November 30, 2021

Volume XI, Number 334

Advertisement
Advertisement

November 29, 2021

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

EPA Seeks Public Comment on First-Ever Hemp Pesticide Applications

On August 21, 2019, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced its receipt of ten applications seeking to add new hemp uses to pesticide products registered under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). These submissions represent the first such applications received by EPA since last year’s passage of the Agricultural Improvement Act of 2018 (commonly known as the Farm Bill), which removed industrial hemp from its earlier classification as a controlled substance under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). EPA is also opening a 30-day public comment period upon publication of notice in the Federal Register. 

Industrial hemp is considered any part of the cannabis plant with no more than 0.3 percent of tetrahydrocannabibol (THC) on a dry weight basis. Farm Bill Sec. 10113 (amending 7 U.S.C. 1621 et seq.). To date, EPA has not registered any pesticides for use on cannabis, citing the illegal status of cannabis under federal law, and as recently as 2017, had turned down efforts by certain states to approve “Special Local Needs” registrations under FIFRA Section 24(c) that would have allowed cannabis uses for pesticides within those states. With the legalization of industrial hemp under the Farm Bill, however, EPA now has an opportunity to consider approving nationwide, registered pesticide uses on hemp grown in full accordance with federal law.

The active ingredients contained in the registered products subject to the newly received hemp use applications are:

  • Azadirachtin

  • Neem oil

  • Extract of Reynoutria sachalinensis

  • Bacillus amyloliquifaciens strains

  • Soybean oil

  • Garlic oil

  • Capsicum oleoresin extract

  • Potassium salts of fatty acids

According to EPA, the availability of FIFRA-registered pesticide products “will likely be essential to supporting the success” of the hemp production industry going forward. EPA notes that it is providing an opportunity to comment at this time due to “potential significant interest from the public” and to further EPA’s transparency goals. EPA does not view itself as statutorily required to provide this comment opportunity and does not anticipate notifying the public of its receipt of similar applications in the future. In its notice, EPA explains that because hemp falls under existing terrestrial outdoor and residential outdoor use patterns previously assessed and approved by EPA for the subject products, the FIFRA section 3(c)(4) requirement to publish notice of any application that entails a “changed use pattern” is not triggered. 

Hemp farmers, pesticide manufacturers, and other ancillary businesses supporting the hemp industry should take advantage of EPA’s public comment opportunity. On July 25, 2019, the US Senate’s Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry conducted a detailed hearing on hemp, at which Committee members stated that government agencies should work in a cooperative manner to ensure that regulatory processes are constructed with robust communication and input from all involved. The overwhelming public interest in hemp, combined with statements from multiple federal agencies evincing an intent to work together, suggests that public opinion will continue to influence the development of thorough, common-sense regulations for an industry seeking guidance on how it can comply with the law. 

© 2021 Beveridge & Diamond PC National Law Review, Volume IX, Number 234
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

About this Author

Alan J. Sachs Regulatory Attorney Beveridge & Diamond Washington, DC
Principal

Alan’s practice focuses on the wide range of regulatory issues faced by the global agriculture, food, biotechnology, and bioenergy industries.

Practicing environmental law provides him with daily opportunities to use his legal skills and training to help clients overcome often extremely technical business and regulatory challenges in order to ensure compliance with applicable environmental requirements.

He advises numerous Forbes Global 2000 companies on the legal and regulatory requirements associated with both domestic and foreign production, and the import, export, and...

202-789-6049
Christopher D. Strunk Environmental Litigation Attorney Beveridge & Diamond San Francisco, CA
Of Counsel

Christopher D. Strunk has more than 20 years of experience litigating complex environmental and toxic tort disputes.  

He focuses on the defense of large, multi-party environmental matters, including mass tort and products liability litigation involving alleged toxic injury arising from asbestos, lead, mold, solvents, and other contaminants. He has represented microchip and technology companies, chemical and petrochemical companies, heavy equipment manufacturers, and the pesticide and fertilizer industry. Over the past five years, he has also developed a significant industrial hemp...

415-262-4016
Kathryn E. Szmuszkovicz Litigation Attorney Beveridge & Diamond Washington, DC
Managing Principal

Kathryn E. Szmuszkovicz litigates and provides strategic regulatory counsel.

Kathy litigates on behalf of individual companies, groups of companies and trade associations in federal and state courts across the country. She also provides alternative dispute resolution (ADR), compliance, strategic planning, and commercial services focused on the regulatory aspects of her clients’ businesses. Kathy’s practice focuses on clients who manufacture, sell, and use products regulated by EPA, USDA, FDA, DOI, DOC, and analogous state agencies under the environmental, health, and safety laws...

202-789-6037
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement