News

Presentations from CPDA’s 2019 Adjuvants & Inerts Conference Now Available!

CPDA’s 2019 Adjuvants & Inerts Conference, “Developing Trends and Emerging Needs of the Agrotechnology Industry,” held April 29-May 1 at the Grand Hyatt Denver in Denver, Colorado, featured a comprehensive and informative speakers program that covered a wide variety of topics of key importance to the agrotechnology industry. This year’s conference drew an audience of nearly 160 attendees representing all segments of the agrotechnology industry and addressed the latest innovations, research and trends in application technologies and other areas of crop protection and production. The presentations at this year’s conference equipped attendees with a better understanding of the many complexities shaping today’s agricultural economy and farm markets.

Thank You to this Year’s Sponsors!

Our sincere thanks and gratitude is extended to the sponsors of the 2019 Adjuvants & Inerts Conference. The generosity and support of these companies play a key role in CPDA’s ability to enhance the value to be derived from attending our conferences. Moreover, sponsorship is an excellent way to raise the visibility of your company. Please join us in recognizing the CPDA 2019 Annual Adjuvants & Inerts Conference sponsors:

Diamond Level:  Chemorse; Helena Agri-Enterprises; Huntsman Performance Products; Oxiteno; and Stepan Company

Platinum Level:  Adjuvants Unlimited, LLC; Nouryon; and Precision Laboratories, LLC

Gold Level:  Croda; Evonik Corporation; and TSG Consulting

Silver Level:  Brandt; Clariant Corporation; Ethox Chemicals; KALO; Oleon; and Stillmeadow, Inc.

Speaker Presentations

The speaker presentations from the CPDA 2019 Annual Adjuvants & Inerts Conference may be accessed by clicking the links below.

April 30, 2019

“Welcome to CPDA’s Adjuvants & Inerts Conference,” Gary Halvorson, CPDA President; and Dave Ferguson, Agrotechnology Committee Co-Chair, Huntsman Performance Products

“The State of the Farm Economy,” Dr. Terry Barr, CoBank

“CPDA and CLA Collaboration,” Gary Halvorson, CPDA President

“CPDA Priorities and Value of Membership,” James Reiss, Chair, CPDA Board of Directors, Precision Laboratories, LLC

“CPDA Adjuvant Certification Program,” Greg Grant, Croda

“Inerts Working Group Update,” Carmine Sesa, CPDA Inerts Working Group Chair, AgMarket Results, LLC

“The BIT Experience and Update,” Dr. Kevin Crosby, Adjuvants Unlimited, LLC

“The Impact of NGO’s (Non-Government Organizations) on Regulations Affecting Registration of Pesticides and Adjuvants in California,” Robert Ehn, R3 Ag Consulting, LLC

“Adjuvant Technology Trends in Patents:  2016-2019,” R. Scott Tann, pHocas LLC

“Post Patent Agrochemical Formulation Overview and Trends,” John M. Moyer, Ethox Chemicals

“The Benefits of Adjuvants when Herbicide Efficacy is Challenged,” Dr. Ryan Edwards, Winfield United

“Research and New Developments in Adjuvants – A University Perspective,” Dr. Bryan Young, Purdue University

“Facing the Glyphosate Resistance Issues Scenario – Impacts on Agrochemicals and Application Technologies,” Dr. Ulisses R. Antuniassi, São Paulo State University (UNESP) – Botucatu/SP – Brazil

May 1, 2019 – Session A: “Overall Improvement of Spray Quality and New Spray Technologies”

“Spray Quality: Where Does Biology Trump Physics?”, Dr. Bryan Young, Purdue University

“Advancements in Nozzle Technology,” Nick Fleitz, Pentair Hypro

“A Comparison of Agricultural Spray Measurement Techniques,” Dr. Steven A. Fredericks, Winfield United

“Effective Application Technology Management for Maximum Deposition and Coverage,” Drs. Greg R. Kruger and Bradley K. Fritz

“Encouraging the Adoption of Application Enhancement Technologies,” Drs. Bradley K. Fritz and Greg. R. Kruger

May 1, 2019 – Session B: “Biologicals – Current and Future Trends and Challenges”

“Biostimulants – Opportunities and Registration Challenges,” John L. Peterson, Consulting Chemist

“Biopesticides for Crop Protection:  A Revolution or an Evolution,” Dr. Natarajan “Bala” Balachander, AgBiome

“Plant Growth Regulators and Biostimulants:  Challenges and Opportunities,” Jim Scruggs, Fine Americas

Scenes from the 2019 CPDA Adjuvants & Inerts Conference

Thank you for attending!

