The NC Pesticide Board met on January 8, 2019. The first part of the meeting focused on whether or not Allen Scarborough (a representative of the agricultural chemical industry) posed a potential “conflict of interest.” It was stated that he represents Bayer Crop Science, which mass produces many pesticides. With this, he could potentially pose a conflict of interest by serving on the NC Pesticide Board. Ultimately, the Board decided that even though Scarborough represents the industry they intend to regulate, his potential conflict of interest wasn’t great enough to prevent him from serving.

Next, Renee Woody (Environmental Programs Manager, NCDA) requested $60,000 for the Plastic Pesticide Container Recycling Program for 2019. This program provides funds for counties to continue and expand their plastic recycling programs. The program has proven to be an effective mechanism that encourages safe ways to recycle pesticides containers and create useful products such as agriculture drain pipe. While this is a great accomplishment, the program does have room for enhancement and expansion. Most notably, it was stated that only 35% of the containers purchased in NC are recycled through this program.

The final portion of the meeting was dedicated to settle agreements. The first two cases dealt with pesticide drift. In both cases, the defendant applied a pesticide that drifted onto a neighboring yard, killing the vegetation. The final two cases illustrated a broken system. More specifically, it was discovered that a small pesticide business was operating for the past two years without the proper licenses to do so. This case revealed the need for an improved system that effectively tracks and monitors expiration dates for pesticide licenses. The final case involved Southern Agriculture Insecticides, Inc. This company distributes pesticides, fertilizers and other agricultural products. They sold a Restricted Use Pesticide (RUP) to a non-commercial applicator. Details that were disclosed included that the applicator called the State Department of Agriculture to inform them of his recent purchase, and, that he may have purchased a product not allowed for residential use. Luckily, the consumer read the labeling on the product and made the right decision to call the NC Department of Agriculture. This case begs the question, “what happens if the consumer doesn’t make the call?” This illustrates the need for enhanced enforcement mechanisms, to allow only the individuals with the proper licenses the ability to purchase pesticides that are labeled for restricted use.

NC Pesticide Board Meeting Notes

November 14, 2017

12:30 – 4:30 PM

Governor James Martin Building

NC State Fairgrounds

In attendance: Dr. Allen Scarborough (Vice Chair and presiding); Dr. Colleen Hudak-Wise; Dr. Benson Kirkman; Mr. Shawn Harding; Mr. Don Rodgers; Mr. Jim Burnette (Secretary); Ms. Mary P. Kelley

Not in attendance: Dr. Rick Langley (Chair)

Ethics Reminder

Dr. Scarborough reminded the member to avoid conflicts of interest and/or appearance of conflicts of interest. No members acknowledged conflicts of interest.

Introduction of new Board Member – Mary P. Kelley

Dr. Scarborough introduced Mary P. Kelley who was introduced as the new member of the NC Pesticide Board to represent NC Department of Environmental Quality.

Consider Board minutes from the June 8, 2017 meeting

Mr. Harding moved that the minutes be approved as is and Mr. Rodgers seconded that motion. Unanimously approved.

HB 74, Agency Rules Review Update – Jim Burnette, SPC&PD

HB 74 requires a periodic review of all rules by the enforcement agency. The Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services (DOA&CS) had proposed to the Pesticide Board the staff’s classification of the rules as “necessary with substantive public interest”; “necessary without substantive public interest”; or “unnecessary”, which the Board approved. This approval also allowed for the DOA to published the rules on an agency website for public comment. All comments will then come back to the Board, and then a final decision will be made.

Mr. Rodgers moved that the rules be published for public comment. Dr. Scarborough seconded. Unanimously approved.

Pollinator Outreach Update & PETF Request for DriftWatch and Pollinator Outreach – Patrick Jones, SPC&PD

Mr. Jones gave an update on outreach for the Division’s pollinator protection program that has been going on since June 2014. The goal of this outreach initiative is to increase communication between beekeepers, pesticide applicators, farmers, and landscapers. The Division’s strategy is to get beekeepers to register their hives on BeeCheck, which is a program of DriftWatch, so that applicators can check for hives in the area before they apply pesticides.

Mr. Jones asked the Board for an additional $6,500 for the annual fee to use DriftWatch, $1,500 for publications and “Get to Know Your Beekeeper/Farmer/Applicator/Landscaper” pamphlets, and $2,000 for outreach materials. The total proposal was for $10,000 from the Pesticide Environmental Trust Fund (PETF).

Dr. Kirkman made a motion to approve the proposal for $10,000 from the PETF. Dr. Hudak-Wise seconded the motion. Unanimously approved.

Auxin Technologies Update – Dr. Alan York, NCSU

Dr. Alan York of the Weed Science Department at NC State University gave a summary about the training that they offered this year on auxin technologies, lessons learned, and next steps. Auxin technologies allow use of dicamba and 2,4 D on cotton and soybeans, which are not new products. Auxin technologies (Xtend – dicamba resistant and Enlist – 2,4D resistant) allow the use for longer period of times and on more land.

