Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Page 5 Page 6 Page 7 Page 8 Page 9 Page 10 Page 11 Page 12 Page 13 Page 14 Page 15 Page 16 Page 17 Page 18 Page 19 Page 20 Page 21 Page 22 Page 23 Page 24 Page 25 Page 26 Page 27 Page 28 Page 29 Page 30 Page 31 Page 32N O V E M B E R / D E C E M B E R 2 0 1 6 8 POTATO GROWER Why We Need To Reset EPA Pesticide Policy The National Potato Council has grow- ing concerns over the erosion of sound science in EPA decision-making on pes- ticide policy. One example of a shift in regulatory policy is EPA’s reliance on epidemiological data rather than the sci- entific gold standard known as clinical or laboratory data. Recently as a part of EPA’s periodic review of a common insecticide used in agriculture as required under FIFRA, the agency is seeking to use lesser quality epidemio- logical studies to override thousands of laboratory studies that supported the use of the insecticide. Another example of EPA’s unpredictable actions was their involvement in a proj- ect in Washington State that encour- aged activists to contact their state legis- lators and let them know that, “State government must hold the agricultural industry to the same level of responsi- bility as other industries.” Known as whatsupstream.com, the website depict- ed dead fish and polluted water, at the bottom noting “This project has been funded wholly or in part by the United States Environmental Protection Agency.” Senators Inhofe and Roberts called for an audit into the campaign and called out the misuse of taxpayer dollars. EPA admitted wrongdoing, say- ing that the campaign should not have been funded. Added to other pesticide- specific actions, these abuses led NPC and other stakeholders to call for a reset of crop protection policy. For its part, NPC has encouraged and participated in open dialogue with fed- eral agencies including EPA throughout our existence. It is our belief that informed two-way dialogue is essential to sound policy. It has become more apparent that EPA does not want to par- ticipate in the active listening part of the process. As this problem has deep- ened, agriculture groups have lost confi- dence and trust in the decisions made by the agency, particularly about regis- trations of crop protection tools. What was once a good working relation- ship is strained. Communication between EPA and grower groups is bro- ken. EPA and USDA are not communi- cating. NPC takes a proactive stance, inviting EPA representatives to speak at our events. NPC Vice President of Environmental Affairs Dominic LaJoie, a grower in Maine, met with EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy in late September (where we heard that EPA has not changed its approach), and the organization regularly provides input on Federal Register notices and submits comment letters. We recognize one way to get heard is through numbers. To address the situa- tion in a concerted manner, NPC is join- ing with CropLife America and other commodity groups to promote the idea of a regulatory reset. We continue to inform legislators. Support from Congressional champions is vital and with the new Administration this January, it is an opportune time to develop relationships and discuss new ways to address the issue. Many grower groups are concerned that pesticide registrations are facing the most peril they have in the past 20 years. Grower leaders who have been in the game for these 20 years have seen the changes in EPA regulation, and we will never accept the idea that public opinion should weigh heavier than sci- ence. The focus for the foreseeable future is returning the regulatory system to one based on clear, modern science. NPC asks for your help in continuing to push for this regulatory restart. by John Keeling, NPC Executive Vice President and CEO