Page 75 - MFB State Annual Meeting 2018 -- RESOLUTIONS BOOK

6.14.3. The right to import U.S.-approved pesticides from other countries;
6.14.4.
6.14.5.
6.14.6.
6.14.7.
6.14.8.
6.14.9. 6.14.10.
6.14.11.
The continued use of agricultural chemicals which currently have no viable alternatives, such as methyl bromide. We encourage research funded through state and federal agencies to find alternatives for methyl bromide that are economically viable, of equal performance and sensitive to the exposure needs of individual crops. Until a viable alternative is found, we support the use of a fair, science- based process for Critical Use Exemptions. The process should contain a reliable, consistent set of standards equitable to all parties involved;
Clean Air Act amendments to allow U.S. producers to have access to methyl bromide consistent with phase-out dates for non-industrialized countries as outlined in the Montreal Protocol;
Continuation of the Pesticide Data Program which provides pesticide residue information in food products for use by EPA in setting tolerance standards and registering pesticides;
We recognize the ecological importance of pollinators and the necessity to judiciously utilize crop protection products to protect against loss of crop yield. We support the coexistence of crops and pollinators and urge that any pollinator risk assessment required for registration or regulation of crop protection products be based on field- relevant, sound scientific data;
The concept of state management plans. However, we oppose the proposed EPA state management plan rule which fails to recognize effective state programs and imposes federal requirements to maintain uses of important crop protection tools;
The continued use of the neonicotinoid pesticide group for agricultural and horticultural crops;
If a crop protection product has gone through a review three times or more, the time frame between reviews should be doubled; and
Consistent funding and streamlining of the pesticide review process within EPA to expedite registration.
6.15. We oppose:
6.15.1. Any legal action made against the federal government based
on excessively broad interpretations of environmental laws, which restrict or limit the safe and proper use of agricultural chemicals. Actions impacting a limited geographical region may set harmful and nationally recognized legal and regulatory precedent;
6.15.2. Any regulation that would require a permit prior to application of a chemical for crop protection;
6.15.3. Any requirement that applicators be required to notify all neighbors prior to any pesticide/fertilizer application and/or fumigant buffer zone limitations proposed by the EPA;
6.15.4. Any curtailment of the safe and proper use of agricultural chemicals unless research and scientific data determine that injury to health and well-being would result;
6.15.5. The inclusion of the Private Right of Action provision in the language of FIFRA;
6.15.6. Any reduction to the quantity of methyl bromide requested by methyl bromide users for nomination as Critical Use Exemptions to the Parties of the Montreal Protocol, and we oppose any reduction by the EPA in the amount of Critical Use Exemptions authorized by the Parties of the Montreal Protocol; and
6.15.7. Any additional EPA regulation of seed treatments for planting.
7. Labeling and Handling
7.1. We recommend the agricultural chemical industry and agricultural
producers work with the appropriate agencies to develop and use reusable, returnable and soluble pesticide containers and an economically and logistically feasible plan to dispose of containers.
AFBF Policies – Page 19