Dr. York expressed that many broadleaf crops are extremely sensitive to some of these products, and that many growers did not know this, or didn’t respect it. Last summer, Dr. York felt like it was time to do some outreach and education as to not make the same mistakes as some growers did in the mid-South.

Overall, in the 2017 growing season, there were few complaints from drift of dicamba (15 complaints) that were reported to the DOA&CS. Eight incidents were involving drift onto tobacco, and no official complaints of vegetables or homeowners. Dr. York felt these could be explained by spray drift by growers that were not paying attention to wind speed, direction, etc.

Dr. York discussed how the EPA is examining the label for dicamba and are expected to reduce the maximum wind speed when the chemical can be applied, time of day that the chemical can be applied, and a few other things. Dr. York and DOA&CS will monitor the exact language and develop outreach as they understand the breadth of the proposed changes.

Monitoring Surface Water for Pesticides – John Allran, SPC&PD

Mr. Allran explained the potential changes that made be made through a collaboration with NC DOA&CS, DHHS, and DEQ. This new system would use the current Random Ambient Monitoring System (RAMS) Program to sample and evaluate newer pesticides through randomly sampling 30 streams across the state twice a year. Currently, RAMS evaluates 88 pesticides, but fewer than half of the pesticides are currently registered for use in NC. The Quality Assurance manager with NCDEQ, Nick Jones, wants to streamline this current list and make sure that it is testing for relevant pesticides.

To help to classify the ~900 active ingredients that are registered for use in NC, the DOA&CS developed a methodology that will break down these chemicals into low, moderate, and high risk to aquatic species. This was done through a formulation examining run-off potential through soil adsorption (mobility) and soil metabolism half-life (persistence). The DOA&CS also examined EPA toxicity data on various species of fish and aquatic invertebrates to rank the mortality from exposure as a measure of acute toxicity. Through this system, out of 373 pesticide active ingredients registered for use in NC, 88% rank as moderate or high risk to aquatic species.

Mr. Allran suggested that DEP will use the RAMS Program to collect samples, the DHHS will analyze the samples for 148 pesticides, and potentially more, and the results will be used to compare to EPA Aquatic Life Benchmarks, make management decisions, focus on outreach and education, support enforcement, and report to EPA for use in risk assessment, registration, and label amendments process.

The Pesticide Board members were supportive of the initiative, but no formal action was required. 

Settlement Agreements

N.C. Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Structural Pest Control and Pesticide Division, v.

Public Comment – Bev and Scott Veals 

Bev and Scott Veals of Carolina Beach spoke to the Board about a current situation with a neighbor that uses pesticides to chemically mow his yard. They have had ongoing problems with this neighbor for years and have complained on numerous occasions to the DOA&CS about potential violations.

Mrs. Veals is a three-time cancer survivor who has chemical sensitivity due to her radiation therapy. Mr. Veals has spoken with the neighbor on numerous occasions to try to find a compromise on when he can spray chemicals and Mrs. Veals wouldn’t be exposed; however, the neighbor is insistent that he will continue to spray even if that means that Mrs. Veals will be exposed.

Mrs. Veals feels that this is not a unique problem in neighborhoods across the state and wanted to reach out to the Board about potential for collaboration on education and outreach. The Board was receptive to this and felt it appropriate to continue the conversation.

Notes by Patricia Patterson, Policy Advocacy Intern, Toxic Free NC

In attendance: Dr. Rick Langley (Chairman); Dr. Allen Scarborough (Vice Chairman); Dr. Colleen Hudak-Wise; Dr. Benson Kirkman; Mr. Don Rogers; Mr. Shawn Harding; Mr. Pat Jones (Substitute for the Secretary)

Not in attendance: Mr. Jim Burnette (Secretary)

Consider Board Minutes from March 14, 2017

Dr. Hudak-Wise moved that the minutes be approved as is, which was seconded by Mr. Rogers. This was unanimously approved.

Presentation by Dr. Gary Roberson (NCSU) titled, “Agricultural Use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (Drone) Technology”

Dr. Roberson, an associate professor in the Department of Biological and Agricultural Engineering at NC State University, presented on the various applications of unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) technology for commercial use. In UAV technology, sensing is used to monitor satellite imagery and other data in order to improve the agricultural landscape. Electronic sensors can track temperatures, decipher relative heat indexes, and gather soil properties. Dr. Roberson discussed several guidelines set by the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for operating UAV technology at the commercial level, including the minimum age to obtain a license and where to access information on testing (see https://www.faa.gov/). Since this is an emerging technology, Dr. Roberson stressed the importance of educating the public on the requirements for a commercial license and application information.

The current options for UAVs are fixed wing, rotary wing, and hybrids. Fixed wing UAVs are smaller, electric-powered drones that possess the capacity for multiple sensors such as RGB, thermal, and hydro spectral cameras that can be used for gathering a wide range of data; this technology is an especially significant advancement in the surveillance and surveying world. Rotary wing is the most common among UAV users due to its various sensor controls and its vertical take off and landing, which requires less space and planning.

