EPA recently posted the above-titled notice, which reads as follows:

“This is the time of year that EPA receives many special local needs registration requests from states under section 24(c) of FIFRA. Section 24(c) states that “A State may provide registration for additional uses of federally registered pesticides formulated for distribution and use within the State to meet special local needs . . .”

EPA posted the following notice on its website:

“EPA has released for public comment Draft Guidance for Plant Regulators, Including Plant Biostimulants. Read a pre-publication copy of the draft guidance.

In recognition of the growing categories of products generally known as plant biostimulants, this draft document gives guidance on which products are (and are not) subject to regulation under FIFRA as plant regulator pesticides, and what kinds of claims can be made for them. The draft guidance provides examples of each. EPA is taking this step to provide clarity to our state regulatory partners, to industry, and to the interested public in this emerging product area.

EPA published a Federal Register notice that reads in part as follows:

“An Environmental Modeling Public Meeting (EMPM) will be held on Wednesday, March 27, 2019. This Notice announces the new time for the meeting. Location, agenda topics and supplementary information can be found in the original notice published in the Federal Register, of December 28, 2018 (83 FR 67282) (FRL–9987–26). The EMPM provides a public forum for EPA and its stakeholders to discuss current issues related to modeling pesticide fate, transport, exposure, and ecotoxicity for pesticide risk assessments in a regulatory context.

Cameron English | Genetic Literacy Project | February 11, 2019

The Genetic Literacy Project posted the above-titled article, which reads as follows:

“Last July, the European Court of Justice (CJEU) surprised pretty much everybody—politicians, industry and environmental NGOs—when it ruled that plants developed using gene-editing techniques such as CRISPR should be regulated as transgenic crops (GMOs) under rules promulgated in 2001, and now widely considered archaic.

Almost the entire European science establishment had urged that gene-edited crops should be subject to minimal regulations. Not surprisingly, scientists across the continent were almost universally disappointed at what they believed was a political rather than a science-based decision.

Agriland recently posted the above-titled article, which reads as follows:

“PEU pesticide policy is under scrutiny and review – but is in danger of being overly politicised, with scientific rigor taking second place to opinion, according to Mairead McGuinness.

The MEP and First Vice-President of the European Parliament was speaking ahead of a vote this Wednesday (January 16) in Strasbourg, and commenting on a report that outlines the European Parliament’s position on the EU’s pesticide policy.

‘Serious Consequences’

“The EU’s authorisation procedure could have serious consequences for the Irish tillage industry if a proposal to ban the use of PPPs (plant protection products) for desiccation purposes is adopted,” the MEP said.