EPA’s insecticide strategy could increase costs, complexity for farmers
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently finalized the proposed herbicide strategy, and it just closed a comment period on the draft insecticide strategy. Both strategies were proposed by EPA to meet the agency’s obligations under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). In recent years, EPA has faced a mountain of litigation from anti-pesticide groups challenging the process used to review and register pesticides, with groups claiming that EPA actions were having an adverse effect on endangered and threatened species. Over the last several years, EPA has been playing a game of litigation whack-a-mole where it is continually responding to court decisions stemming from anti-pesticide group challenges. EPA is charting a different path forward by proposing two comprehensive strategies to make the pesticide review and registration process more durable legally and hopefully provides farmers certainty for access to crop protection products. Unfortunately for corn farmers, these two strategies, when taken together and if implemented as proposed (insecticide) or finalized (herbicide), will fundamentally change the pesticide review and registration process. Farmers will be required to implement mitigation strategies to reduce risk to endangered and threatened species.
Agriculture stakeholders across the value-chain recognize EPA has a duty to meet its obligations under the ESA and have a shared goal to ensure the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) process is maintained to ensure product availability. However, groups are extremely concerned by both the complexity and potential cost of EPA’s proposals.
Those concerns have been expressed by both the Minnesota Corn Growers Association (MCGA) and the National Corn Growers Association (NCGA) in comments submitted to EPA on the herbicide and insecticide strategies. EPA has proposed a general set of restrictions on agricultural herbicide and insecticide users that would be imposed on all new and re-registered products once both strategies are finalized.
EPA will first determine potential risk to approximately 850 listed endangered and threatened species from a pesticide active ingredient and assess potential population-level impacts to listed species as low, medium, or high that may need mitigation. Next the EPA will identify levels of mitigation needed to reduce spray drift and runoff/erosion to non-target habitats (herbicide) or invertebrates (insecticide). A points value will be assigned based on the mitigation level determination (low, medium, or high). EPA would then identify where in the contiguous U.S. mitigations identified in the previous determination would be applied. Point values are assigned to various mitigation strategies for reducing spray drift and runoff/erosion.
To use the product, and if located in an area with an ESA concern, the farmer will need to implement specific mitigation strategies to use the product to meet required points. In spray drift mitigation, EPA determines field-specific buffer distances required to use the product according to application method and provides a set of mitigation options to reduce the buffer’s distance. As with spray drift, there are application parameters and field characteristics to consider for reducing runoff/erosion along with in-field (e.g. tillage, groundcover) and field adjacent (e.g. waterways, filter strip) mitigations. Farmers will be able to select options from a menu or pick list. This is a simplified explanation of an extraordinarily complex process.
To add another layer of complexity, in addition to the general species determinations and mitigations, there are also pesticide use limitation areas (PULAs) due to risks to certain endangered species which could include additional restrictions. Information from EPA to date has not been clear on what could be the maximum point value assigned to an active ingredient for general species and a PULA in cases where there is overlap. This would provide some certainty to farmers about what mitigation might be required if they farm in one of the PULA areas. Included in the comments from NCGA and MCGA on both strategies are concerns about both costs incurred directly by farmers to implement proposed mitigation methods to ensure product availability or costs passed onto farmers from registrants trying to navigate the complex new system.
MCGA and NCGA have focused our comments on implementation costs, feasibility of proposed mitigations or suggestions to improve mitigation implementation and urging greater flexibility in strategy implementation. Links to the comments from NCGA and MCGA on the herbicide and insecticide strategies can be found below.
In April of 2022, EPA first proposed a workplan to meet its obligations under ESA. The herbicide strategy was finalized in August 2024 and comments just closed on the draft insecticide strategy. Discussion on this topic will continue and MCGA will help our members navigate this new system, if implemented. Given how critical it is for corn farmers to maintain access to vital crop protection tools to manage weed and pest pressure, MCGA will continue to partner with NCGA and other agricultural stakeholders to advocate for a system that can serve corn growers and ensure ESA compliance for EPA.
Links
MCGA’s comments on the draft insecticide strategy
NCGA’s comments on the draft insecticide strategy
