Page 1 of 18

May 28, 2015

EPA’s Proposal to Mitigate Exposure to 

Bees from Acutely Toxic Pesticide 

Products 

 
Page 2 of 18

May 28, 2015

 

Table of Contents 

1 Executive Summary...............................................................................................................................3

2 Background ...........................................................................................................................................4

3 Problem Statement...............................................................................................................................6

4 Desired State.........................................................................................................................................6

5 Proposed Mitigation Approach and Rationale......................................................................................8

5.1 General Approach .........................................................................................................................9

5.2 Application to sites with bees present under contract for pollination services.........................10

5.3 Application to sites that are not under contracted pollination services....................................11

5.3.1 State and Tribal Managed Pollinator Protection Plans (MP3s) ...........................................12

6 Uncertainties.......................................................................................................................................13

6.1 Non-acutely toxic insecticides and insect growth regulators.....................................................13

6.2 Insect Growth Regulators and Fungicide Tank Mixes.................................................................14

6.3 Systemic Pesticides and Prolonged Residual Toxicity.................................................................14

6.4 Indeterminate Bloom..................................................................................................................14

6.5 Microbial Pesticides....................................................................................................................15

7 Implementation ..................................................................................................................................15

8 Summary .............................................................................................................................................15

Appendix A – List of registered active ingredients that meet the acute toxicity criteria ...........................17

Appendix B – Proposed Labeling.................................................................................................................18
Page 3 of 18

May 28, 2015

1 Executive Summary 

Today, EPA is proposing additional mandatory pesticide label restrictions to protect managed bees

under contract pollination services from foliar applications of pesticides that are acutely toxic to bees on 

a contact exposure basis. These restrictions would prohibit applications of pesticide products, which are 

acutely toxic to bees, during bloom where bees are known to be present under contract; these 

restrictions will apply to most insecticides and some herbicides. Today’s proposed requirements would

not supersede existing, more restrictive product use specifications. 

EPA is also encouraging the efforts currently made by states and tribes to reduce pesticide exposures 

through development of locally-based measures. Specifically, EPA has been working with its state and 

tribal partners to develop Managed Pollinator Protection Plans (MP3s). Such plans were discussed in the 

June 2014, Presidential Memorandum1(the Memorandum or directive) and the National Strategy to 

Promote the Health of Honey Bees and Other Pollinators2(the Strategy)which identifies public/private 

partnerships as one means of addressing pollinator declines. These MP3s would include local and 

customizable mitigation measures to address certain scenarios that can result in exposure to pollinators. 

EPA will monitor the success of these plans in deciding whether further label restrictions are warranted. 

Today’s proposal addresses only acute exposure to pesticides from foliar applications under specific 

conditions. While the proposed mitigation focuses on managed bees under contract pollination 

services, EPA believes that in protecting managed bees in these circumstance, these measures would

also protect native solitary and social bees that are also in and around treatment areas. Moreover, EPA 

recognizes there are concerns associated with potential exposure to chemicals that are not classified as 

acutely toxic by contact, including chemicals used in combination which may result in enhanced toxicity,

and crops which incorporate pesticide residues in pollen/nectar. Future EPA actions will address these 

situations. EPA will continue to conduct chemical-specific risk assessments for bees and will consider

additional product-specific mitigation as needed in the Office of Pesticide Program’s (OPP’s) registration 

and registration review programs.

Today’s proposal, as well as EPA’s support for development of state and tribal MP3s, is consistent with 

the President’s directive and the National Strategy to Promote the Health of Honey Bees and Other 

Pollinators, which addresses the multiple factors affecting honey bees and pollinator health. The 

Strategy explains the need to expand federal efforts to reverse pollinator losses and calls for the 

development of new public-private partnerships across various sectors (state, tribal and local 

governments, industry, and non-governmental organizations) to reverse pollinator losses and restore 

populations to healthy levels.

 

1 White House. 2014. Presidential Memorandum Creating a Federal Strategy to Promote the Health of Honey Bees and Other Pollinators. 

Memorandum for Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies. June 20, 2014. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-pressoffice/2014/06/20/presidential-memorandum-creating-federal-strategy-promote-health-honey-b

2 White House. 2015. National Strategy to Promote the Health of Honey Bees and Other Pollinators. May 19, 2015. 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/Pollinator%20Health%20Strategy%202015.pdf
Page 4 of 18

May 28, 2015

2 Background 

EPA has taken steps, starting with the development of improved scientific tools to assess risks, to 

manage potential risks from pesticides to pollinators. EPA has routinely required toxicity tests with 

honey bees and has used these data as a surrogate for assessing risks to terrestrial invertebrates in 

general. In recent years there has been increasing uncertainty regarding whether these acute toxicity 

data are adequate to evaluate the role that pesticides play in pollinator declines. Consequently, EPA 

began to explore whether a broader suite of studies was needed to evaluate potential risks to bees. In 

response, EPA, Health Canada’s Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA), and the California 

Department of Pesticide Regulation (CDPR) developed a harmonized risk assessment framework that 

was presented to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) Scientific Advisory 

Panel (SAP) in 20123. After considering the SAP’s advice, the EPA now has formalized its scientific 

process for quantifying potential risks to bees4. Data required for the risk assessment framework

informs EPA risk assessors of the potential for adverse effects to individual bees, as well as bee colonies,

from exposure that may result from the labeled use of a pesticide. This framework is now an integral 

part of the registration and registration review programs. Laboratory and field-based tests are also 

being developed for additional species of solitary and social bees

5 6

.

