09
Mar
EPA Asked to Deny Proposal To Use a New Not-Registered PFAS Pesticide under “Emergency” Waiver
(Beyond Pesticides, March 9, 2026) Policy and toxicology are slated to collide as the U.S. Environmental Protection (EPA) considers allowing the use of a PFAS pesticide by invoking an emergency waiver process in federal pesticide law. If authorized, EPA’s decision will permit the use of an unregistered pesticide under an emergency waiver provision—in this case an emergency caused by weed resistance to weed killers (herbicides) on the market. EPA is accepting public comments until March 16, 11:59pm EDT. Beyond Pesticides is urging the public to object to EPA approval by writing to EPA and Congress stating that herbicide resistance is not an emergency and PFAS chemicals must not be broadcast in the environment.
The pesticide that is being requested for use is a new not yet registered, herbicide tetflupyrolimet (TFP), which is a PFAS chemical according to the definition of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). The fact that the chemical is not registered by EPA means that it has not been reviewed in accordance with all the safety assessments reviewed under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).
The states applying for the exemptions under Section 18 of FIFRA—Missouri and Arkansas—claim that there is an emergency requiring the use of TFP because barnyardgrass is resistant to the herbicides currently allowed to be used in rice.
Among other issues, the requirements in EPA regulations for emergency exemptions require that—in addition to the lack of effective available pesticides—the situation must be “urgent” and “non-routine,” and, at the same time, “[n]o economically or environmentally feasible alternative practices which provide adequate control are available.” Most plant scientists say and the vast body of scientific literature finds that, according to a study in the Journal of Biological Chemistry, the “use of synthetic herbicides over the past 70 years has imposed strong and widespread selection pressure, leading to the evolution of herbicide resistance in hundreds of weed species.” It continues, “Both target-site resistance (TSR) and nontarget-site resistance (NTSR) mechanisms have evolved to most herbicide classes.” that plant resistance to herbicides is not an emergency, but a predictable outcome of the reliance on herbicides. Land managers know and the scientific literature is full
The emergency exemption applications from Arkansas and Missouri demonstrate the failure of herbicides to control barnyardgrass in rice. As regulators, land grant agricultural institutions, and land managers ignore the inevitable resistance “emergency,” organic rice production is successful—and commands a 56.1% price advantage over rice produced with chemical-intensive methods. Organic production productively and profitably uses a range of cultural, mechanical, and biological practices, as discussed in a literature review in the International Journal of Environment and Climate Change. In this context, ecological farming practitioners and advocates maintain that the proposed use does not meet the definition of an emergency.
A September 2018 report from EPA’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) identifies issues important to protecting health and the environment, including a tightening of the emergency exemption program. The EPA’s response to the report left many of these problems unresolved. ”Measures and Management Controls Needed to Improve EPA’s Pesticide Emergency Exemption Process” (Report No. 18-P-0281, September 25, 2018), finds that the agency’s practice of routinely granting “emergency” approval for pesticides through its Section 18 (of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, Rodenticide Act/FIFRA) program does not effectively address risks to human health or the environment.
After repeated use of toxic herbicides, including clomazone, quinclorac, propanil, acetolactate synthase inhibitors, and acetyl CoA carboxylase inhibitors, the states seeking the emergency pesticide use propose to pour yet another toxic chemical onto rice fields. According to the product label included in the applications, TFP poses hazards to surface water and groundwater: “This product may impact surface water quality due to runoff of rainwater. This is especially true for poorly draining soils and soils with shallow groundwater. This product is classified as having a high potential for reaching surface water via runoff for several months or more after application. . . This chemical may leach into groundwater if used in areas where soils are permeable, particularly where the water table is shallow.”
Furthermore, TFP is a PFAS chemical. PFAS chemicals have become the new DDT. Like DDT, PFAS are persistent, leading to the nickname “forever chemicals,” and they are highly toxic. Because of their toxicity and persistence, the agrichemical industry looks to these chemicals for new pesticides. Given the likelihood of water contamination, it is disturbing that drinking water health advisories issued by EPA show PFAS levels as low as .02 parts per trillion (ppt) have the potential to cause adverse health effects for public health.
EPA continues to ignore the widely accepted definition of PFAS, also known as “forever chemicals” given their persistence, which is supported by scientists and by OECD. EPA’s current definition is at odds with the prevalent scientific thinking of scientists worldwide who have challenged the agency’s position and its resulting risk assessments. The OECD definition should be used as a basis for risk assessments. Also of concern is that TFP, like many other PFAS, breaks down into trifluoroacetic acid (TFA), which threatens aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems as well as health through liver toxicity and “possible harmful impacts on the development of embryos in humans and mammals,” according to studies.
Beyond Pesticides is urging the public to object to EPA of the emergency exemption for approval of tetflupyrolimet (TFP) by writing to EPA, by March 16, 11:50pm EDT, and Congress stating that herbicide resistance is not an emergency and PFAS chemicals must not be broadcast in the environment. with the following comment:
Letter to members of Congress:
EPA is considering granting “emergency” exemptions for the use of the unregistered herbicide tetflupyrolimet (TFP), which is a PFAS chemical according to the definition of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). The states applying for the exemptions—Missouri and Arkansas—claim that there is an emergency requiring the use of TFP because barnyardgrass is resistant to the herbicides currently allowed to be used in rice.
