Sulfoxaflor is a new class of insecticides effective against certain insects that are increasingly resistant to older pesticides. The EPA conducted a thorough review of sulfoxaflor under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, concluding that its use doesn’t cause unreasonable adverse effects on human health or the environment. But in their lawsuit, [Center for Food Safety] and [Pollinator Stewardship Council] claimed the EPA didn’t properly evaluate how this new class of insecticides would impact pollinators.
Sulfoxaflor’s proponents submitted additional scientific research to the agency about its long-term effects on pollinators. The EPA then conducted a new comprehensive risk assessment and concluded it could safely restore all of the 2013 registrations, added some new uses, and removed some 2016 application restrictions.
But CFS and PSC still weren’t happy.
…
If CFS and PSC are really so concerned about the environment and pollinator health, why are they fighting so hard to block a new insecticide that will be better for the environment and pollinator health? It makes absolutely no sense.
Related on the SLP
Anti-pesticide campaigners maintain that insecticide sulfoxaflor violates the Endangered Species Act. Here’s how Biden’s EPA responded
New York neonicotinoid compromise: Governor Hochul agrees to gradually phase out some neonicotinoid pesticides while allowing key exceptions
Activist groups sue EPA to block expanded approval of alleged ‘bee-killing’ insecticide sulfoxaflor
…
I certainly can’t answer for the activist groups’ baffling actions. But my hunch is that they want to block sulfoxaflor, not because it’s actually bad for pollinators, but because the organizations have an anti-pesticide agenda. Perhaps they believe that farmers will just forego any pesticide use if their only options are older insecticides that are becoming ineffective. It’s completely illogical (and not the slightest bit realistic), but not completely unheard of.
