Chlorpyrifos

This issue tracker focuses on federal and selected state regulatory actions and litigation addressing the use of chlorpyrifos. Our goal is to provide a comprehensive listing of regulatory actions, but the litigation covered is not exhaustive and focuses on selected issues receiving national attention. This issue tracker covers the period from 2007 to present.

2.5.24 – The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced the withdrawal of its previously guidance document, titled “Questions and Answers Regarding Channels of Trade Policy for Human Food Commodities with Chlorpyrifos Residues: Guidance for Industry,” published in 2022. This decision follows a recent EPA’s rule reinstating tolerances for chlorpyrifos use in food commodities (89 FR 7625). As such, the 2022 guidance outlining enforcement policies regarding expired tolerances is no longer applicable.

2.5.24 – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a final rule in the Federal Register, titled “Chlorpyrifos; Reinstatement of Tolerances.” The U.S. EPA reinstated previously revoked chlorpyrifos tolerances for certain commodities in response to the Eighth Circuit Court’s decision in November 2023 vacating their previous revocation. RRVSG, et al. v. Michael Regan, et al., No. 22-1422. These commodities include alfalfa, almonds, apples, bananas, beets, cattle, cherries, citrus, corn, cotton, cranberries, cucumbers, eggs, figs, goats, hazelnuts, hogs, horses, kiwifruits, milkfat, nectarines, onions, peaches, peanuts, pears, pecans, peppers, peppermint, plums, poultry, pumpkin, radishes, rutabagas, sheep, spearmint, sorghum, soybean seeds, strawberries, sunflower seeds, sweet potato roots, turnips, leafy brassica, legumes, walnuts, and wheat. The rule became effective upon publication.  

12.1.23 – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a notice in the Federal Register amending the existing stocks terms of a previous cancellation order dated August 2022 for the pesticide Liberty Chlorpyrifos 4E and its supplemental distributor product Vesper. This notice allows existing stocks of these products to be returned to registrant ADAMA Ltd under a specific return program, rather than only being exported or disposed of as previously mandated. These products remain banned for use, sale, and distribution.  

2.28.22 – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published in the Federal Register a final order denying all objections and requests for hearing or staying its August 2021 rule revoking all chlorpyrifos tolerances in food commodities, effective February 28, 2022. Additionally, the EPA sent letters to chlorpyrifos product registrants requesting that they either voluntarily cancel any products subject to tolerance revocation or update product labels to remove food uses. The EPA stated that it intends to formally cancel food uses of chlorpyrifos for products not already cancelled by their manufacturers.

2.9.22 – The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a guidance document, titled “Questions and Answers Regarding Channels of Trade Policy for Human Food Commodities with Chlorpyrifos Residues: Guidance for Industry.” This guidance document details the agency’s enforcement policies concerning chlorpyrifos residues in food products after February 28, 2022. The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) provides that food containing any pesticide residue without a specific tolerance level or tolerance exemption is considered adulterated and cannot be sold in the United States; however, the FDA interpreted the FDCA’s “channels of trade” provision to allow existing food with chlorpyrifos residues to be sold even after the ban following specific conditions: (1) the chlorpyrifos must have been applied before February 28, 2022, strictly following the registration label instructions and (2) the residue levels must remain below the tolerance limits set before the ban. To help with the transition, the FDA developed a two-stage enforcement plan: under stage 1, the FDA will not request documentation of lawful chlorpyrifos application for 6 to 24 months, depending on the commodity’s “showing date” and under stage 2, documentation of lawful chlorpyrifos application becomes mandatory until August 28, 2026. The FDA guidance listed Phase 1 showing dates as follows:

• September 1, 2022: asparagus, bananas, brassica leaves, cherries, corn (sweet, kernel plus cob), cranberries, cucumbers, eggs, figs, grapes, legumes (succulent, group 6), nectarines, peaches, peppers, peppermint (tops), fresh plums, pumpkins, radishes, spearmint (tops), strawberries, turnips (tops), and whole milk.
• March 1, 2023: beets (sugar, root), citrus fruits, kiwis, onion bulbs, rutabagas, sweet potatoes, and turnip roots.
• September 1, 2023: apples and pears.
• March 1, 2024: almonds, corn (field, grain), hazelnuts, legumes (group of 6, dried), peanuts, pecans, sorghum (grain), soybean seeds, sunflower seeds, walnuts, and wheat (grain).

