{"id":37225,"date":"2024-12-13T00:01:31","date_gmt":"2024-12-13T05:01:31","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/beyondpesticides.org\/dailynewsblog\/?p=37225"},"modified":"2024-12-13T08:45:57","modified_gmt":"2024-12-13T13:45:57","slug":"epas-registration-of-herbicide-under-new-framework-puts-endangered-species-at-elevated-risk-advocates-say","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/beyondpesticides.org\/dailynewsblog\/2024\/12\/epas-registration-of-herbicide-under-new-framework-puts-endangered-species-at-elevated-risk-advocates-say\/","title":{"rendered":"EPA\u2019s Registration of Herbicide under New Framework Puts Endangered Species at Elevated Risk, Advocates Say"},"content":{"rendered":"

(Beyond Pesticides<\/em>, December 13, 2024) In October, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approved<\/a><\/span> the registration<\/a><\/span> applications of BASF Corporation and Mitsui Chemicals Crop & Life Solutions, Inc. for the use of different formulations of the L-isomer of glufosinate<\/a><\/span> (also known as \u201cL-glufosinate\u201d and \u201cglufosinate-P\u201d) as new active herbicidal ingredients. This decision marks one of the first times that EPA has employed its new Herbicide \u00a0Strategy\u00a0Framework<\/a><\/span> to determine the level of mitigation necessary to protect listed species and critical habitat under the Endangered Species Act<\/em><\/a><\/span> (ESA). Glufosinate<\/a><\/span> is an organophosphate, with known<\/a> <\/span>neurotoxic, reproductive\/developmental effects, toxic to aquatic life, and mobile in soils (see Beyond Pesticides Gateway<\/a><\/span>). Scientists have found<\/span><\/a> that formulated glufosinate is generally more toxic to aquatic and terrestrial animals than the technical grade active ingredient.<\/p>\n

Manufacturers are introducing newer glufosinate<\/a><\/span> products as alternatives for glyphosate-based herbicides, like Bayer\/Monsanto\u2019s \u2018Roundup\u2019<\/span><\/a><\/span> and dicamba<\/a><\/span>. The Center for Biological Diversity notes<\/span><\/a> in comments<\/a> <\/span>submitted to EPA on this decision, \u201cL-glufosinate has the potential to be used on tens of millions acres of land every year given the crops EPA has proposed to register it on. The scale of potential use is far above most new active ingredients.\u201d<\/p>\n

This first significant application of the Framework demonstrates, according to advocates, that the herbicide registration process remains insufficient to protect endangered species, public health, the environment, and biodiversity. As advocates, as well as Beyond Pesticides, have\u00a0observed<\/a><\/span>, the agency presupposes that farmers must use toxic chemicals, an assumption that clouds and undermines the regulatory process, trapping farmers on a toxic pesticide treadmill.\u00a0Fundamental change requires EPA\u2014in every pesticide registration and registration review\u2014to examine whether there are practices that can eliminate harm, not substitute one toxic conventional pesticide for another.<\/p>\n

Glufosinate-P<\/a><\/span> is an enriched isomer of glufosinate, a broad-spectrum herbicide registered in the U.S. that targets glutamine synthetase to inhibit photosynthesis and poison plants. While the currently registered active ingredient glufosinate contains both D- and L-isomers, only the L-isomer (glufosinate-P) is herbicidally active. Two forms\u2014glufosinate-P and its ammonium salt, glufosinate-P-ammonium\u2014are being registered as functionally equivalent, and EPA states<\/a><\/span>, \u201cGlufosinate-P-ammonium is the ammonium salt of glufosinate-P and shares all the herbicidal properties for glufosinate-P,” as mentioned in the document<\/a><\/span> entitled Memorandum Supporting Final Decision to Approve Registration for the New Active Ingredient Isomer, Glufosinate-P (Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OPP-2020-0533). Both are nonselective, postemergence contact herbicides. To align<\/a><\/span> with the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) naming conventions, EPA is establishing tolerances for glufosinate-P, the ISO standard name for L-glufosinate-free acid.\u00a0<\/p>\n

