NP 305, Crop Production, focuses on the most critical issues and needs of U.S. production agriculture. It comprises two major Research Components: (1) Integrated Sustainable Crop Production Systems and (2) Bees and Pollination.

Component 1. Integrated Sustainable Crop Production Systems
This component encompasses ARS efforts to improve existing and develop new production systems for current and emerging crops. Production systems are highly complex and depend on the integration of multiple management components. Innovative technologies, methods, and strategies are vital to maintaining and improving profitability of production systems, conserving energy and natural resources, and promoting agroecosystem sustainability, including marginal lands or urbanized environments.

Component 2. Bees and Pollination
Bees are crucial for U.S. agriculture and ecosystem health. The honey bee is one of the most effective pollinators for fruit and nut crops such as cherries, apples, and almonds; row crops such as cucurbits and melons; oilseed crops such as sunflowers and canola; and berries. Given the pollinating potential of a honey bee colony due to its wide foraging area, the large numbers of bees in a typical healthy colony, the ease at which honey bees can adapt to new environments, and the value of hive products, honey bees play critical roles in many specialty crop commodities. Non-Apis bees, including bumble bees, alfalfa leafcutter bees, and blue orchard bees, are also effective pollinators of agricultural crops and many native plant species. Native bees, some living solitary or in small colonies, perform ecosystem services of value that cannot be estimated.

Current Action Plan
NP 305 Action Plan 2018 – 2023

We are here to share current happenings in the bee industry. Bee Culture gathers and shares articles published by outside sources. For more information about this specific article, please visit the original publish source: https://www.ars.usda.gov/crop-production-and-protection/crop-production/

The CFIA is committed to its mandate to protect animal health, which includes the health of the Canadian bee population. The CFIA will continue to engage with the Canadian Honey Council, the USDA, provincial governments and apiculturists and a wide range of other stakeholders with respect to Canadian honeybee health.

In addition, the CFIA continues to put significant effort into identifying and evaluating potential new sources of packaged bees and queen bees internationally. Canada currently allows imports of honey bee queens from the United States, Chile, Australia, New Zealand, Denmark, Ukraine, Italy and Malta, and honey bee packages from Ukraine, Italy, Chile, Australia and New Zealand.

Sincerely,

Parthi

Dr. Parthi Muthukumarasamy (he, him, il)

Executive Director, International Programs Directorate

Canadian Food Inspection Agency / Government of Canada

Parthiban.Muthukumarasamy@inspection.gc.ca | 343-550-3542

Directeur exécutif, Direction des programmes internationaux

Agence canadienne d’inspection des aliments / Gouvernement du Canada

Parthiban.Muthukumarasamy@inspection.gc.ca | 343-550-3542

Beekeeping is an Example

NEWS PROVIDED BY

CGTN (Chinese Global Television Network)

BEIJING /PRNewswire/ — Liu Jinliang, a second-generation beekeeper in Miyun District, the northeastern suburb of Beijing, practices multi-box beekeeping. He is China’s first beekeeper to successfully utilize the technique, introduced by the district government in 2016.

It took the young bee farmer five years to fully implement the new technique, and now it is helping his family and local beekeepers live a “sweet” life.

Spurred on by Liu and the local government, around 30 percent of bee farmers in Miyun have now adopted the new technique, greatly boosting the output and quality of their honey. Over 360 low-income farmers in Miyun have shaken off poverty since joining the beekeeping project.

“Through my example, I can motivate people around me. And those people can empower other people around them as well. In this way, we can achieve common prosperity,” Liu told CGTN.

The beekeeping industry in Miyun generated around 130 million yuan ($18.91 million) in revenue in 2020, an increase of 19.3 percent over 2019. Encouraged by what has been achieved in Miyun, more and more bee farmers across China have turned to the multi-box beekeeping technique to raise their honey output while improving quality.

Chinese President Xi Jinping once quoted an ancient Chinese proverb, “The key to running a country is to first enrich the people,” to explain why the country is striving for common prosperity. Liu’s story gives a glimpse of China’s exploration of the paths to achieve that goal.

People-centered philosophy

The saying, which comes from Shiji, or Records of the Grand Historian, a monumental history book of ancient China compiled about 2,000 years ago, sets forth the traditional Chinese philosophy of governance: the common people are considered the foundation of a country, and only when the people prosper can the country prosper.

This is a classic piece of Chinese wisdom, and it has become part of the governance philosophy of the Chinese government in modern times.

When quoting the saying at a gathering to mark China’s poverty alleviation accomplishments and honor model poverty fighters, President Xi pledged the country would adhere to the people-centered development philosophy and unswervingly follow the path of common prosperity.

“We have always remained committed to standing on the side of the people and consistently stressed that eradicating poverty, improving people’s lives, and achieving common prosperity represent the essential requirements of socialism,” said Xi.

Behind Liu’s success is the Miyun district government. It has helped local beekeepers learn advanced apiculture techniques and provided them with high-quality queen bees at no charge.

To better help beekeepers, the district government has also provided financial aid to support about 30 projects in the sector, with an investment of about 100 million yuan, to help make commercial beekeeping standardized and industrialized.

https://news.cgtn.com/news/2023-06-05/Why-does-China-stick-to-the-path-of-common-prosperity–1kob98IUhB6/index.html

https://youtu.be/Lom4HnpR2xI

Video – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lom4HnpR2xI

SOURCE CGTN

We are here to share current happenings in the bee industry. Bee Culture gathers and shares articles published by outside sources. For more information about this specific article, please visit the original publish source: CGTN: Why does China stick to the path of common prosperity? (prnewswire.com)

• Associated Press

Beekeepers from Best Bees inspect two hives on the roof of the Warren Rudman U.S. Court House

CONCORD, N.H. — While judges, lawyers and support staff at the federal courthouse in Concord, New Hampshire, keep the American justice system buzzing, thousands of humble honeybees on the building’s roof are playing their part in a more important task — feeding the world.

