Nearly 100 organizations recently submitted comments to the Environmental Protection Agency encouraging the agency to reject a petition related to seeds treated with systemic insecticides. The petition from the Center for Food Safety claims that EPA has improperly applied the treated article exemption by exempting seeds from additional registration and labeling requirements under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide & Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).

The joint comment iterates the substantial burden and duplicative regulation farmers would face if EPA were to side with the petitioners from signees, including the National Sorghum Producers.

Specifically, the American Soybean Assn. (ASA) urged EPA to stand by its own scientific and risk-based review of products such as treated seeds and reject any attempts to create unnecessary duplication of registration. In a letter to Office of Pesticides director Richard Keigwin, ASA stated that changes to this process could put an additional burden on soybean growers and reduce the availability of important tools, “which, in turn, could reduce the adoption of reduced tillage practices and cover cropping that benefit the environment.”

ASA wrote, “With the right products available like seed treatments, producers can reduce soil erosion and pesticide use and, as a result, grow a more affordable product while reducing impacts to the environment.”

ASA’s letter stated that the soybean industry estimates that 60-70% of the soybeans planted in 2014 were from treated seeds. That amount was only 30% in 2008 and only 8% in 1996, according to Dr. Gary Munkvold, plant pathology and microbiology professor at Iowa State University.

One example of a common use of seed treatments among soybean producers is the neonicotinoids class of insecticides, which protect vulnerable soybean seedlings from insects in the soil that could destroy the crop before it ever matures. The use of these seed treatments can aid in sound conservation techniques, the letter explained.

FIFRA includes a “Treated Article Exemption” in 40 CFR 152.25(a) of the law that allows for an article/substance to be treated with a pesticide that has already gone through the extensive scientific review and approval process without requiring a separate review or label. This includes not only treated seeds but common household items like cutting boards and shower curtains treated to prevent mold and bacteria growth with products that have already been evaluated and approved for that use.

ASA noted: “This is a commonsense provision of the law, which prevents a long, arduous process from being repeated for a substance that has already been reviewed, evaluated for risk to human health and the environment and approved. Adding additional steps would not improve safety or environmental benefit but would instead increase the time and costs associated with approvals while passing those along to farmers and other consumers.”

However, the Center for Food Safety, in filing its petition in April 2017, claimed that neonicotinoid insecticide seed coatings are harmful to the environment, most notably to bees. The group’s petition claims that EPA has improperly allowed 150 million acres nationwide to be planted to the coated seeds without requiring the coated seeds to be registered under FIFRA, without enforceable labels on the seed bags and without adequate assessments of environmental impact.