Pesticide regulation in the United States
Current law requires the EPA to consider the "ingredients of the pesticide; the particular site or crop on which it is to be used; the amount, frequency, and timing of its use; and storage and disposal practices."
These tests evaluate: whether the pesticide has the potential to cause adverse effects (including cancer and reproductive system disorders) on humans, wildlife, fish, and plants, including endangered species and non-target organisms; and possible contamination of surface water or ground water from leaching, runoff, and spray drift.
The political climate in the US prevented major changes to the regulation due to the public's relative lack of concern, USDA's administration of the law, and agricultural interests in congress.
The proposals included: moving FIFRA authority from the USDA to the FDA, providing greater public access to pesticide registration data, and mandating better interagency cooperation.
[15] However, Congress passed an amendment to FIFRA in 1964 allowing the USDA to suspend or cancel a pesticide's registration in order to "prevent an imminent health hazard".
If this occurred, the indemnity clause of FEPCA required the EPA to compensate pesticide manufacturers, distributors, and users for the value of any unused stock they possessed.
The EPA and the Canadian Department of Health and Welfare determined that "only about 10% of the over 2000 IBT studies which had been submitted in support of pesticide registrations were valid."
[3] In 1986, the Campaign for Pesticide Reform (CPR) and the National Agricultural Chemicals Association (NACA) submitted a bill to Congress proposing amendments to FIFRA.
[1] In 1992, the US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that EPA's 1988 policy was invalid, stating that only Congress could change the Delaney Clause.
First, the report recommended that the EPA stop using cost-benefit analysis to determine whether a pesticide would be registered, and make decisions based solely on health considerations.
These tests evaluate: whether the pesticide has the potential to cause adverse effects (including cancer and reproductive system disorders) on humans, wildlife, fish, and plants, including endangered species and non-target organisms; and possible contamination of surface water or ground water from leaching, runoff, and spray drift.
The purpose of the label is to "provide clear directions for effective product performance while minimizing risk to human health and the environment."
[22] States are allowed to register a new end use product or an additional use of a federally registered product if the situation meets the requirements specified in section 24(c) of FIFRA:[24] FIFRA authorizes states to issue experimental use permits (EUP), special local needs registrations (SLN) and apply for emergency exemptions.
[24] States are authorized by FIFRA section 24(c) to permit additional uses of federally registered pesticides through special local needs (SLN) registrations.
The Universal Waste Rule was entered into the federal register in 1995, and it provided guidelines for storage, transport, and disposal of unwanted pesticides.
[33] Additionally, PESP annually awards a maximum of $50,000 in grants to each of the ten EPA regional areas for projects that promote and support IPM practices and pesticide risk reduction activities.
SAI facilitates the transition away from the application of high-risk agricultural pesticides to using IPM methods that are cost-effective and beneficial to human health and the environment.
Additionally, the EPA assigns Regional Specialists that assist the agricultural growers with outreach and communication, collaborating with other stakeholders, and facilitating technology transfers.
From 2003 to 2006, SAI helped agricultural growers implement IPM practices on 1,200,000 acres (4,900 km2), leading to a 30% reduction of high-risk pesticides on those lands.
[37][38] Officially starting on June 14, 2022, this policy requires reliable data proving a pesticide's effectiveness against specific invertebrate pests.
Even if an insecticide successfully regulates a pest in an agricultural system, it can accidentally harm natural enemies that are essential to surrounding ecosystems.
The food chain in aquatic systems can be negatively effected when pesticides enter fish tissue and lead to fatal diseases.
22464 policy may help determine the success of pesticides on intended pests and weigh the possibility of unintended or unexpected effects on outside ecosystems.
For example, a crime has been committed if the employer fails to disclose pesticide exposure in accordance with public law (unlawful force) then subsequently violates the product labeling in the assigned work area (to the person) resulting in permanent disability (bodily injury).
[57] The United States Department of Defense manages environmental hazards in accordance with military policy that may deviate from public laws.
[62] All chemical manufacturers and importers must communicate hazard information through product labels and Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDSs).
[86] Environmental health and safety outside the workplace is established by the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA), which is managed by the EPA and various state and local government agencies.
[88] Air quality information must be provided by pest control supervisors under license requirements established by the Worker Protection Standard when Restricted use pesticide is applied.
For example, cyanide exposure symptoms include weakness, headache, nausea, confusion, dizziness, seizures, cardiac arrest, and unconsciousness.
[105][106] DOT is responsible for enforcement actions and public notification regarding hazardous chemical releases and exposures, including incidents involving federal workers.
