International law Chlorpyrifos is not regulated under international law or treaty. Organizations such as
PANNA and the
NRDC state that chlorpyrifos meets the four criteria (persistence,
bioaccumulation, long-range transport, and toxicity) in Annex D of the
Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants and should be restricted. In 2021, the European Union submitted a proposal to list chlorpyrifos in Annex A to the Stockholm Convention.
National regulations Chlorpyrifos was used to control insect infestations of homes and commercial buildings in Europe until it was banned from sale in 2008. Chlorpyrifos is restricted from
termite control in Singapore as of 2009. It was banned from residential use in South Africa as of 2010. It has been banned in the United Kingdom in 2016 apart from a limited use in drenching seedlings. Chlorpyrifos has not been permitted for agricultural use in Sweden at all
United States In the United States, several laws directly or indirectly regulate the use of pesticides. These laws, which are implemented by the
EPA,
NIOSH,
USDA and
FDA, include: the
Clean Water Act (CWA); the
Endangered Species Act (ESA); the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (
FIFRA); the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (
FFDCA); the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (
CERCLA); and the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (
EPCRA). As a pesticide, chlorpyrifos is not regulated under the Toxic Substances Control Act (
TSCA). Chlorpyrifos is sold in restricted-use products for certified pesticide applicators to use in agriculture and other settings, such as golf courses or for
mosquito control. It may also be sold in ant and
roach baits with childproof packaging. In 2000, manufacturers reached an agreement with the EPA to voluntarily restrict the use of chlorpyrifos in places where children may be exposed, including homes, schools and day care centers. In 2007
Pesticide Action Network North America and
Natural Resources Defense Council (collectively, PANNA) submitted an administrative petition requesting a chlorpyrifos ban, citing harm to the brains of developing children. On 10 August 2015, the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in
PANNA v. EPA ordered the EPA to respond to PANNA's petition by "revok[ing] all tolerances for the insecticide chlorpyrifos", den[ying] the Petition or [issuing] a "proposed or final tolerance revocation" no later than 31 October 2015. In an 30 October 2015 statement Dow AgroSciences disagreed with the EPA's proposed revocation and "remain[ed] confident that authorized uses of chlorpyrifos products, as directed, offer wide margins of protection for human health and safety." In a November 2016 press release, DOW argued that chlorpyrifos was "a critical tool for growers of more than 50 different types of crops in the United States" with limited or no viable alternatives." The
Environment News Service quoted the Dow AgroSciences' statement disagreeing with the EPA findings. In November 2016, the EPA reassessed its ban proposal after taking into consideration recommendations made by the agency's Science Advisory Panel which had rejected the EPA's methodology in quantifying the risk posed by chlorpyrifos. Using a different methodology as suggested by the panel, the EPA retained its decision to completely ban chlorpyrifos. The EPA concluded that, while "uncertainties" remain, a number of studies provide "sufficient evidence" that children experience neurodevelopment effects even at low levels of chlorpyrifos exposure. On 29 March 2017, EPA Administrator
Scott Pruitt, appointed by the Trump administration, overturned the 2015 EPA revocation and denied the administrative petition by the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Pesticide Action Network North America to ban chlorpyrifos. The
American Academy of Pediatrics responded to the administration's decision saying they are "deeply alarmed" by Pruitt's decision to allow the pesticide's continued use. "There is a wealth of science demonstrating the detrimental effects of chlorpyrifos exposure to developing fetuses, infants, children and pregnant women. The risk to infant and children's health and development is unambiguous." Asked in April whether Pruitt had met with Dow Chemical Company executives or lobbyists before his decision, an EPA spokesman replied: "We have had no meetings with Dow on this topic." In June, after several
Freedom of Information Act requests, the EPA released a copy of Pruitt's March meeting schedule which showed that a meeting had been scheduled between Pruitt and Dow CEO