The Warren Rudman U.S. Court House, in Concord, N.H. The roof of the building hosts two bee hives, a part of a national effort to increase the population of pollinators.

The Warren B. Rudman courthouse is one of several federal facilities around the country participating in the General Services Administration’s Pollinator Initiative, a government program aimed at assessing and promoting the health of bees and other pollinators, which are critical to life on Earth.

“Anybody who eats food, needs bees,” said Noah Wilson-Rich, co-founder, CEO and chief scientific officer of the Boston-based Best Bees company, which contracts with the government to take care of the honeybee hives at the New Hampshire courthouse and at some other federal buildings.

Bees help pollinate the fruits and vegetables that sustain humans, he said. They pollinate hay and alfalfa, which feed cattle that provide the meat we eat. And they promote the health of plants that, through photosynthesis, give us clean air to breathe.

Yet the busy insects that contribute an estimated $25 billion to the U.S. economy annually are under threat from diseases, agricultural chemicals and habitat loss that kill about half of all honeybee hives annually. Without human intervention, including beekeepers creating new hives, the world could experience a bee extinction that would lead to global hunger and economic collapse, Wilson-Rich said.

The pollinator program is part of the federal government’s commitment to promoting sustainability, which includes reducing greenhouse gas emissions and promoting climate resilient infrastructure, said David Johnson, the General Services Administration’s sustainability program manager for New England.

The GSA’s program started last year with hives at 11 sites.

Some of those sites are no longer in the program. Hives placed at the National Archives building in Waltham, Massachusetts, last year did not survive the winter.

Since then, other sites were added. Two hives, each home to thousands of bees, were placed on the roof of the Rudman building in March.

The program is collecting data to find out whether the honeybees, which can fly 3 to 5 miles from the roof in their quest for pollen, can help the health of not just the plants on the roof, but also of the flora in the entire area, Johnson said.

“Honeybees are actually very opportunistic,” he said. “They will feed on a lot of different types of plants.”

The program can help identify the plants and landscapes beneficial to pollinators and help the government make more informed decisions about what trees and flowers to plant on building grounds.

Best Bees tests the plant DNA in the honey to get an idea of the plant diversity and health in the area, Wilson-Rich said, and they have found that bees that forage on a more diverse diet seem to have better survival and productivity outcomes.

Other federal facilities with hives include the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services headquarters in Baltimore; the federal courthouse in Hammond, Indiana; the Federal Archives Records Center in Chicago; and the Denver Federal Center.

The federal government isn’t alone in its efforts to save the bees. The hives placed at federal sites are part of a wider network of about 1,000 hives at home gardens, businesses and institutions nationwide that combined can help determine what’s helping the bees, what’s hurting them and why.

The GSA’s Pollinator Initiative is also looking to identify ways to keep the bee population healthy and vibrant and model those lessons at other properties — both government and private sector — said Amber Levofsky, the senior program advisor for the GSA’s Center for Urban Development.

“The goal of this initiative was really aimed at gathering location-based data at facilities to help update directives and policies to help facilities managers to really target pollinator protection and habitat management regionally,” she said.

And there is one other benefit to the government honeybee program that’s already come to fruition: the excess honey that’s produced is donated to area food banks.

We are here to share current happenings in the bee industry. Bee Culture gathers and shares articles published by outside sources. For more information about this specific article, please visit the original publish source: Honeybee Health Blooming at Federal Facilities Across US (voanews.com)

• By SIMON GONZALEZ N.C. COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE

N.C. State apiculture specialists educate beekeepers about better management techniques and best management practices. Photo courtesy of N.C. State University

In the winter of 2006, a distressing phenomenon began to make headlines.

Beekeepers across the country were reporting troubling losses of their honey bee hives, at a scale and for causes not seen before.

The majority of worker bees in a colony would disappear, leaving behind the queen, plenty of honey, and a few nurse and immature bees. Colonies cannot survive without worker bees, and as many as 90% of beekeepers’ hives were being lost.

Stories about Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) were amplified with the vital role that honey bees play in pollination and their critical link in agriculture production. There were dire warnings that the collapse of the honey bee population would lead to the collapse of the national and global food supply.

Soon after CCD stories became widespread, David Tarpy, N.C. State University Extension specialist in apiculture and beekeeping, noticed a phenomenon of his own.

“When I started in 2003 it was before CCD hit all the headlines,” he said.

“There were just under 1,200 members of the state association. Today there are nearly 5,000. They had 44 county chapters that met once a month. Now there’s something like 89 chapters, and half of them meet in their local Extension office. We have the most beekeepers in the nation, probably outright but definitely per capita.”

Motivations can vary.

Some North Carolina beekeepers do it for business opportunities, to harvest the honey to sell at farmers markets or to friends, family and neighbors. A few beekeepers have expanded their hives and are providing commercial pollination services.

But just about all of them have something in common.

“Most of them are getting into it because they hear that bees are in trouble,” Tarpy said.

“It’s something they’ve always been curious about, and always wanted to do. It was enough of a curiosity and impulse to get started and keep bees as a hobby.”

Seth Nagy, extension director in Caldwell County, observed something similar in his area.

“When Colony Collapse Disorder showed up and it was in the news cycle, locally we went from beekeepers calling us occasionally to a massive increase in awareness about bees,” he said. “We might be talking to somebody and suggest a crop protectant or a pesticide, and they might say something like, ‘Well, I don’t want to do anything that harms the bees. I know we need them.’ ”

May 20 is World Bee Day, first proclaimed by the United Nations General Assembly in 2018. It was chosen in honor of Anton Janša, a pioneer of modern apiculture who was born on the date in Slovenia in 1734.

The purpose of the day is not to celebrate Janša, but rather to raise awareness of the ecological importance of bees and their general health.

In 2022, the good news is there are plenty of honey bees. But there are significant challenges.

