UMN Extension Field Crop IPM Podcasts

Welcome to the University of Minnesota Extension's IPM podcast for field crops, where we talk about all things pest related in field crops, looking at integrated pest management. I'm your host, Anthony Hanson, based out of University of Minnesota Extension Morris office, currently recording around Bruton today. It's kind of a cooler day. We got snow on the ground, not much happening in the fields yet, so we're thinking we're not gonna be able to cover too much for current pest issues for this year, but we have had a few things in the news lately, and that's especially pesticide regulation. Now this isn't a topic that's always maybe the most exciting or something we'd think about right away until that's affecting what we can do out in the field.

So I figured this would be a good time to cover what happens with pesticide regulation and especially some of the chemistries that have been news a little bit lately, especially chlorpyrifos and Lesduo, and then maybe a little bit of dicamba at the end. So to talk about this, we have Doctor. Tricia Leif. She's with the Minnesota Department of Agriculture and the Pesticide and Fertilizer Division. So welcome Tricia.

Thank you, Anthony.

So do you wanna give a little bit of background of what goes on at MDA in general in the Pesticide and Fertilizer Division? What do you specifically do there?

Okay. So Pesticide and Fertilizer Division at the Minnesota Department of Agriculture oversees the regulation and use of pesticides and fertilizers. For me, specifically, I oversee pesticide and fertilizer registration and sales reporting programs. Some of the other activities that occur within the division include research on the use in the field and outreach and development of best management practices and inspection and enforcement of use, as well as oversight of any permitting, pesticide applicator licensing, and storage permitting. There's a number of other activities that go on, but that would be the broad overview.

Yeah. So when we do either our commercial or private pesticide applicator trainings, we reference a lot of what MDA does, at least working with some of these areas. But a lot of times, growers may not see too much of what you're doing in person. Hopefully, that's a good thing, especially when it comes to the regulation side of things or issues with their applications. You know, farmers can't just go out and spray any random chemical on their fields.

There are some laws and regulations behind that. So I was wondering if you wanna talk a little bit about two things. One is FIFRA, what that is, and then also what does EPA do for pesticide registration in general, and then maybe eventually, what is MDA's role And when we get to specifically what's happening in Minnesota.

Right. EPA, the Environmental Protection Agency, oversees pesticides at the federal level. They are governed by an act called FIFRA, which you just mentioned. That stands for the federal insecticide fungicide and rodenticide act, and that's most current version has been in place since the nineteen seventies, I believe. And that governs the regulation of pesticides in The US, which includes the registration, distribution, sale, and the use of the pesticides.

And the EPA is in charge of reviewing and approving pesticide use and pesticide labels. And the labels are based on research and evaluation of the active ingredient that's found in the pesticide product. So when a pesticide is registered or a company applies for a pesticide registration, every pesticide active ingredient undergoes a review by the EPA first upon registration and then every fifteen years following that initial registration. During the review, they evaluate aspects of the chemical or the active ingredient, like how long it will last in the environment, how it moves through the environment following the application, what effects it might have on nontarget plants or animals, and how it could impact drinking water or human health. And the pesticide labels are then based on studies and evaluations of this active ingredient.

That's at the EPA level, and there are other activities that go on at the EPA level as well. Now for the MDA, when a registration of a product is submitted, MDA checks to make sure the product meets any requirements that are necessary for Minnesota and checks to see if there's a new use for the product or if the product contains a new active ingredient. The MDA then performs a mini review for the new active ingredients and currently registered products that have the significant new uses. In the process of completing the review, the MDA reviews the health and ecological risk issues that are relevant to Minnesota. They will also review any laboratory analytical concerns for tracking potential misuse or nontarget impacts and review the product labels for any difficult to interpret or uncommon language.

Some people may have seen some of our label interpretation language guidance documents that have been released, and those are available on our website if anyone ever wants to take a look. Other information on the projected crop use and efficacy is gathered from the University of Minnesota Extension or user groups for these new active ingredients. The reviews can also include communication with the EPA or registrant to request more information about any identified concerns. And then another review that the MDA can perform is called a special registration review, and those are performed on to any topics of interest that the MDA may have and not only new active ingredients or significant new uses of products.

So, Tricia, thinking back to FIFRA, especially at the federal level, a lot of times we'll say the label is the law, and that's Mhmm. Probably a common summary for that law. It applies to our pesticide labels. Drill it in pretty good when it comes to our pesticide trainings for farmers. A lot of people, maybe if we have listeners who are, you know, maybe more just using pesticides for garden situations, they may not realize that you actually do have to follow that label specifically.

So you wanna cover a little bit about, you know, what does that term mean, the label's law, and kinda what's behind that?

Sure. So pesticide labels, like I mentioned, they are developed and approved at the federal level. So that means that the language that is on a pesticide label has to be followed according to federal law. And labels contain a lot of language. We've all seen it.