CPDA Participates in EPA Quarterly PRIA Stakeholder Meeting

CPDA and other members of the PRIA Industry Coalition attended the EPA PRIA Quarterly Stakeholder Meeting held at the Agency’s Office of Pesticide Programs headquarters in Arlington, Virginia on March 13, 2019. The meeting included OPP leadership from all three registering divisions (RD, AD and BPPD). EPA personnel gave a brief summary of the events leading up to the March 8, 2019 enactment of PRIA 4, highlighted some of the new provisions in the reauthorized statute, and discussed the Agency’s plans to implement PRIA 4 and eliminate the backlog of actions awaiting review that was created by the federal government shutdown earlier this year.

In an effort to reduce the backlog of submissions mentioned above, EPA has been reaching out to companies that had multiple actions in the queue and is asking those companies to identify which of those registration actions that remain pending are deemed priority actions. EPA is also requesting that companies agree to a 90-day extension for the review of their product applications. EPA staff signaled they will likely continue to seek additional extensions moving forward but that the additional time sought will be 60 rather than 90 days.

EPA personnel also addressed product applications that were received from February 15, 2019 through March 7, 2019, the period during which PRIA 3 had lapsed and fees were reduced by 70% and the statutory timelines were no longer in effect. Those applications may be withdrawn and then resubmitted with the new PRIA 4 fee. The application packages will receive a PRIA 4 timeline for review as established under the current law. EPA, however, will keep 25% of the fee that was submitted with the original product application during the time period in which PRIA had lapsed.

OPP staff also discussed efforts to reduce the backlog of non-PRIA fast track amendments and notifications and indicated that non-PRIA actions could be bundled together as one submission rather than being submitted as separate label amendments. In addition, OPP representatives suggested that companies could include a PRIA label and a non-PRIA notification in one submission. EPA is considering possible ways to do a quicker review of notifications that might include providing product managers increased authority to sign off on these actions. OPP representatives signaled that they are preparing an update on PR Notice 98-10 on Notifications, Non-notifications, and Minor Formulation Amendments that will address the comments received by the Agency in response to changes proposed previously. In related developments, on April 2, 2019 CPDA and its allied industry partners will be meeting with management from OPP registering divisions to discuss the issue regarding the current backlog of notifications awaiting action.

In other discussion, EPA staff reported that the Agency is considering how best to use the maintenance fees that have accumulated over the years as a result of the previous appropriations constraint that limited the Agency’s ability to spend those funds. Staff noted that the Agency’s Office of Inspector General has recommended the development of a spending plan for maintenance fees under which no more than four months of maintenance fees could be carried over from year to year.

EPA has updated its web site to include PRIA 4 fee tables, revised decision trees, and the interpretations associated with each PRIA 4 fee category. Agency staff are also developing a table that will compare PRIA 4 to PRIA 3 and will make that available on the Agency’s web site very shortly. A summary of the March 13th stakeholder meeting developed by DC Legislative & Regulatory Services on behalf of the PRIA Industry Coalition of which CPDA is a member is available by clicking here. In addition, a presentation made by EPA on what’s new in PRIA 4 may be accessed by clicking here and an overview of the Agency’s PRIA implementation activities including a compilation of product actions completed to date is available here.

CPDA Urges EPA to Deny Petition Seeking Testing of Every End-Use Formulation and Tank Mixture

CPDA has collaborated with CLA, RISE and the Biological Products Industry Association (BPIA) in submitting joint industry comments to EPA on March 21, 2019 in response to a petition filed by the Center for Food Safety (CFS). The CFS petition requests that the Agency revise its testing requirements for pesticides prior to registration. Specifically, CFS is askiTng that the Agency expand its testing requirements to include whole pesticide formulations so as to account for the toxicological effects of inert and adjuvant ingredients and the testing of tank mixes to assess the interaction between pesticide ingredients. CFS maintains that inert ingredients may interact synergistically with active ingredients in ways that EPA cannot predict and that additive effects are not accounted for in pesticide risk assessments. As such, CFS argues that essentially all testing called for under CFR Part 158 as a requirement for registration must be conducted on every end-use product formulation and tank mixture. CFS believes this change is needed to meet the applicable safety standards of FIFRA.