Dr. Roberson elaborated on the use of UAV technology to collect heat signatures of livestock and to track crop and plant health. In addition to this, Dr. Roberson mentioned the possibility of using UAV technology to monitor water quality at the state level in the future. UAV technology is helpful in identifying regions where crops have been negatively affected by natural phenomena such as disease, erosion, and microburst wind damage. Dr. Roberson concluded that UAV technology could assist farmers and crop scouts in discovering problems with crop growth in a timely manner to promote recovery.

Proposal for a Part-Time Bilingual (Pesticide) Specialist; Request for Funding

Mr. Pat Jones, the Deputy Director for Pesticide Programs, proposed that the board fund a part-time position for a bilingual specialist within the division. The bilingual specialist will translate and reproduce information on pesticide use (e.g. pest control and disposal) in documents such as exams, brochures, pamphlets, signs, and other outreach materials. The Title 6 Civil Rights Act of 1964 states that employers must provide meaningful access to individuals with limited English proficiency in the workplace. In an effort to reduce the chances of insubordination with Title 6 and to provide opportunities for all workers to access pesticide information, Mr. Jones urged the board to further consider funding the position for the proposed bilingual specialist, Carmina Hanson, a native Spanish speaker, at the requested amount. The proposed hourly rate for the part-time position was $24.50 for 20 hours per week, a yearly salary of $25,084.

Mr. Harding made a motion to accept the proposal, and Dr. Hudak-Wise made a motion to second it. The motion was unanimously accepted.

Proposal for the Production and Distribution of Pesticide Record-Keeping Manuals; Request for Funding

Dr. Wayne Buhler, the interim department head and professor in the Department of Horticultural Science at NC State University, proposed that the board fund the production and distribution of pesticide record-keeping manuals. The manual assists the private grower (primary audience) as well as the commercial applicator (see https://content.ces.ncsu.edu/north-carolina-agricultural-chemicals-manual/pesticide-use-and-safety-information) in regulating their pesticide use as well as providing detailed information on state and federal application restrictions. The manual is a simple way for the grower to monitor their pesticide use and to maintain written records of this information.

The record-keeping branch of the Agricultural Marketing Service and the USDA, no longer in existence, requested a revision of the manual to remove all North Carolina specific information in order for the manual to be used at the federal level. Dr. Buhler requested that the board fund the production and distribution of 15,000 revised manuals through the Pesticide Environmental Trust Fund for $44,400. In addition to the proposed funds from the board, the NC Agro Medicine Institute accepted Dr. Buhler’s proposal for assistance in funding the project.

Dr. Hudack-Wise made a motion to accept the requested amount for funding. Dr. Langley seconded this motion. The motion carried with a unanimous vote.

Proposal for a Design and Construct an Inexpensive Demonstration for Pesticide Storage, Mixing, and Loading Facility for Small Farmers; Request for Funding

Mr. Jerrold Moody, the Avery County Extension Director, proposed that the board assist in funding the design and construction of a facility for pesticide storage, mixing, and loading. Mr. Moody expressed concern regarding unsafe disposal methods in terms of the potential negative environmental and human health impacts. This facility would also serve as a means to promote educational awareness on pesticide disposal and storage. The proposed funding for the new pesticide facility was $15,360.

Dr. Hudack-Wise made a motion to accept the requested amount for funding. Mr. Rogers seconded this motion. The motion carried with a unanimous vote.

Proposal for WPS Respiratory Support; Request for Funding

Mrs. Jessica Wilburn (in substitution for Dr. Robin Marcom), a Nurse Coordinator at the NC Agromedicine Institute, proposed that the board fund supplies such as outreach materials, fit testing materials, and other educational materials to promote WPS respiratory support. According to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requirements, workers must have a medical evaluation, be fit tested, and undergo respiratory training before operating a respirator and must maintain these record for at least two years. The proposed amount for funding ($30,000) would also cover translation, printing, and distribution services.

Dr. Hudack-Wise made a motion to accept the requested amount for funding. Mr. Rogers seconded this motion. The motion carried with a unanimous vote.

Settlement Agreements 

N.C. Department of Agriculture and Consumer Service, Structural Pest Control and Pesticide Division v. Violator

In attendance: Dr. Allen Scarborough (Vice Chair and presiding); Dr. Colleen Hudak-Wise; Dr. Benson Kirkman; Mr. Shawn Harding; Mr. Don Rodgers; Mr. Jim Burnette (Secretary)

Not in attendance: Dr. Rick Langley (Chair)

Consider Board Minutes from December 12, 2016

Mr. Harding moved that the minutes be approved as is, which Dr. Kirkman seconding. Unanimously approved.

Inquiry into follow-up from Dr. Melissa Perry

Dr. Scarborough asked Mr. Burnette if there had been any follow-up from questions that he asked Dr. Perry after her presentation on the human health effects of neonics. Mr. Burnette replied that there had been none.

