image is not available

The pro’s and con’s of EPA evaluating older chemistries.

image is not available
image is not available

The EPA is currently reevaluating many broad spectrum active ingredients. Part of the Pesticide Registration Review, the goal is to review all pesticides that have been registered since 2007.

Just this spring several ingredients, including Iprodione, had a public comment window for review. That feedback meeting had officials surprised to see so many berry crop representatives calling in support of keeping this active ingredient in place. They were equally surprised to hear the use case was much different than the larger commodity uses seen on the current label. Larger commodities may have a larger voice, but it’s important that reviewers understand that specialty crops have different application needs. This should play a pivotal part of the consideration process. Not to worry, the specialty crop voices at the table emphasized that during the meeting, but it is hard to navigate this playing field because the full story isn’t always apparent.

No final decisions have been released but this brings to mind how specialty crops representation is difficult in the broad EPA playing field. How do we have a larger seat at the table for these discussions? How can we relay active ingredient needs to the people that are evaluating and reevaluating the materials? There are review periods open for industry input – is this enough to ensure the industry has adequately communicated the need for specific materials? How often do we lose labels or gain labels for specialty crops use compared to other large commodities? Our international Maximum Residue Levels, pest dynamics, environment, and rotations depend on these factors just as much as the next crop.

Additional online resources for this:

Share :

Join the
NBF Forum Community!

Complete the form below to be notified as soon as we post a new topic 

What describes you best?
your region

More Topics