Vol. 51—1997 - NorthEastern Weed Science Society

i--
I
209
II
contact Leonardjat 202/328-5057.
According t~ both Janet Anderson and Hoyt Jameson at EPA there is much progress being made
relative to reorganization within the Agency. There will likely be 3 major divisions for pesticide
registrations: Herbicide/Pungicide, Insecticide/Rodenticide, and Biopesticide. On November 16,
1994 the USEP~ proposed regulations to address plant pesticides. In general they are looking to
exempt most fro~ regulation. "The Agency believes that plant pesticides can offer an opportunity to
reduce the use .pfconventional pesticides that are applied to agricultural plants and reduce the
overall health! and environmental risks from pesticides ..The Agency believes that many plant
pesticides wowpnot pose risks that require regulation by EPA. However, the Agency believes some
type of oversight is appropriate for plant-pesticides that are new to the plant and have a toxic
mode of action'l,
The Suprerrie Court recently ruled onthe Sweet Home case involving inadvertent destruction of
habitat under ~he Endangered Species Act (ESA).In a 6-3 ruling, the court said that the ESA
provides "comprehensive protection for endangered and threatened species" and regulations
protecting habjtat are reasonable. The Interior secretary has "reasonably construed the intent of
Congress when he defined 'harm' to include 'significant habitat modification or degradation that
actually kills qr injures wildlife" the justices said. II As the law stands, you can face prosecution for
the lawful use pf your property if that use unintentionally modifies the habitat of an endangered
species that may not actually occupy the land. That is clearly not acceptable" said American Farm
Bureau president Dean Kleckner.
The ESA i$ue is tied to another that resulted from the earlier Supreme Court ruling on the
South Carolina land taking. This has resulted in proposed legislation that landowners be
compensated by the government if regulation reduces the value of their land by a certain amount
(50% in some casesj.Needless to say, the Enviros want to take away the use without compensation.
So does USDA ~ndersecretary for Natural Resources and Environment James R. Lyons.
The 1995 ~arm Bill was not passed by the September 30 deadline. The holdup has been the
budget debate.]
C. Robert Taylor (Auburn Univ.), Ron Knutson (Texas A&M), and Leonard Gianessi (NCFAP)
presented brie*ngs of a pesticide study to House and Senate staff members in mid June. The meat of
these briefings states that "a drastic reduction or elimination of pesticides would bring
substantially ~igher fruit and vegetable prices without significantly increasing America's already
high level of fbod safety."
Although Iweare unlikely to see a 50% mandated pesticide reduction bill, a 50% reduction in
pesticide use by 2005 has been listed as a benchmark by EPA. The voluntary Environmental
Stewardship Ifrogram is one way EPA hopes to accomplish this.
IR-4 funetplg appears stalled at $5.7 million. Although it appeared that the joint
House/Senatejcommittee would allow the $6.7 million amount, $1 million was cut. The $5.7 million
I
matches the ajlrrent funding level. It is doubtful that any change will take place before final budget
approval (whenever that happens).
The hot t