CropLife America expresses concern about EPAs evolving review policies

CropLife America (CLA) has expressed serious concerns about examples of inconsistency of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in its policies of “transparency” by way of EPA’s failing to provide adequate prior notice and response time as part of its regulatory process. The specific policy example concerns a new decision to once again open review of the herbicide atrazine, already the most comprehensively evaluated crop protection product in the agency’s history, with no presented new scientific evidence and precious little or no real advance notice.

In comments before EPA’s FIFRA Science Advisory Panel on November 3, CLA’s Senior Director of Regulatory Policy, Dr. Ray McAllister, stated, “Registrants, in meeting the stringent requirements set forth by EPA during the approval process, expect to be treated equitably and with some predictability as a result. To be subject yet again to a regulatory review for no statutory reason and with no new scientific changes appears both arbitrary and inconsistent. There is no basis in fact or law to completely re-open the long series of agency decisions for atrazine, which are based on the voluminous data on record and years of analysis. Doing so threatens to establish a precedent of creating new policies and alter existing ones leading to unjustified and debilitating effects on industry’s overall ability to provide the tools the American farmer needs.”

EPA has launched a year-long program of review by its FIFRA Science Advisory Panel of atrazine, which has been in use for decades, while allowing barely more than two weeks for interested parties to provide comments before the agency discloses its evaluation approach.

According to Dr. McAllister, this action is in direct opposition to notice-and-comment requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA).  “The APA provides public participation and ensures fairness to all concerned parties,” McAllister stated.  “It also allows an agency to reconsider or change its decision based on the knowledge and information interested parties provide.  EPA’s approach in this case seems inconsistent with this law.”

EPA publicized its review notice on atrazine on Oct. 7 in the Federal Register, called for written comments by Oct. 23, and announced its review plan on Nov. 3, leaving insufficient time for thoughtful public review of the proposal.

CLA CEO and President Jay Vroom calls EPA’s action “a serious divergence from the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and Food Quality Protection Act (ACT) process.”  “EPA has traditionally employed a science-based process and, in the case of atrazine, sound science has governed regulatory decisions on the product for over five decades.  This has included 20 years of more or less continuous review through re-registration, special review, tolerance reassessment, and eight Scientific Advisory Panels.  And the next round of Registration Review for the compound is scheduled to begin in just a few years anyway.  Another review hastily convened on the basis of politically motivated press reports is a departure from a very systematic, transparent and responsible process, and sets a potentially dangerous precedent and represents a colossal waste of government and private sector resources,” Vroom concluded.