10.19.21 – More than 80 producer groups, including sugar beet growers, soybean farmers, and Michigan cherry producers, filed a petition with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) challenging the agency’s rule published in August 2021 (86 FR 48315), revoking all chlorpyrifos tolerances effective February 8, 2022. The groups argued that the EPA’s decision disregards both the significant economic hardship it imposes and the availability of safer uses of chlorpyrifos. They pointed out to the rule’s underlying statute, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)—a “risk-benefit statute”—and that the EPA’s justification for the revocation rests solely on “potential” hazards. They claimed even the EPA’s own experts acknowledged existing controls could mitigate these risks. The groups asked the EPA to rescind the rule and stay its implementation.

8.30.21 – Following a court ruling on April 29, 2021, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a final rule in the Federal Register, titled “Chlorpyrifos; Tolerance Revocations,” banning all chlorpyrifos tolerances on food crops, effective February 8, 2022. The court ruling raised concerns over the safety of chlorpyrifos on food and ordered the EPA to either correct or revoke chlorpyrifos tolerances and food use registrations. The agency wrote, “EPA is unable to conclude that the risk from aggregate exposure from the use of chlorpyrifos meets the safety standard of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA),” to justify its decision. The EPA noted in an earlier announcement that it is “committed to reviewing replacements and alternatives” to the pesticide use.

12.7.20 – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published in the Federal Register a notice of availability (85 FR 78849) of its Proposed Interim Registration Review Decision for Chlorpyrifos, following EPA’s Sep. 25, 2020, Draft Risk Assessment of Chlorpyrifos. The proposed interim decision states that chlorpyrifos “poses potential dietary and aggregate risks associated with drinking water exposure for currently labelled uses.” To mitigate these risks, EPA proposes application restrictions according to crop and geographic region, along with application-specific personal protective gear (PPE) requirements and re-entry interval (REI) extensions. Additionally, EPA proposes label language addressing spray drift management and pesticide resistance management. EPA states that it will consider input from the Sep. 2020 FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel report to further revise its proposed recommendations. 

9.25.20 – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published in the Federal Register a notice titled “Pesticide Registration Review; Draft Human Health and/or Ecological Risk Assessments for Chlorpyrifos; Notice of Availability” (85 FR 60455). The available draft risk assessments for chlorpyrifos include an ecological risk assessment, a human health risk assessment, and a drinking water assessment. While the human health risk assessment found “no residential post-application risk of concern,” it identified dietary risks due to food residues, with the highest risk estimated being for children. Additionally, the ecological assessment identified that the level of risk quotients (RQs) for chlorpyrifos “exceed the level of concern (LOC) for all uses assessed for all taxa,” and that [c]itrus and tart cherries are associated with some of the highest RQs.”

7.24.19 – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published in the Federal Register an order title “Chlorpyrifos; Final Order Denying Objections to March 2017 Petition Denial Order” (84 FR 35555). 

4.5.17 – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published in the Federal Register “Chlorpyrifos: Order Denying PANNA and NRDC’s Petition to Revoke Tolerances” (82 FR 16581), initially issued on March 29, 2017. 

11.17.16 – Following the release of EPA’s revised human health risk assessment and refined drinking water assessment, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published in the Federal Register a proposed rule titled “Chlorpyrifos; Tolerance Revocations; Notice of Data Availability and Request for Comment” (81 FR 81049) reopening comments for 80 FR 69079. The proposed rule stated, “EPA is announcing and inviting comment on additional information obtained and developed by EPA in conjunction with the proposed tolerance revocation for chlorpyrifos.”

11.10.16 – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced that the agency revised its analysis of the human health risks from chlorpyrifos as well as its refined drinking water risk assessment. According to EPA, [t]he revised analysis indicates that expected residues of chlorpyrifos on most individual food crops exceed the “reasonable certainty of no harm” safety standard under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

Note: On Aug. 16, 2016, the Ninth Circuit Court ordered EPA to provide a final answer to the 2007 Petition by Mar. 31, 2017 (rf. In re PANNA, No. 14-72794).

