<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)">
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Consolas;
panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoPlainText, li.MsoPlainText, div.MsoPlainText
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.5pt;
font-family:Consolas;}
p.MsoAcetate, li.MsoAcetate, div.MsoAcetate
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:8.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
span.PlainTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Plain Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text";
font-family:Consolas;}
span.BalloonTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Balloon Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text";
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
..MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple>
<div class=Section1>
<p class=MsoPlainText>FYI<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>R. Thomas (Tom) Van Arsdall, Director of Public Policy<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal> <a href="http://www.pollinator.org/">Pollinator
Partnership</a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal> (703) 509-4746<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal> <a href="mailto:tva@pollinator.org">tva@pollinator.org</a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><http://iwpnews.com/201312112455495/EPA-Daily-News/Daily-News/groups-pestici<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>de-suit-tests-application-of-novel-epa-pollinator-framework/menu-id-95.html><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>Groups' Pesticide Suit Tests Application Of Novel EPA
Pollinator Framework<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>Environmental and beekeeper groups have filed an opening
brief in a case<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>that appears to mark a first legal test for EPA's risk
assessment framework<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>for ensuring pesticides do not harm pollinators, alleging
that the agency's<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>registration of sulfoxaflor failed to adequately address
the findings of an<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>assessment conducted under the framework.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>In Dec. 6 opening briefs in the case Pollinator
Stewardship Council et. al.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>v. U.S. EPA et al., the groups are urging the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>9th Circuit to remand EPA's May 6 registration of
sulfoxaflor for<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>reconsideration, arguing that the agency's finding that
the registration<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>will not pose risks to pollinators is unsupported by
evidence, including the<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>agency's new tiered approach for assessing risks to
pollinators.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>"EPA's own scientific analysis confirms that
sulfoxaflor poses 'a potential<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>risk for bees' and finds that [the manufacturer's] Tier 2
field studies were<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>'unable to preclude risk to developing brood or long-term
colony health.'"<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>the petitioners' brief says. Tier 1 of the framework
found sulfoxaflor "very<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>highly toxic" to individual bees,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><http://iwpnews.com/iwpfile.html?file=dec2013%2Fepa2013_2146.pdf>
according<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>to the brief.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>The beekeepers' challenge to EPA's May 6 registration of
sulfoxaflor is the<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>first to challenge a pesticide registration since the
agency last year<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>proposed its new pollinator risk assessment framework.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>EPA's proposed framework uses a tiered approach in
assessing risks to<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>pollinators and seeks to account for pesticides such as
sulfoxaflor that are<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>systemic, meaning chemicals are taken up into plants
pollen nectar and stem.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>The agency has acknowledged that its traditional
assessments have failed to<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>account for the risks of systemic pesticides, including
chronic or sublethal<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>effects, to pollinators.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>But the framework has already received mixed reviews from
a Science Advisory<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>Panel that EPA established to review it, as well as from
some<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>environmentalists and states.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>The risk framework was intended to respond to growing
concerns about the<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>decline of honey bee and other pollinator populations.
EPA and the U.S.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>Department of Agriculture (USDA) are investigating the
causes of the massive<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>decline in bee populations since 2006, and in May issued
a report on honey<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>bee health that blamed a combination of stressors
including habitat loss,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>parasites, lack of genetic diversity, disease and
pesticide exposure.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>While EPA considers pesticides one of the variety of
factors in the overall<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>decline in bee populations, the agency plans to use the
new risk assessment<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>framework in its years-long reevaluations of the
controversial neonicotinoid<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>class of pesticides suspected of harming bees.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>Draft Assessment<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>Early this year environmentalists and a Washington state
official criticized<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>a draft EPA risk assessment for sulfoxaflor, which
utilized the agency's<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>proposed framework, saying the assessment relies on
studies with uncertain<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>results, calls for outdated mitigation methods and may
also be limited for<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>assessing non-honeybee risks.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>While similar to neonicotinoids in that it interacts with
the nicotinic<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>acetylcholine receptor, causing paralysis and mortality
in target insects,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>sulfoxaflor has been slightly altered from other
neonicotinoids to prevent<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>resistance. EPA's Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>registration of the chemical allows it to be used on a
slew of grains,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>vegetables, fruits and ornamentals.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>While the agency in its human health assessment found
little concern for<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>human health effects of the chemical, in its ecological
assessment, it noted<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>that the pesticide is "classified as very highly
toxic."<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>However, the agency found that if applied at maximum
application rates, the<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>concentration in plant nectar would only exceed
concentrations of concern in<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>roughly 3 percent of cases. What's more, it found that
the strength of<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>exposed hives "was similar to control or
pre-exposure hives," according to<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>the registration decision.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>As part of the registration decision, EPA required the
registrant to include<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>protective statements on product labels that limit
applications to when bees<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>are not expected to be present.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>But in their opening brief, beekeepers call the
mitigation measures<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>voluntary and arbitrary, and argue they are inadequate to
reduce risks.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>Also, they say EPA's determination the registration will
have no<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>unreasonable adverse effects is unsupported by evidence,
including the<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>findings of agency scientists using the risk assessment
framework.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>Specifically, the petitioners argue that registering the
pesticide without<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>valid tests to satisfy the framework's Tier 2, which
requires industry to<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>submit studies to help the agency assess whether risks to
individual bees<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>extends to entire bee colonies, violates FIFRA and the
agency's own rules,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>both of which require field tests of impacts to bees for
unconditionally<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>registered pesticides. The petitioners also say the
registration violates<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>FIFRA because the agency ignored the registration's
economic impact on<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>beekeepers and crops dependent on bees for pollination.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>In addition to criticizing EPA's use of the risk
assessment framework,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>plaintiffs argue that EPA's registration decision relies
on arbitrary and<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>inadequate mitigation measures to reduce risks to bees
and says the agency's<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>risk-benefit analysis favored the benefits of the
pesticides and failed to<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>account for the "devastating impact that sulfoxaflor
will have both on the<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>beekeeping industry and on the multitude of important
crops" that require<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>pollination. -- Dave Reynolds(
<mailto:dreynolds@iwpnews.com><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>dreynolds@iwpnews.com)<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<br /><br />
<hr style='border:none; color:#909090; background-color:#B0B0B0; height: 1px; width: 99%;' />
<table style='border-collapse:collapse;border:none;'>
<tr>
<td style='border:none;padding:0px 15px 0px 8px'>
<a href="http://www.avast.com/">
<img border=0 src="http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png" />
</a>
</td>
<td>
<p style='color:#3d4d5a; font-family:"Calibri","Verdana","Arial","Helvetica"; font-size:12pt;'>
This email is free from viruses and malware because <a href="http://www.avast.com/">avast! Antivirus</a> protection is active.
</p>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
<br />
</body>
</html>