Sometimes they're a little bit difficult to interpret or read, but all labels contain language referred to as mandatory language or language referred to as advisory language. Now advisory language might be something where a label says a user may take this action or a user should take this certain action. Mandatory language, which is the language that applicators have to follow according to federal law, can be identified by looking at statements that include the word must. That is at least one of the examples I can think of off the top of my head. There are, of course, other mandatory language terms that will be found on pesticide labels.

But whether they're advisory or mandatory, whatever is listed on the label on the product has to be followed by the applicator. And those types of things are checked upon the event of inspection.

So I bring that up partly because that's a good example of how we reduce risk with our pest icides following the label, and that's the focus of integrated pest management. It's overall reducing risks, not just to our growers, but potentially in environment or other health concerns for people as well, and that's come up a little bit in some of our examples we'll come up with in a little bit here. Just kinda wanted to mention that a little bit because, obviously, this is the IPM podcast, and that's kinda how we get into this topic of regulation is that, you know, it definitely does affect our risks whether you're farming or if you have people around your area as well that could potentially be affected. So one of these that has come up recently is chlorpyrifos. About August 2021, the EPA revoked all tolerances of chlorpyrifos in food or feed crops, and that was set to be as of February 28 that would be effective.

And, Tricia, I was wondering if you wanted to talk a little bit about what tolerances are first, and then we can talk a little more about what happened with chlorpyrifos specifically. And for those who don't know, chlorpyrifos is a active ingredient for an insecticide. It's an organophosphate, if you haven't heard of that group before. Probably one of the more common active ingredients, if not the most common in that group in the state.

Sure. So tolerances are the maximum amount of pesticide that's allowed on a food or feed crop. They are established by the Food and Drug Agency or the FDA, and that's based on the toxicity of the chemical in conjunction with the evaluations that are conducted by the EPA. The EPA revoked all of the tolerances for chlorpyrifos due to a lawsuit that was filed in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that required EPA to make a final ruling on tolerances for chlorpyrifos. The basically, the EPA could not be certain of no harm resulting from aggregate exposure to chlorpyrifos for humans, so they revoked all tolerances.

The aggregate exposure would include food, drinking water, and residential exposures.

So I know we've talked a little bit about water quality concerns of chlorpyrifos in the past for some of our annual meetings we have in the winter. Do you wanna talk a little bit about what MDA was seeing for chlorpyrifos finds across the state?

Gosh. I think it was initially in 2012, chlorpyrifos was designated as a surface water pesticide of concern in Minnesota, which is a designation under our state pesticide management plan, which direct certain actions by the state due to the frequency of detection and the level at which it has been detected in water. The status of chlorpyrifos, though, as a pesticide of concern, did not factor into the cancellation of chlorpyrifos registrations, which just occurred as of 01/01/2022 in Minnesota.

So what happens if someone did apply chlorpyrifos in the 2022 growing season? Obviously, February 28 was the cutoff, and we're not gonna have any crops growing outdoors February 28. So anything that would be applied this year would be something after that cutoff period.

That's correct. So in Minnesota, as I stated earlier, all of the chlorpyrifos products that contained food or feed uses on their label were not renewed. So by doing this, the MDA took steps towards keeping excess product out of growers' hands, which they would not be able to legally use on any of their food or feed crops. If a grower would apply chlorpyrifos product that they had purchased, say, last year or that they, for some reason, already had in hand to a food or feed crop that previously had a tolerance established for it, that crop would then be considered adulterated and would not be eligible for sale.

So if growers do have existing stocks still, what should they do with that?

Yeah. At this time, the EPA is working with registrants on this question. However, we did recently hear from Cortiva that they are willing to take back unopened product. We recommend that people contact other registrants regarding their willingness to take back unsold or unopened product due to the product still having commercial value for nonfood or feed purposes. For growers that have any partially used chlorpyrifos products or open products, they can dispose of them through Minnesota's waste pesticide collection program.

Now that's over the insecticide side of things. Kinda wanted to switch gears a little bit and talk about what's happening in the herbicide world. And in this case, Enlist Duo, which is 24 d and glyphosate, that has come up a little bit too. So I was wondering if you wanted to just mention what initially happened with that earlier on, I believe, last year, and lately, we've also had some news at the March. So first off, I believe it was six counties in Minnesota.

There were concerns about endangered species with enlist duo.

Yeah. This is a interesting situation. So the EPA is taking active steps to adequately assess their pesticides that are reviewed and approved to make sure they are following the endangered species act appropriately. In doing so, the EPA reviewed certain data they had on endangered species in each state and determined that for Minnesota, Enlist Duo could not be applied in six counties due to the potential to impact from some of the state's endangered species. Following the release of the new Enlist labels and this information, the MDA reviewed the supporting documents that the EPA had released for how the decision was made.

And after not being able to confirm their findings, the MDA reached out to the EPA. The EPA, it turns out, had not used the most recent US fisheries and wildlife maps of endangered species when they listed those six Minnesota counties as prohibited. So once this error was discovered, the EPA quickly rectified the mistake and is now allowing the use of Enlist Duo in all counties in Minnesota.