“A lot of people equate all bees as being the same,” Tarpy said. “Solitary native bees that are not under the purview of humans are in decline because of habitat loss. Since honey bees are managed they aren’t going extinct. We just have difficulty in keeping them healthy.”

“We are doing research on different stressors of honey bees to try to find ways to mitigate them,” Tarpy said. “That leads directly into our extension work, which is to educate beekeepers about better management techniques and best management practices. That’s where we have our most effective impact, trying to make existing beekeepers better.”

Among the major stressors affecting the health of honey bees are parasites and pathogens, disease agents that make bees sick. The worst of them is a parasitic mite called varroa.

“That’s what a lot of our training is focused on,” Tarpy said. “There are many different options, but there’s no silver bullet. You can do the same thing to two different colonies and they’ll respond differently. It’s about trying to get beekeepers to understand the complexity of the entire issue.”

Other stressors are pesticides and environmental contaminants, things that bees can encounter in their environment that are toxic to them; and nutritional stress, including habitat loss that reduces the amount of pollen and nectar-bearing flowers.

“It used to be possible to be a bee haver; you could have a hive of honey bees and let them do their thing. You’d go in there once a year and take excess honey, and that was about it,” Tarpy said.

“Now you have to be an active beekeeper, because there have been these introduced disease agents that our bees don’t have a natural defense against. As a result. they succumb to them if left on their own. So honey bees really do need a lot more hand-holding these days than before.”

Much of the education component takes place through the Beekeeper Education & Engagement System (BEES), an online resource that offers courses for beginning and advanced beekeepers.

“We built the BEES network to empower the Extension agents so that they didn’t have to be experts in beekeeping,” Tarpy said. “They could rely on my expertise and these online lecture materials to educate their local beekeepers.”

Before the pandemic, Extension apiculture added an in-person element with the introduction of three regional BEES Academies, held in Caldwell, Chatham and Brunswick counties. The academies took elements from the online course and added live training sessions conducted by Tarpy.

“The idea was we would take newer or even seasoned beekeepers and help add to their knowledge, dive into some of these topics like disease management and hive management,” said Nagy, whose Extension center hosted one of the events. “The second day we had some hands-on components where we did mite checks, as well as some things with the industry like hive products and how to expand offerings that could generate revenue. It was just a fascinating program.”

COVID-19 restrictions put the academies on hold, but there are plans to resume in the fall.

Another development on the horizon that will empower Extension to help North Carolina beekeepers is construction of a new field research facility in Raleigh, replacing the dilapidated building that was condemned.

“The state beekeepers, on hearing the news that our field research facility was condemned in late 2020, went to the state legislature and got funding for a new field lab,” Tarpy said. “That is in the works to be built in the next few years. It will include an Extension center so we can start having Extension activities at our field lab again.”

While there are challenges, Tarpy encourages anyone who has thought about becoming a beekeeper to take the plunge.

“Anything to promote bees is helpful,” he said. “It’s a great gateway into agriculture, a great way into farming and local produce.”

We are here to share current happenings in the bee industry. Bee Culture gathers and shares articles published by outside sources. For more information about this specific article, please visit the original publish source: N.C. State aids beekeepers with hive health | | journalpatriot.com

The Texas Legislature wants to crack down on who can claim their honey is made in Texas. Beekeepers say the proposed legislation is too stiff and doesn’t take into account real-world production issues.

BY JAYME LOZANO-CARVER

State lawmakers are debating a bill that would forbid Texas beekeepers from labeling their product as made in Texas if it contains a single drop of honey from another state. Beekeepers say the legislation doesn’t take into consideration real-world production problems. Credit: Joe Rondone/The Commercial Appeal-USA TODAY via REUTERS

State lawmakers are moving forward with a bill that could potentially land Texas honey producers in jail for mislabeling their products, creating a buzz in the beekeeping community.

House Bill 590, authored by Rep. Ernest Bailes, R-Shepherd, states that a product cannot be labeled as “Texas honey” unless the product consists “exclusively” of honey produced from apiaries in the state.

While the concept of the bill seems simple, Texas beekeepers say it could sting producers and their livelihood. According to Texas A&M’s AgriLife agency, Texas contributed 8.9 million pounds of honey — worth $17 million — to the national honey production.

“There’s a lot of things out there we need to address in labeling honey; this one is just not quite where it needs to be,” said Dodie Stillman, president of the Texas Beekeepers Association.

Running one of Texas’ 157,000 honey-producing colonies can get complicated. Weather conditions could make it difficult to produce enough honey for a business, so some will create a Texas-heavy blend with honey from other states. Relabeling products can get expensive or even lead to a loss for some producers. Beekeepers on border territories can have nectar DNA that inevitably blends between the two states.

But even with all the room for error, HB 590 would effectively make mislabeling Texas honey products a class B misdemeanor and potentially send a producer to jail for up to 180 days.

In an effort to soften the legislation, Rep. Cecil Bell Jr., R-Magnolia, proposed an amendment that would allow honey producers to label their product “made in Texas” as long as it consisted of “predominantly” Texas honey.

“This bill is not a bad bill inherently, but I do think if we don’t pay attention to what’s going on, there may be some consequences,” Bell said during a recent debate on the House floor.

Rep. Brian Harrison, R-Midlothian, spoke in support of Bell’s amendment, explaining how his constituents could also be affected because of how the bill is tailored.

“How many of our constituents do you think we should subject to …Texas prisons, who have done nothing more than make and sell honey?” Harrison asked.

Bell answered, “If we have one in jail, that’s more than we need to have in jail for producing Texas honey.”

The amendment ultimately failed.

The bill’s genesis came from a constituent in Bailes’ district. The state’s beekeepers association is neutral on the bill, an association spokesperson said.

“I think everybody agrees helping consumers know where their honey is from is a good idea,” said Leesa Hyder, the association’s legislative committee leader. “The question is, does this bill really do that?”

Hyder added there’s also a concern about how producers can prove their honey was made in the boundaries of the state.

