[Breaking News] EPA issues rodenticide ruling

How will EPA's reregistration of rodenticides impact PCOs?

The end result of EPA’s reregistration of the rodenticide cluster, a process that has taken more than 10 years and included input from a variety of stakeholders, appears to be favorable for the pest control industry.

On May 29, EPA enacted several important measures regarding rodenticides, including limiting the sale of second-generation anticoagulants and requiring that consumer products be sold in tamper-resistant bait stations.

The decision ends EPA’s 10-plus-year process for reregistering the rodenticide cluster, which includes: brodifacoum; bromadiolone; bromethalin; chlorophacinone; cholecalciferol; difenacoum; difethialone; diphacinone; warfarin; and zinc phosphide.

NPMA Senior Vice President Bob Rosenberg told PCT that, for the most part, PCOs will be unaffected by EPA’s decision. “We think EPA wrestled with some tough decisions and came down with the right decisions. We think the agency recognized the potential threat the products posed, but also recognized the benefits they provide and they came up with a very livable decision to address all of that. We think EPA addressed legitimate issues in a way that allows PCOs to use products in a way that is safe, effective and affordable.”

The new measures relating to second-generation anticoagulant products for professional applicators include:

  • Products must contain at least 16 pounds of bait.
  • Bait stations are required for all outdoor, above-ground placements of second-generation anticoagulants.
  • Bait stations are required indoors if exposure to children, pets, or non-target animals is possible.
  • Distribution to and sales in “consumer” stores including grocery stores, drug stores, hardware stores and club stores will be prohibited.

Rosenberg clarified the 16-pound requirement. He said manufacturers will be allowed to subdivide the 16-pound packaging into smaller quantities (e.g., four 4-pound packages) that each must bear the same labeling and markings, but cannot be resold. In other words, PCOs will need to purchase rodenticides in 16-pound quantities, but “it’s not going to be a case where every technician is carrying around a bucket with 16 pounds of rodenticides in it,” Rosenberg said.

A GRUELING PROCESS. This most recent EPA decision dates back to the agency’s Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) of the rodenticide cluster that started in September 1998. At that time, EPA decided it needed to impose rodenticide regulations in order to minimize the potential for exposure to children and non-target wildlife. As part of the RED, EPA formed a Rodenticide Stakeholder Working (RSW) group, which included pest control industry representatives, medical doctors, several government agencies, CDC representatives, public health officials, as well as environmental groups.

Throughout this process, the future of rodenticides remained cloudy. For example, at one point EPA approved the use of rodenticides as long as manufacturers added an indicator dye and bittering agent. In 2001, that requirement was rescinded after EPA accepted a federal advisory committee’s conclusion that the risk of children’s exposure to rodenticides was minimal and that bittering agents and indicator dyes should not be required because of technical issues associated with this technology. However, in 2004, a pair of environmental groups — West Harlem Environmental Action and the Natural Resources Defense Council — filed suits, asking a federal judge to reinstate the bittering agent requirement. Ultimately, neither of these requirements was included in EPA’s final decision with regards to the reregistration of rodenticides.

Worse yet, in 2005 California lawmakers became tired of waiting for an EPA decision and introduced legislation that would have banned all second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides. This action could have led to other states taking similar actions. “A couple years ago we thought no second-generation anticoagulants would be available to PCOs or anyone else. We expected significant risk mitigation with respect to children’s issues,” said Rosenberg. “I think two years ago we were worried about losing rodenticides, or having so many use restrictions in place that it would have been impractical to use rodenticides in a lot of circumstances.”

EPA’s May 29 decision closely follows the agency’s January 2007 Federal Register notice in which it proposed measures to reduce exposures and risks associated with the rodenticide cluster. At that time, EPA’s proposed risk mitigation measures were: 1) All second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides would be classified as Restricted Use Pesticides (RUPs); 2) All rodenticide bait products available for sale to consumers would be marketed only in tamper-resistant bait stations with solid bait blocks; and 3) Additional restrictions and labeling improvements would be required.

The biggest difference is that EPA’s final decision did not re-classify second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides as Restricted Use Pesticides (RUPs).