Pesticide labels have routinely included bee advisory statements as outlined in 40 CFR 156.85(b)(5)7 and 

the Label Review Manual8 based on data from acute contact toxicity tests (e.g., OCSPP Guideline 

850.30209) and studies on the toxicity of residues on foliage (OCSPP Test Guideline 850.303010) using 

honey bees. The Directions for Use sections of the label of some products have also included more 

specific restrictions to protect pollinators, based on EPA’s analysis of potential exposure and effects of 

the particular pesticide. However, stakeholders have continued to emphasize the need for greater 

clarity and stronger protections11 12. 

 

3 USEPA. 2012. White Paper in Support of the Proposed Risk Assessment Process for Bees. Submitted to the FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel for 

Review and Comment September 11 – 14, 2012. Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention Office of Pesticide Programs Environmental 

Fate and Effects Division, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington DC; Environmental Assessment Directorate, Pest Management 

Regulatory Agency, Health Canada, Ottawa, CN; California Department of Pesticide Regulation 

http://www.epa.gov/oppfead1/cb/csb_page/updates/2012/sapmtg-sept.html

4USEPA. 2014a. Guidance for Assessing Pesticide Risks to Bees. Office of Pesticide Programs United States Environmental Protection Agency, 

Health Canada Pest Management Regulatory Agency, California Department of Pesticide Regulation. June 19, 2014. 

http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-06/documents/pollinator_risk_assessment_guidance_06_19_14.pdf

5

ICP-PR. 2012. Proceedings of the 11th International Symposium on the International Commission for Plant-Pollinator Relationships (ICP-PR)

Bee Protection Group. Wageningen, Netherlands, November 2 – 4, 2011. Published in P.A. Oomen and H. Thompson eds, Julius Kühn Archiv 

437. 

6

ICP-PR. Proceedings of the International Commission for Plant-Pollinator Relationships (ICP-PR) Bee Protection Group 12th International 

Symposium Hazards on Pesticides to Bees. Ghent, Belgium. September 15 – 17, 2014. In preparation

7 CFR. 2014. Code of Federal Regulations. Title 40 (Protection of Environment), Chapter 1 (Environmental Protection Agency) Subchapter E 

(Pesticide Programs) Part 156 (Labeling Requirements for Pesticides and Devices) Subpart E (Environmental Hazard and Precautionary 

Statements) §156.85 (Non-target organisms) http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/textidx?SID=511673be0c81c693acae95773c696225&node=se40.24.156_185&rgn=div8

8 USEPA. 2012. Label Review Manual. http://www.epa.gov/oppfead1/labeling/lrm/

9 USEPA. 2012a. Ecological Effects Test Guidelines. OCSPP 850.3020 Honey Bee Acute Contact Toxicity. EPA 712-C-019. January 2012. 

http://www.epa.gov/ocspp/pubs/frs/publications/Test_Guidelines/series850.htm 

10 USEPA. 2012b. Ecological Effects Test Guidelines OCSPP 850.3030 Honey Bee Toxicity of Residues on Foliage. EPA 712-C-018. January 2012. 

http://www.epa.gov/ocspp/pubs/frs/publications/Test_Guidelines/series850.htm

11 USDA. 2013b. Report on the National Stakeholders Conference on Honey Bee Health. National Honey Bee Health Stakeholder Conference 

Steering Committee. October 17 – 17, 2012. http://www.usda.gov/documents/ReportHoneyBeeHealth.pdf

12 Ibid USEPA 2014b
Page 5 of 18

May 28, 2015

In August 2013, EPA developed new label language for certain neonicotinoid insecticides13 in response 

to concerns from various stakeholder groups that these compounds represented a particular hazard to 

managed bees. At that time, EPA recognized that different exposure scenarios following foliar 

applications of the neonicotinoid pesticides warranted different degrees of mitigation. In one scenario

(Scenario 1), large numbers of managed bees may be directly exposed to pesticide spray because they 

have been intentionally placed within or adjacent to the area being treated (i.e., under a contract to 

pollinate a crop). In a second scenario (Scenario 2), managed bees may be directly exposed to pesticide 

spray via off-site pesticide drift, or because the bees are within forage range of the application area. 

The label language developed14 for the neonicotinoid pesticides reflected the likelihood of different 

exposures for managed bees in Scenario 1 and Scenario 2. Given the intentional placement of colonies 

into or adjacent to the application area, the managed bees under contract pollination services (Scenario 

1) are nearly certain to be exposed if an application is made. Consequently, to protect managed bees 

under contract pollination services at the application site, EPA prohibited application of neonicotinoid 

products while bees are foraging and until flowering is complete with the single exception of 48-hour 

notification to the beekeepers prior to foliar applications. For managed bees not under contract 

pollination services (Scenario 2), EPA prohibited application while bees are foraging and until flowering 

is complete but with more exceptions to enable growers and beekeepers to reduce potential exposure 

to bees while affording growers some flexibility to apply pesticides for crop protection. EPA concluded, 

consistent with the statutory mandate under FIFRA15, that these modifications of the neonicotinoid 

labels reduced the risks to bees in a manner that improved the overall balance of risks and benefits from 

using these pesticides.

Following issuance of the August 2013 letter16 directing label changes for neonicotinoid products, EPA

announced its intention to follow a similar approach with other pesticides that are applied to the foliar 

surfaces of plants and are acutely toxic to bees on contact, i.e., those pesticides with an acutely lethal 

dose to 50% of the bees tested (abbreviated LD50) of less than 11 micrograms per bee (<11 μg/bee),

based on either the acute contact toxicity test following OCSPP Guideline 850.302017 or its equivalent 

test in Europe (i.e., OECD 21418). These acute toxicity data, which have been routinely required for 

pesticides, are frequently corroborated with bee kill incident data reported to EPA. The use of incident 

 

13 Neonicotinoids are a class of insecticides with a common mode of action that affects the central nervous system of insects, causing paralysis 

and death.

