Days ahead of a critical Supreme Court (SC) hearing, the Central government has prohibited the use of four insecticides from the initial list of 27. This list includes the controversial monocrotophos but with riders.   Regarding monocrotophos, activists and observers have highlighted that the recent directive provides a one-year transitional period for farmers to adopt alternatives. The order also states that the "sale, distribution or use of Monocrotophos 36 per cent SL shall be allowed only for clearance of existing stock till its expiry period."    The Pesticide Action Network (PAN) flagged concerns over the ambiguity of this phrasing. They fear that this might be exploited to amass stocks during this one-year window, allowing the prolonged use of Monocrotophos until these stocks are exhausted. PAN stressed the necessity of a distinct directive that prohibits the manufacture of all Monocrotophos formulations.   Along with monocrotophos, the three insecticides banned are Dicofol, Dinocap and Methomyl by the government through a Gazette Notification dated 29 th September, 2023, but published on 6 th October, 2023.   However, the mention of carbofuran, one of the original 27 prohibited pesticides, in the recent notice has perplexed activists. A statement from PAN clarified, "All other formulations of Carbofuran, except Carbofuran 3 per cent Encapsulated granule (CG) with specified crop labels, should be discontinued." This implies that the Carbofuran three per cent Encapsulated granule (CG) remains unbanned. Significantly, this Carbofuran 3 per cent CG formulation is the only one registered in India.     PAN India has urged the Central Insecticides Board and Registration Committee (CIBRC) to provide clarity on this matter.   Focusing on monocrotophos, PAN noted its association with multiple pesticide poisoning incidents in India, most notoriously the Yavatmal pesticide poisoning event in 2017.    The Maharashtra Association of Pesticide Poisoned Persons (MAPPP) has been persistently advocating for a ban on this and other harmful pesticides linked to fatalities and injuries among farmers and agricultural workers. In fact, the Maharashtra government has written a letter to the Union Government of India to ban this and four other pesticides.   The crux of this matter traces back to a May 2020 government order which banned 27 hazardous pesticides deemed a threat to public health and safety. These pesticides, part of the contentious 66 under scrutiny for toxicity over several years, encompassed 12 insecticides, eight fungicides, and seven herbicides, totalling nearly 130 formulations.   Reportedly, the government allowed the industry a period to voice their objections. Subsequently, at the behest of major industry players, a committee was instituted under the leadership of TP Rajendran, ex-assistant director general of the Indian Council of Agriculture Research (ICAR). The panel reportedly suggested retaining the prohibition on just three of the 27 pesticides, advocating for the release of the others.   However, certain activists petitioning the Supreme Court argued that the constitution and existence of such a committee remain unverified in the public domain, while others insist on its establishment and the availability of its report.   Following this, the government revisited the original ban in February 2023, maintaining the restriction on only three pesticides. Civil society groups approached the SC questioning the revised order.    From Agropages: https://news.agropages.com/News/NewsDetail---47961.htm

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to register pesticide products containing the new active ingredient ledprona for three years, a timeframe that is consistent with EPA’s approach to other novel pesticide products.   Ledprona is a new type of pesticide that relies on a natural mechanism--called RNA interference (RNAi)--used by plants and insects to protect against disease. The proposed new biopesticide involves a sprayable double-stranded ribonucleic acid (dsRNA) product that targets the Colorado potato beetle (CPB), a major pest of potato crops grown in the United States, including in the potato-growing states of Colorado, Idaho, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, North Dakota, Oregon, Washington, and Wisconsin. The CPB feeds heavily on potato plant foliage. If left uncontrolled, CPB will eat and destroy the leaves of the plant. If this occurs around the time of flowering, the plant may not produce potatoes. The CPB is also known to develop resistance to insecticides rapidly. This sprayable dsRNA product kills the pest by ″silencing″ the CPB gene needed to produce the PSMB5 protein, whose role is essential to keeping the CPB alive, without resulting in a genetically modified organism. If approved by EPA, this RNAi-based pesticide would be the first sprayable dsRNA pesticide in the world allowed to be used commercially and sprayed on plants.   EPA supports advancements in novel pesticide technology, which can offer alternatives to chemical-based pesticides that may pose higher potential risks or have reduced effectiveness because of resistance issues. Registered and recommended conventional active ingredients for foliar use against immature and adult CPB currently include the neonicotinoids (e.g., thiamethoxam), the spinosyns, abamectin, novaluron (an insect growth regulator), the diamides (e.g., cyantraniliprole), and some pre-mixes of these (e.g., abamectin and cyantraniliprole).   