Update – November 2009: Ohio has requested a Section 18 exemption for residential use of propoxur.
Directly as a result of the EPA National Bed Bug Summit, PCT, July 15:
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is considering granting a Section 18 label exemption to older chemistries for bed bug control. Under Section 18 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) EPA is authorized to allow an unregistered use of a pesticide for a limited time if EPA determines that an emergency condition exists.
The problem:
[NPMA Senior Vice President Bob] Rosenberg said that the current challenge facing the industry is that even though both states and EPA agree on the need, there is no manufacturer at this point that has committed to produce such products. “It could be any number of reasons from economic issues to concerns about liability,” Rosenberg said.
A couple of months ago we looked at just such doubts from PCT columnist Richard Kramer.
However, let’s be optimistic for once, yes?
This is the Section 18 process. And this is the statute.
Public health exemption, looks like, but would it be a crisis exemption? See EPA’s crisis process flow chart. Ah, so many questions, so little information.
How can the public, I wonder, advocate for these solutions?
Is anyone in a position to tell us more?
We’re going to have to research and think about just what the realistic options among those ‘older chemistries’ are. The Australians still have OPs and carbamates, see the Code of Practice. By the way, there is one organophosphate that is “back”—dichlorvos, see this March 2008 PCT article (PDF)—and there are several products registered in New York State according to the Cornell NYS pesticide database but apparently none labeled for bed bugs.
These pages may be of related interest:
Pingback: So, it’s propoxur — New York vs Bed Bugs
Pingback: Ohio’s EPA emergency exemption request for Propoxur