Consider Exemption Request from the Requirements of 02 NCAC 09L.1003(3)

Chris Elder of the Plant Industry Division of the North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (NCDA&CS) requests an exemption to dispense particles above the set threshold of 40ft because the Department dispenses mating disruption pheromones at 100ft to combat the gypsy moth.

Mr. Rodgers commented that the gypsy moth was expected to take over North Carolina, but through these efforts, that coverage has been limited.

Dr. Hudak-Wise made a motion to accept the request for exemption, Mr. Rodgers second the motion, and it was unanimously approved.

Consider Elimination of the NC WPS Designated Trainer Exam

Renee Woody of the NCDA&CS, Pesticide Division, requested elimination of the WPS Designated Trainer Exam do to the revised WPS requiring annual trainings. Ms. Woody said that up-to-date, EPA approved train-the-trainer materials are available on the Pesticide Education Research Collaborative (PERC) website that can meet the same requirements as the State’s exam. The State’s exam was not set in rule, but the Department was requesting consent to not offer the exam from the Board.

Dr. Kirkman made the motion to eliminate the WPS Designated Trainer Exam in North Carolina. Mr. Harding second the motion, and it was unanimously approved.

Pesticide Environmental Trust Fund, Request for Funding

Ms. Woody also put forth a request for funding from the Pesticide Environmental Trust Fund for the pesticide contain recycling program. Currently there are 67 counties across North Carolina that have active pesticide recycling programs. For 2016, 557,310 pounds of pesticide containers were recycled into agricultural drainage pipes.

Ms. Woody requested $60,000 for the program that would be transferred in county grants to run their programs ($51,875), promotional materials ($5000), and for the John L. Smith Award ($3,125).

Dr. Kirkman made a motion to accept the request, and Dr. Hudak-Wise second the motion. The motion was unanimously approved.

Settlement Agreements

 N.C. Department of Agriculture and Consumer Service, Structural Pest Control and Pesticide Division v.

For a full description of the Settlement Agreements, please click the following link: March 2017 Board Settlement Agreements

Presentation from Dr. Jay Overmyer, Syngenta, titled “Neonicotinoid Insecticides: Focus on Syngenta Studies with Thiamethoxam”

Dr. Jay Overmyer presented to the Board on the work that Syngenta is doing with neonicotinoid insecticides, honeybee health, and the effects of Syngenta’s product, thiamethoxam, on honeybees, aquatic species, and birds. Dr. Overmyer highlighted the importance of this class of insecticides to growers and the work that Syngenta is doing to replicate full field studies with honeybees and their neonicotinoid products. Dr. Overmyer also went on to talk about the multiple factors that affect honeybee health, with pesticides being one of them.

The majority of the presentation concentrated on the field studies that Syngenta conducted between 2014 and 2015 near Mebane, North Carolina.   The studies showed that there was a decrease in pollen storage leading to less brood and lower adult population numbers. However, Syngenta was not allowed by the EPA to feed the hives over the winter season, so there were losses across the study, including the control hives, leading to less than significant results. The EPA ordered the study to be supplementary and for Syngenta to redo the full field study, which they are in the process of doing.

Dr. Overmyer also concluded that the risk of thiamethoxam to honeybees and birds is relatively minimal, and that although aquatic insects are sensitive to neonicotinoids, the exposure rates are usually not in concentrations that would have a great impact on them.

Presentation from Dr. Jill Sidebottom, NC Agricultural Extension, titled “Neonics and Mountain Conifers”

Dr. Jill Sidebottom presented to the Board about how nenoicotinoids are being used to fight the Hemlock woolly adelgid (HWA) in Western North Carolina. Right now, imidacloprid and dinotefuran are primarily being used for control. Imidacloprid is being used as a foliar application, whereas dinotefuran is primarily used as a root treatment. Dr. Sidebottom also expressed that there is concern amongst the general public and beekeepers in Western NC about the use of neonicotinoid products. Dr. Sidebottom noted that the Agriculture Extension office promotes Integrated Pest Management through ground covers at Christmas tree operations to reduce pesticide inputs and provide habitat for beneficial insects, like pollinators.

Dr. Sidebottom also discussed the more recent threats from Elongate hemlock scale (EHS), which was introduced from Asia in 1908 and creates an armored scale that buries itself under the wax of the needle. This has created an additional problem for Agricultural Extension, which has added to the problems that still exist after 60 years of research and 23 chemicals that have been used to try to treat these various pests. EHS has caused problems between North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Florida’s Department of Agriculture because Florida purchases over a million trees from North Carolina and EHS could potentially harm two of Florida’s native conifers (torreya tree and the Florida yew). Dr. Sidebottom concluded that EHS is more of a regulatory problem than a destructive pest, but that she is trying different chemical and non-chemical approaches to managing EHS.