Consistent with its obligation to ensure that the product does not pose unreasonable adverse effects on the environment, including that residues of that product are safe for consumption, EPA has conducted a robust evaluation of this novel biotechnology product. EPA’s assessment also includes an Endangered Species Act (ESA) evaluation. In considering the risk for this technology, EPA has also been engaged with international partners and experts in the field via its leadership of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Working Party on Pesticides Ad Hoc Expert Group on RNAi-based Pesticides.   In May 2023, EPA approved an experimental use permit (EUP) under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) for testing in 10 states (Idaho, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, North Dakota, Oregon, Virginia, Wisconsin, Washington). The EUP required the permittee to immediately notify EPA of any findings from the experimental uses that have a bearing on safety. No such findings have been reported to EPA thus far. Data generated from the EUP testing on product efficacy and application methods may be used in a future application for this product to amend its directions for use.   In addition to the proposal to limit the duration of this registration to three years in order to receive and assess any data from the EUP testing, EPA is proposing to require the same personal protective equipment as required under the EUP, including long-sleeved shirt, long pants, socks, shoes, protective eyewear, and a particulate filtering respirator.   To read more about the proposed registration of ledprona and to comment, see docket EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0271 at https://www.regulations.gov/docket/EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0271. The public comment period will be open for 15 days, closing on Friday, October 13th, 2023.

By DON JENKINS Capital Press A pesticide maker and farm groups have asked the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to make the Environmental Protection Agency wait to see whether its ban on chlorpyrifos holds up before canceling products containing the chemical. EPA appears poised to cancel labels for three chlorpyrifos products registered for use on food crops by Gharda Chemicals International, even though the circuit court has yet to rule on the ban’s legality. If the EPA cancels the labels and the court later overturns the ban, reregistering products will cost more than $1 million and take three years, hurting Gharda and farmers, according to Gharda and the producer groups. The EPA has yet to respond to the motion, but has previously rejected requests to wait for a court ruling. The EPA late last month indicated it wanted to revoke Gharda’s labels soon, arguing canceling the labels was the next local step to enacting a ban. Chlorpyrifos has been widely employed in food and non-food uses since 1965. Anti-pesticide groups petitioned the EPA in 2007 to prohibit chlorpyrifos, alleging that even small amounts of residue on food damaged the brains of infants and unborn children. The Biden EPA, under pressure from an impatient 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on the West Coast, finally banned chlorpyrifos under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act in 2022. Gharda, the American Farm Bureau, National Association of Wheat Growers and 17 other farm groups sued in the Midwest’s 8th Circuit Court to overturn the ban. The court heard oral arguments last December, but has yet to rule. Commercial farmers have been barred from applying chlorpyrifos for two growing seasons. Farm groups maintain that chlorpyrifos is still an important pesticide to confront a wide spectrum of pests. Gharda and producer groups are seeking to reinstate the EPA’s finding during the Trump administration that chlorpyrifos could be used safely on 11 crops in select geographic regions. The crops included apples in Washington, sugar beets in Idaho and strawberries in Oregon. Gharda invested in manufacturing chlorpyrifos as other companies voluntarily withdrew chlorpyrifos products. Gharda has stockpiles in India ready for U.S. distribution and a ban would be catastrophic to the company, according to a court declaration by Gharda President Ram Seethapathi.   From Agropages: https://news.agropages.com/News/NewsDetail---47759.htm

