[Pollinator Update] Language Protecting Pollinators to Expand Beyond Neonic Labels

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency soon will announce new label language for “50 to 75 active ingredients” considered “acutely toxic to pollinators,” said Bob Rosenberg, chief executive officer, National Pest Management Association (NPMA). As of press time, Rosenberg said he was not sure which active ingredients were being targeted by the agency, but the action could affect how 1,500 to 1,600 products can be applied. The White House or EPA should announce the new label requirements as soon as Earth Day (April 22), he said.

In an email to members, Responsible Industry for a Sound Environment (RISE) said EPA wants the new labels ready for the 2016 agricultural growing season, but officials were unsure how the label changes will be implemented in the short time frame.

The agency says it realizes a one-size-fits-all labeling approach for all geographic areas won’t work so it’s encouraging states to develop their own pollinator protection plans. These plans will give applicators more flexibility; new labels may instruct applicators to use products in accordance with state plans. It’s in the “best interest of all states to have (pollinator protection) plans from a pesticide user’s perspective,” said Rosenberg, who encouraged state pest management associations to become involved in their development.

Some states already have pollinator protection plans, but most will begin crafting plans once the President’s Pollinator Health Task Force releases its findings and guidelines in coming weeks, Rosenberg said.

NPMA and RISE have worked closely with EPA and state regulator groups like the Association of American Pesticide Control Officials and the State FIFIRA Issues Research and Development Group to develop recommendations for state plans. They also participated in joint listening sessions with EPA and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, providing input on federal pollinator protection strategy.

NPMA has urged the government to recognize that most pesticide use patterns in structural pest control don’t affect pollinator health. RISE has focused on strategies for creating forage and habitat on managed lands.

The state pollinator protection plans and EPA’s new label language requirements are part of a “broad administrative effort to safeguard pollinators,” resulting from a presidential memorandum last June, said Rosenberg. The President’s Interagency Task Force on Pollinator Health includes more than 20 federal agencies.
 

Taking It Local.

Meanwhile, states and municipalities continue to discuss and, in some cases, enact laws and ordinances to ban or limit the use of neonicotinoids. Among them: Oregon, Arizona, Minnesota, Maryland and the province of Ontario, which plans to reduce the acreage planted with neonic-treated seeds by 80 percent within two years. Municipalities include Seattle; Boulder, Colo.; Encinitas, Calif.; and Montgomery County, Md.

“When you’re in a political fight the best thing you can have is engagement from local citizens,” who own businesses, pay taxes and vote in local elections, said Rosenberg. “We know we can win if given an opportunity to participate” in the discussion, he said. To help local groups do this, NPMA is providing support and online resources, which can be accessed at www.pollinatorfacts.org. (See related story below.) “We’ll be with them the whole way,” assured Rosenberg.

What pest management professionals achieved in Tucson is a “model for going forward,” he said. The Arizona city was considering a ban on neonicotinoids and PMPs “came out in force” and served as a “credible resource to the committee considering the resolution,” said Rosenberg. Their involvement helped “revise a really bad resolution” and retain structural uses of neonics, he said.
 

EPA: New Pesticide is “Safer for Bees”; Structural Pest Control Uses May be Announced Soon

Bayer says its North American Bee Center is designed to serve as a focal point for existing and future bee health initiatives, including research on flupyradifurone.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency registered a new insecticide, flupyradifurone, that is “safer for bees” and an alternative to pyrethroid, neonicotinoid, organophosphate and avermectin insecticides, reported the agency.

According to EPA, laboratory studies indicate flupyradifurone is “practically non-toxic to adult honeybees” with no adverse effect on bee colony performance or overwintering ability compared to untreated colonies. The active ingredient is registered for crops (citrus, cotton and potatoes) to protect against piercing/sucking insects. Flupyradifurone is manufactured by Bayer CropScience.

The new active soon may be available to pest management professionals. Bayer has profiled the fit for flupyradifurone with structural insect pests of interest, said Senior Principal Scientist Byron Reid. “We have a number of exciting opportunities to bring this product to the market to help PCOs continue their commitment to provide pest-free environments around residential and commercial properties and safeguard urban pollinators,” he said.

“We understand where (the active ingredient) fits; we just need to identify the right opportunity to strike, where the greatest need is,” said Reid.

Pollinator health is a major focus of Bayer. At its two Bee Care Centers, “people are actively working on a number of solutions to help agricultural producers and beekeepers happily coexist. Flupyradifurone is the latest example of that commitment,” said Reid.

According to a Bayer website, flupyradifurone is a butenolide insecticide with a distinct new chemistry and formulation concept. Like neonicotinoids, it is a systemic insecticide that acts on the target pests’ central nervous system.

EPA’s decision on flupyradifurone was one of the first to incorporate newly required bee studies and involved evaluating the largest number of bee-related studies ever for the registration of a new chemical, reported the agency. EPA reviewed 437 studies, including 38 different tests on bees to analyze the potential exposure and effects of flupyradifurone. These included evaluation of the sub- lethal effects of pesticides on all life stages of bees, as well as effects on colony health in field studies. The field studies examined pollinator-attractive crops while bees were actively foraging after the crops had been treated through various application methods (seed, soil and foliar) to demonstrate very high exposure.

Canada also is evaluating the insecticide for registration. Environmental groups in both countries are opposed to its registration.
 

Monarch Butterfly Being Reviewed for Endangered Species Status

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced in December that it will conduct a status review of the monarch butterfly under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The Service determined a petition from conservation groups and scientists to list a subspecies of monarch (Danaus plexippus plexippus) presents substantial information indicating the listing may be warranted.

The Service requested data on the insect’s biology, range, population trends, habitat and climate requirements, genetics, behavior, conservation measures and other factors through March 2. In December 2015 it will announce its decision on whether the listing is warranted.

Threats to the monarchs include habitat loss and mortality resulting from pesticide use, said the Service. Monarch populations have declined significantly in recent years.
 

New Pollinator Practices Offer PMP Guidance

NPMA approved pollinator best management practices (BMPs) at its Legislative Day on March 14 in Washington, D.C.

According to NPMA Technical Director Jim Fredericks, the “common sense set of recommendations” encourage practices that promote the health of honey bees and other pollinators and minimize their exposure to pesticides used around structures.

Chrysalis of a monarch butterfly hanging from a milkweed plant.

By adhering to the BMPs — even though “we know that structural pest management application patterns generally do not pose risks to pollinators” — professionals increase the likelihood of the guidelines being adopted into state pollinator protection plans, Fredericks said.

Complying with voluntary BMPs shows the industry’s commitment to stewardship, and PMPs who incorporate them into service protocols “highlight their proactive approach to pollinator protection” to clients and community, he added.

“BMPs are advisory language and NPMA understands that each environment, scenario and application is unique and that one size does not fit all,” said Fredericks, who reminded the language on insecticide labels supersedes all other recommendations.

The BMPs were developed by NPMA’s Technical and Public Policy Committees and reviewed by members of ASPCRO (Association of Structural Pest Control Regulatory Officials). View them at www.pollinatorfacts.org.

The author can be reached at anagro@giemedia.com.