11.6.15 – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published in the Federal Register a proposed rule titled “Chlorpyrifos; Tolerance Revocations” (80 FR 69079). EPA proposed to revoke all tolerances for chlorpyrifos after being “unable to conclude that the risk from aggregate exposure from the use of chlorpyrifos meets the safety standard of section 408(b)(2) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).”

Note: On Aug. 10, 2015, the Ninth Circuit Court ordered EPA to provide a final answer to the 2007 Petition by Oct. 31, 2015 (rf. In re PANNA, No. 14-72794).

7.15.14 – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) provided an update regarding its response to the 2007 Petition, stating that more work is required to respond to three other claims. The agency said it would provide a full and complete response by the time it released a Revised Human Health Risk Assessment for public comment i.e., by Dec. 14, 2014.

Note: EPA agreed to respond to the 2007 Petition by Feb. 2014 (rf. In re PANNA, No. 12-71125); however, EPA missed the Feb. 2014 deadline.

1.25.13 – In another update letter, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) wrote that again the agency would not be able to provide a complete response addressing the four remaining claims on time but believed it could do so by the end of 2013.

12.18.12 – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced that it will not be possible for the agency to provide a full and complete answer to the 2007 Petition by December 2012, as initially agreed. EPA wrote that it would provide a response by January 2013 “that will address some, but likely not all, of the four remaining claims.”

7.16.12 – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released its Spray Drift Mitigation Decision for Chlorpyrifos. The new measures provide for the implementation of “buffer zones for groundboom, airblast, and aerial application methods around sensitive sites such as residential lawns, homes, pedestrian sidewalks, outdoor recreational areas, and all property associated with buildings typically occupied by people.”

7.16.12 – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a partial response to the 2007 Petition addressing six out of ten claims raised by PANNA and NRDC. EPA wrote, “none of these claims warrants revoking tolerances or canceling registrations for chlorpyrifos at this time.” EPA declared it would provide a full and complete response by December 2012. In addition, the agency announced that “the chlorpyrifos registrants have agreed to implement label mitigation (in the form of rate reductions and spray drift buffers) that will reduce risks to bystanders from spray drift.”

Note: the U.S. EPA failed to meet the Nov. 23, 2011, for a final response to the 2007 Petition.

7.6.11 – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published in the Federal Register a notice announcing the availability of EPA’s Preliminary Human Health Risk Assessment for the Registration Review for Chlorpyrifos, issued on Jun. 30, 2011 (76 FR 39399).

Note: On Dec. 22, 2010, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York ordered EPA to complete a preliminary human health risk assessment for chlorpyrifos by Jun. 1, 2011, and to respond to the 2007 Petition by Nov. 23, 2011 (rf. NRDC v. EPA, No. 1:10-cv-5590).

10.17.07 – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published in the Federal Register a notice seeking public comment on NRDC and PANNA’s petition requesting the revocation of all tolerances and cancellation of all registrations for the pesticide chlorpyrifos (72 FR 58845).

9.12.07 – The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA) petitioned the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requesting the agency to revoke all tolerances and cancel all registrations for the pesticide chlorpyrifos (EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-1005). Petitioners pointed out the dangerous nature of chlorpyrifos based on “overwhelming” scientific evidence and its adverse health effects on children and infants. 

In re: Pesticide Action Network North, et al. v. U.S. EPA [Case closed]
Ninth Circuit, No. 12-71125

4.12.12 – Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA) and Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. filed a petition for a writ of mandamus, requesting the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to respond within 60 days to an administrative petition filed in Sep. 2007, which called for a ban on the use of chlorpyrifos. Petitioners wrote, “[o]ver four and a half years have passed since the 2007 Petition was submitted to EPA, PANNA has a right to a timely response from EPA, and a writ of mandamus is the only remedy that will adequately cure the injury PANNA has suffered as a result of EPA’s delay.”

7.10.13 – The Ninth Circuit Court denied the petition for a writ of mandamus, holding that “[t]he time EPA has taken to consider the 2007 Petition is not unreasonable in light of the complexity of the issue.”