So I know for us, I believe it was March 29 that they later allowed the use for these counties, and actually where I live and where my family farms in Stearns County, we were one of the counties that were affected there. So one day we received a certified letter reminding growers that at the time we wouldn't be able to use this product. And And I think it was just a few days later that we saw the news that this would be allowed. So I mentioned for Enlist Duo, that's actually two different active ingredients in there, twenty four D and glyphosate. Does this change anything in terms of what people could do if they were applying products with those ingredients separately, if it's just a twenty four d product or just a glyphosate?

I assume that in terms of regulation, we look at mixtures, then individual ingredients separately depending on just what the product is. Correct?

That is correct. This was part of the interesting situation that occurred with Enlist where the product you just mentioned was Enlist Duo, which contains two four d and glyphosate. There's another product which is called Enlist One, which only contains two four d. It just so happens that on the label for Enlist One, they did not state that if the product was mixed with glyphosate, application in those counties would not be able to occur. There was some additional confusion due to that difference between the two labels due to the fact that resulting mixture should have the same effect.

This has again been rectified by the EPA's updated evaluation with the new endangered species maps where there's there's no prohibited applications in the state of Minnesota.

So last question for Enlist Duo. Do you have any more information on what the specific endangered species were of concern?

So the endangered species that they initially established the prohibited application in those six counties based on was the oh, I might not say it correctly, Missagua rattlesnake, and that rattlesnake has not been found in those counties. So the the updated data that they received from the US Fisheries and Wildlife reflected that.

Yeah. That's one, at least in Stearns County. I know I've I've never seen a rattlesnake out here, but that's one you you wonder about what's out there sometimes. So that's always a good question of surveys that are out there already and having good data coming in because we're always wondering, you know, what may be existing currently that maybe wasn't here before. We're talking about invasive species sometimes, but also just naturalized organisms and species out there that maybe they change the range a little bit.

So that's why we always stress the importance of our surveys out there. That's something obviously affects pesticide regulation here, but also just getting into either pest management or natural resource management too.

Also, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources does also conduct evaluations of any endangered or threatened species in the state, and they conduct surveys separately from the US Fisheries and Wildlife. And so the places where the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources may say endangered or threatened species are found may differ from what the US Fisheries and Wildlife says. But since the pesticide labels are federal labels, they are also based off of the federal data, which is what the US Fisheries and Wildlife data is. If people notice discrepancies sometimes between what the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources says and what is listed on a label, that might be the reason why.

That does remind me when we talk about endangered species being mentioned on the label. Usually, that means growers have to look up where certain endangered species might be or potentially if there's something in their county. And I believe there are resources for that, aren't there?

There is. The EPA has a website that is called Bulletin Live two. And on that website, they can enter in the specific product they are applying, and they can zoom in or enter the location where they're planning to apply this product. And it will show it should show them if that area is prohibited from the application of their product.

Alright. So just one last quick note, and this could be a whole episode on itself, so we'll keep it pretty short. But what's going on with Dicamba products in 2022 in terms of regulation that MDA has set up or at the EPA level?

Yeah. I think a lot of people have probably heard a lot on dicamba. As you said, dicamba can be used in Minnesota for the 2022 growing season until June 12 if the location for application is South Of Interstate 94 or until June 30 if it is being applied North Of Interstate 94. There is also a temperature cutoff involved in this. But an important thing to remember that I would like to bring up is that with the new dicamba label, which mentions these restrictions, some products that are already in distribution do not contain the updated label language stating Minnesota's restrictions.

In that case, it's really important that an applicator goes to the registrant's website to print off the new label or the Minnesota specific restrictions collateral label to have with them during an application. Any product that is distributed, I believe it's after April 14, which would have been yesterday, should contain the new and updated label. But it's really important that applicators check this to make sure they have the most current label on their person when they're applying.

Well, thank you, Tricia, for stopping in today to talk about pesticide regulation, and we might ask you to come on again if we ever have any maybe late breaking news from MD on other pesticides as they come up.

That sounds great, Anthony. I'd love to come back anytime to talk about this at any any way that we can help clarify this information for growers and applicators, we are happy to do.

And actually, that's a good reminder since we're talking about dates a little bit. Today is April 15 when we recorded this. So if we're wondering about what's current information, that's just a reminder for when this was recorded for people. And again, thank you, Tricia, and thank you everyone for listening to the IPM podcast for field crops. I'm Anthony Hanson, and hopefully, we'll be seeing, you know, a little bit more sunshine, a little less snow out there, and maybe be able to get out in the fields, and, you know, we'll be seeing pests coming in pretty soon.

We have some, black cutworm traps in the network one with, Bruce Potter who's running that. And as far as I know, we've had pretty minimal, if any, activity, but that may be coming up in the future too. So we'll let you know if we have any pest updates in the future. Thank you.