In the joint comments, the industry group urged the Agency to deny the CFS petition emphasizing that EPA requires significant amounts of data on inert ingredients to support tolerance exemptions and the maximum allowable percent of the component in a formulation. The group pointed out that EPA can request additional information on a case-by-case basis for inert ingredients, formulations, and tank mixtures to support safety assessments. The group also argued that the expanded testing requested by CFS would be contrary to the approach previously adopted by Congress in amending FIFRA that was predicated on avoiding the duplication of data and reducing the burden placed on companies generating the data. The industry group explained that Congress’s goal in amending FIFRA in 1978 was to enable EPA to use a generic approach to pesticide registrations under which the Agency would devote more attention to basic or technical materials. “Not only is EPA permitted to base its decisions about formulated products on data generated on the ‘basic ingredients,’ Congress specifically intended that EPA focus on those ‘basic ingredients’ and apply the Agency’s findings to its evaluation of end-use product formulations,” the group stated. CPDA and the others further noted that EPA requires approximately 100 studies for the typical agricultural pesticide, and the average cost of these studies is approximately $150 million. “To conduct virtually all such tests on every end-use pesticide would be economically prohibitive, and there is scant evidence that it would better inform EPA of a pesticide’s risks,” the group cautioned. 

Click here to access a copy of the comments submitted by CPDA, CLA, RISE and BPIA in response to the CFS petition. The petition, supporting materials, and comments may be accessed online at www.regulations.gov (Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0262).

PRIA 4 Enacted Into Law

On March 8, 2019, President Trump signed into law S. 483, the “Pesticide Registration Improvement Extension Act of 2018” (PRIA 4). The measure, which provides a long-term reauthorization of PRIA, was introduced in the Senate on February 13, 2019 as a stand-alone bill and was adopted in that chamber by voice vote on February 14th. As introduced, S. 483 referenced H.R. 1029, the Pesticide Registration Enhancement Act, as amended by the Senate on June 28, 2018 during the last Congress. On February 25, 2019, under unanimous consent, the House approved the “long form” of the measure containing the full text rather than just a reference to the June 2018 Senate passed bill. In a parliamentary procedure that did not affect the substance or intent of the legislation, the Senate subsequently took up the House passed measure and approved it by voice vote on February 28th. S. 483 was then sent to the White House for the President’s signature.

PRIA 4 authorizes EPA to collect registration service and maintenance fees through 2023, establishes firm timelines for the review of pesticide and inert ingredient submissions, and makes several technical changes to PRIA 3. CPDA has long been a proponent of PRIA and is pleased that legislation providing for a long-term reauthorization of the statute has now been enacted into law.

A summary of the key provisions contained in PRIA 4 and a comparison with previous versions of the statute was prepared by DC Legislative & Regulatory Services on behalf of the PRIA Industry Coalition of which CPDA is a member. This document may be accessed by clicking here.

CPDA continues to work as a member of the PRIA Industry Coalition in providing input to EPA as the Agency proceeds with its plans to implement the newly enacted PRIA 4.

WSDA Addresses CPDA Concerns Over CBI Relating to Proposal for Principal Functioning Agents in Adjuvant Formulations

In a significant win for CPDA, the Washington State Department of Agriculture (WSDA) has issued a memorandum, dated December 11, 2018, in which the Department addresses the concerns of the Council regarding WSDA’s proposed plan requiring spray adjuvant registrants to use a more specific chemical name in the Principal Functioning Agents (PFA) section of their product label. The proposal, part of the WSDA Spray Adjuvant Labeling Consistency, Clarity and Compliance guidance issued in March 2017, mandated that the names of the three principal functioning agents on the label and the CSF must be associated with the specific Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) number for the ingredient. 

In response to concerns voiced by CPDA and work group members that the proposed synonym names as well as the resulting label requirements would result in the disclosure of confidential business information (CBI) for products registered by WSDA, the Department has agreed to delay the implementation of the “specific chemical name” portion of the March 2017 guidance until family/group chemical names for PFA’s can be evaluated and added to the list of synonyms.  As such, spray adjuvant registrants will be allowed to continue to use the chemical class descriptor in the ingredient statement appearing on the label instead of the chemical name.