Hyder said there was not time or opportunity for the association to address the problems with the bill — such as potential for consumer confusion, legal battle for producers and the uncertainty on whether this will even help make Texas honey more profitable. The association will remain neutral on the bill as it moves over to the Senate in coming weeks.

During the debate, Bailes compared it to his ranching business in defense of the bill.

“If we have a drought, and I have cattle grazing on grass, for grass-fed beef, and I start feeding them grain, it’s no longer grass-fed beef,” Bailes explained. “That’s as simple as it gets. We are better than simply saying it should be ‘predominantly’ and dilute ourselves for the almighty dollar.”

We are here to share current happenings in the bee industry. Bee Culture gathers and shares articles published by outside sources. For more information about this specific article, please visit the original publish source: Texas beekeepers face possible jail time under proposed legislation | The Texas Tribune

On Wednesday, members of the IR-4 team joined a public meeting exploring potential changes to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) and Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) current oversight of pest management products. These changes could impact IR-4’s ability to serve the beekeeping industry with pest management products that help keep honey bees healthy.

While IR-4 is best known for its work supporting pest management in food and environmental horticulture crops, our efforts gaining product registrations for honey bee health have been vital to beekeepers, and to the countless specialty crop growers who rely on honey bee pollination. In particular, The IR-4 Project has played a major role in making Varroa mite treatments available to beekeepers. IR-4 has been involved in 9 out of the 10 active ingredients available to beekeepers for Varroa mite control (see Appendix*), and is currently aiding another registration.

The assistance IR-4 provides to the beekeeping industry includes supporting Section 18 approvals for emergency use, conducting magnitude of the residue studies on honey and beeswax, and submitting registration and tolerance packages to EPA. Additionally, IR-4 has extensive experience funding honey bee-related efficacy studies and pollinator protection.

Potential oversight changes on the table

The protection of honey bee colonies is of vital importance to IR-4, to the beekeeping industry, and to the specialty crop growers we serve. Moving forward, IR-4’s ability to serve the honey bee industry may be hampered by a proposed change in the oversight of certain products, like those that keepVarroa mites in check. The EPA and FDA are considering how best to modernize their respective oversight responsibilities, with the goal of improving protection of human, animal, and environmental health. They seek input from stakeholders to better understand potential outcomes of changes to current jurisdictions.

EPA Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention hosted a virtual public meeting with the FDA Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM) on March 22, 2023, which was attended by IR-4 team members. EPA’s public comment period is now open, inviting feedback from stakeholders. The agencies also shared a new white paper, “A Modern Approach to EPA and FDA Product Oversight.” Read more about the proposed changes on Bee Culture.

A move of Varroa mite control products from EPA to FDA jurisdiction would prevent IR-4 from continuing to serve beekeepers and protect honey bee colonies. IR-4’s regulatory work is highly specialized in partnership with EPA. IR-4 experts emphasize that there are no equivalent public agencies that could provide IR-4’s level of expertise in facilitating registrations with FDA. Without IR-4, the registrations of newer, safer pest management products available to beekeepers would diminish.

IR-4’s view on jurisdictional change, the role of each agency

In terms of expertise, IR-4 sees EPA as a more logical fit for Varroa mite oversight than FDA. EPA has the history and a well-established system for regulating topical pesticides applied to animals, particularly those that do not impact human health and infectious diseases.

FDA is better able to regulate pesticide products that are ingested, systemic, or do impact human health, such as topical tick products and certain antibiotics administered to animals when there is concern with resistance to human antibiotics (e.g. terramycin and honey bees). In general, FDA has expertise when evaluating pesticides applied, administered, or fed to vertebrate animals. When it comes to considering the regulation of topical pesticides applied to invertebrates like honey bees, FDA is lacking in experience compared to EPA.

EPA has long-standing honey bee ecotoxicology guideline requirements, evaluation procedures and models, and incidence-reporting schemes. Pesticides applied to invertebrates to control another invertebrate in particular are best regulated by EPA (e.g. honey bees and Varroa mite), which has proven evaluation guidelines for safety on beneficial organisms, and is best able to evaluate efficacy data with insects.

EPA also has lower registration fees and timelines compared to FDA. Regulation by FDA may be more challenging for manufactures and more cost prohibitive, particularly for those producers in niche industries (e.g. honey bee pesticides). Large companies producing topical products for ticks and fleas, in contrast, are able to expend the resources for the lengthy FDA registration process, knowing the consumer market is large enough for them to recoup those costs.

IR-4 contends that control products for insect pests that attack honey bees should remain within EPA jurisdiction. The current regulatory approach is clear and appropriate: anything topical and non-systemic goes through EPA, while anything systemic (within the animal being fed) goes through FDA. With maintained EPA jurisdiction, IR-4 can continue to facilitate pathways to new products for the battle against resistance-prone Varroa mites (and other destructive pests), supporting beekeepers nationwide.

Would you like to weigh in on the issue? IR-4 and Bee Culture encourages stakeholders to submit feedback during the comment period, which is now open. To share your written feedback with EPA, visit the docket and enter your comment. You can also visit regulations.gov and enter the docket number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2023-0103 (sometimes the direct link is slow to load).

Public comments will be accepted through 11:59 p.m. ET on April 24, 2023.

*View this story on IR-4’s website to see the Appendix outlining IR-4’s role in 9 out of 10 active ingredients currently approved for Varroa mite management.

We are here to share current happenings in the bee industry. Bee Culture gathers and shares articles published by outside sources. For more information about this specific article, please visit the original publish source: https://www.ir4project.org/news/epa-and-fda/

EPA RULES ON OXALIC ACID AND GLYCERIN

Below is an overview of the EPA’s response to Vermont’s approval of the use of Oxalic Acid and Glycerin for the treatment of Varroa. To read the entire response, see the download link.

