Many people in agriculture fear rodenticides will become even more difficult to access and more expensive to use after the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)’s release of the final biological evaluation, and associated response to comments, for 11 rodenticide active ingredients.
From feral hogs and Norway rats to house mice and ground squirrels, the amount of damage caused by these pests in agricultural and non-agricultural settings alike is astounding. Not only do they cause significant damage to property, crops and food supplies, but these pests also spread disease and pose a serious risk to public health.
EPA says the mitigation measures described in this final biological evaluation will serve as the agency’s Rodenticide Strategy as outlined in EPA’s Endangered Species Act Work plan.
“The Devil will be in the detail, and will vary state by state,” says Michael Formica, chief legal strategist at the National Pork Producers Council. “This strategy is going to undermine use of these important rodenticide tools. Producers will need to be licensed by their states to get them, and we’ll have fewer options at a higher price available.”
Formica says this is just another in the “thousands of over-reaching ill-considered regulations that lead to food price inflation.”
Final Biological Evaluation
The 11 rodenticides evaluated in the biological evaluation include: chlorophacinone; diphacinone and its sodium salt; warfarin and its sodium salt; brodifacoum; bromadiolone; difenacoum; difethialone; bromethalin; cholecalciferol; strychnine; and zinc phosphide.
“These rodenticides are intended to control target animals using different biochemical mechanisms (e.g., neurotoxicity, reduced blood clotting). They also have different properties that affect the types of species that may be impacted,” EPA wrote. “For example, some rodenticides may remain in target animals long enough such that predator or scavenger animals that consume the target animals may be affected. The assessment accounts for these different properties across the 11 rodenticides evaluated in the biological evaluation.”
EPA says the final biological evaluation finds that the currently labeled uses of the 11 rodenticides evaluated remained the same as those in the draft biological evaluation, and:
• Will have no effect on 88% of species and 95% percent of critical habitats
• Are not likely to adversely affect 4-11% of species and 1% of critical habitats
• Are likely to adversely affect 1-8% of listed species and 4% of critical habitat
• Have a likelihood of future Jeopardy/Adverse Modification (J/AM) of less than 5% of listed species and less than 1% of critical habitats
“The final Rodenticide Strategy does not itself impose any requirements or restrictions on pesticide use,” EPA says. “Any mitigation measures needed to address potential likelihood of future J/AM for listed species will only apply in geographically specific areas where listed species with J/AM predictions are located, using EPA’s Bulletins Live! Two system, as part of label language, or in the Terms and Conditions of registration.”
Not all of these measures will be necessary for all uses or products containing these pesticide ingredients, EPA explains in the release. These are measures from which EPA expects to choose when reducing exposure to listed species and their critical habitats, as necessary, for a specific active ingredient, use site, and application method. During formal consultation, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) will use EPA’s effects determinations to inform their biological opinion(s).
Formica says, “This is an overly-broad regulation that imposes unnecessary costs and an additional burden on producers because of concerns by activists and their allies at EPA over alleged misuses that have nothing to do with ag (their concern is urban and suburban consumers putting too much out indiscriminately).”
Rodenticide Access
Over 10 years ago, there was a previous attempt to ban rodenticide use, Formica recalls. Opponents feared people would see a mouse, run to a local retailer and then throw out a lot of rat poison, potentially impacting other animals.
“Then rodenticides were relabeled for ag use only. They created a minimum size you had to buy so you couldn’t buy a small 1 lb package at a suburban big box hardware store, you had to buy 20 lbs from an ag supplier.,” Formica says.
The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) is the Federal statute that governs the registration, distribution, sale, and use of pesticides in the United States, according to EPA’s website. Generally, before a pesticide may be sold or distributed in the U.S., it must be registered with the EPA. Before EPA may register a pesticide under FIFRA, the applicant must show, among other things, that using the pesticide according to specifications “will not generally cause unreasonable adverse effects on the environment.”
“What they want to do is remove it from store shelves entirely, restrict its access unless you are licensed to apply it,” Formica says. “If you are a grain farmer, you’re probably going to have a FIFRA applicator’s license anyway, but not every hog farmer is a grain farmer and not every cattle rancher is a grain farmer, so they’re going to have to go out and get their FIFRA applicator certification, which is done at the state level,” Formica explains.
In addition, losing the retail market for these rodenticides will make them more difficult to buy for those who need them, he explains.
“It won’t be impossible to buy but you are going to have much fewer choices and you will have to buy larger quantities,” Formica says. “The price goes up as well.”
The final biological evaluation is available in the docket EPA-HQ-OPP-2023-0567 on www.regulations.gov.
Your Next Read: Why You Need to Pay Attention Now to EPA’s Proposed Rodenticide Mitigation Measures