The memorandum, authored by Kelle Davis, WSDA Program Manager for Registration and Licensing Services, states that registrants who were directed prior to December 11, 2018 to make label revisions to amend their PFA statement in response to the March 2017 guidance on Spray Adjuvant Ingredient Statements, may either delay the revision until further notice or submit their updated label if they choose to do so. Label revisions requested by WSDA for any other reason still need to be completed. The memo sets forth revised criteria for listing principal functioning agents on spray adjuvant labels.

The WSDA memo represents the culmination of a series of meetings CPDA has conducted with Department staff since the summer of 2018.  CPDA and work group representatives objected that the WSDA naming proposal for principal functioning agents would force the disclosure of CBI for products registered by the Department and could result in some companies choosing to drop their product registrations. In its engagement with WSDA, CPDA collaborated with its allied industry partners, including Heather Hansen, Executive Director, Friends of the Fields and Forest and Far West Agribusiness Association, in persuading the Department to delay implementation of the naming proposal.

CPDA appreciates the willingness of WSDA staff to consider the concerns of spray adjuvant registrants relating to how the proposal could force the disclosure of CBI. CPDA and registrant stakeholders will be working with WSDA to evaluate the family/group names to make sure they meet WSDA’s requirements while allowing registrants more flexibility in their PFA chemical names. A copy of the WSDA memo may be accessed by clicking here. For more information, please contact CPDA Interim President Gary Halvorson at ghalvorson@cpda.com.

For additional background on this issue, read more here.

CPDA-Canada Submits Comments to PMRA on Revised Consultation that Sets Forth Additional Changes to the Ministerial Agreement for Data Protection

On December 17, 2018 CPDA-Canada submitted comments in response to the Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) updated consultation that proposes additional changes to the Agreement for Data Protection under Section 66 of the Pest Control Products Act (PCPA), commonly referred to as the Ministerial Agreement for Data Protection. The Ministerial Agreement sets forth the procedures and requirements that must be followed when a generic pesticide registration applicant wishes to rely on a registrant’s compensable data to register a generic pesticide. The updated PMRA consultation document contains draft changes to the Ministerial Agreement for Data Protection based on the public comment the Agency received in response to its original consultation published on December 30, 2016. As reported previously, on February 24, 2017, CPDA-Canada submitted comments to PMRA on its prior consultation expressing disappointment that the Agency’s proposed mechanism failed to equitably balance the interests of companies that develop new pesticides (‘innovator’ companies) with the interests of companies that produce generic pesticides (‘generic’ companies).

In its latest submission to PMRA, CPDA-Canada reiterated its concerns set forth in its previous comments but also acknowledged and commended the Agency for several small improvements contained in the revised consultation. Among these, CPDA-Canada thanked PMRA for the addition of language aimed at deterring poor conduct in negotiations over data compensation through the proposed imposition of consequences that could be placed on parties acting in bad faith. CPDA-Canada also expressed its support for provisions that would establish a definitive timeframe by which an applicant would be required to provide all parties with notice of intent to initiate arbitration once negotiations fail. In addition, CPDA-Canada cited new provisions that would allow an applicant to opt out of arbitration proceedings at any time. Previously, if an applicant was uncomfortable with the final offer made by the registrant, they would not pursue arbitration because there was no opt-out mechanism and the arbitration tribunal’s award decision would be binding.

Despite these improvements, CPDA-Canada pointed out that deficiencies in the data compensation negotiation and arbitration scheme, as set forth in the updated consultation document, have not been satisfactorily addressed by PMRA. For example, the proposed revisions would give the Arbitral Tribunal the power to assign fees, such as legal fees, incurred by one party during arbitration to the other party. CPDA-Canada explained that parties to an arbitration typically agree that company specific costs are the responsibility of that company and not the other company.

CPDA-Canada also objected to a provision in the revised consultation that would give the Arbitral Tribunal the unilateral ability to extend the arbitration process which would add more time and expense to the proceedings. CPDA-Canada maintained that any extension should be agreed to in writing by both parties to the arbitration and should be limited to no more than 30 days.

In its other comments, CPDA-Canada called upon PMRA to retain the “cost sharing” provisions that appeared in its original consultation document. That language specified that compensation should be based on the equitable sharing of costs between a data owner and follow-on applicant. Where data compensation for the same data has already been paid by another generic previously, an award in a subsequent process could be based on the determined cost of data divided by the number of applicable parties (i.e., the data owner, the generic company that paid compensation in the first process, and the applicant in the subsequent process).