Natural Resources Defense Council, et al. v. U.S. EPA, et al. [Case closed]
USDC S.D. New York, No. 1:10-cv-5590

7.22.10 – The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and the Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA) filed a complaint against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), alleging that EPA failed to respond to a Sep. 2007 administrative petition requiring to ban chlorpyrifos. Plaintiffs declared that they are “statutorily entitled to a response to that petition within a reasonable period of time …” and that the lack of response violated the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). Therefore, plaintiffs asked the court to require EPA to issue a final response on the petition within 60 days.

12.22.10 – The district court ordered EPA to complete a preliminary human health risk assessment for chlorpyrifos by June 1, 2011, and to answer to NRDC and PANNA’s 2007 Petition by November 23, 2011.

6.14.13 – Plaintiffs filed a stipulation for voluntary dismissal without prejudice.

In re: Pesticide Action Network, et al. v. U.S. EPA [Case closed]
Ninth Circuit, No. 14-72794

9.10.14 – Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA) and Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (NRDC) filed a renewed petition for a writ of mandamus requesting an order from the court compelling U.S. EPA to “finally and fully respond to a 2007 petition to ban uses of chlorpyrifos.” According to Plaintiffs, a final decision on the 2007 petition has been deliberately delayed by EPA during seven (7) years.

8.10.15 – The Ninth Circuit Court granted Petitioners’ renewed petition for a writ of mandamus, stating “EPA’s ambiguous plan to possibly issue a proposed rule “nearly nine years after receiving the administration petition is too little, too late.” Calling this delay “egregious,” the court ordered EPA to issue a full and complete response to the 2007 administrative petition by October. 31, 2015.

Note: On Nov. 6, 2015, EPA published in the Federal Register a proposed rule to revoke all chlorpyrifos tolerances (80 FR 69079).

12.10.15 – The Ninth Circuit Court directed U.S. EPA to take final action by Dec. 30, 2016, on its proposed rule to revoke the use of chlorpyrifos and its final response to the 2007 Petition.

6.29.16 – Respondent U.S. EPA requested an additional six-month extension – until Jun. 30, 2017 – of the Dec. 30, 2016, deadline to take final action on its response to the 2007 Petition, stating that “extraordinary circumstances exist that make it impracticable for the Agency to meet the Court’s deadline.”

8.12.16 – The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied EPA’s request for an additional six-month extension for its response to the 2007 Petition. According to the court, EPA has delayed taking action for nine years and has received previous court extensions. As a result, the court stated that it will not grant any further extensions and instead ordered EPA to take final action by Mar. 31, 2017. The court wrote, “[t]his is the final extension, and the court will not grant any further extensions.”

Note: On Mar. 29, 2017, EPA signed an order denying PANNA and NRDC’s 2007 Petition to revoke tolerances (later published in the Federal Register on Apr. 5, 2017).

4.5.17 – Petitioners PANNA and NRDC filed a motion for further mandamus relief, stressing that EPA’s decision not to ban chlorpyrifos was inadequate and the absence of “new safety findings” that chlorpyrifos is safe to use. Petitioners wrote “EPA’s response to the petition is not response at all and certainly not what this Court ordered EPA to do by March 31, 2017.”

7.18.17 – The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied Petitioners’ motion for further mandamus relief. The court held that the motion was “premature” and that any objections to the EPA’s decision “must first be made through the administrative process mandated by statute.”

8.3.18 – The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued the mandate.

LULAC, et al. v. Andrew Wheeler, et al. (LULAC I) [Case closed]
Ninth Circuit, No. 17-71636

6.5.17 – A coalition of environmental organizations, including the League of United Latin American Citizens, filed a petition in the Ninth Circuit Court seeking review of EPA’s “Chlorpyrifos: Order Denying PANNA and NRDC’s Petition to Revoke Tolerances” (82 FR 16581), issued on March 29, 2017, and April 5, 2017, in the Federal Register. This order denied a 2007 petition to revoke chlorpyrifos tolerances.

8.9.18 – The Ninth Circuit granted Petitioners’ request for review of EPA’s 2017 order. The court decided to vacate EPA’s 2017 order and remanded to the EPA with directions to revoke all tolerances and cancel all registrations for chlorpyrifos within 60 days. The court concluded that “there was no justification for the EPA’s decision in its 2017 order to maintain a tolerance for chlorpyrifos in the face of scientific evidence that its residue on food causes neurodevelopmental damage to children.”