Andrew Liveris at a hotel in Houston, Texas, on 9 March. In August, it was revealed that in fact Pruitt and other EPA officials had met with industry representatives on dozens of occasions in the weeks immediately prior to the March decision, promising them that it was "a new day" and assuring them that their wish to continue using chlorpyrifos had been heard. Ryan Jackson, Pruitt's chief of staff, said in an 8 March email that he had "scared" career staff into going along with the political decision to deny the ban, adding "[T]hey know where this is headed and they are documenting it well." On 9 August 2018 the U.S. 9th Circuit court of Appeals ruled that the EPA must ban chlorpyrifos within 60 days from that date. A spokesman for Dow DuPont stated that "all appellate options" would be considered. In contrast, Marisa Ordonia, a lawyer for
Earthjustice, the organization that had conducted much of the legal work on the case, hailed the decision. The ruling was almost immediately appealed by Trump administration lawyers. On 14 December, 2022 the EPA filed a Notice of Intent to Cancel (NOIC) for three chlorpyrifos pesticide products because they bear labeling for use on food, despite the ban. However, on November 2, 2023, the
United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit nixed a 2021 rule issued by the EPA banning all neurotoxic insecticide on all food crops. The court concluded, that by deciding to ban all uses of chlorpyrifos on food plants, the EPA ignored the long standing American practice and prior court orders to evaluate each crop group on its own merits and "to keep a set of high-benefit uses in place." The court ordered the EPA to reevaluate whether "chlorpyrifos can be safely used on crops like sugar beets, soybeans, and certain fruits and vegetables". These tolerances limit the amount of chlorpyrifos that can be applied to crops. FDA enforces EPA's pesticide tolerances and determines "action levels" for the unintended
drift of pesticide residues onto crops without tolerances. After years of research without a conclusion and cognizant of the court order to issue a final ruling, the EPA proposed to eliminate all tolerances for chlorpyrifos ("Because tolerances are the maximum residue of a pesticide that can be in or on food, this proposed rule revoking all chlorpyrifos tolerances means that if this approach is finalized, all agricultural uses of chlorpyrifos would cease."), and then solicited comments. The Dow Chemical Company is actively opposed to tolerance restrictions on chlorpyrifos and is currently lobbying the White House to, among other goals, pressure EPA to reverse its proposal to revoke chlorpyrifos food residue tolerances. The EPA has not updated the approximately 112 tolerances pertaining to food products and supplies since 2006. However, in a 2016 report, EPA scientists had not been able to find any level of exposure to the pesticide that was safe. EPA set approximately 112 tolerances pertaining to food products and supplies.
Water Chlorpyrifos in waterways is regulated as a hazardous substance under section 311(b)(2)(A) of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act and falls under the CWA amendments of 1977 and 1978. The regulation is inclusive of all chlorpyrifos
isomers and
hydrates in any solution or mixture. EPA has not set a
drinking water regulatory standard for chlorpyrifos, but has established a drinking water guideline of 2 ug/L. In 2009, to protect threatened
salmon and
steelhead under CWA and ESA, EPA and
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) recommended limits on the use of chlorpyrifos in California, Idaho, Oregon and Washington and requested that manufacturers voluntarily add
buffer zones, application limits and fish toxicity to the standard labeling requirements for all chlorpyrifos-based products. Manufacturers rejected the request. In February 2013 in Dow AgroSciences vs NMFS, the
Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated EPA's order for these labeling requirements. In August 2014, in the settlement of a suit brought by environmental and fisheries advocacy groups against EPA in the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, EPA agreed to re-instate no-spray stream buffer zones in California, Oregon and Washington, restricting aerial spraying (300 ft.) and ground-based applications (60 ft.) near salmon populations. These buffers will remain until EPA makes a permanent decision in consultation with NMFS.
Reporting EPCRA designates the chemicals that facilities must report to the
Toxics Release Inventory (TRI), based on EPA assessments. Chlorpyrifos is not on the reporting list. It is on the list of hazardous substances under CERCLA (aka the
Superfund Act). In the event of an environmental release above its reportable quantity of 1 lb or 0.454 kg, facilities are required to immediately notify the
National Response Center (NRC). In 1995, Dow paid a $732,000 EPA penalty for not forwarding reports it had received on 249 chlorpyrifos poisoning incidents.
