Dow On The Defensive

September 9 was the day when specialty pesticide manufacturers realized the frightening reality of the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) and one manufacturer was forced to call for help from its products’ end users.

This was the day when Dow AgroSciences, Indianapolis, Ind., announced the results of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) preliminary reassessment of chlorpyrifos, the active ingredient in its popular insecticide Dursban. Chlorpyrifos was reevaluated during the EPA’s examination of all organophosphate products.

The EPA proposal included significant reductions in the acceptable exposure levels for chlorpyrifos, which now threatens currently approved label uses for the product, such as applications inside food preparation establishments by PCOs and turf applications by lawn care operators.

Even before the release of this reassessment — the first significant reassessment for the pest control/lawn care industry — pesticide manufacturers have been openly critical of EPA due to what they believe is the Agency’s non-scientific approach to reevaluating these products. (See "EPA Rules on FQPA," September 1999 PCT.) The jeopardy now facing Dursban only inflamed manufacturers’ criticism.

"This is complete madness," said Tim Maniscalo, manager for government and public affairs for Dow AgroSciences. "The EPA doesn’t have a good handle on how to assess non-food uses of these products, and there’s not much science out there to back them up."

In the reassessment of chlorpyrifos, Maniscalo explained that EPA disregarded the research Dow AgroSciences conducted involving about 10 humans in favor of its own research involving three dogs. In essence, pest control operators and lawn care operators may lose a valued product because of how three dogs reacted to it in testing.

"The EPA cited studies with no known similarities to standard organophosphate exposures," added Maniscalo.

"For example, the EPA determined that when pest control operators perform a crack and crevice treatment in a restaurant, the chlorpyrifos somehow magically travels into the drinking water served by that restaurant and accounts for 790% of the dietary risk of chlorpyrifos," explained Maniscalo. "That’s absolutely ridiculous."

In referring to the 790% of the dietary risk, Maniscalo referred to the controversial "risk cup." The risk cup represents the new measurement standard for pesticides under FQPA and is equivalent to 1/100th of the maximum amount of a product that can be applied without creating any observable effect. The risk cup concept means that the public exposures to a product via all of its currently labeled uses will be measured collectively and must still fall beneath the acceptable dietary exposure.

In this case, if EPA won’t alter its reassessment, Dow AgroSciences may be forced to remove all pest control/lawn care uses from the Dursban label in order to continue selling the product into the much larger agricultural market.

CALL TO ARMS. As of press time, EPA was scheduled to react to Dow AgroSciences’ response to the preliminary reassessment in the first week of October, at which time the Agency was supposed to have released its proposal for Dursban’s re-registration and begin a 90-day public comment period. A final ruling on the product could come from the EPA as early as July 2000.

Maniscalo and Dan Bouck, communications manager for Dow AgroSciences, repeatedly emphasized the importance of pest control operators and lawn care operators expressing their support for Dursban to the EPA via letters or the Internet.

"What end users of the product need to do is tell the EPA why they use Dursban," Bouck said. "The EPA needs to see the benefits of this product to end users’ businesses."

"The problem with the EPA reassessment procedure is that it categorizes risk only and doesn’t account at all for a product’s benefits," Maniscalo said. Under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act of 1972, which was the legislation governing pesticide use until FQPA passed in 1996, the risk and benefit of a product were weighed against each other.

"Not measuring the benefits of a product makes revoking tolerances much easier for the EPA," he added. "This is why end users and the manufacturers must argue about the benefits of these products to keep them on the market.

"End users have to establish a place for themselves at the negotiating table for this issue, and that has to be done now through work by the end users and their associations," Maniscalo said. "Clearly, the EPA doesn’t understand the lawn care/pest control care industry, so lawn care/pest control operators need to take a stand here and point out that the EPA doesn’t understand the products they use or how they use them."

While Dow AgroSciences continues to work with third-party scientists to produce data in support of chlorpyrifos, Maniscalo and Bouck claim end users of the product will have the greatest influence in the EPA’s decision.

"FQPA shifted the registration process from a scientifically based decision to a more politically based decision," Bouck said, so PCOs must make sure their voices are heard.

While this particular issues involves one product from one manufacturer, Maniscalo and Bouck warned pest control/lawn care operators and other manufacturers to prepare for the need for similar battles over other products in the coming years.

"This is not just Dow AgroSciences vs. the EPA or environmentalists vs. industry," observed Bouck. "This reassessment represents an indictment of the specialty pesticide industry."

"Chlorpyrifos is simply one of the first common pesticides to go through this process," Maniscalo said. "This industry needs to realize that this is going to be a way of life for the next five to 10 years, and we need to pay attention every time a product that is important to us goes through the reassessment process."

WHERE TO WRITE