CPDA-Canada will continue to engage with PMRA on the inequities in the current Canadian data compensation mechanism, the process for the registration of tank-mix adjuvants, and the barriers to entrance of member company products into the Canadian market. To access a full copy of the recent comments submitted by CPDA-Canada to PMRA, please click here. 

The Value of CPDA Membership

CPDA is the preeminent U.S.-based industry trade association supporting the interests of the agricultural adjuvants and inert ingredients industry, and manufacturers, formulators and distributors of post patent pesticides and other agrotechnology products through its robust legislative and regulatory affairs programs.  The core of CPDA’s mission is built on the realization that issue priorities can differ significantly depending on whether your company is a producer, formulator/distributor, or an adjuvant/inert ingredient supplier.  Each of these segments within the agrotechnology industry faces a unique set of challenges in retaining a competitive edge in the marketplace.

To better position ourselves for the future, CPDA has charted a new strategic path with the goal of ensuring that the legislative and regulatory issues faced by each of these industry segments – producers, formulators/distributors, and adjuvant/inert ingredient suppliers – continue to be made a priority and receive the attention necessary for these companies to thrive in an ever-changing and competitive market. As a member of CPDA, companies have the opportunity to participate on one or more of three groups being established that will focus on the legislative and regulatory issues and needs germane to each of these individual market segments. This approach will empower member companies by giving them ownership over the issues applicable to the industry segment in which they do business and provide them the means to become “part of the solution.”

This new structure will assist CPDA in more effectively serving as the industry voice and advocate for uniquely challenging issues specific to the agrotechnology industry – issues that other agricultural chemical trade associations simply do not address. Membership in the Council provides companies a “seat at the table” in advocating for policy changes that impact their operations and protect their interests.  When an issue suddenly arises that affects a segment of our membership, CPDA responds by directing staff and member expertise to resolve the problem.  For an individual company to attempt problem resolution, the costs could be prohibitive and the effort ultimately unsuccessful.  As a trade organization, CPDA is well positioned to represent a large group of impacted companies and to speak as one voice for the agrotechnology industry on critical policy matters.  Past experience has proven that the voice of the association has been heard and addressed by the EPA, OSHA and state agencies.

CPDA’s activities in defending the interests of its members focuses on engaging state and federal legislators to shape new or existing legislation to the desired outcome; collaborating with agency personnel to inform the regulatory decision-making process; drafting and submitting comments on proposed rules and legislation; and advocating for favorable public policy. The following are just a few examples of the issue priorities that CPDA has devoted its time and resources to in representing the interests of its members in the federal and state policy arenas:

  • CPDA has engaged extensively with OSHA on advocating for changes to the Hazard Communication Standard (HCS 2012) that would stipulate that sealed containers in warehouses would not have to be relabeled based on new hazard information if an updated label is transmitted electronically to downstream entities as is allowed for updated safety data sheets.  CPDA has voiced its concerns to OSHA that distributor warehouses are not equipped to safely relabel sealed product containers and that this requirement would subject warehouse workers to unnecessary health and safety risks.

 

  • CPDA continues to work in strong support of enactment of legislation that would provide a long-term reauthorization of PRIA. The PRIA category fees and review timelines important to our member are established under PRIA ensure that decisions on pesticide product and inert ingredient submissions are made by EPA on a timely basis.  This provides companies the certainty they need in planning for the demands of the growing season. CPDA’s efforts played an important role in the inclusion of PRIA as part of the House and Senate Farm Bills. With current Farm Bill programs set to expire on September 30, 2018, the House and Senate majority leadership are hoping to complete work on a conferenced bill very shortly. CPDA is collaborating with its allied trade association partners on the PRIA Coalition to ensure the PRIA language remains in the final Farm Bill.

 

  • CPDA has devoted considerable resources in seeking the elimination of the duplicative Clean Water Act permitting requirement for FIFRA registered pesticides applied in, over or near waters of the United States. The Council was successful in securing the inclusion of language, known as the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) provision, in both the current versions of the House and Senate passed Farm Bills that would obviate the need for this redundant permit for the lawful application of pesticides.

 

  • CPDA continues to meet with EPA staff on a variety of pesticide drift issues, and recently developed a set of recommendations on possible changes to the Agency’s Drift Reduction Technology (DRT) verification test protocol, a key component of the star rating aspect of the DRT Program. CPDA remains committed to working with EPA on pesticide drift and educating Agency staff on tank-mix adjuvants and the nature of pesticide formulations.