14 USEPA. 2014c. New Labeling for Neonicotinoid Pesticides. http://www2.epa.gov/pollinator-protection/new-labeling-neonicotinoid-pesticides 

15 The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) provides federal control of pesticide distribution, sale and use. All pesticides 

used in the United States must be registered (licensed) by EPA. For more information, see: http://www.epa.gov/agriculture/lfra.html

16 USEPA. 2013c. Memorandum to Registrants of Neonicotinoid Products on Pollinator Protection Labeling for nitroguanidine neonicotinoid 

products. http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2013-11/documents/bee-label-info-ltr.pdf

17 Ibid USEPA. 2012a. 

18 OECD. 1998. OECD Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals. Test Number 214, Acute Contact Toxicity Test. http://www.oecdilibrary.org/environment/test-no-214-honey bees-acute-contact-toxicity-test_9789264070189-en;jsessionid=43gvto47wnue9.delta
Page 6 of 18

May 28, 2015

data as a line of evidence in evaluating the potential risks associated with pesticides is discussed in 

associated guidance documents19 20 21 22. 

3 Problem Statement 

Pesticides, particularly those intended to control insect pests, can harm bees. Pesticides have also been 

identified as one among multiple factors negatively impacting pollinator health, including declines in 

honey bees specifically23 24. Through discussions with various stakeholders and based on reported bee

kill incidents contained within the EPA Incident Data System (IDS) and the Ecological Incident 

Information System (EIIS) databases for a large number of pesticides that have been classified as 

moderately or highly toxic to bees on an acute exposure basis, EPA has concluded that additional 

measures would provide better protection for bees from acute contact exposures. EPA is also aware 

that there are often inadequate relationships and a lack of suitable communication mechanisms in place 

at the local level between and among beekeepers, growers, and pesticide applicators to assure that 

pesticides needed to protect crops can be applied in ways that are not harmful to bees. Therefore, 

clearer and more consistent mandatory label restrictions could reduce the potential exposure to bees 

from pesticides categorized as acutely toxic to bees, i.e., those compounds with an acute contact 

LD50<11 μg/bee, in situations where large numbers of managed bees are intentionally positioned under 

contract in or close to pesticide application sites. In addition, EPA believes that state and tribal managed 

pollinator protection plans provide a means of developing localized and customized mitigation measures 

to reduce exposure of bees to pesticides in certain scenarios.

4 Desired State 

A common theme from discussions about pesticides and pollinators with one of EPA’s federal advisory 

committees, the Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee (PPDC)25, and with other stakeholder groups26

has been the need for clearer communications between growers/applicators, beekeepers and 

enforcement authorities. Stakeholders have indicated that more direct lines of communication are 

 

19 USEPA 2011. Memorandum from Donald J. Brady, Director on Guidance for Using Incident Data in Evaluating Listed and Non-listed Species 

under Registration Review. 

http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/science/efed/policy_guidance/team_authors/terrestrial_biology_tech_team/honeybee_data_interim_guidanc

e.pdf

20 Ibid USEPA 2004

21 Ibid USEPA 2012

22 Ibid USEPA 2014a

23 Ibid USDA 2013

24 vanEngelsdorp, D., J. D. Evans, C. Saegerman, C. Mullin, E. Haubruge, B. K, Nguyen, M. Frazier, J. Frazier, D. Cox-Foster, Y. Chen, R. 

Underwood, D. R. Tarpy, J. S. Pettis. 2009. Colony Collapse Disorder: A Descriptive Study. PLoSONE 4(8): e6481. 

Doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0006481 http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0006481

25 A description of the USEPA Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee Pollinator Protection Workgroup can be found at 

http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-advisory-committees-and-regulatory-partners/pesticide-program-dialogue-committee

26 Ibid USDA. 2013b. 
Page 7 of 18

May 28, 2015

needed at the local level. Groups such as the State FIFRA Issues Research and Evaluation Group 

(SFIREG27) have echoed these concerns.

As directed by the Presidential Memorandum and described in the Strategy, EPA is working with states

and tribes to increase the communication among all local stakeholders that have a part in protecting 

bees from exposure to pesticides and to promote implementation of integrated pest management 

(IPM28). The EPA sees collaboration on Managed Pollinator Protection Plans (MP3s) as a means to 

enhance communication and risk mitigation. The purpose of an MP3 with respect to pesticide use is to 

utilize local expertise to identify customizable solutions to effectively mitigate risk from acutely toxic 

pesticides to managed bees29. 

EPA is aware of concerns that approaches to assess and mitigate risk to managed honey bees may not 

be protective of unmanaged bees (i.e., “native” or “wild” bees). EPA’s ecological risk assessment 

framework documents30 31 32, discuss the uncertainties associated with the use of surrogate species 

(e.g., the use of the honey bee) for determining the potential for adverse effects to untested insect 

pollinator species as a result of exposure to pesticides. Using the honey bee as a surrogate species is 

consistent with both its established use in risk assessment and the currently available science. EPA 

believes that the approach taken to protect managed honey bees will also decrease the risks to wild 

bees since pesticides are generally likely to affect wild bees and managed bees in a similar manner. 

Moreover, EPA believes that additional measures to protect managed bees will provide protections to 

other pollinators as well. For example, measures designed to ensure that applications are only made 

when managed bees are not likely to be foraging will also be effective for other pollinators with similar 

foraging behavior and will reduce potential exposure to wild bees as well. This effort is also consistent 

with the Presidential directive and the Strategy which seeks to promote the health of honey bees and 

other pollinators to “ensure the sustainability of our food production systems, avoid additional economic 

impact on the agricultural sector and protect the health of the environment.”33

 

27 The State FIFRA Issues Research and Evaluation Group (SFIREG) is comprised of State, Federal, Tribal and Association representatives, and 

meets periodically to identify and discuss issues related to pesticides that affect the states/tribes. A description of SFIREG can be found at the 

following link: http://www.aapco.org/sfireg.html

28 Integrated Pest Management (IPM) programs use current, comprehensive information on the life cycles of pests and their interaction with 

the environment. This information in combination with available pest control methods, is used to manage pest damage by the most 

economical means while minimizing potential hazards to people, property and the environment. 

