Page 76 - MFB State Annual Meeting 2018 -- RESOLUTIONS BOOK

7.2. We recommend that compliance with federally approved label instructions absolve farmers from liability claims for health issues, environmental pollution and from paying the cost of cleaning up environmental contamination.
7.3. We recommend that EPA financially support continued education on the proper use and handling of agricultural protectants.
7.4. We recommend that farmers triple rinse or pressure rinse containers and to return them for recycling in areas where such programs are currently available.
7.5. We support:
7.5.1. Clarification of the current label on 2,4-D to allow its continued
use as part of no-till systems;
7.5.2. The use of vegetable oils as the base or carrier for pesticides;
7.5.3. EPA cooperating in sponsoring amnesty programs for proper
disposal of hazardous chemicals and discontinued chemicals;
7.5.4. A permanent labeling system covering product name, date of
manufacture, effective life and proper storage requirements
being required to avoid the use of ineffective pesticides;
7.5.5. EPA reconsidering labeling for pesticide application wind
speeds in view of advancements in engineering and
technology such as wind guards and low drift spray tips;
7.5.6. The development and immediate use of uniform, permanent
international symbols on agricultural chemical containers to
ensure proper handling;
7.5.7. Printing the EPA registration number and re-entry interval of
each pesticide active ingredient in legible type size directly
below its name;
7.5.8. Periodic upgrading of EPA/state pesticide applicator training
to ensure a sound and effective source of training, information and certification on the proper handling and safe use of pesticides;
7.5.9. The development of more effective equipment for farm applications;
7.5.10. The safe use of pesticides and practices which will ensure the safety of handlers, applicators and agricultural workers; and
7.5.11. A list available online of all label changes.
7.6. We oppose:
7.6.1. Politically mandated buffer zones; and
7.6.2. EPA’s attempt to shorten the permit certification timeline for
pesticide applicator licensing and increase testing standards to make it more difficult for farmers to obtain a pesticide applicator license.
7.6.3.EPA revocation of approved chemistries
based on applicator error. 8. Data and Record-keeping
8.1. We support:
8.1.1. Uniform pesticide record-keeping and statistically valid
reporting for use in evaluating and maintaining pesticide registrations. The enforcement of record-keeping for restricted use farm chemicals should be done at the state level and in a manner that educates and is helpful to the producer rather than punitive;
8.1.2. The voluntary collection of actual residue data from farm and orchard products to establish use patterns of the agricultural chemicals used in crop production. This data should be used in the pesticide registration, reregistration, cancellation and special review process only; and
8.1.3. Increased funding for the USDA to increase credible information on pesticide use collected by the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS).
9. Specialty (Minor) Crop Chemicals
9.1. We urge Congress and the appropriate agencies to address the cost
of label registration and reregistration for chemicals to be used on minor use crops and to provide methods of label clearance for them. Reregistration of specialty use chemicals should not be required unless research by qualified specialists demonstrates a need to change the registration.
9.2. To expedite specialty crop pesticide registrations, we urge that chemicals cleared for application on edible food crops be additionally
AFBF Policies – Page 20