Try this at home: Grab a coffee cup and place it on a clean patch of countertop. Then hunt down something that operates as a spray aerosol.

Anything will do. Hair spray. Cooking oil. Furniture polish. If you want a more lasting illustration — though I don’t recommend it — go for a can of spray paint.

Now aim at the cup, following label directions for use, and fire.

How clean is your countertop? I’m betting you’ll see a few flecks. Just for giggles, try the same experiment in front of an electric fan.

That mess you see on the counter is what most regulatory agencies call “drift,” the stuff that lands on stuff you weren’t targeting.

For those in the agriculture community, drift is a big deal, especially when farmers and ranchers are typically dealing with a couple dozen nozzles at once, very expensive chemicals and a lot more than just some fan to blow it all about.

How drift is dealt with, however, could be in for a massive change.

EPA proposal

The Environmental Protection Agency is proposing a change in its Pesticide Registration Notice policy that would strictly forbid using any product that might come in contact with non-target “people, pets, property, aquatic life, wildlife or wildlife habitat,” either by “direct use or drift.”

In other words, anything outside the cup is not allowed.

EPA also proposes that buffer zones be built to better contain drift.

Further, EPA proposes banning any product that “could cause harm” to any of the already mentioned groups.

They will accept public comments until March 5.

Pesticide, in the EPA sense, applies to any chemical one might use to grow a crop or spruce up pastures. Although not currently, those same rules could someday be applied to common household chemicals, such as bug spray, weed killers or even some household cleansers.

The big difference is that farmers and ranchers must be certified and licensed to use theirs.

To keep their licenses — and, therefore, the ability to use such things as fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides — farmers must complete regular training and testing.

But this proposal could be a game- changer.

“What EPA is proposing is simply impractical,” said row crops specialist George Caldwell, an associate director with Waco-based Texas Farm Bureau, and watchdog for commodity and regulatory activities.

“Even with the best intentions, conditions such as wind and temperature can change drastically with little notice, even during an application.

“You could have some risk of drift, regardless, even when you follow the guidelines to the letter. We cannot hold a farmer liable for things he can’t control.”

Besides, science offers other solutions, he said.

“Before any product is ever given so much as a label, it must go through years of testing to determine any adverse effects it might pose to people, wildlife or otherwise,” Caldwell said.

He said that such scientific vetting is required under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act.

Buffer zones

As to the buffer zones, the label determines if a buffer is required.

“It’s a waste of productive farm real estate to mandate a buffer when the science says one isn’t needed,” Caldwell said.

And that “could cause harm” proposal? It’s a legal nightmare, Caldwell said.

Even non-related allergies could land a farmer in court just because he once used a chemical.

To let your voice be heard on this issue, visit www.regulations.gov and search the docket for EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0628 to submit a letter expressing your opinion and how this EPA action would affect you.

Bobby Horecka lives in China Spring with his wife and three children. He writes for the Texas Farm Bureau’s print publications, online news service and video projects.