29 Managed bees include those for purposes of pollination services and honey production (i.e., honey bees, bumble bees, alfalfa leaf cutters, 

and blue orchard bees). Managed bees may be managed by hobbyists or commercial beekeepers. 

30 Ibid USEPA 2004

31 Ibid USEPA 2012

32 Ibid USEPA 2014a

33 Ibid White House. 2014
Page 8 of 18

May 28, 2015

Over the last few years, several states, such as California34 35, Colorado36, Florida37, Mississippi38, North 

Dakota39 and others, have independently developed state-specific pollinator protection plans to 

enhance communication between stakeholders (e.g., beekeepers, growers, applicators) which in turn is 

intended to reduce the potential exposure to bees from pesticides. In some cases, states have 

completed rule-making (e.g., Iowa40 and California41) which has established mandatory mitigation 

measures where beekeepers must be notified in advance of applications or applications may not take 

place during times when bees are likely to be foraging on the treated crop. These states have developed 

these plans in response to the needs of the growers and beekeepers of their states. The plans are aimed 

at identifying measures to mitigate potential exposure to bees from pesticides while providing flexibility 

to growers and beekeepers. A common element of each of the plans has been that they are founded on 

stakeholder engagement and consensus building; therefore, the state pollinator plans foster 

communication and collaboration between growers and the beekeepers. Feedback from state lead 

agencies, which have developed pollinator protection plans, indicates that the plans have been effective 

in increasing communication and mitigating risk. This result is evident from decreased numbers of bee 

kill incident reports, an increase in the number of bee hives registered in apiary registries, and an 

increased number of requests for advice when landowners cannot reach beekeepers. Although there 

are areas of commonality in the state-specific plans, they take many different approaches, since each 

reflects local conditions and local solutions.

One element of the Strategy is for EPA to engage with states and tribes and others on the development 

of pollinator protection plans. EPA’s initial discussions about pollinator protection plans have been with 

co-regulators through the SFIREG, the Association of American Pesticide Control Officials (AAPCO42) and 

the Tribal Pesticide Program Council (TPPC). These discussions have led to the realization that additional 

guidance is needed for states and tribes in the development of such plans, and state lead agencies are 

developing such guidance. As discussed in section 5.3.1, a draft guidance document has been circulated 

for wider review by states and will be made available following incorporation of their feedback.

5 Proposed Mitigation Approach and Rationale 

EPA is proposing label changes to provide additional protections to managed bees under contract 

pollination services and is encouraging local solutions in the form of state and tribal MP3s for managed 

 

34 California Department of Food and Agriculture. 2014. Bee and Beehive Information. 

http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/plant/PE/interiorexclusion/bees.html

35 California Food and Agricultural Code Section 29040-29056 http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=fac&group=29001-

30000&file=29040-29056

36 Colorado Environmental Pesticide Education Program. Pollinator Protection 2013.

http://www.cepep.colostate.edu/Pollinator%20Protection/index.html

37 Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. 2014. Florida Bee Protection. http://www.freshfromflorida.com/DivisionsOffices/Agricultural-Environmental-Services/Consumer-Resources/Florida-Bee-Protection

38 Mississippi Honeybee Stewardship Program. 2014 http://www.msfb.org/public_policy/Resource%20pdfs/Bee%20Brochure.pdf

39 North Dakota Department of Agriculture. 2014. North Dakota Pollinator Plant. A North Dakota Department of Agriculture Publication. 

http://www.nd.gov/ndda/files/resource/NorthDakotaPollinatorPlan2014.pdf

40 Iowa Department of Agriculture. Advancing Iowa’s Agricultural Interests. See Iowa Administrative Code Chapter 21-45.31(206).

http://www.iowaagriculture.gov/horticulture_and_farmersmarkets/sensitivecropdirectory.asp

41 California Department of Pesticide Regulation. Food and Agriculture Code Section 29040-29056. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgibin/displaycode?section=fac&group=29001-30000&file=29040-29056

42 APPCO. 2014. Association of American Pesticide Control Officials. http://www.aapco.org/
Page 9 of 18

May 28, 2015

bees not under contract services. EPA will work with state and tribal lead agencies to facilitate adoption 

of and compliance with MP3s that reflect public stakeholder processes. EPA will monitor the success of 

these plans in mitigating risk to bees from acutely toxic pesticides on an ongoing basis and determine 

whether additional EPA action is warranted. In the following section, the scope of these changes is 

discussed. 