 

  • CPDA is actively engaged on key state issues including the pending changes to product label warning requirements slated to go into effect at the end of August 2018 under California Proposition 65. CPDA recently joined with several other industry trade associations in submitting comments to California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) voicing concerns that the proposed Proposition 65 safe harbor warning requirements conflict with EPA requirements for pesticide labeling under FIFRA. CPDA and the other groups objected that the Proposition 65 warning requirement on a FIFRA-registered product would contradict EPA approved precautionary language and use directions. Moreover, this requirement could serve as a precedent for other states to follow thereby leading to confusion not only within industry, but for consumers and state regulators as well. CPDA continues to work with its allied trade association partners to resolve the dilemma that would be created under the pending Proposition 65 product label warning requirements.

 

  • CPDA continues to collaborate with Washington State Department of Agriculture (WSDA) regulators in expressing the serious concerns of its member companies with the department’s notice to adjuvant registrants regarding inert ingredient disclosure. CPDA has objected that the increased specificity would compromise the identity of many products that adjuvant producers sell.

 

  • In June 2018, CPDA met with representatives of EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) to discuss reports received from member companies suggesting that the Agency is routinely failing to meet its PRIA timelines for the review of inert ingredient submissions despite EPA’s assertion to the contrary. CPDA remains fully engaged on this issue and continues to solicit member feedback on their experience with the registration process. The goal is presenting a set of final recommendations to the Agency aimed at facilitating the timely review of inert ingredient applications and reducing the number of renegotiations that are taking place with apparently increased frequency.

 

These are just a few examples of what CPDA is doing on behalf of its members whose businesses are aligned with one or more of the three industry segments described here.  Our goal is to focus on issues and policy germane to our members while collaborating with aligned associations to have a powerful, consistent message to the agencies.

As we strive to effectively advance our industry’s mission and ensure critical regulatory and legislative policies are science based and equitable, we seek to recruit and retain a critical mass of companies looking to succeed in the U.S. agricultural chemical marketplace.  To ensure your voice is heard during the development of new public policy and when current public policy threatens the economic success and viability of your company and the industry, we need your continuing support and the support of others as the resource base for the Council’s work.  Participation and involvement of our members is the bedrock upon which we build our advocacy efforts – whether in the halls of Congress, with key federal and state agencies, or through collaborations with allied partners in the agrotechnology industry.

 

Presentations from CPDA 2018 Summer Conference & Annual Meeting Now Available

The beautiful skyline of downtown Chicago was the backdrop of the 2018 CPDA Summer Conference & Annual Meeting.

CPDA concluded its very successful 2018 Summer Conference & Annual Meeting held July 16-18 at the Omni Chicago Hotel in Chicago, Illinois. The highlight of this year’s program was a comprehensive discussion of the “new” CPDA and the value the organization provides to its members, specifically how Council membership enhances the representation of producers, formulators/distributors, and adjuvant/inert ingredient suppliers on state and federal legislative and regulatory issues specific to each of these market segments.

CPDA Interim President Gary Halvorson began the discussion with an overview of how CPDA is well equipped to provide a collective voice to each of these industry segments in responding to the many complex issues brought about by changes in the marketplace over the past two decades. CPDA Board members Tim Stoehr (Albaugh LLC), Tim Dlabaj (Helena Agri-Enterprises), and Scott Tann (Huntsman Performance Products) shared their thoughts with meeting attendees on how the “new” CPDA is uniquely positioned to advocate on legislative and regulatory issues germane to the business operations of generic producers, formulators/distributors, and adjuvant/inert ingredient suppliers, respectively. The CPDA Board members emphasized that membership in the Council provides these companies “a seat at the table” in ensuring their interests are protected on policy matters impacting their operations. They encouraged member company representatives to devote their time and talent through participation on CPDA committee and work groups and to become “part of the solution.”

The CPDA Summer Conference & Annual Meeting speakers program also addressed an array of other important topics including challenges encountered in the inert ingredient approval process under FIFRA, issues surrounding the registration of agricultural adjuvants in the state of Washington, the latest on pending changes to product label warning requirements under California Prop 65, the legislative outlook for the reauthorization of PRIA and the Farm Bill, a discussion of how advancements in adjuvants are helping to mitigate such problems as pesticide drift and weed resistance, as well as other issues of critical importance to the agrotechnology industry.

