EPA chlorpyrifos ban will affect food crops, others unclear

The United States Environmental Protection Agency announced a decision earlier this month to effectively ban a pesticide known as chlorpyrifos.

EPA officials said the insecticide, used in products like Lorsban and Dursban, was a neurotoxin that put exposed children and farmworkers at risk.

“Today EPA is taking an overdue step to protect public health,” said Administrator Michael S. Regan in a news release. “Ending the use of chlorpyrifos on food will help to ensure children, farmworkers, and all people are protected from the potentially dangerous consequences of this pesticide.”

The exact timeline of the change is unclear. Federal code mandates that such changes would take effect six months after their publication in the Federal Register. While a prepublication document has been announced and submitted to the register, its publication date is unknown.

Specifically, EPA news releases say the agency plans to “revoke tolerances” for the insecticide, a move that would make it illegal to ship food sprayed with the product.

While that may leave the door open to crops grown for non-food purposes like ethanol, EPA Press Officer Ken Labbe said the ruling’s impact on such crops was still being decided.

“The agency is continuing to evaluate the potential risks posed by chlorpyrifos for the non-food uses,” he said. “Registration review for the remaining non-food uses … may consider additional measures to reduce human health and ecological risks.”

Labbe said the ruling would apply to animal feed, even though it’s not meant for human consumption.

“Both human food and animal feed are foods subject to FFDCA tolerance requirements,” he said. “As a result, when the tolerance for chlorpyrifos residues on a crop for animal feed expires, the use on that crop is like any other use on a food commodity.”

Iowa State University Extension Field Agronomist Rebecca Vittetoe said the effects would likely be felt next year by farmers treating for two-spotted spider mites and corn root worm. Though the product is also to combat soybean aphid, she said that pest was a bigger concern in the northern part of the state.

“It is going to have an impact on us,” Vittetoe said. “We do have some other insecticides that are not chlorpyrifos that we can still use. However, one of the concerns that I have is that it’s going to put more pressure on some of our other insecticides.”

Farm Bureau Regional Sales Manager Jerry Anderson said that by taking a long-used option out of farmers’ options, the ban risked making other pesticides ineffective.

“You want to make sure you don’t use the same thing year after year after year, because then you lose your effectiveness,” he said. “There would be alternatives, but when you take one play out of the playbook, then you have to rely on others more repeatedly, and that would be our concern.”

The EPA news release downplayed the effect of the ban.

“While farmers have historically relied on chlorpyrifos, its use has been in decline due to restrictions at the state level and reduced production,” it said. “Alternatives have been registered in recent years for most crops … EPA is committed to reviewing replacements and alternatives to chlorpyrifos.”