5.1 General Approach 

EPA continues to believe that bees are likely to be exposed from application of acutely toxic pesticides, 

although the certainty such exposure will occur differs in ways that warrant different approaches to risk 

mitigation. When managed bees are on site under contract to pollinate the crop, which can also be the 

application area, relatively large numbers of bees are intentionally placed in or near the crop area, i.e., 

managed bees are a direct input to the production of the crop. Consequently, large numbers of bees 

are likely to be directly exposed to pesticide spray during a pesticide application. Underscoring the 

potential magnitude of colonies that may be present at an application site requiring contracted 

pollination services, the EIIS database contains reports from commercial beekeepers of adverse effects 

to roughly 20,000 colonies contracted to support pollination services in almonds and roughly 2,000 

colonies contracted to support pollination services in blueberries purportedly due to pesticide 

applications made while large numbers of colonies were in or near treatment areas in 2014 alone. In 

addition, EPA has heard claims of tens of thousands more colonies in almonds and blueberries being 

affected in 2014. (EPA notes, however, that it is not clear whether these adverse effects were acute or 

chronic with respect to the timing of pesticide applications relative to when bees may have been 

actively foraging, since those incidents have not been formally reported to EPA and/or investigated by 

state lead agencies responsible for enforcing compliance with pesticide label restrictions.) Although

the EIIS contains numerous bee kill incident reports from beekeepers who were not providing 

contracted pollinations services at the time of the incident, those individual reports have not been of 

similar magnitude (i.e., simultaneously impacting thousands of hives) as those reported by commercial 

beekeepers providing contracted pollinator services

When managed bees are not providing pollination services at a site that is being treated with a 

pesticide, they may still be directly exposed because the application site is within forage range of those 

bees. In such circumstances, EPA considers the likelihood of exposure to large numbers of managed 

bees to be somewhat lower since large numbers of colonies are not intentionally placed within or near

the treatment area. EPA believes that the likelihood of exposure between the two scenarios is 

significantly different and that, given their proximity to the treated crop, large numbers of managed 

bees under contract pollination services are nearly certain to be exposed and potentially adversely 

affected if an application with an acutely toxic pesticide is made. Further, in evaluating these two 

scenarios (where bees are brought on site under contract vs. when bees may be present but the grower 

may not derive a benefit from the presence of bees on his or her property), EPA believes it is also 

appropriate to consider the benefit or lack of benefit that bees are providing to the grower in 

determining the nature and scope of mitigation. Consequently, EPA is proposing different mitigation

approaches for these two scenarios; however, EPA will continue to evaluate the efficacy of these efforts 

to determine whether additional action is needed.
Page 10 of 18

May 28, 2015

The proposed restrictions outlined in the following sections would not replace more restrictive 

chemical-specific, bee-protective provisions (e.g., pre-bloom restrictions) that may already be on a 

product label. For example, based on chemical-specific assessment, EPA may have determined that the 

persistence of toxic residues in pollen and nectar requires that an application be prohibited for a period 

of time prior to bloom, in addition to prohibitions during bloom, in order to ensure that residues in 

pollen and nectar be below levels of concern when bees are likely to be exposed (i.e., a pre-bloom 

restriction). These more restrictive prohibitions would not be superseded by the proposed mitigation 

described below. As discussed previously, EPA will continue to conduct comprehensive chemicalspecific risk evaluations and take appropriate action to further mitigate identified risks through the 

registration and registration review programs based on the available science. 

5.2 Application to sites with bees present under contract for pollination services 

As discussed above, contracted pollination services result in a heightened exposure potential where a 

large number of honey bee colonies are intentionally placed at a use site, and the application of a toxic 

pesticide in this scenario is nearly certain to result in adverse effects to pollinators. Although the likely 

outcomes are counter-productive for both the beekeeper (loss of honey bee stock) and the grower 

(diminished pollination services), many beekeepers and growers have not found ways to avoid such 

outcomes. Consequently, EPA believes that strong regulatory measures should be in place for the 

contracted service scenario to mitigate these potential problems. Therefore, EPA proposes the 

following:

 To prohibit the foliar application of acutely toxic products during bloom for sites with bees onsite under contract, unless the application is made in accordance with a government-declared 

public health response. (See proposed label language in Appendix B.)

There would be no other exceptions to the bloom prohibition in the contracted-services scenario. 

Current neonicotinoid product labels include a 48-hr notification exception to the bloom prohibition. 

However, as part of this mitigation proposal, the 48-hr notification exception for crops under contracted 

pollination services during bloom for all neonicotinoid product labels would be removed. 

The proposed mitigation applies to all products (FIFRA Section 3 and 24(c) Special Local Need 

registrations and where applicable Section 18 emergency exemption petitions*) that have:

(1) liquid or dust formulations as applied; and,

(2) foliar use directions for use on agricultural crops with bees onsite under contract for 

pollination services; and, 

(3) active ingredient(s) that have been determined via testing to have an acute contact toxicity 

value less than 11 micrograms per bee (LD50<11 μg/bee). The active ingredients that meet this 

criterion are listed in Appendix A. EPA will also consider as a line of evidence those active 

ingredients that have resulted in bee kill incidents that were investigated and determined to 

result from the proper use (i.e., were not the result of a misuse) of a product. 

*depending on the nature of the emergency for which a Section 18 petition has been submitted, the at-bloom 

restriction may not apply. This determination will be reached on a case-by-case evaluation.
Page 11 of 18

May 28, 2015

The mitigation measures proposed for when bees are present under contract pollination would not 

apply to applications made in support of public health such as use for wide area mosquito control. EPA 

recognizes that a wide area mosquito control application can impact large numbers of bees if the 

application co-occurs in areas with pollinator-attractive plants; however, such applications utilizing 

products classified as acutely toxic to bees are used to protect public health through mosquito 

abatement. 

Also, EPA encourages pollination service contracts established between growers and beekeepers that

take into account the increased likelihood of bee colony exposure by including provisions to ensure that 

colonies will be protected and pollination services secured. If EPA receives evidence during the public 

comment period and/or through outreach at stakeholder meetings that such contract provisions are 

common or that there are other effective and mutually agreed upon stakeholder (i.e., beekeeper-togrower) practices indicating that application of acutely toxic pesticides is not of risk concern for bees

under contract, then EPA will consider this evidence in determining whether this scenario needs the 

mitigation indicated in the proposed language.