Occupational exposure In 1989, OSHA established a workplace
permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 0.2 mg/m3 for chlorpyrifos, based on an 8-hour time weighted average (TWA) exposure. However, the rule was remanded by the
U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and no PELs are in place presently. EPA's
Worker Protection Standard requires owners and operators of agricultural businesses to comply with safety protocols for agricultural workers and pesticide handlers (those who mix, load and apply pesticides). For example, in 2005, the EPA filed an administrative complaint against JSH Farms, Inc. (Wapato, Washington) with proposed penalties of $1,680 for using chlorpyrifos in 2004 without proper equipment. An adjacent property was contaminated with chlorpyrifos due to pesticide drift and the property owner suffered from eye and skin irritation.
State laws Additional laws and guidelines may apply for individual US states. California, Hawaii, Maryland, New York, and Oregon, have banned chlorpyrifos on food grown and sold in their jurisdictions. These State bans remain in effect regardless whether chlorpyrifos is allowed on the federal level or not. In 2017, chlorpyrifos was included
California's Proposition 65. California included regulation limits for chlorpyrifos in
waterways and established maximum and continuous concentration limits of 0.025 ppb and 0.015 ppb, respectively. Sale and possession of chlorpyrifos have been largely banned in California, as of 6 February – 31 December 2020, respectively. The California ban has an exception that, "a few products that apply chlorpyrifos in granular form, representing less than one percent of agricultural use of chlorpyrifos, will be allowed to remain on the market." In Hawaii, a 2018 law introduced a complete ban on products containing chlorpyrifos, which went into effect on January 1, 2023. Before that, starting in 2019, the law mandated temporary application permits and annual reporting as well as mandating a 100-foot buffer around schools during school hours. Florida did not ban chlorpyrifos completely, but introduced a concentration limit of 21 ug/L in drinking water.
Australia Chlorpyrifos is used agriculturally in Australia but household use was restricted to low strength solutions in 2001 and banned in 2020. There are 49 registered chlorpyrifos insecticide products, mostly as 500 g/L
emulsifiable concentrates. The Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicine Authority's Chlorpyrifos Chemical Review, began July 2015, made the final decision in September 2024. Chlorpyrifos will continue to be used, though many uses of it are banned. The minimum technical grade chlorpyrifos purity is raised from 94% to 97% by weight.
Denmark Chlorpyrifos was never approved for use in Denmark, except on
ornamental plants grown in greenhouses. This use was banned in 2012.
European Union On 6 December 2019, the European Union (EU) announced that it will no longer permit sales of chlorpyrifos after 31 January 2020. The
European Food Safety Authority released a statement in July 2019 which concluded that the approval criteria for chlorpyrifos which apply to human health are not met. Their literature review concluded that there is no evidence for reproductive toxicity in rats, but that chlorpyrifos is potentially genotoxic. The report stated that chlorpyrifos is clearly a potent
acetylcholinesterase inhibitor, that it can be absorbed by ingestion, inhalation, and through the skin, and that epidemiological evidence supports the hypothesis that it is a human developmental neurotoxin that can cause early cognitive and behavioral deficits through prenatal exposure.
India The FSSAI (
Food Safety and Standards Authority of India) did not set a usage limits for chlorpyrifos. In 2010, India barred Dow from commercial activity for 5 years after India's Central Bureau of Investigation found Dow guilty of bribing Indian officials in 2007 to allow the sale of chlorpyrifos. In 2020, the Indian government had published a draft bill to ban 27 pesticides including chlorpyrifos.
New Zealand Chlorpyrifos was previously approved in New Zealand for commercial use in crops, as a veterinary medicine, and as a timber treatment chemical. In July 2025 the
Environmental Protection Authority announced that after reassessing the safety of the compound, approval for its use would be revoked. The ban included a 6-month phase out period of most products in use, with a longer 18-month phase out period for products designed to target
grass grubs.
Thailand Chlorpyrifos was banned under Thai law effective from 1 June 2020. Farmers were given 270 days to destroy their stock, while a 90-day deadline was also given to farmers to return the
chemicals for destruction, as their possession is considered illegal by the Department of Agriculture. After deadline, any person who possesses the illegal
agrochemicals will be fined one million baht, jailed for 10 years, or both.
Malaysia Chlorpyrifos was banned under by Department of Agriculture for use in farming and agriculture with effective from year 2023. However it is still permitted for general use other than agriculture purpose.
Uganda Chlorpyrifos is registered in Uganda, and as of December 2022, there are 28 registered chlorpyrifos products. ==Manufacture==