On December 11, 2019, the Center for Biological Diversity filed a petition with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and the U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service. The first two paragraphs of this Petition read as follows (footnotes omitted):
Section 10115 of the recently enacted Farm Bill requires the establishment of an interagency working group, comprised of representatives from USDA, the Department of Commerce, the Department of the Interior, the Council on Environmental Quality, and EPA. This interagency group is tasked with providing recommendations regarding, and to implement a strategy for improving, the consultation process required under ESA Section 7 for pesticide registration and registration review. The goal of this process is to make the ESA review process more efficient and predictable for the federal agencies involved and affected stakeholders.
Click here for the Farm Bill
The Packer posted the above-captioned article on its website. The article reads in part as follows:
“More than 99% of samples tested in the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Pesticide Data Program had residue levels well below levels established by the Environmental Protection Agency.
The USDA published the 203-page 2017 annual summary on Dec. 17 and said 53% of samples had no detectable pesticide residue.”
Click here to read the entire article.
“The EU special committee on pesticides has adopted plans to make the EU pesticide approval procedure more transparent and accountable”
Government Europa published the above-captioned article, which reads as follows:
“MEPs agreed that members of the public should be allowed to access the studies used to support the EU’s decision to approve the use of pesticides, including supporting data and information on the applications. The new EU pesticide approval procedure, designed to promote transparency and accountability in committees and members who approve new active substances, emphasise the need for greater public awareness of approval protocols.
The EPA Inspector General’s Semi-Annual Report: April 1, 2018 – September 30, 2018, is available at https://www.epa.gov/office-inspector-general/semiannual-report-april-1-2018-september-30-2018.
On November 20, 2018, the Center for Regulatory Effectiveness filed comments on EPA’s proposed amendment of its Acquisition Rules to include compliance with EPA’s Scientific Integrity Policy. CRE recommended several changes and additions to EPA’s proposed rules.
Click here for CRE’s filed comments.
EPA’s office of Inspector General posted the following notice:
“Notification: EPA Oversight of the States’ Managed Pollinator Protection Plans
Project #OA&E-FY19-0029, November 8, 2018
The OIG plans to begin preliminary research on the Office of Pesticides’ support of states’ Managed Pollinator Protection Plans.
- Project Notification (PDF)(2 pp, 42 K)”
The linked “Project Notification” explains, “The OIG’s objective is to evaluate how the EPA is overseeing states’ Managed Pollinator Protection Plans designed to reduce pesticide exposure to bees.”
The EPA Office of Inspector General intends to begin preliminary research on the EPA Office of Pesticides’ support of states’ Managed Pollinator Protection Plans. The OIG’s plans are discussed in detail here:Project Notification (PDF).
There will be a 2-hour preparatory virtual meeting of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act Scientific Advisory Panel on November 14,2018, to consider and review the scope and clarity of the draft charge questions for the December 4–7, 2018 FIFRA SAP Meeting on the Evaluation of a Proposed Approach to Refine Inhalation Risk Assessment for Point of Contact Toxicity: A Case Study Using a New Approach Methodology.
In addition, EPA is inviting comments on the experts currently under consideration as ad hoc participants in this review.
Click here for more details and relevant links.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration recently published its Pesticide Residue Monitoring 2016 Report. The report discusses testing of 711 pesticides and industrial chemicals from 7,413 total samples. The report states that the results were consistent with previous years’ results. Two groups of samples were taken — those from domestic foods and those from imported products.
Ninety-nine per cent of the samples from domestic products and 90 per cent of those from imported foods comply with federal standards. No detectable levels of pesticide residues were found in 52.9 per cent of domestic and 50.7 per cent of imported human food samples.