5.3 Application to sites that are not under contracted pollination services 

EPA believes that managed bees not under contracted services (and other unmanaged bees) may also 

be exposed to acutely toxic pesticides when they are within forage range of the application site. While 

pesticide exposure under this scenario is possible, it is less certain than in situations where a pesticide is 

applied to a site when large numbers of managed bees have intentionally been positioned at the site for 

the purposes of providing pollination services. EPA believes that the lower likelihood of exposure for 

large numbers of managed bees in this scenario may warrant, in the future, a more flexible approach 

toward mitigation such as that afforded by state or tribal Managed Pollinator Protection Plans (MP3s). 

Further, feedback provided by multiple stakeholders (including growers, applicators, beekeepers, and 

state lead agencies) indicates that there is a wide range of local conditions which militate against a 

single regulatory approach to providing protections for non-contracted managed bees. Many, however, 

have recognized that the success of pollinator protection efforts will depend on clear communication 

among affected stakeholders to design effective, localized approaches. 

Accordingly, EPA will encourage states and tribes to develop MP3s that are effective in reducing the 

likelihood of bees being present in the treatment area at the time a pesticide application is to be made. 

EPA will work with state and tribal lead agencies to facilitate adoption of and compliance with MP3s that 

reflect local agronomic practices. This can be best achieved through state or tribal MP3s which results 

from a public stakeholder process. EPA will monitor success of these MP3s in mitigating risk to bees

from acutely toxic pesticides on an ongoing basis and determine whether additional EPA action is 

warranted. Therefore, for managed bees not under contact pollination services, no further changes to 

product labels, including the neonicotinoid pesticides, are proposed at this time.
Page 12 of 18

May 28, 2015

5.3.1 State and Tribal Managed Pollinator Protection Plans (MP3s) 

Through discussions with the PPDC, AAPCO, and SFIREG, EPA recognizes that several states (e.g., 

California43 44, Colorado45, Florida46, Mississippi47, and North Dakota48) have developed MP3s by 

productively engaging stakeholders within their respective states. These plans serve as examples of 

effective collaboration between stakeholders at the local level that can lead to broader awareness of 

needs and increased cooperation between stakeholders to reduce pesticide exposure for bees while 

maintaining the flexibility to protect crops. The common element in these plans has been the increased 

communication between stakeholders, and anecdotal reports from the stakeholder groups suggest that 

the plans are effective at increasing communication and cooperation. 

The EPA is generally promoting the development of state and tribal MP3s that cover use of acutely toxic 

pesticides sites where there are no bees onsite under contract pollination services; however, the scope 

of such plans is not limited to a specific scenario. States and tribes have the flexibility to determine the 

scope of an MP3that best responds to pollinator issues in their region. For example, the scope could

include applications to crops, and commercial applications to ornamentals in commercial, public, and 

residential settings, and other scenarios. 

SFIREG has drafted guidance for states to consider in developing MP3s, which identifies several elements 

for establishing a framework for communication and cooperation between beekeepers and growers and 

reducing pesticide exposure for managed bees. Tribes are also encouraged to consider this guidance in 

developing their own MP3s, as appropriate. In general, these elements include a public stakeholder 

participation process for the development of a MP3to encourage local solutions based on improved 

communication and cooperation; a method for growers/applicators to know if there are managed bees 

near treatment sites, and to identify and contact beekeepers prior to application that will enable the 

grower/applicator to communicate about any planned treatments and how best to protect the colonies;

inclusion of best management practices that both the grower/applicator and beekeeper can undertake 

to limit exposure of the managed bees to the proposed pesticide application; a clear defined plan for 

public outreach to promote robust adoption of the plan; a process to periodically review and modify the 

plan as needed; and a mechanism to measure the effectiveness of the managed pollinator protection 

plan. In addition, other recommendations are included in the guidance document for consideration in 

developing MP3s. This draft guidance document has been circulated by SFIREG for wider review by 

states and is, therefore, subject to change. The final guidance document is expected to be made 

available following incorporation of their feedback. 

While EPA’s proposed label statement would address risks to managed bees present at a site under 

contract for pollination services, state and tribal MP3s may address pesticide-related risks to all 

pollinators, including managed bees, whether or not they are present under a contract, as well as wild 

pollinators. As noted earlier though, the scope of state and tribal MP3s is not limited to a particular 

 

43 California Department of Food and Agriculture. 2014. Bee and Beehive Information. http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/plant/pollinators/index.html

44 California Food and Agricultural Code Section 29040-29056 http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=fac&group=29001-

30000&file=29040-29056

45 Colorado Environmental Pesticide Education Program. Pollinator Protection 2013.

http://www.cepep.colostate.edu/Pollinator%20Protection/index.html

46 Ibid Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. 2014.

47 Ibid Mississippi Honeybee Stewardship Program. 2014.

48 Ibid North Dakota Department of Agriculture. 2014. 
Page 13 of 18

May 28, 2015

scenario for managed bees nor would such plans be limited to agricultural practices but could extend to 

a broader number of pollinating species and habitats. EPA has worked collaboratively with the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture and Michigan State University, as well as consulted published sources49 50 51, 

to identify plants that are pollinator attractive and which require managed pollination services. The list 

of pollinator-attractive plants is based in part on those plants contained in the European Food Safety 

Authority (EFSA) guidance for assessing risks of pesticides to bees52; however, USDA has included a 

broader number of plant species in its assessment and has provided references to support the 

attractiveness classification. Based on the list, most crops categorized as attractive to native bees are 

attractive to honey bees as well; EPA recognizes that there are exceptions (e.g., tomatoes). States and 

tribes are encouraged to consider this list of pollinator-attractive plants when it becomes available for

developing their MP3s. 

6 Uncertainties 

While the intent of the proposed label changes and state and tribal MP3s is to reduce exposure of 

managed bees to pesticides that are acutely toxic on contact, uncertainties remain regarding chemicals 

that may not fall within the domain of the proposal. These uncertainties are discussed below. 

