The EPA takes aim at one of the industry’s most popular pesticides.
By Jodi Dorsch and Dan Moreland
Like a family member with a life-threatening illness, the pest control industry has been standing vigil over Dursban insecticide for the past five years as environmentalists and government officials have gradually – but relentlessly – chipped away at the health of one of the industry’s most popular pesticides. While the product will continue to be used in one form or another by PCOs until 2005 (and perhaps beyond), EPA Administrator Carol Browner effectively signed its death notice for most structural uses at a standing-room-only press conference at EPA headquarters on June 8.
In making the announcement, Browner said the joint agreement between EPA and Dow AgroSciences, as well as the five other registrants of chlorpyrifos, was a "major step" in protecting Americans from the health risks posed by pesticides. "This action comes after completing the most extensive scientific review of the potential hazards from a pesticide ever conducted," she said. "This action is good news for the protection of our country’s public health. It is good news for the environment. And it is particularly good news for children, who are among the most vulnerable to the risks posed by pesticides."
It is not good news, however, for the structural pest control industry. "I don’t know if anyone got hurt much worse than us, unless it’s the lawn care people," says Bob Rosenberg, director of government affairs for the National Pest Management Association. "Dow got dealt a bad hand on this one, but they handled it about as well as anyone could have given the circumstances."
"It once again proves that science is not a true criteria for regulatory action," says Tom Evans, president of Southern Mill Creek Products of Ohio, a well-known product distributor. "Dow has been a very good steward of the industry, but that didn’t matter to the EPA."
What did matter to the EPA was reducing the residential risks of chlorpyrifos, one of the most widely used insecticides in the United States and a longtime target of environmental activists. "We steadfastly believe in the safety of chlorpyrifos," said Tim Maniscalo, manager of Government and Public Affairs for Dow AgroSciences, Indianapolis, Ind. "However, federal laws governing pesticides changed dramatically with the passing of the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) in 1996. In its ongoing implementation of FQPA, the EPA has demonstrated that it intends to apply standards far more restrictive than those historically established by the environmental community and accepted by the EPA and other regulatory bodies around the world."
As a result, Maniscalo said, "In recent months, it became increasingly clear that EPA’s evaluation of chlorpyrifos products might result in eliminating certain chlorpyrifos use patterns. Despite enormous efforts by Dow AgroSciences and many others, it became evident that further efforts would not change EPA’s position on critical science policies. We found that continued efforts to retain certain uses of chlorpyrifos no longer made business sense in the current regulatory environment. Under these circumstances, we had to make some very difficult choices."
The by-product of those "choices" was a comprehensive agreement between EPA and the six registrants of chlorpyrifos that eliminated virtually all home and garden uses of the popular pesticide. Key elements of the agreement included:
• Chlorpyrifos registrants agreed to voluntarily cancel most in-and-around-the-home uses of chlorpyrifos in the United States, including use of the product as a full-barrier termiticide treatment in existing structures (post-construction). Use of products affected by the agreement will be allowed until existing stocks are depleted.
• Use of chlorpyrifos in the United States as a termiticide for spot and local treatments will be allowed until Dec. 31, 2002. Chlorpyrifos will remain available in the United States for use as a termiticide for new construction (pre-treatments) until Dec. 31, 2005. This date may be extended, however, based on the results of an exposure study specific to this application.
• Retail sale of chlorpyrifos products in the United States will be allowed until Dec. 31, 2001.
• The agreement is specific to the U.S. sale and use of chlorpyrifos.
• Under the agreement, chlorpyrifos will still be available in the United States for most current uses against pests on crops and for various non-crop, non-residential professional uses (i.e., golf courses).
WHY VOLUNTARILY CANCEL? In the days following the press conference announcing the controversial agreement, many PCOs openly questioned why Dow AgroSciences would agree to voluntarily cancel so many structural uses of its flagship product. After all, the Dursban product line represents millions of dollars in business. Given the political nature of the debate, however, Dow officials maintain they had little choice.
"Regardless of which option we took, we thought we were still going to lose the uses inside and around the home because of EPA’s persistent concerns about residential exposure, especially as it related to their desire to eliminate any exposure to children," said Reid Sprenkel, general manager, Professional Pest Management Business. "This definitely was a big ticket item for EPA and the Clinton/Gore Administration. I believe they wanted to be able to demonstrate that they could take severe action against a leading household pesticide."
And what better target than Dursban, one of the most widely used pesticides in the world. Still, armed with a $100 million data package that many considered bullet-proof just a few years ago, Dow executives remained confident they could limit the damage to their flagship product. That is, until about 60 days before the June 8 announcement when the tide began to turn and the EPA started sending signals that it planned to impose an additional 10x safety factor on the compound, a step they said was necessary to protect America’s children.
"That put us at a 1,000-fold safety factor and that’s when it became apparent to us we weren’t going to be able to make it," Maniscalo said. "It was also about that time that it became painfully apparent to us that there was a political agenda that was getting mixed in with FQPA and the risk assessment process. It’s almost as if every time we went back to the Agency with more data, they raised the hurdle for us to cross."
When combined with the EPA’s previous decision not to accept human testing data, Dow officials realized the sun was setting on Dursban’s use as a household insecticide. "These were major areas we believed the data supported continued use and that we felt very good about in terms of our science," Maniscalo said. "However, in the end, EPA took the path that helped them achieve their desired result."