9.24.18 – Respondents filed a petition for rehearing en banc “on the panel’s finding of jurisdiction to review the agency action,” “on the panel’s remedy directing EPA to take specific actions upon vacatur of the [Apr. 5, 2017] Order” and “on the requirement that EPA cancel chlorpyrifos registrations under FIFRA.”

7.19.19 – Respondents EPA filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, stating that Petitioners’ challenge to EPA’s 2017 order is now moot following EPA’s issuance of its final decision on Jul. 19, 2019.

10.16.19 – Respondents’ motion to dismiss LULAC I is granted because EPA’s issuance of the Final Order dated Jul. 24, 2019, denying objections to March 29, 2017, Petition Denial Order mooted the petition for review of EPA’s 2017 Petition Denial Order.

LULAC, et al. v. Michael Regan, et al. (LULAC II) [Case closed]
Ninth Circuit, No. 19-71979

8.7.19 – The same coalition in LULAC I filed a petition for review of both EPA’s Petition Denial Order published in the Federal Register on Apr. 5, 2017 (82 FR 16581) and EPA’s Objections Denial Order published in the Federal Register on Jul. 24, 2019 (84 FR 35555).

10.16.19 – The Ninth Circuit Court voted to accept LULAC II and New York v. Wheeler as “comeback cases.” In addition, the court granted consolidation between LULAC II and New York v. Wheeler.

4.29.21 – The Ninth Circuit Court issued a decision on multiple petitions for review of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) actions over the last several years regarding chlorpyrifos. First, the court vacated 2017 and 2019 EPA Orders denying a 2007 petition to prohibit any chlorpyrifos residue tolerance in food under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), effectively banning it. The court remanded the matter and ordered EPA within 60 days to either modify chlorpyrifos tolerances to that which EPA could determine to be safe or prohibit any chlorpyrifos tolerance. Last, the court ordered EPA to similarly either modify or cancel Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) registrations for food use. The Ninth Circuit stated, “In short, the EPA has spent more than a decade assembling a record of chlorpyrifos’s ill effects and has repeatedly determined, based on that record, that it cannot conclude, to the statutorily required standard of reasonable certainty, that the present tolerances are causing no harm. Yet rather than ban the pesticide or reduce the tolerances to levels that the EPA can find are reasonably certain to cause no harm, the EPA has sought to evade, through one delaying tactic after another, its plain statutory duties.”

6.21.21 – The Ninth Circuit Court issued a mandate ordering the EPA to vacate the 2017 and 2019 orders.

State of New York, et al. v. Michael Regan, et al. [Case closed] 
Ninth Circuit, No. 19-71982

8.7.19 – A group of states, including New York, California, Washington, Maryland, Vermont, and Massachusetts filed a petition to review EPA’s final order dated Jul. 24, 2019, denying objections to Mar. 2017 order denying a 2007 petition to revoke chlorpyrifos tolerance and cancel all registrations (84 FR 35555). Petitioners argued that EPA failed to meet the statutory standard for pesticide safety as set out in the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. § 346a(b)(2)(C)(ii)(I). The pesticide safety standard provides that EPA, “when leaving in effect a tolerance for a pesticide chemical residue, [must] ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue.” Petitioners requested the court to set the order aside.

10.16.19 – The Ninth Circuit Court voted to accept LULAC II and New York v. Wheeler as “comeback cases.” In addition, the court granted consolidation between LULAC II and New York v. Wheeler.

RRVSG Assoc., et al. v. Michael Regan, et al. [Case closed] 
Eighth Circuit, No. 22-1422

2.28.22 – The petitioners filed a petition for review challenging the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) denial order (87 FR 11222) of the objections and requests to delay the August 2021 rule (86 FR 48315). The August 2021 rule prohibited all chlorpyrifos tolerances on food crops. The EPA denied in February 2022 the petitioners’ objections and requests for an administrative stay of the August 2021 rule.  

