Pesticides Strategy Group Report

1. Pesticides Strategy Group Report Philip Dickey Staff Scientist Washington Toxics Coalition

2. Port Ludlow OPWork Group Guidance • Define areas for research and coordination • Have a conversation about product stewardship approaches to pesticides • Define the current situation: Who uses OPs? Which ones? What quantities? • Select a list of targeted pesticides. • Compile pesticide reduction lessons learned. • Identify additional strategies. • Discuss performance standards, restrictions and bans.

3. Group Participation July 24, 2002 Apr 29, 2003

4. CoreMembers • Annette Frahm (facilitator) • David Stitzhal (interim facilitator) • Philip Dickey • Katherine Diers (notetaker) • Abby Boudouris • Lisa Heigh • Jane Mountjoy-Venning • David McDonald

6. Challenges • Large number of products • Large number of manufacturers/formulators • No use-reporting system • Widely varying toxicity • Alternatives vary with pest • Many alternatives are still pesticides

7. Consumer OP Sales in Home Centers (King Co.) pounds

8. Product Stewardship Discussion • Pesticides different than computers • Use hazards, alternatives, spectrum of products • Manufacturer takeback not enough • Not all pesticide goals fit into “product stewardship” • Manufacturer responsibility worth pursuing

9. Strategy Brainstorm • Manufacturer takeback • Manufacturer funded HW collection • Manufacturer fund for injured • Manufacturer reformulation • Crackdown on inappropriate advertising • Anti-pesticide advertising paid for by manufacturers

10. Strategy Brainstorm cont’d • Additional taxes or fees on pesticides • Toxicity-based tax or fee structure • Increase or reallocate registration fees • Reveal costs of cleanup/disposal • More stringent registration process • Better information on labels • Ingredients/hazards disclosure • Retailer education

11. Strategy Brainstorm cont’d • Local bans or restrictions on pesticides • Better/more consumer education • Demonstration projects on alternatives • Restrict retail access: rope off aisles • More research on alternatives, funded by manufacturer pool of funds • Take back program for banned products

12. Strategy Brainstorm cont’d • Indoor air and dust testing in stores • Copy tobacco regulation approach

13. Short List for Research • Fee or tax structure • Public disclosure of ingredients • Local or state bans or restrictions • Manufacturer pay/take back • Limiting retail access

14. Fee or Tax Structure • Examples: BC pesticides, MTCA,Iowa, Sweden, Denmark, Netherlands. • Purpose: educational value, disincentive, source of money • Study of Washington voter attitudes • WA sales tax exemption of ag pesticides (i.e. negative tax)

15. Disclosure of Ingredients • EPA controls labels • NCAP legal battles against EPA • Legislation to require disclosure • Logistics: electronic, request/receive, info sheets at retail • Disclosure of hazards w/o ingredients?

16. Local Bans/Restrictions • Use versus sales restrictions • Canadian provincial/municipal laws • Statewide actions (lindane, clopyralid) • Failed New York bill in 2001 • County authority to ban or restrict • Possible targets: ingredients, “cosmetic” use, pesticide/fertilizer mixtures, health effects, salmon impacts • Effect on sales of other toxic products

17. Manufacturer Takeback or Funding of HW Collection • BC collection program (fee, TPO) • EPA grant to fund pilot diazinon and weed/feed takeback—not receptive

18. Limiting Retail Access • New Quebec law “ropes off the aisles”, requires request from trained staff • Representative invited to speak at Green Gardening IPM workshop Oct 23 in Seattle • Clear need for a research trip to Montreal Photo courtesy http://philip.greenspun.com

19. Moving Forward • Portland Metro intern • Name change: Pesticides Policy Forum • Quarterly meetings • Need some new energy • Come to workshop session