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is registering fluazaindolizine, a new pesticide active ingredient for agricultural use. Fluazaindolizine can be used to control nematodes (also known as roundworms) on vegetables such as carrots, squash, tomatoes, eggplant, potatoes and taro, and on some fruits, including oranges, peaches, almonds, and grapes. EPA expects fluazaindolizine will help delay the further development of nematicide resistance. Nematode pests are important to control because they can cause damage to the quality and quantity of crops. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)(PDF), nematodes are estimated to cause at least $10 billion in crop damage annually in the United States. In addition to the registration decision, EPA has finalized the biological evaluation for fluazaindolizine under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). This action furthers the goals outlined in EPA’s April 2022 ESA Workplan (PDF) by identifying potential effects to listed species, implementing necessary mitigation, and initiating the ESA consultation process with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service prior to registration. EPA’s Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessments Prior to this registration decision, EPA assessed whether exposures to these products would cause unreasonable adverse effects to human health and the environment, as required by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). Based on EPA’s human health risk assessment, there are no human health risk concerns from the uses of fluazaindolizine. However, EPA’s ecological risk assessment identified risks of concern for mammals and honeybees near use sites. These risks will be mitigated with measures such as soil incorporation (mixing the pesticide into the soil) and restrictions that limit pesticide spray drift. EPA’s Final ESA Biological Evaluation The Agency evaluated the effects of the registration on listed species and critical habitats. EPA’s final effects determination found that fluazaindolizine is likely to adversely affect (LAA) 18 listed species and three critical habitats. An LAA determination means that EPA reasonably expects that at least one individual animal or plant, among a variety of listed species, may be exposed to fluazaindolizine at a sufficient level to have an adverse effect. This is the case even if a listed species is almost recovered to a point where it may no longer need to be listed. The likely ″take,″ which includes unintentional harm or death, of even one individual of a listed species, is enough to trigger such a determination. As a result, there are often a high number of LAA determinations. An LAA determination, however, does not necessarily mean that a pesticide is putting a species in jeopardy. EPA further refined its analysis for the species and critical habitats where it made LAA determinations to predict the likelihood that fluazaindolizine use could lead to a future jeopardy finding for certain listed species or adverse modification finding for critical habitats. These predictions examine effects of fluazaindolizine at the species scale (as opposed to one individual of a species). EPA’s draft biological evaluation predicted that, without additional mitigation, the proposed uses of fluazaindolizine would present a likelihood of jeopardy for one listed plant species, the Kern Mallow. EPA predicted no likelihood of adverse modification to critical habitats. Given EPA’s initial prediction for the Kern Mallow plant, EPA developed geographically specific pesticide use limitations. In areas within the four counties in southern California where Kern Mallow is known to occur, users cannot use micro-sprinklers to apply the pesticide on non-bearing orchard crops. This includes citrus trees (e.g., oranges, lemons, limes), stone fruit trees (e.g., peaches, plums, apricots), and nut trees (e.g., hazelnuts, almonds, walnuts) that are not yet bearing fruit or nuts. As directed on the label, users must check the Bulletins Live Two! website to identify whether these restrictions apply to their geographic area. With these mitigations in place, EPA’s final biological evaluation predicts the use of fluazaindolizine will not present a likelihood of jeopardy to the Kern Mallow. Next Steps Since EPA’s final biological evaluation found that fluazaindolizine is likely to adversely affect some listed species and critical habitats under the jurisdiction of the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), EPA has initiated formal consultation and shared its findings with FWS. During formal consultation, FWS uses the information in EPA’s final biological evaluation (i.e., the final effects determination, predictions of the likelihood of jeopardy/adverse modification, and EPA’s mitigations to avoid jeopardy and minimize take) to inform their biological opinions. While EPA has made predictions about the likelihood of jeopardy and adverse modification as part of its biological evaluation, FWS is responsible for making the final jeopardy/adverse modification findings and have the sole authority to do so. If FWS determines in its final biological opinions that additional mitigations are necessary to address any jeopardy or adverse modification determination or to address any incidental take, then EPA will work with the registrant to ensure that any necessary registration or labeling changes are made. The registration decision and final biological evaluation are available in docket EPA-HQ-OPP-2020-0065 at www.regulations.gov.   From Agropages：https://news.agropages.com/News/NewsDetail---47729.htm

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has registered two pesticide products containing the new active ingredient pyraclonil to control weeds in water-seeded rice in California. EPA’s registration decision includes measures to protect non-target organisms, including federally threatened and endangered (listed) species and their designated critical habitats. In addition to the registration decision, EPA has finalized the biological evaluation for this pesticide under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Today’s action furthers the goals outlined in EPA’s April 2022 ESA Workplan (PDF) by identifying potential effects to listed species, implementing necessary mitigation, and initiating the consultation process with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service (the Services) prior to registration. Background on Pyraclonil EPA has approved two products containing pyraclonil: a technical product that can be used to formulate other products and an end-use product that is formulated as a dust-free granule that can be applied aerially to flooded rice paddies. The end-use product is registered for pre- and early post-emergence control of grass, sedge, and broadleaf weeds in water-seeded rice in California only. Notably, it may help control barnyardgrass and watergrass, two problematic weed species for rice growers in the state. Generally, weeds are important to control because they compete with rice plants for valuable nutrients and sunlight, potentially reducing yield if left uncontrolled. Pyraclonil is also expected to be a useful addition to Integrated Pest Management and Weed Resistance Management programs for water-seeded rice in California due to its efficacy and new mode of action. Rice producers in this area can use pyraclonil in rotation with other herbicides to reduce the potential spread of herbicide resistance. EPA’s Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessments Before issuing this registration decision, EPA assessed whether exposures to these products would cause unreasonable adverse effects to human health and the environment, as required by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). Based on EPA’s human health risk assessment, there are no human health risk concerns from the registered uses of pyraclonil. However, EPA’s ecological risk assessment identified several risks of concern for the environment, including risks to aquatic plant species, listed and non-listed freshwater fish, listed and non-listed estuarine and marine invertebrates, and listed mammals. EPA’s Final Biological Evaluation The Agency also evaluated the effects of the proposed registration on listed species and critical habitats. EPA’s final effects determination found that pyraclonil is likely to adversely affect (LAA) 12 listed species and 10 critical habitats. An LAA determination means that EPA reasonably expects that at least one individual animal or plant, among a variety of listed species, may be exposed to pyraclonil at a sufficient level to have an adverse effect. This is the case even if a listed species is almost recovered to a point where it may no longer need to be listed. The likely ″take,″ which includes unintentional harm or death, of even one individual of a listed species, is enough to trigger such a determination. As a result, there are often a high number of LAA determinations. An LAA determination, however, does not necessarily mean that a pesticide is putting a species in jeopardy. EPA further refined its analysis for the species and critical habitats where it made LAA determinations to predict the likelihood that pyraclonil use could lead to a future jeopardy finding for certain listed species or adverse modification finding for critical habitats. These predictions examine effects of pyraclonil at the species scale (as opposed to one individual of a species). EPA’s draft biological evaluation predicted that, without additional mitigation, the proposed uses of pyraclonil would present a likelihood of jeopardy for two listed species (Sacramento River winter-run Chinook Salmon and Central Valley spring-run Chinook Salmon). EPA predicted no likelihood of adverse modification to critical habitats. Mitigations B Based on these findings, the applicant has added the following mitigations to their labeling:   A water holding period in treated rice paddies after pyraclonil is applied to minimize pyraclonil off-site movement to non-target areas in which listed species live; and Practices to 1) prevent water seepage from treated rice paddies through berms and levees, and 2) minimize overspray of pyraclonil granules onto berms and levees.   The applicant has also revised product labeling to include a requirement that users check the Bulletins Live Two! website to identify whether there are any areas where the pesticide cannot be used. Currently, there are no geographically-specific user restrictions, however, the Services may determine these mitigations are necessary during their review. With these mitigations in place, EPA’s final biological evaluation predicts that the use of pyraclonil will not result in unreasonable adverse effects to non-target organisms or present a likelihood of jeopardy to these species. Next Steps Since EPA’s final biological evaluation found that pyraclonil is likely to adversely affect some listed species and critical habitats, EPA has initiated formal consultation and shared its findings with the Services. During formal consultation, the Services use the