Judges' Queries Raise Doubts Over EPA Pesticide Assessment Framework

摘要

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit is noting "significant limitations" in studies EPA relied on in its recent approval of a controversial new pesticide, appearing to back beekeepers' arguments that the agency's new framework for assessing risks of pesticides to pollinators may be failing to adequately account for risks to bees. During April 14 oral arguments in the case Pollinator Stewardship Council et al. v. EPA et al, the judges wrestled with EPA's decision to register sulfoxaflor after finding the substance poses risks to bees, and despite an apparent lack of studies assessing those risks at application rates the agency included in the May 6, 2013, registration. Judge N. Randy Smith raised a variety of reasons why several studies EPA relied on for assessing sulfoxaflor's risks to bees may not be adequate. "They don't test the effect of the poison on brood, they don't test long-term colony health, and yet you're going to rely on them? That's my problem," Smith told an attorney representing EPA.