, nut,
cereal and vegetable crops including apples, almonds, oranges and broccoli,
with more than 640,000 acres treated in California alone in 2016.
The original petition was filed in 2007 by the
Pesticide Action Network North America and the Natural Resources Defense
Council. As a result, the Obama administration’s EPA proposed to
revoke all food tolerances for chlorpyrifos. NAAA met with EPA to discuss its
proposed decision on the chlorpyrifos ban and submitted comments to keep chlorpyrifos on the market for aerial application. NAAA communicated to EPA that our industry mitigates drift now better
than ever. Additionally, NAAA explained to the EPA that the
agency had misinterpreted the Food Quality Protection Act and the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act by trying to establish a standard of “absolute
certainty that no harm will result” from a pesticide instead of a standard of
“reasonable certainty that no harm will result.”
NAAA also stressed concern that EPA
justified revoking tolerances for chlorpyrifos in part by relying on a secret
study from Columbia University where important data points were not made
available to EPA or anyone else for review.
Regarding the court’s recent
ruling, an EPA spokesman said, “EPA is reviewing the decision. The Columbia
Center’s data underlying the Court’s assumptions remains inaccessible and has
hindered the Agency’s ongoing process to fully evaluate the pesticide using the
best available, transparent science.”