EPA Asked to Disclose Inert Pesticide Materials

Four state attorneys general have asked a federal court to order the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to disclose the names of "inert" ingredients on pesticide product labels.

Click Here to Add Comment

 

Subject:    EPA Asked to Disclose Inert Pesticide Materials- - -  -
 Date:        Mon, 5 Mar 2001 15:29:24 -0500
From:        Stephen Tvedten <steve@getipm.com>
Organization:     Get Set Inc. (www.getipm.com)

To:     Paul Helliker <phelliker@cdpr.ca.gov>
          Director, State of California, Department of Pesticide Regulation 

cc:    Christine Whitman whitman.christine@epa.gov

Dear Mr. Helliker,  I thought you might like to read an article from the Chemical Market Reporter - 05-Mar-01 - entitled: EPA Asked to Disclose Inert Pesticide Materials - By Glenn Hess.

Four state attorneys general have asked a federal court to order the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to disclose the names of "inert" ingredients on pesticide product labels.

In a lawsuit filed in the US District Court for the District of Columbia, the attorneys general of New York, Connecticut, Massachusetts and Alaska charged that EPA had failed to act on "an essential public health petition."

The state officials requested in January 1998 that the federal agency require pesticide manufacturers to disclose all ingredients in pesticides on product labels.

Currently, inert ingredients--which make up as much as 99 percent of many over-the-counter pesticides--are not disclosed on product labels. Only active ingredients that kill or repel pests are listed.

Industry representatives have said that detailed identification of inert ingredients in pesticide product formulations would reveal confidential business information or trade secrets.

Hundreds of the 2,300 inert ingredients registered with EPA are known to be harmful to human health, the attorneys general said in a joint statement.

"Consumers have a right to know about all the ingredients in the pesticides they use around their homes," said New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer.  "Full ingredient disclosure will allow consumers to make informed decisions about which products to use or not to use."

Mr. Spitzer noted that federal regulations require detailed label information on all ingredients in food, cosmetics and other products. "The same standard should also apply to pesticides (POISONS), which are toxic products that are widely used in our homes, schools and directly on our food," he said.

States are pre-empted by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) from requiring pesticide makers to identify inert ingredients on product labels. A number of inerts, such as toluene and ethylbenzene, are identified as "hazardous" under other federal laws, such as the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act and Superfund.

The attorneys general said many inert ingredients are known or suspected to pose serious health risks, including cancer, central nervous system disorders, liver and kidney damage and birth defects.

In January 1998, New York, Connecticut, Alaska, Massachusetts and other states petitioned EPA to require full product labeling of inert ingredients. Rather than responding to the petition, EPA referred the matter to a newly created advisory panel, which began meeting in March 2000.

"It is clear that the process EPA has put in place is not going anywhere and should not be a substitute for the agency ruling on a three-year-old petition that is very important to protect public health," said Mr. Spitzer.

The lawsuit filed by the four attorneys general charges that EPA has unreasonably and illegally delayed action on a vital health matter and seeks a decision on the petition within 60 days.

A similar suit was filed in October 2000 by the Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides, a Seattle, Washington-based coalition of 360 environmental, public health and labor organizations.

Norma Grier, executive director of the coalition, said: "This action by the attorneys general helps consumers across the country fight for the right to know about what's in these dangerous products."

CMR Online© 1996-2000 Schnell Publishing Company All rights reserved. For more information contact CMR Online's Editor.

Well Mr. Helliker,  It certainly seems to me that more and more people are very concerned about your dangerous unregistered "inerts".  Could you please inform me why you do STILL will not allow the use of safe and far more effective unregistered alternatives - especially when you so clearly ignore all of the unregistered "inerts" in your "registered" POISONS?  It certainly does not make any sense to me. 

Respectfully,  Stephen L. Tvedten

---

If you would like to be included in our mailing list for continuing information on pesticides, please email us at list@safe2use.com with "subscribe" in the subject line.