• The use described (Oxalic and Glycerin) does not fall within the scope of exemptions from the term “to use any registered pesticide in a manner inconsistent with its labeling”
• “It shall be unlawful for any person to use any registered pesticide in a manner inconsistent with its labeling” as stated in Section 12 (a)(2)(G) of FIFRA
• The existing label states the following: “Only apply Oxalic Acid Dihydrate as a solution when mixed with sugar water.”
• Therefore, the instructions on the bulletin to mix the pesticide with glycerin are outside the scope of FIFRA Section 2(ee)

Download PDF

Virtual Public Meeting: EPA and FDA Product Oversight

MARCH 22, 2023

Date:

March 22, 2023

Time:

1:00 PM – 4:00 PM ET

Organized By:

Center for Veterinary Medicine

Attend

Register for This Event

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention is co-hosting a virtual public meeting with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM) on March 22, 2023. Additionally, EPA is opening a docket for the agencies to receive public comment on their current approach to the oversight of various products regulated as either pesticides by EPA or new animal drugs by FDA. The agencies are also announcing the availability of a whitepaper entitled, “WHITEPAPER: A Modern Approach to EPA and FDA Product Oversight,” which describes the current challenges and highlights the potential benefits of a modernized approach for oversight of these products.

EPA and FDA are considering how best to update their respective oversight responsibilities for specific products in an efficient and transparent manner and in alignment with each agency’s expertise, with the goal of improving protection of human, animal, and environmental health. The purpose of the public comment period and virtual public meeting is to obtain feedback from stakeholders on the whitepaper and ideas for modernizing EPA and FDA’s approach to product oversight.

Background

Currently, EPA and FDA determine regulatory oversight of pesticides and new animal drugs based on the rationale described in a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the agencies signed in 1971 and revised in 1973. Since that time, pesticide and animal drug technologies—and both agencies’ understanding of these technologies—have evolved.

For example, parasite treatment products applied topically to animals (including pets) generally are regulated by EPA if they remain on the skin to control only external parasites (e.g., collars or spot-ons to control fleas and ticks) and by FDA if they are absorbed systemically into the bloodstream. The agencies now understand that many of the topically administered products currently regulated by EPA do not remain on the skin and are actually absorbed into the bloodstream, highlighting challenges with the current approach and raising different safety concerns than originally anticipated.

Additionally, genetically engineered (“GE”) pest animals, which are gaining interest as a pest control tool that can reduce the need for conventional pesticides, were not envisioned 50 years ago when the original regulatory approach was developed. As agreed in the 2016 National Strategy for Modernizing the Regulatory System for Biotechnology Products, EPA and FDA have considered how to update their respective responsibilities with the goal of developing an efficient, transparent, and predictable approach for overseeing GE insects. Recently, Executive Order 14081, issued September 12, 2022, has further directed the agencies to improve the clarity and efficiency of the regulatory process for biotechnology products, underscoring the need for continued coordination between the agencies on biotechnology. The whitepaper and public meeting only address EPA and FDA oversight.

The agencies’ current approach to determining whether EPA or FDA is the appropriate regulator of certain products does not effectively reflect or accommodate scientific advancement, and it has become clear in some cases that the current approach has resulted in misalignment between product characteristics and the agency better equipped to regulate the product. A modernized approach would ensure that the oversight of these products better aligns with each agency’s expertise, accounts for scientific advancement, avoids redundancy, better protects animal health and safety, and improves regulatory clarity for regulated entities, animal owners, veterinarians, and other stakeholders.

Public Meeting Information

The virtual public meeting will focus on the whitepaper and the following questions. We are not seeking input or comments about any specific products, other federal agencies’ product oversight, or other topics outside the scope of the whitepaper and the questions below. We are particularly interested in receiving comments from the public on the following:

1. What do you perceive as the strengths and weaknesses of each agency in regulating these types of products?
2. Are there additional or different challenges that EPA and FDA did not identify in the whitepaper?
3. How can EPA and FDA communicate with their stakeholders about the regulation of these products in a clearer and more transparent manner?
4. For regulated entities, how have you historically determined which agency to approach first to bring your product to market?
5. For consumers, do you know who is regulating the products you use on your animal(s)? If you have a concern or complaint about a specific product, do you know which agency to contact?
6. How should EPA and FDA modify product oversight to better align with each agency’s mission and expertise?
7. What difficulties would you envision if EPA and FDA were to modify product oversight to better align with each agency’s mission and expertise, and how could they be mitigated?

Registration

Stakeholders interested in attending the virtual public meeting must register no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on March 15, 2023. Interested persons should register online at https://www.eventbrite.com/e/547810324427External Link Disclaimer and will need to provide contact information for each attendee, including name, title, affiliation, address, email, telephone number, and if reasonable accommodations due to a disability are needed. Early registration is recommended. Registrants will receive confirmation when their registration has been received and will be provided the webcast link. Registrants should ensure they retain the webcast link email and should check their “junk mail” folder if they do not receive an automatic confirmation with the webcast link after registering.

Requests for Presenting Oral Comments

During online registration you may indicate if you wish to make oral comments during the virtual public meeting. Registrants requesting to present oral comments should provide information regarding which topics they intend to address at the time of registration. We will do our best to accommodate requests to present oral comments.

Individuals and organizations with common interests are urged to consolidate or coordinate their comments. All requests to make oral comments must be received by March 15, 2023.

We will determine the amount of time allotted to each presenter and notify participants by March 21, 2023. No commercial or promotional material will be permitted to be presented or distributed at the public meeting.

Submitting Electronic or Written Comments

Comments submitted to the docket and/or presented at the public meeting should be limited to the questions/topics posed in the Federal Register Notice only, as described above.

Upon publication of the Federal Register notice, public comments will be accepted through 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time at the end of April 24, 2023.

Comments can be submitted electronically via the Federal eRulemaking Portal, starting on February 23, 2023. All comment submissions received must reference Docket No. EPA-HQ-OPP-2023-0103. All comments received will be placed in the docket.