NC Pesticide Board chooses no regulatory action on neonics

After the completion of Dr. Sidebottom’s presentation, Mr. Harding moved that the Board take no action on the neonicotinoid class of chemicals at this time. Dr. Kirkman proposed an education campaign as opposed to “no action”, with the Department of Agriculture assisting to make sure that neonicotinoids are not overused. Dr. Hudak-Wise then proposed as a clarifying point that the Board takes no regulatory action. Mr. Harding said that was fine as an amendment, but was supportive of educational efforts. Mr. Rodgers noted that the EPA still is conducting reviews and that that information should be provided to the Board upon completion. Mr. Harding agreed and felt that there was no “need to get out ahead of the EPA” on the subject, which is suppose to have a full assessments of nenoicotinoids out by the end of 2017. Dr. Hudak-Wise suggested to amend the motion to be “no regulatory action, but would like staff to consider educational opportunities.” Mr. Rodgers second the motion. Dr. Hudak-Wise suggested, “if something were to come up pertinent to this information, then we [the Board] would reexamine.” Mr. Harding agreed and also stated though that neonicotinoids are “an important class of chemistry for their growers.” Dr. Kirkman said that he felt that this issue would not be going away and as researchers found out more information that there was potential for the Board to look at it again. The final motion was unanimously approved.

In attendance: Dr. Rick Langly (Chair); Dr. Allen Scarborough (Vice Chair); Dr. Colleen Hudak-Wise; Dr. Benson Kirkman; Mr. Shawn Harding; Mr. Jim Burnette (Secretary)

Not in attendance: Mr. Don Rodgers

Ethics Reminder

Dr. Langley read the mandatory ethics statement, requiring any members to disclose conflicts of interests. Dr. Scarborough stated that as a current employee of the agrochemical sector he would participate in the discussion regarding future speakers on the topic of neonicotinoids from industry, but recuse himself from voting.

Consider Board Minutes from July 12, 2016

Mr. Harding moved that the minutes be approved as is, which Dr. Scarborough seconding. Unanimously approved.

Update on NCDA&CS Pollinator Protection Efforts

Pat Jones, Deputy Director of the Pesticide Division within NCDOA&CS, gave an update on outreach and registration for beekeepers to register their hives voluntarily with BeeCheck (a program of DriftWatch), which allows pesticide applicators to see where beehives are across the state so that they can take precautionary steps. Currently, there are 1,056 apiaries registered across the state, making North Carolina the state with the second highest registered apiaries out of 13 U.S. states enrolled in the program and one Canadian province.

NCDOA&CS will continue outreach and education about the registration program into 2017.

Consider recommendations for neonicotinoid presentations

Per the Board’s request at their July 12^th meeting, the Board received 14 nominations for presentations on the effects of neonicotinoid insecticides on pollinators, aquatic invertebrates, and their environmental fate. The Board Chair, Dr. Langley, categorized these nominees into three sectors being, “Academia”, “Industry”, and “Other”. The Chair then suggested to hear from two nominees at each of the next three Board meetings resulting in six total presentations. Dr. Hudak-Wise noted that the door will remain open to the rest of the nominees, but this will be the first batch. Selected individuals to present were:

Academia

Dr. Melissa Perry, Professor and Chair of Department of Environmental and Occupational Health, George Washington University

Dr. Dave Buchwalter, Associate Professor in Toxicology, NC State

Industry

Dr. Jay Overmyer – Technical Team I, Ecotoxicology and Risk Assessment, Syngenta

Dr. David Fischer, Director Pollinator Safety Group, Bayer Crop Science

Other

Dr. Jill Sidebottom, Mountain Conifer IPM Specialist, NC Agricultural Extension

Dave Penrose, MPH, Contract Professor on Aquatic Insect Ecology, NC State

The Chair, Dr. Langley, explicitly prohibited public comments after the selection process.

Settlement Agreements

N.C. Department of Agriculture and Consumer Service, Structural Pest Control and Pesticide Division v.

Settlement Agreements

Board members present: Dr. Colleen Hudak-Wise, Dr. Ricky Langley (Chair), Dr. Thomas Scarborough (Vice-Chair), Shawn Harding, Don Rodgers, Dr. W. Benson Kirkman

The July 12, 2016 meeting of the North Carolina Pesticide Board began with a reading of the Mandatory Ethics Inquiry, which asks Board members to recuse themselves from actions in the event of a conflict of interest. None of the Board members recused themselves. Several presentations followed the reading of this inquiry, beginning with Brian Pointer of the Department of Environmental Quality’s Division of Water Resources, who spoke about the DWR’s Random Ambient Monitoring System, which monitors waterways for pesticides and other contaminants such as metals, coliform bacteria, cyanide, sulfides, and PCBs. In this presentation, Pointer provided an overview of the methods used in RAMS, as well as the limitations of this system. Of particular note is the fact that while RAMS does test for pesticides on a bi-monthly basis, it does not test for neonicotinoids. Pointer noted that the DWR does not have the funding capacity to conduct neonic testing of its samples.

