EPA and the agrichemical industry are defending the agency’s regulation of pesticides against claims by environmental groups that some of them are, in fact, PFAS.
Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, are a group of chemicals used widely in consumer products for decades and have received increasing attention over the past few years as scientists and regulators have pointed out their remarkable ability to persist in the environment, earning them the moniker, “forever chemicals.”
Employing a definition used by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, an international group with 38 members countries, a recent study published in Environmental Health Perspectives determined that 14% of 471 “conventional active ingredients” registered by EPA qualify as PFAS. The study was authored by scientists from environmental groups, including the Center for Biological Diversity and Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility.
The paper also said that EPA has not required immunotoxicity studies for most pesticides since 2012, following a request from CropLife America to grant waivers for studies for which "the data would not be useful in the agency's evaluation of the risks or benefits of the product."
However, “the number of active ingredients that are fluorinated or that meet the definition of PFAS has increased considerably from 2012 to the present — the very time period that the EPA granted 97% of waiver requests for immunotoxicity study requirements,” the paper said.
“This suggests that fluorinated or PFAS active ingredients may be more likely to be immunotoxic than other types of active ingredients and that any associated immunotoxicity may not be accounted for owing to the lack of requirement for scientific study.”
EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs uses a different, more limited definition than the OECD’s, which results in a total of six active ingredients considered PFAS out of the approximately 1,000 registered active ingredients. The EHP paper did not take into account biopesticides and antimicrobials.
“EPA is considering next steps for these six active ingredients on a case-by-case basis,” the agency said in response to questions, and emphasized the work it has done tackling potential PFAS contamination from fluorinated plastic pesticide containers “in a small number of mosquito control products.”
“EPA has advanced the science in this area by developing new scientific methodologies to detect PFAS in pesticide containers and pesticide products at low levels, taken enforcement action against the company manufacturing these containers, removed 12 PFAS ingredients from being allowed for use in pesticides, and continually updated the public on its efforts through press releases, list-serve updates, and websites,” EPA said.
The study was published around the same time as a petition submitted to EPA July 25 by Center for Food Safety, American Bird Conservancy, Beyond Pesticides and other groups seeking cancellation of all active and inert ingredients that qualify as PFAS and asking the agency to adopt a more inclusive definition of the chemicals that would increase the number of pesticides affected.
The petition says “the agricultural application of pesticides containing PFAS not only increases the risk of bioaccumulation in the crops and the soil and, in turn, dietary exposure for the public and wildlife, but also further contaminates the environment through aerial drift and runoff.”
Lead author of the EHP study, Nathan Donley of the Center for Biological Diversity, called the OECD definition “the internationally accepted definition,” which is also used by about two dozen U.S. states. “It’s a more widely used definition than the one EPA is using,” he said. “But at the same time, when it all comes down to it, it doesn't really matter whether you call these PFAS or not. They're forever chemicals, and that’s really the issue here.”
It’s easy to be “in the know” about agriculture news from coast to coast! Sign up for a FREE month of Agri-Pulse news. Simply click here.
EPA said its Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics “has traditionally applied structural criteria for PFAS actions” and adopted a definition last year that includes chemicals with at least one of three chemical structures.
The definition, the agency said, was adopted “to focus on substances most likely to be persistent in the environment, including chemical substances whose structures or sub-structures resemble, at least in part, chemicals widely known to be of concern to human health and/or the environment such as PFOA, PFOS, and GenX.”
All three are considered PFAS.
Alexandra Dunn, CEO of CropLife America, which represents pesticide manufacturers, said in a statement, “All pesticides undergo a rigorous, more than four-year review process at EPA before being brought to market and are repeatedly reevaluated to ensure they meet current scientific standards. Both federal and state review processes for pesticides consider potentially hundreds of scientific studies, product chemistry, exposure, and dispersion methods before any product is available to the public. We have confidence in the scientific integrity of EPA’s regulatory review process.”
“We are regulated by EPA here in the United States, so we defer to that definition,” said Karen Reardon, vice president of public affairs for RISE – Responsible Industry for a Sound Environment – which represents “manufacturers, formulators, distributors, and other industry leaders involved with specialty pesticides and fertilizers,” according to its website.
She also said that the European Union “is still considering its broad approach to managing per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances” and has proposed an express exemption for pesticides “because of the rigor of the scientific regime that goes into the regulation of those processes in the member countries.”
In Donley's view, the pesticides at issue are still persistent “no matter how you define them. And that's something we’ve got to really get a grasp on in the U.S.”
For more news, go to Agri-Pulse.com