3.3.22 – The petitioners filed a motion for stay, contending that despite the EPA declaring chlorpyrifos safe for 11 specific crops, it was still banned for all uses. They argued that the EPA must follow its own findings and should allow for continued use for safe crops. Additionally, they claimed that such a ban would hurt farmers economically and that there are no viable alternatives to the use of chlorpyrifos. Consequently, the petitioners asked the court to stay implementing the rule regarding EPA’s approved safe uses and the tolerance expiration date for all chlorpyrifos crop uses.  

3.15.22 – The Eighth Circuit Court denied the petitioners’ motion to stay and retained jurisdiction in this matter.  

4.21.22 – The parties filed a joint motion to consolidate this case with the RRVSG Assoc., et al. v. Michael Regan, et al. case, No. 22-1530.   

4.21.22 – The Eighth Circuit Court granted the parties’ motion to consolidate the case.  

5.24.22 – The petitioners filed their brief urging the court to overturn the EPA’s chlorpyrifos ban. They argued that the EPA’s justifications for the ban are flawed, particularly its disregard for its own scientific findings that considered chlorpyrifos safe for 11 crops. The petitioners further requested a clear, science-based explanation for banning all uses.  

7.26.22 – The respondents filed their brief. In their response, the respondents emphasized that the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) requires the EPA to consider total exposure from all chlorpyrifos uses, not just a few selected crops. The EPA found overall exposure unsafe, as a result, the agency revoked all tolerances. The EPA further clarified that the previously designated safe uses for 11 crops were not final.  

11.2.23 – The Eighth Circuit Court issued an opinion holding that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) improperly “revoked all tolerances” for the pesticide chlorpyrifos, failing to consider all available options. The three-judge panel noted that the EPA itself acknowledged the existence of potentially safe applications but disregarded them without adequate reasoning. The court wrote that the EPA had two options: “revoke the tolerances or modify them.” It further determined that the EPA “misread the statute and misunderstood the ‘scope of [its] discretion’,” and, as a result, found that EPA’s decision to revoke permissions was arbitrary and capricious, because the agency “ruled out the second option, leaving only revocation by default.” The court invalidated both the 2021 revocation (88 FR 48315) and 2022 denial order (87 FR 53471),  remanding the case to the EPA for further consideration.

12.28.23 – The Eighth Circuit Court issued mandate.

Note: On Feb. 6, 2020, Corteva, Inc. one of the leading manufacturers of the pesticide chlorpyrifos, announced that it will end production and sales of the pesticide by the end of 2020. Hawai’i, California, and New York have all taken actions to end chlorpyrifos use and sales in their respective states. Corteva made the following statement: “Demand for one of our long-standing products, chlorpyrifos, has declined significantly over the last two decades, particularly in the U.S. Due to this reduced demand, Corteva has made the strategic business decision to phase out our production of chlorpyrifos in 2020.”

California

10.9.19 – The California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) issued a Press Release announcing an agreement to end most sales of the pesticide chlorpyrifos within California by 2020. After Dec. 31, 2020, the possession and use of chlorpyrifos by individual growers will be prohibited. In the meantime, the use of chlorpyrifos will be subject to thorough control and restrictions.

11.15.18 – The California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) issued a statement recommending that local state governments enact interim measures restricting the use of pesticide chlorpyrifos. According to DPR, the interim measures will provide increased protection from chlorpyrifos exposure until formal regulations can be enacted. Under DPR’s proposed interim measures, California’s County Agricultural Commissioners (CACs) should restrict chlorpyrifos in the following ways:

• Ban aerial application;
• Limit use on crops to those “critical uses” where a crop has few or no alternative pesticides;
• Require a quarter-mile buffer zone for application;
• Require 150-foot setbacks for houses, businesses, schools, and other sensitive areas.

DPR recommends that the CACs begin implementing the interim measures on Jan. 1, 2019.

8.15.18 – The California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) released a draft scientific review titled “Evaluation of Chlorpyrifos as a Toxic Air Contaminant” suggesting that the pesticide should be listed as a toxic air contaminant. Considering this and other research, DPR announced its intention to cancel chlorpyrifos production registrations. 

Hawai’i

6.14.18 – The Hawai’i state legislature enacted a total ban on the use of pesticides containing chlorpyrifos as an active ingredient beginning Jan. 1, 2019. The law, however, provides that the Hawai’ian Department of Agriculture may grant certain pesticide applicators, upon request, a temporary permit to use chlorpyrifos until Dec. 31, 2022.