CPDA Holds Annual Awards Banquet at the Summer Conference & Annual Meeting

On the evening of Tuesday, July 17th, conference attendees gathered at Chicago’s famed Signature Room on the 95th in the John Hancock Building for the annual CPDA Awards Banquet. This is an event held every year during which CPDA recognizes individuals in honor of an achievement, contribution or service provided to the Council or industry. The Awards Banquet is a celebration of the important accomplishments of these individuals that have led to the many important milestones in the agrotechnology industry that exist today. Presiding over this year’s ceremonies was Gary Groves, Solvay.

Jim Reiss, Precision Laboratories (right), congratulates Dr. Donald Penner, recipient of the Warren E. Stickle Lifetime Achievement Award.

Among this year’s award recipients was Dr. Donald Penner from Michigan State University who was given the CPDA “Warren E. Stickle Lifetime Achievement Award.” The award highlighted Dr. Penner’s distinguished academic career, personal development of future weed scientists, patents and revolutionary industry contributions on the effect of adjuvants on the mechanism, and properties, fate and transport of herbicide formulations in the control of weeds.

Gary Groves, Solvay (right), presents the Service to the Council Award to Dr. Joe Gednalske, Winfield United.

The “Service to the Council Award” was bestowed upon Dr. Joe Gednalske, Winfield United, LLC, for his many contributions over the years in support of CPDA’s representation of manufacturers of spray tank adjuvants.

The “Outgoing Chairman Award” was presented to Dave Allen, Stepan Company, for his steadfast leadership, guidance and vision in transitioning the Council to a “new” and stronger CPDA.

Steve Solarski, AkzoNobel Surface Chemistry, LLC, was recipient of the “Service to the Board Award” for his many years of dedicated service as a member of the CPDA Board of Directors.

Please join us in congratulating this year’s CPDA awards honorees!

CPDA Chairmanship Changes Gavels at the Summer Conference & Annual Meeting

Dave Allen (right), passes the Chairman’s gavel to Jim Reiss.

The conclusion of the 2018 CPDA Summer Conference & Annual Meeting Awards Banquet marked the passing of the gavel from Outgoing Chairman Dave Allen (Stepan Company) to Jim Reiss (Precision Laboratories, LLC).

The CPDA staff looks forward to working with Jim in his new role as Chairman over the coming year as we continue to advance the work of Dave Allen and other members of the Board of Directors in building a new and even more robust CPDA.

CPDA Thanks the Sponsors of the 2018 Summer Conference & Annual Meeting!

 CPDA would like to extend its sincere thanks to the sponsors of the 2018 Summer Conference & Annual Meeting. Sponsorship plays a crucial role in enhancing the quality and value of CPDA meetings. Please join us in recognizing the following companies for their generosity in sponsoring this year’s summer meeting:

Diamond Level:  Chemorse; Huntsman Performance Products

Gold Level:  Adjuvants Unlimited, LLC; Albaugh, Inc.; Helena Agri-Enterprises; KALO; Precision Laboratories, LLC; and Stepan Company

Silver Level:  Exacto Inc.; Rosen’s Inc.; and Stillmeadow, Inc.

 

 

Speaker Presentations

The speaker presentations from the 2018 CPDA Summer Conference & Annual Meeting may be accessed by clicking the links below.

“Introducing the New CPDA,” Gary Halvorson, CPDA

“Value of CPDA Membership – Producers,” Tim Stoehr, Albaugh Inc.

“CPDA Value to Distributors,” Tim Dlabaj, Helena Agri-Enterprises

“The Adjuvant and Inert Committee:  Driven by Dynamic Change,” Scott Tann, Huntsman Performance Products

“Challenges in EPA’s Inert Ingredient Approval Process Under FIFRA,” Michael T. Novak, Keller and Heckman LLP

“Concepts for a Spray Quality Program:  A Slight Paradigm Shift,” Greg Grant, Croda

“CPDA Certified ‘DRA’ Program Proposal,” Susan Sun, Croda

“WSDA Adjuvant Registration:  Issues and Actions,” Gary Halvorson, CPDA and Lynn Georges, Brandt

“Volatile Organic Compound Update – California DPR Regulations,” Dave Lawson, Western Plant Health Association

“California Proposition 65 Update,” Dave Lawson, Western Plant Health Association

“Proposed Amendments to California’s Proposition 65 ‘Safe Harbor’ Warning Regulations,” Doreen L. Manchester, CropLife America

“CPDA Legislative Issues,” Don Davis, Esq., CPDA

“New Challenges for Tank Mix Adjuvants,” Joe Gednalske, Winfield United, LLC

“Sundry Studies Related to Weeds at WIU,” Mark Bernards, Western Illinois University

“Dicamba 2018:  Hope Meets Reality,” Bryan Young, Purdue University

 

Scenes from the 2018 CPDA Summer Conference & Annual Meeting

CPDA thanks all those who attended!

