EPA Now Seeking Aggregate Risk Pesticide Solution

<blockquote

>The following article ran in the April 1997 issue, when Pest Management Professional was Pest Control.

Outlining several new programs that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) now finds itself involved in, Daniel Barolo, director of the EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs, spoke at the National Pest Control Association’s recent Legislative Day.

During his presentation, Barolo points out the potential impact that the recently passed Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) could have on the pest control industry. He also discussed the recent agreement between the EPA and DowElanco regarding chlorphrifos (Dursban).

Looking at the FQPA, he says, “There is a Scientific Advisory Panel that has been established to which we bring evolving science issues. This panel now has the responsibility under the new act to consider aggregate risk. This is where the indoor issue becomes more important than it has in the past.

“In the past, we put dietary risks separate from assessing indoor risks and those were separate from water risks and lawn risks and on and on. The new statute, and we are still looking for a Congress person who has read it, now requires the EPA to look at aggregate risk in ways that make sense scientifically and practically. We have a long way to go to know exactly how we are going to do that,” Barolo continues.

“The aggregate risk side of the statute is driving new concerns about what can or can’t be contained on the label,” he says. “In fact, it is creating all sorts of dilemmas here in Washington and in the real world.”
He indicates that the Science Advisory Panel met on March 19-20 to start addressing the issue of aggregate risk.

Focusing on the EPA/DowElanco agreement, he states that “We found over time that the product (chlorphrifos) has a number of acute incidents associated with it. I give DowElanco a lot of credit for a very positive response to an early expression of concern.

“They came forward with a 10-point program for fundamental changes to the chlorphrifos label and for training,” he says. “I think it’s the kind of positive industry response to the issues that we want to encourage other registrants to seriously consider.”

Barolo states that some of the items in the agreement between the EPA and DowElanco includes:

1. Restriction of broadcast fogger uses.
2. Restriction of direct pet care applications.
3. Retreatment intervals

-PEST CONTROL, April, 1997