Following Pointer’s presentation, Toxic Free NC intern Elisa Lazzarino presented on the methodological problems with both RAMS with respect to neonicotinoid contamination in aquatic invertebrate habitats – including those of endangered species – and the Bee-Informed Partnership Survey as a measure of pollinator decline and its causes. Ms. Lazzarino’s presentation also drew the Board’s attention to the widespread problem of consumer misuse of these highly toxic substances. Ms. Lazzarino remarked on the recently passed Maryland Pollinator Protection Act, which reclassified neonics as restricted use pesticides (RUPs) for professional use only, and pressed the Board to adopt a similar policy, through their authority under the NC Pesticide Law of 1971. After this presentation, Toxic Free NC Policy Advocate, Preston Peck, addressed the Board and noted their inaction after three previous presentations on these issues, and urged them to consider the growing body of evidence that strongly connects neonics to both pollinator decline and adverse health in aquatic invertebrates, particularly in view of the enormous economic value of North Carolina’s blue crab industry. Following these comments, the Board unanimously agreed to organize a task force of scientists to investigate the harms of neonics. The Board will accept nominations, and will then vote to approve these nominations.

Also presenting at the meeting were researchers from Preventing Agricultural Chemical Exposure (PACE) at Wake Forest University School of Medicine, who spoke about the neurological effects on farmworkers exposed to pesticides. Dr. Thomas Arcury spoke about the subclinical symptoms (i.e. not manifested physically) of pesticide exposure, and Dr. Sara Quandt spoke more directly to olfactory impairment in farmworkers exposed to pesticides as a likely marker of neurodegenerative diseases such as Parkinson’s. Dr. Paul Laurienti, also of Wake Forest University School of Medicine, spoke briefly about the strong correlation in pesticide-exposed farmworkers between exposure, balance, and brain anatomy. While Dr. Laurienti’s findings are not conclusive as a sign of ill-health in pesticide-exposed farmworkers, he stressed to the Board that the findings warrant further research.

Settlement Agreements for Violations of Pesticide Law

N.C. Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Structural Pest Control and Pesticide Division v.

Pesticide Board Settlements

Board members present: Dr. Colleen Hudak-Wise, Dr. Ricky Langley (Chair), Dr. Thomas Scarborough (Vice-Chair), Shawn Harding, Don Rodgers, Dr. W. Benson Kirkman

The NC Pesticide Board met on May 10^th, 2016 with an extremely full agenda of settlement agreements. The Board’s new legal counsel, Christopher McLennan, has made it a priority to catch up on settlement agreements, as there was a backup due to paralegal troubles within the Department of Agriculture. There were 23 settlement agreements for a total of $33,800 in penalties that were up for approval from the Board, with all of them being approved unanimously. Please see link below for description of violation, violator, and settlement amount.

Before the Board moved into the settlement agreements, Toxic Free NC’s Policy Advocate, Preston Peck, had an opportunity to give a presentation to the Board entitled, “The state of the science of neonicotinoid insecticides and effects on aquatic invertebrates.” This presentation gave a review of “Neonicotinoid contamination of global surface waters and associated risk to aquatic invertebrates: A review” by Morrissey et. al. and related it back to water contamination issues in North Carolina. The Board was quite receptive to this presentation and voted unanimously to inquire into NC Department of Environmental Quality’s Random Ambient Monitoring System (RAMS) about if they are monitoring for neonicotinoid insecticides and, if so, what levels they are finding. If the RAMS program is not monitoring for neonicotinoids, then the Board admitted that testing should be conducted through a commissioned study. The results of the inquiry are to be reported back at the next Board meeting. Please see full speech below.

“The state of the science of neonicotinoid insecticides and effects on aquatic invertebrates.” Preston Peck, Policy Advocate, Toxic Free NC

Thank you for the opportunity to bring these important issues concerning pesticide contamination to the Board’s attention. What you have in front of you is a comprehensive review by Morrissey et al. of 29 published studies from nine countries on the acute and chronic toxicity to 49 species of aquatic insects and crustaceans spanning 12 invertebrate orders. These studies are from the academic sector, industry sector, and various government regulatory entities. The findings in the study are consistent with what I have brought forward to the Board previously, in that, the thresholds set for water contamination of neonicotinoids by regulatory agencies a vastly under representative of the levels that can lead to both short and long-term impacts on aquatic invertebrate species. Furthermore, consistent with Center for Food Safety’s report, Water Hazard, the majority of studies reviewed used Daphnia magna as their test species for neonicotinoids. This information could contribute to the regulatory agencies setting the threshold extremely high for neonicotinoid exposure as D. magna seems to be the industry’s preferred test species but also has an extremely high tolerance for neonicotinoid exposure at a half maximal effective concentration (EC₅₀) range of 4100 to 1,000,000 mg/L, with a geometric mean of 43,927 mg/L. By contrast, the mayfly, caddisfly, and midge are about 100,000 times more sensitive to neonicotinoids, have acute toxicity levels that average below EPA standardized thresholds for neonicotinoids, and are critical to supporting aquatic and terrestrial food webs. The overreliance on D. magna, that has an extremely high tolerance for these chemicals, can, and potentially has, lead to an inadequate determination of levels that impact aquatic invertebrates by both state and federal regulatory agencies.