CPDA Joins with Allied Industry Partners in Commenting on Proposed Changes to Proposition 65 Product Label Warning Requirements

On July 5, 2018, CPDA joined with CropLife America, Responsible Industry for a Sound Environment (RISE), and the Household Commercial Products Association (HCPA) in submitting comments to California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) regarding pending changes to product label warning requirements under California Proposition 65. The proposed changes are scheduled to go into effect on August 30, 2018. CPDA and the other groups voiced concerns that the proposed Proposition 65 safe harbor warning requirements conflict with EPA requirements for pesticide labeling under FIFRA and objected that the Proposition 65 warning requirement on a FIFRA-registered product would contradict EPA approved precautionary language and use directions.  The groups argued that the proposed changes do not address the primacy of FIFRA labeling requirements which “foster uniformity in warnings throughout the United States and relieve interstate producers from duplicative burdens to obtain multiple approvals from state and federal agencies.”

Moreover, CPDA and the other groups emphasized that an EPA decision to register a product is “tantamount to a determination that the exposure to a Proposition 65-listed chemical from the use of that product in a manner consistent with the labeling precautions and instructions for use does not reach the level of exposure that would require a Proposition 65 warning.  CPDA and the others pointed out that given the risk-based nature of the FIFRA registration scheme and its label-warning system, a Proposition 65 warning on the label of a product “implicitly contradicts not only the use instructions and precautionary statements that FIFRA requires and U.S. EPA has approved, but also the registration itself.”

The groups also raised concerns that the competing Proposition 65-specific warning requirements could serve as a precedent for other states to follow thereby leading to confusion not only within industry, but for consumers and regulators as well.  CPDA continues to work with its allied trade association partners and provide additional input to California regulators and EPA in seeking to resolve the dilemma that would be created under the pending Proposition 65 product label warning requirements. To access a copy of the joint industry comments, please click here.

CPDA 2018 Summer Conference & Annual Meeting to Feature Unveiling of New Strategic Direction

 

CPDA Interim President Gary Halvorson recently sent the following message to CPDA Members:  “Make plans to be in the “Windy City” on July 16-18 for CPDA’s 2018 Summer Conference & Annual Meeting at the Omni Chicago Hotel in Chicago, Illinois. This year’s gathering promises to be a truly special event and is being structured to showcase the newly defined focus of the CPDA organization.

The start of 2018 signified a new chapter in the association’s long history – a new way of conducting operations and a new philosophy to enhance the value of CPDA membership. The CPDA Board of Directors envisions a new strategic direction for the association – one which recognizes that issue priorities vary depending on a company’s primary business focus: producer, formulator/distributor, or adjuvant/inert ingredient supplier. Each of these segments within the agrotechnology industry faces a unique set of challenges in retaining a competitive edge.

With this in mind, the CPDA Board has designed a plan to create a committee structure focused on these segments, and the legislative and regulatory issues relative to each. A representative Board director whose company’s primary line of business falls within each segment will be featured on the conference program. Each will showcase how reorganization of CPDA’s current structure would facilitate opportunities for legislative and regulatory advocacy of current and future member companies. CPDA is working towards increased transparency and defining the association’s value to current, past and future members in order to justify the expense in this current market.

CPDA’s goal is guided by a vision of ensuring that the association serves as the pre-eminent voice on federal and state legislative and regulatory affairs in representing the interests of producers, formulators/distributors, and adjuvant/inert ingredient suppliers. CPDA is confident that a restructuring will benefit current members, and also attract former and potential new members looking for an organization that is willing and able to devote time, effort and resources into championing their interests before policy-makers on Capitol Hill and with regulatory agencies.

Further details on CPDA’s new strategic direction and the summer conference, including the agenda, sponsorship opportunities, and fun events being planned will be announced soon.  Thank you!”

  • 1
  • 2