Do not electronically submit any information you consider Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Additional information on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at the EPA Docket Center.

Following the public meeting and the close of the comment period, the EPA and FDA will consider comments received in determining next steps.

Event Materials

WHITEPAPER: A Modern Approach to EPA and FDA Product Oversight

Virtual Public Meeting: EPA and FDA Product Oversight

MARCH 22, 2023

Date:

March 22, 2023

Time:

1:00 PM – 4:00 PM ET

Organized By:

Center for Veterinary Medicine

Attend

Register for This Event

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention is co-hosting a virtual public meeting with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM) on March 22, 2023. Additionally, EPA is opening a docket for the agencies to receive public comment on their current approach to the oversight of various products regulated as either pesticides by EPA or new animal drugs by FDA. The agencies are also announcing the availability of a whitepaper entitled, “WHITEPAPER: A Modern Approach to EPA and FDA Product Oversight,” which describes the current challenges and highlights the potential benefits of a modernized approach for oversight of these products.

EPA and FDA are considering how best to update their respective oversight responsibilities for specific products in an efficient and transparent manner and in alignment with each agency’s expertise, with the goal of improving protection of human, animal, and environmental health. The purpose of the public comment period and virtual public meeting is to obtain feedback from stakeholders on the whitepaper and ideas for modernizing EPA and FDA’s approach to product oversight.

Background

Currently, EPA and FDA determine regulatory oversight of pesticides and new animal drugs based on the rationale described in a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the agencies signed in 1971 and revised in 1973. Since that time, pesticide and animal drug technologies—and both agencies’ understanding of these technologies—have evolved.

For example, parasite treatment products applied topically to animals (including pets) generally are regulated by EPA if they remain on the skin to control only external parasites (e.g., collars or spot-ons to control fleas and ticks) and by FDA if they are absorbed systemically into the bloodstream. The agencies now understand that many of the topically administered products currently regulated by EPA do not remain on the skin and are actually absorbed into the bloodstream, highlighting challenges with the current approach and raising different safety concerns than originally anticipated.

Additionally, genetically engineered (“GE”) pest animals, which are gaining interest as a pest control tool that can reduce the need for conventional pesticides, were not envisioned 50 years ago when the original regulatory approach was developed. As agreed in the 2016 National Strategy for Modernizing the Regulatory System for Biotechnology Products, EPA and FDA have considered how to update their respective responsibilities with the goal of developing an efficient, transparent, and predictable approach for overseeing GE insects. Recently, Executive Order 14081, issued September 12, 2022, has further directed the agencies to improve the clarity and efficiency of the regulatory process for biotechnology products, underscoring the need for continued coordination between the agencies on biotechnology. The whitepaper and public meeting only address EPA and FDA oversight.

The agencies’ current approach to determining whether EPA or FDA is the appropriate regulator of certain products does not effectively reflect or accommodate scientific advancement, and it has become clear in some cases that the current approach has resulted in misalignment between product characteristics and the agency better equipped to regulate the product. A modernized approach would ensure that the oversight of these products better aligns with each agency’s expertise, accounts for scientific advancement, avoids redundancy, better protects animal health and safety, and improves regulatory clarity for regulated entities, animal owners, veterinarians, and other stakeholders.

Public Meeting Information

The virtual public meeting will focus on the whitepaper and the following questions. We are not seeking input or comments about any specific products, other federal agencies’ product oversight, or other topics outside the scope of the whitepaper and the questions below. We are particularly interested in receiving comments from the public on the following:

1. What do you perceive as the strengths and weaknesses of each agency in regulating these types of products?
2. Are there additional or different challenges that EPA and FDA did not identify in the whitepaper?
3. How can EPA and FDA communicate with their stakeholders about the regulation of these products in a clearer and more transparent manner?
4. For regulated entities, how have you historically determined which agency to approach first to bring your product to market?
5. For consumers, do you know who is regulating the products you use on your animal(s)? If you have a concern or complaint about a specific product, do you know which agency to contact?
6. How should EPA and FDA modify product oversight to better align with each agency’s mission and expertise?
7. What difficulties would you envision if EPA and FDA were to modify product oversight to better align with each agency’s mission and expertise, and how could they be mitigated?

Registration

Stakeholders interested in attending the virtual public meeting must register no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on March 15, 2023. Interested persons should register online at https://www.eventbrite.com/e/547810324427External Link Disclaimer and will need to provide contact information for each attendee, including name, title, affiliation, address, email, telephone number, and if reasonable accommodations due to a disability are needed. Early registration is recommended. Registrants will receive confirmation when their registration has been received and will be provided the webcast link. Registrants should ensure they retain the webcast link email and should check their “junk mail” folder if they do not receive an automatic confirmation with the webcast link after registering.

Requests for Presenting Oral Comments

During online registration you may indicate if you wish to make oral comments during the virtual public meeting. Registrants requesting to present oral comments should provide information regarding which topics they intend to address at the time of registration. We will do our best to accommodate requests to present oral comments.

Individuals and organizations with common interests are urged to consolidate or coordinate their comments. All requests to make oral comments must be received by March 15, 2023.

We will determine the amount of time allotted to each presenter and notify participants by March 21, 2023. No commercial or promotional material will be permitted to be presented or distributed at the public meeting.

Submitting Electronic or Written Comments

Comments submitted to the docket and/or presented at the public meeting should be limited to the questions/topics posed in the Federal Register Notice only, as described above.

Upon publication of the Federal Register notice, public comments will be accepted through 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time at the end of April 24, 2023.

Comments can be submitted electronically via the Federal eRulemaking Portal, starting on February 23, 2023. All comment submissions received must reference Docket No. EPA-HQ-OPP-2023-0103. All comments received will be placed in the docket.

Do not electronically submit any information you consider Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Additional information on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at the EPA Docket Center.

Following the public meeting and the close of the comment period, the EPA and FDA will consider comments received in determining next steps.