6.1 Non-acutely toxic insecticides and insect growth regulators 

EPA recognizes that in addition to causing acute lethal effects, pesticides may cause sublethal chronic 

effects and effects to insect pollinators at various life stages and at various levels of biological 

organization (individual and colony-level). Specifically, non-acutely toxic insecticides such as insect 

growth regulators (IGRs) generally target early developmental stages (e.g., larvae, pupae) and have 

varying degrees of specificity to target pest species. The determination of whether or not a specific IGR 

will have activity on honey bees and non-Apis pollinator species needs to be made on a chemical-specific 

basis. For example, EPA has a full suite of effects data for methoxyfenozide, a chemical which mimics 

the molting hormone ecdysone, and these data show that the chemical does not adversely affect larval 

and adult honey bees, either at the individual level or at the whole colony level. However, there are 

preliminary data for other IGRs (e.g., diflubenzuron) which suggest possible adverse effects to honey 

bee larval and pupal development. As discussed previously, to address these concerns, EPA will 

continue to require a suite of effects and residue studies, conduct comprehensive chemical-specific risk 

evaluations according to the Guidance for Assessing Pesticide Risks to Bees,

53 and take appropriate 

action to further mitigate identified risks through the registration and registration review programs 

based on the available science. 

 

49 McGregor SE, 1976. Insect pollination of cultivated crop plants. Agricultural Handbook No. 496. Ed USDA Agricultural Research Service W, D.C, 

USA.

50 Free JB. 1993. Insect Pollination of crops, 2nd edn. Academic Press: London, UK.

51 Delaplane, K. S. & Mayer, D. F. (2000). Crop Pollination by Bees. – New York, Oxon (CABI Publishing).

52 European Food Safety Authority, 2013. EFSA Guidance Document on the risk assessment of plant protection products on bees (Apis mellifera, 

Bombus spp. and solitary bees). Appendix D. EFSA Journal 2013; 11(7):3295, 266 pp., doi: 10.2903/j.efsa.2013.3295.

53 Ibid USEPA 2014
Page 14 of 18

May 28, 2015

6.2 Insect Growth Regulators and Fungicide Tank Mixes 

EPA is also aware of concerns regarding the potential effects to honey bee larvae and queen 

development reported in connection with bee incidents following tank mixed applications of certain 

fungicides with insecticides (including IGRs that are not acutely toxic to adult bees). Field reports from 

beekeepers allege that applications of these tank mixes during almond bloom are having colony-level 

effects. However, there are also beekeepers reporting little to no effects on bees located close to the 

sites of tank-mixed applications in question. Additionally, EPA is aware of research that is being 

conducted to quantify the level of interaction between some IGRs and some fungicides54 55. The 

research to date is limited and specific to diflubenzuron (Dimilin®) and a subset of fungicides (e.g., 

boscalid and pyraclostrobin (Pristine®)), but this research has shown no synergistic effects at 

environmentally relevant concentrations. Additional research to evaluate the interaction between 

Dimilin® and other fungicides (e.g., propiconazole, Tilt® and iprodione, Roval®) and other IGRs (e.g., 

methoxyfenozide, Intrepid®) at environmentally relevant concentrations is underway56. EPA will 

continue to evaluate the open literature as part of the registration and registration review programs and 

may require additional testing on specific IGR-fungicide combinations to address specific uncertainties 

identified in the open literature and through reported incidents. Additionally, EPA requests that 

additional scientific information regarding the effects of tank-mixed IGRs and fungicides be submitted in 

response to this proposal. 

6.3 Systemic Pesticides and Prolonged Residual Toxicity 

EPA recognizes the concern surrounding systemic pesticides and those with prolonged residual 

toxicity. Systemic pesticides that have prolonged residual toxicity may not be adequately addressed by 

the proposed mitigation discussed in this proposal. When applied using methods other than foliar 

treatments (e.g., soil, seed treatment, and tree injection applications), systemic pesticides and/or 

pesticides with prolonged residual toxicity may result in residues in pollen and nectar at levels that can 

impact bees and hive health. However, the likelihood of this occurring is highly dependent on the 

specific properties of the pesticide (i.e., the degree to which the pesticide is transported in the plant, the 

persistence of the pesticide residues, and the levels at which lethal and non-lethal effects occur). As 

discussed previously, to address these concerns, EPA will continue to require a suite of effects and 

residue studies, conduct comprehensive chemical-specific risk evaluations according to the Guidance for 

Assessing Pesticide Risks to Bees57, and take appropriate action to further mitigate identified risks 

through the registration and registration review programs based on the available science.

6.4 Indeterminate Bloom 

EPA understands that there are some flowering crops and ornamentals that have an indeterminate 

period of bloom, i.e., these crops flower, set fruit and continue to flower throughout the year, and that 

for these crops bees are present under contract for pollination services for extended periods of 

time. Examples of indeterminate blooming crops which involve commercial pollination services include: 

cucurbits, strawberries, etc. EPA recognizes that the proposed prohibition on application of acutely 

toxic pesticides during the time when bees are present under contract may cause significant issues for 

 

54 DeGrandi-Hoffmann, G., Y. Chen and R. Simonds. 2013. The Effects of Pesticides on Queen Rearing and Virus Titers in Honey Bees (Apis

mellifera L.). Insects 4(1): 71 – 89 doi 10.3390/insects4010071

55 Johnson, R. M. and E. Percel. 2012. Pristine Effects on Queen Rearing Process. Final report to Project Apis m.

56 Johnson, R.M., E.G. Purcell. 2013. “Effect of ‘Bee-Safe’ Insecticides and Fungicides on Honey Bee Queen Development and Survival.” Poster 

presented at 2nd International Conference on Pollinator Biology, Health and Policy, Aug. 14–17, 2013, Pennsylvania State University.