Furthermore, in light of the Board’s previous comments concerning water sampling in North Carolina and that the levels found of specifically, imidacloprid, were well below the thresholds set forth by the EPA, I reached out to the NC Division of Water Resources to ask about sampling methodology. After speaking with Brian Pointer, Ambient Monitoring System Coordinator within the Division, I found out several things about the sampling methodology that concerned me that the true exposure rates are not being adequately represented. In his words, “RAMS are sampled monthly (not based on weather/streamflow – again, the random nature of the sampling), but pesticides are sampled every other month in addition to SVOCs and a couple of other parameters.  RAMS are sampled on a two year cycle, are always freshwater stream sites, and the sites are chosen at random from a grid that is provided us by EPA.  They are occasionally near urban and agricultural activities, but they are not purposely targeted at those locations due to the random nature of site selection.  Generally, these sites are very small streams, but we do have a couple of large rivers occasionally (e.g., NE Cape Fear in this current cycle).”

This was concerning for a variety of reasons in relation to pesticide water contamination. First, it is troubling to know that pesticide contamination sampling occurs only six times a year by the Division, and not necessarily in areas that have heavy agricultural production. While, I understand the benefits and scientific significance of randomized sampling, there could be effort to strategically obtain random samples for a general region, so that we can obtain data that accurately reflects pesticide contamination for both high and low agricultural production areas. Also, it was troubling to hear that samples are not taken at peak flows following rain, and other events that would more adequately reflect the real toxicity thresholds that these species face. Given this information of sampling methodology, there seems to be a gap in knowledge of perceived pesticide contamination levels and realistic contamination levels.

Under the Pesticide Law of 1971, section 143-437, part 2, the Board has the duty “to carry out a planning, environmental and biological monitoring, and investigation into long-rage needs and problems concerning pesticides.” That being said, the evidence of water contamination by neonicotinoid insecticides is well documented at levels that, at the very least, are disruptive to aquatic ecosystems and the Board should therefore commission a study to investigate the level of contamination around North Carolina at peak flow times in areas where there is heavy neonicotinoid use as to accurately estimate maximum threshold exposure levels for both aquatic invertebrate species and other species that might consume contaminated water. It is also within the purview of the Board, under section 143-440, Part (a) that the Board “may designate any pesticide or device as a ‘restricted use pesticide’ upon the grounds that, in the judgment of the Board (either because of its persistence, its toxicity, or otherwise) it is so hazardous or injurious to persons, pollinating insects, animals, crops, wildlife, or the environment, other than the pests it is intended to prevent, destroy, control, or mitigate that additional restriction on its sale, purpose, use or possession are required.”

It is the recommendation of Toxic Free NC that the Board commission a study to specifically examine neonicotinoids pervasiveness in North Carolina’s soil and water, then, contingent upon the findings and public input, restrict the application and sale of neonicotinoids as the Board sees appropriate. I hope that the Board strongly considers these recommendations and takes the pervasiveness of these chemicals seriously as more articles come out everyday demonstrating how pervasive these chemicals continue to be in our environment.

Preston H. Peck, Policy Advocate

Toxic Free NC

Settlement Agreements for Violations of Pesticide Law

N.C. Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Structural Pest Control and Pesticide Division v.

Settlement Agreements Chart

It was another disappointing NC Pesticide Board meeting this week as only 4 Board members out of 7 were present and the maintaining the status quo mentality prevailed again.  Some lowlights from the meeting include, the denial of funding a study from NC State that could potentially show the cumulative effects of DEET, fipronil, and permethrin, a dismissal of the detrimental impact of neonicotinoid water contamination on the North Carolina blue crab industry, and continuously low fines for those that knowingly and unknowingly violate NC pesticide law.  Read the full recap below:

NC Pesticide Board Meeting

1/12/2016

Board members present – Dr. Thomas Scarborough (Vice Chairman); Dr. W. Benson Kirkman; Dr. Colleen Hudak-Wise; and Mr. Don Rodgers 

Consider exemption request from the requirements of 02NCAC 09L.1003 (3)

Chris Elder, Gypsy Moth Program Manager within the Plant Industry Division of the NC Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (NCDA&CS), requested an exemption from 02NCAC 09L.1003 (3), which states:

“All pesticides applied aerially as dry granules or pellets shall be released within 40 feet above the canopy of the target, except where obstructions in or adjacent to the target would endanger the safety of the pilot while applying pesticides at that altitude.”

This exemption would allow aerial pesticide applicators to release a pheromone that the NCDA&CS uses to combat the Gypsy Moth at an altitude great than 40 feet. The NCDA&CS must get exemption approval on a yearly basis.

This exemption request was unanimously approved

Worker Protection Update

Pat Jones, Deputy Director of Pesticide Programs with the NCDA&CS, gave a presentation to the Board on the recent revisions to the Worker Protect Standards released by the EPA in November 2015. He went over the implementation timeline, which mandates that all rule changes must be implemented by January 2018.

