RISE Meeting Notes Anti-Pesticide Strategies
Click
Here to Add Comment Subject: RISE
Meeting Notes Anti-Pesticide Strategies
Date:
Tuesday, October 15, 2002 9:55 AM
From:
Stephen Tvedten <steve@getipm.com>
Organization: Get Set Inc. (www.getipm.com)
To: Paul Helliker <phelliker@cdpr.ca.gov>
Director, State of California, Department of Pesticide
Regulation
cc: Christine Whitman whitman.christine@epa.gov
Online Buzz: Regulatory Update
October 2, 2002
Pest Control's Online Buzz Newsletter
RISE meeting notes anti-pesticide strategies
"If someone sneezes at the state level, someone else at the federal level gets a cold," explained Frank Gasperini director of state issues with RISE, and David Crow, federal issues consultant for RISE with D.C. Legislative & Regulatory Services, Washington. Their presentation at the recent annual meeting of RISE (Responsible Industry for a Sound Environment) in New Orleans explained how state and federal pesticide regulatory issues no longer seem to be separate developments.
At the meeting, they discussed seven key trends currently driving new regulations concerning pesticides:
1. State and federal issues are getting intertwined. Gasperini and Crow noted how states are becoming what they call "incubators for more restrictive environmental laws," citing developments like school IPM regulations that moved from states into the federal arena. They warned that some issues that get defeated at the federal level may reappear in the future, saying that some issues "simmer, bubble up at the federal level, then simmer again at the state level for years."
2. Water quality issues are the next trend pushing regulations, said Gasperini and Crow, noting that environmental activists are looking at ways to limit the use of pesticides through new regulations of "cosmetic" uses of products.
3. Right to know and the misuse of the precautionary principle may be a future headache for pesticide users as environmental activists push successfully in places like Europe and Canada, they said. The move to include public input into the regulatory process allows activists to have greater say and to embrace a less scientific approach to decision making.
4. Don’t expect federal regulations to be less confusing in the future, warned Gasperini and Crow. "The activists understand how to use and misuse regulatory language," they say. They typically try to insert appropriations or regulations in when working with competing agencies or budget struggles.
5. Expect more push for more local control of pesticide use, the pair predicted. Activists will cloak their moves to control pesticides in talk of right to know or taking precautions, they say, but it’s really a case of local activists saying "It’s my right to stop you form using these products."
6. Spray drift is an example of federal ‘regulatory craziness," said Gasperini and Crow. Current guidelines concerning outdoor spray applications strongly limit the use of liquids and concern many specialty pesticide applicators.
7. Expect homeland security initiatives to focus on pesticide use. The pair cited several "recycled" bills limiting pesticide use proposed in the last 10 years that surfaced as homeland security measures. New proposals include limiting access to products, punitive "storage fees" and strict chemical security regulations. Both Gasperini and Crow recommended greater vigilance in watching and reporting on any pesticide regulatory issue locally and on a wider scope.
If you would like to be included in our mailing list for continuing information on pesticides, please email us at list@safe2use.com.