Among other things, the requirements in EPA regulations for emergency exemptions require that—in addition to the lack of effective pesticides—the situation must be “urgent” and “non-routine,” and “[n]o economically or environmentally feasible alternative practices which provide adequate control are available.” Herbicide resistance is not an emergency, but a predictable outcome of reliance on herbicides. The applications from Arkansas and Missouri demonstrate the failure of herbicides to control barnyardgrass in rice. Yet organic rice production is successful—and commands a 56.1% price advantage over rice produced by chemically-intensive methods. Thus, this proposed use does not meet the definition of an emergency.
A September 2018 report from EPA’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) identified issues important to protecting health and the environment. The EPA’s response to the report left many of these problems unresolved. “Measures and Management Controls Needed to Improve EPA’s Pesticide Emergency Exemption Process” (Report No. 18-P-0281, September 25, 2018), finds that the agency’s practice of routinely granting “emergency” approval for pesticides through its Section 18 program does not effectively address risks to human health or the environment. The process is still in need of improvement.
After repeated use of toxic herbicides, including clomazone, quinclorac, propanil, acetolactate synthase inhibitors, and acetyl CoA carboxylase inhibitors, these states propose to pour yet another toxic chemical onto rice fields. According to the product label included in the applications, TFP poses hazards to surface water and groundwater: “This product may impact surface water quality due to runoff of rainwater. This is especially true for poorly draining soils and soils with shallow ground water. This product is classified as having a high potential for reaching surface water via runoff for several months or more after application.” “This chemical may leach into groundwater if used in areas where soils are permeable, particularly where the water table is shallow.”
Furthermore, TFP is a PFAS chemical. PFAS chemicals have become the new DDT—miracle substances that share the less beneficial characteristics of DDT. Like DDT, PFAS are persistent, leading to the nickname “forever chemicals,” and they are highly toxic. Their toxicity has led the agrichemical industry to look to them for new pesticides. Given the likelihood of water contamination, it is disturbing that drinking water health advisories issued by EPA show PFAS levels as low as .02 parts per trillion (ppt) have the potential to cause adverse health effects for public health.
EPA continues to ignore the widely accepted definition of PFAS, also known as “forever chemicals,” that is supported by scientists and by OECD. EPA’s current definition is at odds with the prevalent scientific thinking of scientists worldwide who have challenged the agency’s position and resulting risk assessments. The OECD definition should be used as a basis for risk assessments. Also of concern is that TFP, like many other PFAS, breaks down into trifluoroacetic acid (TFA), which threatens aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems as well as health through liver toxicity and possible harmful impacts on the development of embryos in humans and mammals.
Please urge EPA to deny emergency exemptions for tetflupyrolimet and all PFAS pesticides, as defined by OECD.
Thank you
Suggested comment to EPA: (Comment period ends on March 16 at 11:59pm EDT.]
EPA is considering granting “emergency” exemptions for the use of the unregistered herbicide tetflupyrolimet (TFP), which is a PFAS chemical according to the definition of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). The states applying for the exemptions—Missouri and Arkansas—claim that there is an emergency requiring the use of TFP because barnyardgrass is resistant to the herbicides currently allowed to be used in rice.
Among other things, the requirements in EPA regulations for emergency exemptions require that—in addition to the lack of effective pesticides—the situation must be “urgent” and “non-routine,” and “[n]o economically or environmentally feasible alternative practices which provide adequate control are available.” Herbicide resistance is not an emergency, but a predictable outcome of reliance on herbicides. The applications from Arkansas and Missouri demonstrate the failure of herbicides to control barnyardgrass in rice. Yet organic rice production is successful—and commands a 56.1% price advantage over rice produced by chemically intensive methods. Thus, this proposed use does not meet the definition of an emergency.
A September 2018 report from EPA’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) identified issues important to protecting health and the environment. The EPA’s response to the report left many of these problems unresolved. “Measures and Management Controls Needed to Improve EPA’s Pesticide Emergency Exemption Process” (Report No. 18-P-0281, September 25, 2018), finds that the agency’s practice of routinely granting “emergency” approval for pesticides through its Section 18 program does not effectively address risks to human health or the environment. The process is still in need of improvement.
After repeated use of toxic herbicides, including clomazone, quinclorac, propanil, acetolactate synthase inhibitors, and acetyl CoA carboxylase inhibitors, these states propose to pour yet another toxic chemical onto rice fields. According to the product label included in the applications, TFP poses hazards to surface water and groundwater: “This product may impact surface water quality due to runoff of rainwater. This is especially true for poorly draining soils and soils with shallow groundwater. This product is classified as having a high potential for reaching surface water via runoff for several months or more after application.” “This chemical may leach into groundwater if used in areas where soils are permeable, particularly where the water table is shallow.”
Furthermore, TFP is a PFAS chemical. PFAS chemicals have become the new DDT—miracle substances that share the less beneficial characteristics of DDT. Like DDT, PFAS are persistent, leading to the nickname “forever chemicals,” and they are highly toxic. Their toxicity has led the agrichemical industry to look to them for new pesticides. Given the likelihood of water contamination, it is disturbing that drinking water health advisories issued by EPA show PFAS levels as low as .02 parts per trillion (ppt) have the potential to cause adverse health effects for public health.
EPA continues to ignore the widely accepted definition of PFAS, also known as “forever chemicals,” that is supported by scientists and by OECD. EPA’s current definition is at odds with the prevalent scientific thinking of scientists worldwide who have challenged the agency’s position and resulting risk assessments. The OECD definition should be used as a basis for risk assessments. Also of concern is that TFP, like many other PFAS, breaks down into trifluoroacetic acid (TFA), which threatens aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems as well as health through liver toxicity and possible harmful impacts on the development of embryos in humans and mammals.
Please deny the emergency exemptions for tetflupyrolimet and all PFAS pesticides, as defined by OECD.