Event Materials

WHITEPAPER: A Modern Approach to EPA and FDA Product Oversight

Canadian Honey Council

February 2023

It is indeed unfortunate that the American Beekeepers Federation, the American Honey Producers Association and those Canadian operators having an interest in importing American packaged bees are attempting to capitalize on the fear of introducing tropilaelaps mites.

The Canadian Honey Council would much have preferred if the ABF and the AHPA had first contacted the CHC for information regarding status, demand, and possible rationale for border opening. The CHC would have appreciated nothing more than to add to a substantive history of working together in a mutually beneficial manner. As it is, the CHC feels it necessary to clarify some issues concerning Canada’s permitted importation of package bees, particularly from Australia as well as the threat of the introduction of tropilaelaps mites. With respect, the two issues should have been dealt with separately, but they have unfortunately been intertwined.

The CHC represents every provincial beekeeping organization in Canada and as such, speaks for all beekeepers. The package issue in Canada is divisive, but it is important to note that the interest group calling for the opening of the US border does not represent all commercial operations nor is it even clear they represent a majority of commercial operations. They do, however represent a substantial number of colonies in certain regions of the country and we continue to listen to those from all points of view.

The CHC and the ABF have had a good working relationship. More recently, we have expanded our relationship building to work closer with the American Honey Producers Association. While honey sales, adulterated honey and trans-shipped honey has been a primary concern, stock issues, particularly related to queen sales has also been important. Working with California queen producers, the Canadian Honey Council was able to ease some of their reporting burdens and when “Africanized bees” were found in the quarantine zone, we were quickly able to work with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency based on science and agreed to developed strategies to mitigate the issue. Consequently, imports were resumed in a timely manner.

Last year, Canadian beekeepers from most areas in the country experienced devastating losses and the demand to stock increased dramatically. Calls to open the border to US packages intensified, firstly focusing on receiving packages from the northern California quarantine zone, then expanding to Georgia and now the mainland US. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency put out an open call for additional research to see if there were any changes to the risks that had been identified in a 2013 risk assessment of US packages. Four risks were identified in 2013

• amitraz resistant mites, • small hive beetle, • AFB resistance • Africanized bees.

The CHC has indicated that if the science supports the decision to open the border, the border should open. However, it is not up to beekeepers or associations to determine if the science is sound, it is up to the experts at CFIA that evaluate the honey bee health status in Canada and the potential bee exporting country. For example,…..

To Read the Complete Document go to https://honeycouncil.ca/

Links from the CHC:

Canadian-Honey-Council-Statement-on-Importation-of-bees-tropilaelapes-Feb-2023.pdf (honeycouncil.ca)

Canadian Honey Council – Serving Beekeepers since 1940

News – Canadian Honey Council

Issued Date

January 19, 2023

Agency/Authority

Agriculture and Markets, Department of

Objective

To determine whether the Department of Agriculture and Markets (Department) is adequately monitoring the health of honey bee pollinators to prevent and mitigate harmful effects to their populations. This audit covered the period January 2017 through August 2022.

About the Program

Wild and managed pollinators are critically important to the health of New York State’s environment and agricultural economy. The State has more than 7 million acres of agricultural production, and many of the State’s leading crops – such as apples, cabbage, and berries – rely heavily on pollination by insects. These crops’ plants use pollen to produce a fruit or seed and cannot reproduce without pollen carried to them by foraging pollinators. However, the pollinator population has declined drastically during the last three decades due to, among other issues, invasive pests and diseases (including American foulbrood – a highly contagious and very destructive bacterial disease), exposure to pesticides and other chemicals, and changing climate. In 2016, the State developed the New York State Pollinator Protection Plan (Plan) to address the high loss of pollinators in the State. The Plan is a multiagency effort, with the Department primarily responsible for managed pollinators, typically honey bees. Honey bees are essential to the agricultural industry for the pollination services they provide. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, honey bees pollinate $15 billion worth of crops in the United States each year. About one-third of the food eaten by Americans comes from crops pollinated by honey bees, including more than 130 types of apples, melons, cranberries, pumpkins, squash, broccoli, and almonds, to name just a few. Therefore, honey bees are the United States’ primary commercial pollinator.

Beekeepers are generally private individuals or companies that raise and care for colonies of honey bees. In 2007, under sections of the State’s Agriculture and Markets Law, beekeepers were required to register their apiaries for the purpose of assessing the size and condition of the State’s honey bee population. This requirement was eliminated in 2010 but then reinstated in 2021. In December 2021, Article 15 of the Agriculture and Markets Law (Law) was amended to include the Cooperative Honey Bee Health Improvement Program (Program), which, among other actions, reinstated the apiary registration requirements. One goal of the Program is to document the health of the State’s managed pollinator population, including the presence of parasites, diseases, and environmental threats. To this end, the Department may, at its discretion, perform general inspections of apiaries for the presence of infections, contagious or communicable diseases, insects and parasitic organisms adversely affecting bees, and species or subspecies of bees that are harmful to the State’s managed bee population, crops, or other plants. The Department also conducts apiary inspections to certify nucleus colonies (nucs) and queens for sale or transport. Where honey bees are being shipped into the State, the Law also requires a permit from the Department or a certificate from the state of origin attesting that the honey bees are disease-free. These documents should certify that a proper inspection was made no sooner than 60 days preceding the date of shipment.

Key Findings……

To read the whole document go to, Protection of Managed Pollinators (Honey Bees) | Office of the New York State Comptroller

We are here to share current happenings in the bee industry. Bee Culture gathers and shares articles published by outside sources. For more information about this specific article, please visit the original publish source: Protection of Managed Pollinators (Honey Bees) | Office of the New York State Comptroller

Brian German

Ag News Director, AgNet West

The California Supreme Court has denied a petition to prevent four bumblebee species from being classified as fish under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA). President and CEO of the Western Agricultural Processors Association (WAPA), Roger Isom said the decision could set “a bad precedent.” Allowing bumblebees and other insects to be considered for protection under CESA leaves several questions for the future.