Maryland

6.16.20 – The Maryland Department of Agriculture (MDA) announced that it adopted amendments to its pesticide use regulations codified under the Code of Maryland Regulations (Section 15.05.01). The phase-out plan prohibits: (1) the aerial application of chlorpyrifos as of Jun. 15, 2020, and (2) the use of chlorpyrifos or seeds that have been treated with chlorpyrifos as of Dec. 31, 2020. The state Department, however, still allowed the use of chlorpyrifos or treated seeds for the treatment of snap bean seeds and the trunks and lower limbs of fruit trees, but the regulations specify that such use will be banned after Jun. 30, 2021. The state Department may grant a temporary authorization to use chlorpyrifos for a particular use and for a specified amount of time if there are no other available alternatives than chlorpyrifos. After Dec. 31, 2021, the state would not allow any exceptions to the prohibition.

5.7.20 – Maryland Governor Larry Hogan vetoed S.B. 300, which would have prohibited chlorpyrifos use throughout the state. Governor Hogan cited the Maryland Department of Agriculture’s (MDA) promulgation of emergency regulations, effective March 27, 2020, which implement a 2021 phase-out of chlorpyrifos as “render[ing] moot” the legislative action. 

3.18.20 – The Maryland General Assembly passed and transmitted to Maryland Governor Larry Hogan S.B. 300. This legislation creates a phased-in state-wide prohibition on use of the pesticide chlorpyrifos, beginning with an Oct. 1, 2020, aerial application ban and concluding with a total prohibition of its use by Jan. 1, 2022. Unless vetoed by Governor Hogan, the bill will become law on April 17, 2020. Under the bill, beginning Jan. 1, 2021, the use of chlorpyrifos or seeds treated with it is prohibited, except for specified applications to fruit trees or snap bean seeds. Those exceptions will end on Jul. 1, 2021, unless the Department of Agriculture finds that no effective alternative exists in which case an extension can be granted until Dec. 31, 2021. All exceptions will end on Jan. 1, 2022.

New-York

7.21.21 – The New York Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) published in the New York State Register (43 N.Y. Reg. 29) a notice adopting revisions to 6 NYCRR Part 326, which prohibit the “distribution, sale, purchase, possession, or use of” chlorpyrifos. The agency action cancels fifteen (15) chlorpyrifos-based products in response to New York Governor Andrew Cuomo’s Dec. 2019 S.B. 5343 veto, which directed DEC to ban the pesticide faster than the timeline proposed in the legislation. The recently cancelled product registrations were left active following DEC’s Dec. 2020 cancellation of twenty-nine (29) chlorpyrifos products to accommodate the 2021 apple growing season. The cancellations are effective Jul. 31, 2021, after which all chlorpyrifos products must be discarded immediately. DEC’s May 3, 2021, Enforcement Discretion for Distribution of Unregistered Products Containing Chlorpyrifos allows for temporary in-state distribution of chlorpyrifos to remove and dispose of the cancelled products. Also, the enforcement discretion allows the storage of unopened containers of chlorpyrifos products until Feb. 1, 2022, or until DEC retracts the enforcement discretion.

12.19.20 – New York Governor Andrew Cuomo signed into law S6502A, a bill prohibiting the use of chlorpyrifos on state properties, such as public parks. The law states that it is prohibited “for any state department, agency, public benefit corporation or any pesticide applicator employed thereby as a contractor or subcontractor to apply chlorpyrifos on state property.” The ban entered into force on the date of its signature.

12.10.19 – New York Governor Andrew Cuomo vetoed New York State S.B. 5343, a bill to phase out the use of the pesticide chlorpyrifos in the state of New York by Dec. 1, 2021. In the veto memorandum, however, Governor Cuomo simultaneously directed the New York Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) to: (1) immediately prohibit all chlorpyrifos use by aerial spraying in the state of New York and (2) ban all chlorpyrifos use by Dec. 2020, except for use on apple tree trunks which shall be permitted until Jul. 2021. The result is that the timetable for discontinuing chlorpyrifos use legally in New York is accelerated from that set forth in S.B. 5343 by at least one year for most uses and by six (6) months for a complete ban.

***