Tom's Corner

On March 21, 2013 a lawsuit was filed in Federal District Court against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for its failure to protect pollinators from dangerous pesticides. The suit challenges EPA’s ongoing handling of the pesticides as well as the agency’s practice of “conditional registration” and labeling deficiencies.

Listen to June Stoyer and Tom Theobald talk with environmental lawyer Peter T. Jenkins about why the lawsuit was filed.

There will be a Dan Rather special Tuesday night, April 2, on AXS television at 8 p.m. Eastern time. Called Buzzkill, it will take a look at the crisis going on with the bees. This should be a blockbuster.

Another interesting article about the EPA’s misuse of conditional registration in eNews Park Forest.

A startling number of pesticides, nearly 65% of the more than 16,000 pesticides now on the market, were first approved by the process of “conditional registration,” a loophole in which EPA allows new pesticides on the market without the full range of legally mandated toxicity tests. NRDC accuses EPA of misusing the conditional registration process, and their assertions are by no means unfounded. The report cites EPA’s own 2004-2010 internal analysis that ultimately determined the agency had misused the provision “98 percent of the time.”

Beyond the agency’s scurrilous use of the conditional registration provision, NRDC makes the important point that, “EPA’s database is seriously disorganized.” The agency has no tracking system in place to keep a record of the data it has requested as part of the conditional registration process. EPA doesn’t follow up on receiving that data, and when the agency does receive the data there is no notice to the public providing an interpretation of the new information. In fact, EPA provides no public comment period before the agency decides whether to fully register a conditional pesticide.

NRDC explains, “The lack of both tracking and public engagement makes it impossible to know: 1) if the requested studies were submitted in a timely manner; 2) whether the submitted studies were reliably conducted; 3) if the EPA’s conclusions concerning safety were well-founded; and 4) if the EPA should have altered its regulatory decision for any of those pesticides.”

Clothianidin has been a major issue ever since we discovered the flawed Cutler-Dupree Life Cycle Study in 2009. This led to the rejection of the study upon review and the infamous “Leaked Memo.” Abuse of the Conditional Registration category is one of the charges raised in the suit filed last week by beekeepers and environmental groups.

In USA Today, Study: Two-thirds of pesticides get flawed epa approval.

In 1978, Congress gave the EPA authority to issue approvals on a conditional basis — often for a period of time while initial or additional testing occurs — for pesticides needed to address public health emergencies. It intended for the agency to use this authority sparingly.

The EPA says that before granting a conditional registration, it must still determine that a pesticide’s use would not significantly increase the risk of “unreasonable adverse effects” on the environment during the time needed to obtain the necessary data.

“It’s kind of a black hole. … We don’t know what percentage of pesticides were tested”before approval, Wu says, arguing the EPA’s database is disorganized and lacks transparency. The NRDC calls on the EPA to review all conditionally approved pesticides to ensure their safety and to make submitted data accessible for public review.

In the EPA’s statement Wednesday, the agency said, “We will continue to work on improving record-keeping and have developed a plan to update the IT (information technology) systems to address that need.”

Wu is skeptical of the EPA’s comments about pesticide safety or its plans to improve its database. She says, “It’s like saying, ‘We really messed up, but trust us, everything’s fine now.'”

The Courthouse News Service reports: EPA Blamed for Honeybee Colony Collapse Disorder.

The environmental groups and beekeepers seek declaratory and injunctive relief for EPA violations of the Endangered Species Act, Administrative Procedure Act and FIFRA. They want the court to vacate the agency’s conditional approvals of products containing clothianidin and thiamethoxam and an immediate suspension of their use …

The agency (EPA) estimates it will make its final decision on the poisons’ conditional registrations in 2018 – 15 years after receiving the applications and issuing conditional approvals.

This is not the first time the EPA has faced criticism for its conditional approval of clothianidin. In 2008, the National Resources Defense Council demanded the agency produce records on to its permit to Bayer.