recent report for 2013 indicated that honey producing colonies were up 4% from 2012, the fourth increase in the last five years. The same report also notes that producer honey stocks are up 20% and prices are at an all-time high, up 6% from 2012. As the public continues to be bombarded with pollinator stories, chemicals make for an easy target, even if they are but one of a number of contributing factors that could lead to colony declines. The challenge going forward for the industry is to work with bee keepers, regulators and end-users to assure proper use of chemicals in order to protect the bee population. A further industry concern is what new studies might be required and what other actives might come under more scrutiny due to public pressure on regulators. Another critical regulatory consideration for the future is continued pressure from local governments to preempt Federal and State law with their own local ordinances and laws. This preemption of power could eventually 32 Spray February 2015 allow local municipalities to dictate which insecticides can and can’t be used within their boundaries. Imagine the chaos if each city, county, township, watershed district, etc. could legislate active ingredient usage in addition to federal and state regulatory agencies. Then there is the challenge of how to communicate certain important factual consumer benefits on the label. The insecticide industry is regulated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) through the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide & Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). One important aspect of the regulation is very strict language restrictions on the package label. Because insecticides are generally intended to kill things, nothing on the label can imply product safety. For example, if the active in the product is a naturally occurring, non-synthetic compound, the marketer is not allowed to communicate to consumers the “natural” benefit because that has been interpreted as implied safety. Most consumers remain unaware of the difference between naturally occurring insecticides such as botanicals, and man-made compounds. Data from market research firm Mintel shows that one in five U.S. households purchases pest control products that they deem natural or eco-friendly. As long as regulations restrict factual statements on labels that could educate U.S. consumers and help them differentiate products based on their belief system, it will remain a challenge. Another concern for the industry is that products containing only Minimum Risk Pesticides, referred to as 25(b) (e.g. cedar oil, lemongrass oil, etc.), can make safety and efficacy claims without having to submit studies to support those claims like the requirements for registered pesticides. This uneven playing field has left reputable industry insecticide suppliers at a disadvantage in the marketplace. The Consumer Specialty Products Association (CSPA) had offered a potential solution to the EPA in 2005 that would have required EPA registration with efficacy and storage data for 25(b) products that targeted public health pests. The EPA agreed the solution had merit and collected comments, but nothing was enacted. Ultimately, this would require a change to the law, which will take much time and effort. Consumer Environment Attitudes toward pest control products display opposing segments of the market. According to Mintel, some 76% of consumers express a preference for using products with fewer chemicals inside their home. At the same time, some 60% say they want the best solution regardless of chemicals and another 22% believe natural or Aerosol Insecticides
Spray Feb 2015
To see the actual publication please follow the link above