Ag News
There’s No Way for Farmers To Meet EPA’s Standard
Published Wednesday, March 10, 2010 at 01:20 PM
Lincoln, Nebraska (March 10, 2010) -- EPA is asking for the impossible in its proposed pesticide spray drift policy, Nebraska Farm Bureau said Wednesday (March 10). Most pesticides are applied through sprayers that deposit small, lightweight droplets onto crops. They cannot be applied when weather conditions including wind speed would encourage drifting beyond the area targeted for treatment. But swirling wind or an unexpected gust can cause the droplets to drift. EPA’s proposal would prohibit sprayer application of products that “could cause an adverse effect” on any non-target organism. “By using the term ‘could” and not showing evidence of actual harm, EPA is essentially imposing a liability on applicators for a hypothetical action that may or may not occur,” Craig Head, Nebraska Farm Bureau environmental specialist, said. “That’s a vague, impossible standard. The current standard in the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) says spray application must not pose “an unreasonable adverse effect” on not-targeted species and that phrase is defined specifically, Head said. “The proposed change is an unlawful precautionary and hazards-based standard that conflicts with FIFRA’s risk-based approach to regulating the sale and use of pesticides. “We question whether EPA has the legal authority to change the standard,” he said. EPA’s product pesticide registration process under FIFRA takes potential for spray drift into account when it assesses risks and designates how the product may be used, he said. The registration process is rigorous and data-rich, and only one chemical in 250,000 candidates makes it through the process. Farmers must complete training and be certified to use restricted-use products. “They’re extremely sensitive to neighboring fields, residences and potential for economic loss when applying these products,” Head said. Spray drift can be reduced by spraying the product at a low height and using a large droplet size that drifts less than a smaller droplet, among other techniques. “But farmers can’t predict or prevent a bird – a non-target species – from suddenly flying across a field,” he said. Adoption of the EPA proposal would subject farmers to an unreasonable standard that would clog the legal system with lawsuits, he said. “It would harm farmers’ ability to continue to provide safe and abundant food for consumers if the legal risk of using these products is too great. That would mean lower yields. “And if they aren’t able to use these products, it would take away from farmers’ ability to use no-tillage conservation practices that are good for the environment,” he said.
© 2008 The Nebraska Rural Radio Association. All rights reserved.
This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