Pesticide Environmental Trust Fund, Request for Funding

Dr. Henry Wade, Environmental Programs Unit Manager within the NCDA&CS requested $60,000 from the Pesticide Environmental Trust Fund for the Plastic Pesticide Container Recycling Program for 2016. The break down for the funding is as follows:

$51,875 – County Grants to implement and/or maintain a program

$5,000 – promotional materials

$3,125 – John L. Smith Award Program

This funding request was unanimously approved

Pesticide Environmental Trust Fund, Request for Funding – Updated Budget Request – Recommendations for Human Health Risks and Development Diagnostics to Exposure to Environmental Chemicals in North Carolina

Dr. R. Michael Roe, Professor at NC State University, requested $43,000 to conduct a study on the genetics effects of exposure to DEET, fipronil, and permethrin at field relevant doses. This was his second time presenting this request to the Board after the first request was denied due to questions in his budget. Dr. Roe prepared answers to these questions and provided more information regarding the relevance of the study and the manner in which it would be conducted. Dr. Scarborough of the NC Pesticide Board made several comments regarding how the Board “has usually funded applied research and not basic research as Dr. Roe has requested.” He also asked if the frequency of exposure to these chemicals in reality is comparable to that describe in the proposed methodology of the study. Dr. Roe said that it was comparable and would contribute to the minimal body of knowledge on the effects of chemical combinations in human bodies. Dr. Kirkman of the NC Pesticide Board comment that he felt that it was within the Board’s purview to fund such a study and that it could provide some useful information. Dr. Kirkman made a motion to fund the study as budgeted, however, no Board members seconded the motion, so the request was denied.

Dr. Kirkman motioned to fund the request, but no other Board members seconded, so the request was denied

Presentation on the Effects of pesticides, specifically neonicotinoids, on NC Blue Crab and the economic impacts of exposure

I stand before you again today to bring another piece of evidence to your attention of the detrimental impact of neonicotinoid pesticides on human, environmental, and economic health. Since we previously met in November of 2015, there is more evidence that comes out on an almost daily basis linking this class of pesticides to water contamination, and thereby, disruption of both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. Today, I wanted to bring your attention to the observed impact of neonicotinoids, specifically imidacloprid, on post-larval and juvenile blue crab.

The study that I have presented to you in your Board packets was published in the Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology in 2012 and was conducted by Dr. Joshua Osterberg et al at the Duke University Marine Laboratory here in North Carolina. This study examined the developmental effects and actute toxicity of several types of pesticides on blue crab megalopae and juveniles. The study found that imidacloprid had the second greatest acute toxicity impact on blue crab megalopae and juveniles, with the first being a pyrethroid. Furthermore, when studying the effects of imidacloprid on juveniles’ molting habits, it was found that 41.18% of juveniles treated with imidacloprid were found dead after molting. These statistics should raise some serious concerns within the Pesticide Board given how pervasive imidacloprid is in our agricultural system, and what the implications might be on North Carolina’s blue crab and commercial fishing industry.

According to the 2014 Commercial and Recreational Statistics Bulletin, there were 25.2 million pounds of commercial hard blue crab caught in North Carolina, valued at almost $30 million, making up almost a third of the entire commercial fishing industry in North Carolina. This number shows the obvious economic impact of the blue crab on the commercial fishing industry in North Carolina. Furthermore, this number does not show the amount of blue crab and/or other species of aquatic life that subsistence fishermen pull in every year.   Given the size of blue crab industry in North Carolina, the impact of any chemical on this industry should be taken seriously, examined thoroughly, and regulated when appropriate. This issue is of great concern to not only Toxic Free NC’s supporters, but also fishermen, academics, and other citizens from around the state.

I also wanted to remind the Board that it is within the authority of the Board to adopt rules restricting or prohibiting the sale and use of pesticides in designated areas during specified time periods. In adopting rules under this subsection, the Board shall consider factors required to prevent damage or injury to the following by the drift or misapplication of pesticides. This list includes:

• Plants, including forage plants, on adjacent or nearby land;
• Wildlife in the adjourning or nearby areas;
• Fish and other aquatic life in waters in reasonable proximity to the area to be treated; or
• Other animals, persons or beneficial insects

Given this growing body of evidence showing the detrimental impacts of neonicotinoids on human, environmental, and economic health of the state of North Carolina I am asking the Board to investigate water contamination within the state and act to protect the vitality its people and their livelihood.

Thank you.

Preston Peck, Policy Advocate

Toxic Free NC

Dr. Scarborough thanked Mr. Peck for the presentation and recited some information that he received from Dr. Dan Dyer, toxicologist at Bayer Crop Science, regarding specific levels of neonicotinoid contamination in parts per billion. At Mr. Peck’s inquiry, Dr. Scarborough also acknowledged that Bayer had the initial patient on imidacloprid, the active ingredient in question, and is still one of the leading manufacturers of products containing imidacloprid.

Settlement Agreements for Violations of Pesticide Law

N.C. Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Structural Pest Control and Pesticide Division v.

For a full list of Violators, Description of Violations, and Settlement Fines, please click below:

Settlement Agreements Chart