For years, EPA failed to comply with ESA by not accounting for impacts to threatened and endangered species (\u201clisted species<\/a>\u201d<\/span>) when approving pesticide usage<\/a> <\/span>under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) (see here<\/a>, here<\/a><\/span> and here<\/a><\/span>). Prior to the Herbicide Strategy Framework, EPA leveraged a chemical-by-chemical, species-by-species approach to meet its ESA obligations: an extremely slow process resulting in less than a five percent completion rate. The reactivity found EPA responding to legal challenges rather than proactively addressing endangered species concerns, and by early 2021 the agency faced nearly two dozen lawsuits<\/span><\/a> covering thousands of pesticide products directly related to this failure<\/a>.<\/span> \u00a0As a result, the agency acknowledged its failure to properly assess impacts on threatened and endangered species and, in the following year, released a work plan<\/a><\/span> to guide program improvements, including strategies for EPA\u2019s pesticide program to meet its ESA obligations. In August 2024, EPA published the Final Draft of its new Herbicide Strategy Framework<\/a><\/span> to \u201cassess potential impacts and identify mitigations to reduce potential population-level impacts to listed species from the use of agricultural herbicides.\u201d<\/p>\n

The agency\u2019s Herbicide Strategy Framework utilizes a three-step decision-making process for determining appropriate mitigation measures<\/span><\/a>:<\/span><\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Determine the potential for population-level impacts to listed species as \u201cnot likely,\u201d \u201clow,\u201d \u201cmedium,\u201d or \u201chigh,\u201d based on environmental fate and toxicity data submitted by registrants and EPA\u2019s standard models.<\/li>\n
  2. Identify required mitigation requirements to reduce drift and runoff to non-target species to reduce exposure levels for listed species: three points of mitigation for \u201clow\u201d impacts, six points for \u201cmedium impacts,\u201d and nine points for \u201chigh\u201d impacts.<\/li>\n
  3. Identify where geographically the mitigation measures identified in Step 2 will apply (i.e., some mitigation measures will be required everywhere while others may only be applied in specific geographic regions).<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    In a notable change from an earlier draft<\/a><\/span> of the Framework, EPA now allows<\/a><\/span> pesticide applicators to reduce buffer zones around herbicide applications by implementing additional measures to control spray drift. The mitigation options vary based on the method of application and include using specialized equipment, lowering the application rate, adding physical barriers like windbreaks or hedgerows, adjusting the treated area\u2019s width, and considering relative humidity. Each measure has an assigned percentage value by which the buffer can be reduced. For example, a 100-foot buffer could be lowered to 80 feet if a mitigation measure with a 20% reduction is applied.<\/p>\n

    According<\/a> <\/span>to EPA Deputy Assistant Administrator for Pesticide Programs for the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention Jake Li, \u201cBy identifying protections earlier in the pesticide review process, we are far more efficiently protecting listed species from the millions of pounds of herbicides applied each year and reducing burdensome uncertainty for the farmers that use them.\u201d However, EPA also notes that the strategy itself does not impose immediate requirements or restrictions on pesticide use. Instead, it ‘requires\u2019 pesticide users to research and consider implementing possible and various mitigation options, depending on their geographical location and guidance available online, linked to pesticide labels.<\/p>\n

    EPA\u2019s decision on glufosinate employs the Herbicide Strategy Framework to identify mitigation measures for potential impacts on endangered species\u2014before completing the required formal consultation<\/a><\/span> with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) or the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). This approach aims to streamline the process by addressing likely impacts in advance. However, advocates argue<\/a><\/span> that this framework will certainly undermine ESA protections, as it relies on assumptions about species impacts without fully consulting USFWS and NMFS. They are concerned that the EPA\u2019s preliminary mitigation measures may not fully address or protect endangered species due to the limited input from these agencies before the final consultation is complete.<\/p>\n

    Glufosinate mitigation requirements<\/em><\/p>\n

    EPA\u2019s registration<\/span><\/a> decision<\/a><\/span> on glufosinate-P requires \u201cthe implementation of the following mitigation measures to address on- and off-field effects to nontarget species, including listed species:<\/p>\n