NON-PROFESSIONAL MARKETS. The other groups impacted by EPA’s decision are the consumer and agriculture markets. The consumer market did not fare as well. New measures relating to “consumer size” products (products containing less than or equal to 1 pound of bait) include:

  • Products may not contain brodifacoum, difethialone, bromadiolone, or difenacoum (the second-generation anticoagulants).
  • Loose bait forms such as pellets are prohibited.
  • Each retail unit must include a pre-loaded bait station.
  • Bait refills may be sold with pre-loaded bait stations in a single retail unit. 

Consumer rodenticide manufacturers presented a series of arguments against these measures, including their belief that first-generation rodenticides were not as effective as second-generation products, and that the added costs for the bait station requirement and repackaging would make them economically unviable for consumers.

Again, ultimately, EPA was consistent with its January 2007 Federal Register notice. Following the January 2007 decision, PCT spoke with Kelly Sherman, team leader, Special Review and Reregistration Division in the Office of Pesticide Programs, EPA (see “What’s Next,” PCT magazine, March 2007).

Sherman said that the consumer market is where most of the risk is coming from, both in terms of children’s exposure and environmental impact. “The second-generation anticoagulants are much more toxic and more persistent than the other anticoagulants. A homeowner doesn’t need that much strength,” Sherman said. “They’re using a machine gun when they need a hand gun. It’s unreasonably risky for somebody with a few mice in their home to use second-generation anticoagulants, because they are much more toxic and much more persistent and end up causing exposure to wildlife.”

Less affected by the decision was the agriculture market. The new measures relating to second-generation anticoagulant products for use around buildings included:

  • Products must contain at least eight pounds of bait.
  • Bait stations are required for all outdoor, above-ground placements of second-generation anticoagulant products.
  • Bait stations are required indoors if exposure to children, pets, or non-target animals is possible.
  • Product labels must indicate that the product is for use only in and around agricultural buildings and that use in residential use sites is prohibited.
  • Distribution to and sales in “consumer” stores including grocery stores, drug stores, hardware stores and club stores will be prohibited.

CONCLUSION. While the pest control industry always is anxious anytime its tools are threatened, the outcome of EPA’s reregistration of rodenticides looks positive for PCOs. One thing is for certain: The pest control industry’s voice was heard on this issue and the industry’s proven track record in responsibly and effectively using rodenticides was instrumental in EPA’s decision.

As NPMA Director of Government Affairs Gene Harrington said, “EPA has been clearly very complimentary of professional applicators and their use of rodenticides in the documents they released as a part of this decision. They make it very clear that rodenticides should be used by professional applicators.”

The author is managing editor of PCT and Internet editor of PCT Online.

What are manufacturers saying?

The stakeholder group with the most at stake financially is rodenticide manufacturers. EPA’s rodenticide decision will result in significant changes in the way they do business, especially in the consumer market. Here’s what representatives from major rodenticide manufacturers had to say:

Steve Levy, CEO of Bell Laboratories
“We think that the decision to not make second-generation actives restricted use was prudent and should prove beneficial to PCOs from both an accessibility and administrative standpoint. Having been involved in the discussions with the EPA, and through the sound recommendations that we provided, we were not surprised by the final measures, and believe that they should accomplish the stated goals.” 

Ray Finke, Business Director of Liphatech’s Pest Management Division
“The effect on PCOs in the short-term should be minimal. There is a possibility they will see greater demand for their services due to less than satisfactory results of first-generation products in the do-it-yourself segment. We will have to wait and see what the long-term impacts may be.”

Pat Willenbrock, Senior Marketing Manager with Syngenta’s Professional Pest Management Business
“Syngenta recognizes that the EPA had to make a very difficult regulatory decision based on the risks that were perceived to exist from exposure to second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides. This ruling will make the most effective rodent control products (second-generation anticoagulants) unavailable to the segment of the population that needs them most and can least afford to use professional pest management, for example residents of public housing. As these products are phased out of consumer use, it will be important for PMPs and the owners and managers of various properties to work together to protect the health and well-being of the residents.”

Craig Velte, National Sales Manager, J.T. Eaton
“We think this is a good opportunity for the pest control industry to once again establish the pest control operator as a valued professional consultant.”

June 2008
Explore the June 2008 Issue

Check out more from this issue and find your next story to read.