[X] CLOSEMAIN MENU

  • Archives

  • Categories

    • Announcements (578)
    • Antibacterial (110)
    • Aquaculture (20)
    • Beneficials (18)
    • Biodiversity (15)
    • Biofuels (6)
    • Biological Control (8)
    • Biomonitoring (27)
    • Canada (4)
    • Cannabis (17)
    • Children/Schools (207)
    • Climate Change (28)
    • contamination (33)
    • Environmental Justice (102)
    • Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (37)
    • Events (80)
    • Farmworkers (101)
    • Fracking (1)
    • Golf (11)
    • Health care (30)
    • Holidays (24)
    • Integrated and Organic Pest Management (50)
    • International (275)
    • Invasive Species (27)
    • Label Claims (43)
    • Lawns/Landscapes (174)
    • Litigation (267)
    • Nanotechnology (52)
    • National Politics (379)
    • Pesticide Drift (116)
    • Pesticide Regulation (634)
    • Pesticide Residues (131)
    • Pets (17)
    • Preemption (1)
    • Resistance (65)
    • Rodenticide (21)
    • Take Action (366)
    • Uncategorized (88)
    • Wildlife/Endangered Sp. (300)
    • Wood Preservatives (21)
  • Most Viewed Posts

Daily News Blog

Archive for the 'Clorox' Category


03
Oct

EPA Withdraws Cause Marketing Pesticide Label Proposal

(Beyond Pesticides, October 3, 2008) Activists and individuals concerned about misleading claims on pesticide labeling scored a victory on Wednesday when the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) withdrew its draft notice on label statements regarding cause marketing and third-party endorsements. After a two-year process of EPA proposals and public comment periods, the agency has determined that such label statements do nothing to promote “consumer understanding” of the risks and applications of pesticide products, and will not be encouraging further submissions. In its notice, EPA writes, “The Agency agrees that cause marketing claims and third-party endorsements as outlined in the draft PR Notice generally would not contribute meaningfully to improving protection of human health and the environment. The addition of such statements is not likely to enhance users’ ability to understand the labeling required to inform the user about how to use the product safely and effectively. In fact, the addition of such statements could interfere with that goal. In addition, EPA recognizes that its resources are limited and should be targeted towards activities that will enhance the level of protection of human health and environment from pesticides.” In 2006, The Clorox Company submitted an application to EPA to add cause marketing […]

Share

21
Mar

Last Chance to Submit Comments on Cause Marketing Labeling!

(Beyond Pesticides, March 21, 2008) Will this be the pesticide label of the near future? It will be unless you act now to stop cause marketing on toxic pesticide products. Send your comments to EPA by Thursday, March 27, 2008 and oppose cause marketing on toxic pesticide products. See Take Action webpage. On October 31, 2007, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) opened a comment period on their Draft Guidance for Pesticide Registrants on Label Statements Regarding Third-Party Endorsements and Cause Marketing Claims. After being urged by Beyond Pesticides and other concerned groups, EPA extended the closing date from December 28 to March 27. Your opportunity to provide EPA with critical feedback on its proposal to allow third-party endorsements on pesticide labels ends in less than a week! Cause marketing on pesticide labels would allow manufacturers to place the symbols of well-known organizations to their products, such as in the deal Clorox made with the American Red Cross last year. Attaching an image (like the Red Cross symbol) to a label can imply false safety of a product, which is a direct violation of EPA’s own labeling law. EPA’s proposed law would allow any company to make similar partnerships, putting consumers […]

Share

10
Jan

EPA Extends Public Comment Period on Cause-Marketing Pesticide Labels

(Beyond Pesticides, January 10, 2007) EPA decided at the end of 2007 to extend the deadline for public comments on its controversial proposal to allow pesticide product labels with third-party endorsements and cause-marketing claims. The new due date is March 27, 2008. The agency extended the public comment period for another 90 days in response to requests from Beyond Pesticides and others. In extending the comment, Debra Edwards, Director, Office of Pesticide Programs, said, “The Agency is particularly interested in assuring that its State partners in pesticide regulations, as well as organizations such as yours, have adequate opportunity for comments.” See letter.The issue of cause-marketing on pesticide labels came up last year when Clorox petitioned EPA to allow it to display the Red Cross logo on some of its products, including pine-sol and bleach products. In letters to all the state pesticide regulatory agencies in March, 2007, Beyond Pesticides urged the states to deny the label changes approved by EPA, saying: The inherent danger is that misleading the public about pesticides can result in harm to consumers who either do not, unfortunately, take the time to read pesticide labels or who cannot read or comprehend labels (e.g. non-English speaking citizens, […]

Share

21
Dec

Tell EPA to Reject Advertising on Labels and Extend Comment Period

(Beyond Pesticides, December 21, 2007) EPA is proposing a major overhaul of pesticide labels that will allow cause-related marketing (advertising) directly on products, a reversal of a long-standing policy that prohibited such representations. Beyond Pesticides urges the public to submit comments opposing such labeling and to support a request that EPA extend the deadline for comments (now set at December 31, 2007) to allow between 30 and 60 additional days for public comment on this proposed change. The change in law has serious safety implications, according to Beyond Pesticides, because the use of symbols, such as the Red Cross, implies that poisonous products are safe. On February 7, 2007, numerous groups petitioned EPA to rescind and deny the pesticide product label for the Clorox Company, which allows the display of the Red Cross symbol and language on pesticide products. The groups signing the petition included Beyond Pesticides, Pesticide Action Network North America, Center for Environmental Health, American Bird Conservancy, Pesticide Education Project, Strategic Counsel on Corporate Accountability, Environmental Health Fund, The Endocrine Disruption Exchange, Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides, Natural Resources Defense Council, Maryland Pesticide Network and Washington Toxics Coalition. Current label laws, defined by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, […]

Share