“What are the areas that are going to be identified where these four species exist? Are we going to be able to be farming by those? Is it going to lead to further pesticide restrictions? Just how far-reaching is that impact going to be?” said Isom. “But more importantly, now you’ve opened the door. What other insects are going to be listed as endangered?”

The court decision does not immediately mean that the four bumblebee species are protected under CESA. It means that the California Fish and Game Commission has the authority to do so. WAPA and several other agricultural groups had been working to prevent insects from being included in CESA. One of the significant concerns has been what the endangered status would mean for farming. At a time when enhancing pollinator habitat is increasingly prioritized in ag production, adding bee species to the CESA may disincentivize those efforts.

“What happens if you get one of these endangered species – if they end up being listed – one of these in your habitat and somebody sees it there? That could have a far-reaching impact as to what you can do on that farm and around that area,” Isom noted. “I don’t want to speculate too much, but I think based on previous history there’s a genuine concern as to how big of an impact this could have.”

Associate Justice Patricia Guerrero was the only one to vote in favor of hearing the petition for review. A statement by Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye suggests the law could be reworded by the Legislature to clear up any ambiguities. Justices Carol Corrigan and Joshua Grobans also concurred with the statement.

We are here to share current happenings in the bee industry. Bee Culture gathers and shares articles published by outside sources. For more information about this specific article, please visit the original publish source: ‘Bad Precedent’ in Allowing Bumblebee Species to be Considered Fish (agnetwest.com)

What’s Happening

Why it Matters: Releasing a beetle from China & a moth (with the potential to jump hosts) to control the most bee friendly tree in the USA is the last thing our honeybees need right now. Tallow provides irreplaceable forage for spring build up in the south, tens of millions of pounds of honey, and accounts for up to 90% of all honey produced in some states. The loss of the tallow crop could permanently impact all scales of beekeepers nationwide as queen, nuc & package producers suffer the loss of critical forage. Operations will go out of business, and nationwide supply will be disrupted. The scale & threat of this impact cannot be overstated.

In May of 2017, the AHPA Executive Committee met with APHIS and discussed the proposed release of a Chinese flea beetle as a biocontrol agent of tallow trees.  Later that year, we provided them with some information about tallow and its importance to beekeepers.

In November 2017, APHIS released a draft Environmental Assessment (EA) for its proposed action entitled “Field Release of the Flea Beetle, Bikasha collaris (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae), for Classical Biological Control of Chinese Tallow Tree, Triadica sebifera (Euphorbiaceae), in the Contiguous United States.”  It focused on the negative aspects of tallow, ignoring its value and importance to honey bees and the bee industry.

In 2018, an AHPA and Tallow Task Force letter-writing campaign resulted in numerous letters sent to APHIS in opposition of the planned release. We collected letters from individual beekeepers, packers, and state organizations across the SE United States.

But in 2019, there was no communication from APHIS.

In 2021, the comment period was extended until June. There were 900+ comments submitted to AHPIS. The AHPA document was submitted as a joint comment of the AHPA and ABF.

In June of 2022, AHPA began the search for an Economist to conduct a study to determine the value of tallow to the economy.

The Economic study is estimated to take 3-4 months once funding has been secured. We have no real idea when APHIS will make a decision.  We do know that the working group will most likely need to collect additional data next summer and then conduct their analysis. The best guess of when their study will be complete is sometime in 2024.

The AHPA wants input from its members and Commercial Beekeepers in the Southern States. Please open this survey link,  https://forms.gle/T3sxeYLTq5SEyZPM7  and help support honey bees and beekeepers.

Phoebe LoomesAAP

Dugald Saunders says once bees are euthanised, compensation happens quickly. (Dan Himbrechts/AAP PHOTOS) Credit: AAP

Compensation to support New South Wales, Australia beekeepers through a deadly parasite outbreak will not be issued until the affected bees have been euthanised.

The varroa mite that attacks and feeds on honey bees was detected near Newcastle in June, prompting the creation of emergency eradication and surveillance zones.

As the government worked to trace and remove the parasite, some 97 infected premises were detected around the Hunter, Narrabri and Coffs Harbour areas by mid August.

Bees are vital to pollination, with billions of dollars worth of crops threatened if it doesn’t occur.

Honey bee colonies within eradication zones have to be euthanised and this must be reported to the Department of Primary Industries. The hives must also be inspected and managed by officials.

An $18 million federal-state government support package was announced in July and NSW Agriculture Minister Dugald Saunders says keepers are now being compensated for their bees, hives, frames and other materials that had to be destroyed.

“You’re not getting paid before your bees have been euthanised but as that happens the compensation is available very quickly,” he told a budget estimates hearing on Monday.

“I understand it’s difficult if you’re looking at income and you haven’t had any income.”

The amount of compensation was negotiated by the federal government after consulting with the Australian Honey Bee Industry Council, Mr Saunders said.

Additional support is in place for commercial beekeepers including compensation for fuel, income and honey production.

Recreational keepers who euthanised their hives are also eligible for up to $550 in compensation per hive or $200 if they retain the hive, only killing the bees.

Mr Saunders says his office is confident most recreational keepers in the emergency zones have been identified, after a few hundred people a day helped locate hives during the outbreak.

Recreational keepers had come on board to register their hives for the industry’s future sustainability, he said.

Last month NSW eased restrictions on some beekeepers, with those outside the emergency notification zones allowed to move bees and hives more freely.

To combat its own varroa incursion, Victoria introduced a statewide permit system for anyone bringing bee or bee products across its border last month, which will not be granted to people from NSW.

We are here to share current happenings in the bee industry. Bee Culture gathers and shares articles published by outside sources. For more information about this specific article, please visit the original publish source: NSW keepers must kill bees to get payments | The West Australian