information in EPA’s final biological evaluation (i.e., the final effects determination, predictions of the likelihood of jeopardy/adverse modification, and EPA’s mitigations to avoid jeopardy and minimize take) to inform their biological opinions. While EPA has made predictions about the likelihood of jeopardy and adverse modification as part of its biological evaluation, the Services are responsible for making the final jeopardy/adverse modification findings and have the sole authority to do so. If the Services determine in their final biological opinions that additional mitigations are necessary to address any jeopardy or adverse modification determination or to address any incidental take, then EPA will work with the registrant to ensure that any necessary registration or labeling changes are made. The registration decision and final biological evaluation are available in docket EPA-HQ-OPP-2020-0004 at www.regulations.gov.   From: https://news.agropages.com/News/NewsDetail---47547.htm

The Verkhovna Rada adopted  law "On state regulation of genetic engineering activities and state control over the circulation of genetically modified organisms and genetically modified products to ensure food safety." Implementation of the Law will make it possible to achieve systemic compatibility of Ukrainian legislation with EU legislation in the field of handling GMOs, as the document is based on 8 main acts of European Union law in the field of GMOs. The law introduces European mechanisms for the state registration of GMOs, a ban is introduced on the cultivation and circulation of: GMO corn - permanently, GMO sugar beets and rapeseed - within 5 years from the date of entry into force of the Law. Requirements for the use of the labels "with GMOs", "without GMOs", "produced from GMO raw materials" are also established in accordance with the norms of EU legislation. The consumer must be sure of the products he consumes and have the right to choose. The State Register of GMOs, which is managed by the Ministry of Agrarian Policy, is being created. The implementation of the Law will contribute to increasing the efficiency and transparency of state regulation procedures in the field of handling GMOs, creating clear and transparent rules for conducting business related to GMOs, de-criminalizing the GMO market. The law enters into force on the day following its publication, and is put into effect three years after its entry into force.   Source: https://minagro.gov.ua/news/parlament-uhvaliv-zakon-pro-posilennya-kontrolyu-za-produkciyeyu-z-gmo

Recently, the European Union based on plant protection products PPP REGULATION(EC) No. 1107/2009 extended the validity period of 28 active ingredients including: Active Ingredient Newest valid date Gibberellic acid July 15, 2025 Flonicamid November 30, 2026 Tebuconazole August 15, 2026 Halosulfuron-methyl March 31, 2025 Cymoxanil August 15, 2026 Pyrethrins June 15, 2026 Sulcotrione November 30, 2026 Metamitron November 30, 2026 Dodemorph November 30, 2026 Gibberellins July 15, 2025 Aluminium ammonium sulphate December 15, 2024 Calcium carbide November 30, 2026 Iron sulphate November 30, 2026 Aluminium phosphide November 30, 2026 Magnesium phosphide November 30, 2026 Acetic acid November 30, 2026 Ethylene November 30, 2026 2,5-dichlorobenzoic acid methylester November 30, 2026 Aluminium silicate December 15, 2024 Extract from tea tree January 31, 2026 Fat distillation residues December 15, 2024 Fatty acids C7 to C20 December 15, 2024 Hydrolysed proteins April 15, 2025 Plant oils/clove oil January 31, 2026 Plant oils/rape seed oil December 15, 2024 Plant oils/spear mint oil January 31, 2026 Urea November 30, 2026 Maltodextrin February 28, 2026

The Brazilian Anvisa (National Health Surveillance Agency) announced a new system for registering components of agrochemicals and the like. As of June 2023, all requests must be made through the system called ″Solicita″.   In turn, transfers of ownership to pesticide companies will be automated, Anvisa informed. According to the official Brazilian regulatory agency, the ownership transfer procedure will be more agile and all requests for registration and component changes will be centralized in a single system. Requests for registration or post-registration of components at Anvisa will now be made only through the Solicita system. Data for registration will no longer be sent directly in the current system by electronic form. In the new procedure, the component registration application model must be completed, electronically signed and inserted in the Request, with the complementary documentation. It is no longer necessary to pre-register the component and one needs to ensure the identity of the component and detail them in Item 4 of the application. According to Anvisa, the subject code will remain the same (5015–Component Registration), as well as the files to be attached. Other instructions are in the system itself. Subject code 5059 (Component registration change) should only be used for trade name, manufacturer, intended use and packaging changes. The change will only apply to orders placed as of June 1, 2023, without affecting orders placed earlier.   From Agropages, https://news.agropages.com/News/NewsDetail---46671.htm