WHAT NEXT? With pressure from EPA and the environmental community building, Dow executives met in early May to decide their next move. Increasingly, they felt as if they were being held hostage by the Agency. As a result of the broad regulatory discretion provided by FQPA, "EPA had all the control," Sprenkel observed.
At this point, Dow AgroSciences had a choice. "We could continue to fight hard and dig in our heels and risk cancellation of the entire chemical or we could demonstrate cooperation and sacrifice uses addressing areas of specific interest to them," Sprenkel said. "We had to weigh what made good business sense with the ultimate implications of any particular course of action."
Eventually deciding that discretion was the better part of valor, Dow executives began taking a critical look at the Dursban product line, examining labels, evaluating use patterns and determining what types of applications represented the greatest exposure risk to the public, particularly children. Armed with a negotiating strategy, they traveled to Washington, D.C. in late May committed to preserving "any and all uses that we could," according to Maniscalo.
With the clock ticking and pressure building, Dow AgroSciences representatives, as well as the other registrants, met with EPA officials to hammer out a final agreement. "It was up to the final hours before we actually got to the point of agreeing to the details of which uses would be included in a voluntary cancellation, which ones would require further mitigation, and which ones would be allowed," Sprenkel said. After several marathon negotiating sessions, the parties reached an understanding and on June 8 Carol Browner went before the American public to announce the agreement, stating that the EPA action represented "another significant step in safeguarding the health of our children."
THE FALLOUT. Despite the severity of the restrictions, PCOs appear to be taking a "wait and see" attitude about the agreement. While distributors are fielding lots of questions about chlorpyrifos, they’re not witnessing a dramatic shift in Dursban business, at least not at the moment. "PCOs are certainly taking notice, but I’m not noticing any mass panic," says Pat Callahan, executive vice-president of SPECKOZ, which represents nine independent distributors throughout the United States (see related story on page 50). What many PCOs and other industry observers are concerned about is the liability implications of the re-cent EPA action.
"In light of the publicity and the raising of ‘a red flag’ around this product, the perceived liability has increased dramatically since the announcement," said Michael Weisburger, president of B.&D.A. Weisburger, an industry insurance broker based in White Plains, N.Y. However, "as long as a PCO is following the guidelines in the agreement, following the label on the product, and meeting all state and federal rules for the use of the product, he or she should not have any more liability, per se, then they had before."
Greg Crosslin, a managing partner in the law firm Crosslin, Slaten & O’Connor, Montgomery, Ala., is less optimistic. "While chlorpyrifos has been determined to be a safe and efficient termiticide when used properly, we all are aware of the litigation-prone society we are in and are obviously concerned about lawsuits, frivolous or otherwise. We have been advising our clients to totally discontinue the use of chlorpyrifos products immediately if at all possible."
While Dow AgroSciences admits there may be an increase in the number of claims relating to the use of chlorpyrifos as a result of the recent agreement, the company "remains convinced of the safety of chlorpyrifos products for all labeled uses and is committed to their legal defense," Sprenkel said. "We will continue to feverishly defend Dursban for past, current and continuous uses." If pest management professionals follow the appropriate product stewardship practices, "there won’t be a problem," he said.
Sprenkel added that EPA itself stated on June 8 that the "use of these products according to label directions does not pose an imminent hazard" and "acute and short-term aggregate risks are not a concern."
THE FUTURE. So what does the future hold for the pest control industry in the wake of the Dursban announcement? No one knows for sure, but pesticide manufacturers are clearly nervous. After all, if Dow AgroSciences — with all its financial clout and technical resources — is vulnerable, no chemical manufacturer is safe.
"The key is not knowing how or what type of information is most important for the Agency to makes its risk assessment calculations," said John Wright, director of Global Research and Development for FMC Corporation’s Specialty Products Business. "How do we generate that data, and if we do generate it, how are we sure that the Agency will review it?" No one knows the answer to that question, but they better find out ... and fast.
"This is the first major PCO compound to come through the FQPA process," observes Bob Rosenberg. "And nothing we’ve seen thus far would give us reason for much optimism about the reassessment of pyrethroids, the next batch of compounds to be evaluated in 2002. We can only hope that before that happens, EPA will develop the science and generate the data to ensure PCO products are treated responsibly and fairly."
The authors are editor and publisher, respectively, of PCT magazine.
DATELINE DURSBAN: The History of Chlorpyrifos
1947
FIFRA passed.1965
First registration of chlorpyrifos for use on turfgrass.1967
First indoor use of chlorpyrifos approved.1974
First crop registration of chlorpyrifos.1976
First food-handling registration of chlorpyrifos.1981
First termiticide registration of chlorpyrifos.1984
Registration standard for chlorpyrifos issued by the EPA.1985
Dursban 50W insecticide registered.1988
FIFRA amended. Accelerated reregistration schedule mandated.1989
Chlorpyrifos reregistration standard issued by EPA.1991
Reregistration data call-in for chlorpyrifos issued by EPA.1994
Dursban Pro insecticide registered.1996
Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) passed by Congress.1997
Dow AgroSciences and EPA reach agreement on a 10-point program to reduce the risks associated with chlorpyrifos; company voluntarily withdraws indoor broadcast flea control and indoor total release fogger uses of chlorpyrifos.1999
Environmental Working Group releases Overexposed: Organophosphate Insecticides in Children’s Food.2000
Under pressure from the EPA, the six registrants of chlorpyrifos agree to voluntarily cancel most in-and-around-the-home uses of the popular insecticide.