57 Ibid USEPA 2014
Page 15 of 18

May 28, 2015

the growers of these crops. Therefore, EPA requests input during the comment period on alternative 

mitigation approaches for these pollinator-attractive crops with indeterminate periods of bloom. 

6.5 Microbial Pesticides 

EPA recognizes that microbial pesticide toxicity values are not typically expressed in terms of 

micrograms per bee or determined from contact exposure which is typically seen with conventional 

pesticides. However, the mitigation measures/approach described in this proposal may be appropriate 

for microbial products that are acutely toxic or pathogenic to bees. Before determining whether 

mitigation would be appropriate for any microbial pesticide, EPA would need to evaluate whether the 

honeybee toxicity/pathogenicity studies it receives for microbial pesticides can yield some equivalent 

information about acute toxicity that is presented by the contact toxicity tests done for conventional 

chemicals. If not, EPA would need to determine whether additional data are needed to more fully 

evaluate microbial pesticides’ risks to bees, and what regulatory triggers are appropriate for 

determining the need for this proposed mitigation. These data and resulting triggers might vary based 

on factors such as the type of microbial pesticide (e.g., insect pathogens, live microbes, killed microbes) 

and expected routes of exposure.

7 Implementation 

Proposed label language that reflect the prohibition of foliar application of acutely toxic products during 

bloom for sites with bees on-site under contract is provided in Appendix B. Instructions to registrants 

are to be developed that will describe the specific changes that are to be made to product labels that 

are consistent with these changes, including the select neonicotinoid products labels that were 

previously modified to reduce risks to bees.

8 Summary 

As discussed in this paper and consistent with previous actions by the EPA and the Strategy, EPA is 

proposing additional restrictions for pesticide applications to blooming crops where managed bees are 

present under a contract, for pesticides that are acutely toxic to bees (i.e., those chemicals with an acute 

contact LD50<11 μg/bee). For applications of acutely toxic pesticides at bloom where bees may be 

present other than from contracted pollination, EPA is expecting the development of state and tribal 

managed MP3s contoured to reflect local needs and conditions to address exposure of managed bees in 

non-contracted scenarios. EPA will be evaluating on an ongoing basis the effectiveness of these plans at 

reducing exposure of bees to pesticides. After state or tribal MP3s have been in place for several years, 

EPA will then determine whether additional label revisions are appropriate. These actions are intended 

to reduce the likelihood of acute exposure of honey bees following application of acutely toxic 

pesticides. In being protective for managed honey bees, these actions are believed to be protective for 

other solitary and social bees and other pollinators that may be at or near the application site at bloom. 

The Agency has relied on multiple lines of evidence (e.g., acute toxicity studies as well as bee kill 

incident data when available) to support its understanding of the acute exposure to and toxicity of the 

pesticides in question. The proposed mandatory language in the Directions for Use is based on the 

available science and the expectation that larger numbers of bees will be present in or near application 

sites under contracted pollination services. The proposed mitigation is intended to enhance pollinator 

protection for particular application scenarios and is not intended to supersede more restrictive 
Page 16 of 18

May 28, 2015

product-specific use prohibitions. Through both the registration and registration review programs, EPA 

will continue to conduct chemical-specific risk assessment for bees that will address other potential 

routes of exposure (e.g., ingestion of pesticide residues in pollen and nectar) and other potential effects 

(e.g., chronic effects) and will consider additional, appropriate product-specific mitigation as needed.

 
Page 17 of 18

May 28, 2015

Appendix A – List of registered active ingredients that meet the 

acute toxicity criteria 

Abamectin Dicrotophos Momfluorothrin

Acephate Dimethoate Naled

Acetamiprid Dinotefuran Oxamyl

Aldicarb Diuron Permethrin

Alpha-cypermethrin D-trans-allethrin Phenothrin

Amitraz Emamectin benzoate Phorate

Arsenic acid Endosulfan Phosmet

Azadirachtin Esfenvalerate Pirimiphos-methyl

Bensulide Ethoprop Prallethrin

Beta-cyfluthrin Etofenprox Profenofos

Bifenazate Fenazaquin Propoxur

Bifenthrin Fenitrothion Pyrethrins

Carbaryl Fenpropathrin Pyridaben

Carbofuran Fipronil Resmethrin

Chlorethoxyfos Fluvalinate Rotenone

Chlorfenapyr Fosthiazate Sethoxydim

Chlorpyrifos Gamma-cyhalothrin Spinetoram

Chlorpyrifos methyl Imidacloprid Spinosad

Clothianidin Imiprothrin Sulfoxaflor

Cyantraniliprole Indoxacarb Tefluthrin

Cyfluthrin Lambda-cyhalothrin Tetrachlorvinphos

Cypermethrin Malathion Tetramethrin

Cyphenothrin Metaflumizone Thiamethoxam

Deltamethrin Methiocarb Tolfenpyrad

Diazinon Methomyl Zeta-cypermethrin

Dichlorvos

 
Page 18 of 18

May 28, 2015

Appendix B – Proposed Labeling 

DIRECTIONS FOR USE

It is a violation of Federal law to use this product in a manner inconsistent with its 

labeling.

FOR FOLIAR APPLICATIONS OF THIS PRODUCT TO SITES WITH BEES ON-SITE FOR 

COMMERICAL POLLINATION SERVICES: Foliar application of this product is 

prohibited from onset of flowering until flowering is complete when bees are onsite under contract, unless the application is made in association with a 

government-declared public health response. If site-specific pollinator 

protection/pre-bloom restrictions exist, then those restrictions must also be 

followed.