17
Aug
(Beyond Pesticides, August 17, 2010) A federal appeals court has revived the fraud and negligent misrepresentation claims by blueberry farmers in New Jersey, who say that a pesticide made by Novartis Crop Protection, Inc. reacted badly with fungicides and ruined their crops. Declaring that the lower court improperly dismissed the farmers’ state law claims as preempted by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), the federal court concluded that farmers were not suing over the alleged flaws in the warning label-which is federally regulated -rather were complaining about misrepresentations in Novartis’ marketing brochure. The case, Indian Brand Farms Inc. v. Novartis Crop Protection Inc. was filed in the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Jersey. Blueberry farmers said Novartis should have warned them that a new version of its pesticide, including diazinon as the active ingredient, also included a surfactant that reacts badly with fungicides. The promotional brochure failed to mention this reaction and when farmers mixed the diazinon pesticide with the fungicides Captan and Captec, it caused phytotoxic damage, including blotches, depressions and spots, and in some cases killed their plants. It was not clear to the appeals court that the practice of combining pesticides with […]
Posted in Agriculture, Diazinon, Label Claims, Litigation, New Jersey, Novartis | No Comments »
25
Mar
(Beyond Pesticides, March 25, 2010) A new study finds that the absence of a maximum dose on some household pesticides labels leave consumers with the impression that “if a little is good, more is better.” According to the study that was presented at the 239th National Meeting of the American Chemical Society (ACS), label directions are written in a way that may result in consumers using excessive amounts of pesticides, subjecting their family and pets to increased exposures. The new study, which was lead by California Environmental Protection Agency researcher Linda M. Hall, Ph.D., and her colleagues, finds that while minimum and maximum doses are clearly listed on labels for agricultural pesticides, labels for some household pesticides, such as para-dichlorbenzene (pDCB) mention the minimum amount for consumers to use but do not indicate the maximum. Para-dichlorobenzene (pDCB) is the active ingredient in mothballs and other products used to protect silk, wool, and other natural fibers against moths and beetles; caged birds against lice and mites; mildew prevention; and is also used in air fresheners and bathroom deodorizers. Exposure to moth repellents, which include other toxic chemicals such as naphthalene and camphor, can cause eye and respiratory irritation, headaches, confusion and […]
Posted in Chemicals, Label Claims | No Comments »
23
Dec
(Beyond Pesticides, December 23, 2009) The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is requesting public comment on options for disclosing inert ingredients in pesticides. In this anticipated rulemaking, EPA is seeking ideas for greater disclosure of inert ingredient identities. Inert ingredients, which can be highly toxic, are part of the end use product formulation, but not defined as active against the target organism. Revealing inert ingredients will help consumers make informed decisions and may lead to better protection of public health and the environment. “Consumers deserve to know the identities of ingredients in pesticide formulations, including inert ingredients,” said Steve Owens, assistant administrator for EPA’s Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances. “Disclosing inert ingredients in pesticide products, especially those considered to be hazardous, will empower consumers and pesticide users to make more informed choices.” Public disclosure is one way to discourage the use of hazardous inert ingredients in pesticide formulations. The agency is inviting comment on various regulatory and voluntary steps to achieve this broader disclosure. Pesticide manufacturers usually disclose their inert ingredients only to EPA. Currently, EPA evaluates the safety of all ingredients in a product’s formulation when determining whether the pesticide should be registered. On October 1, 2009, […]
Posted in Label Claims | 1 Comment »
24
Sep
(Beyond Pesticides, September 24, 2009) The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has just announced that it filed suit against San Leandro based VF Corporation for the sale and distribution of unregistered pesticides through its retail company, The North Face. An AgION silver treated footbed, which the company claims has antimicrobial properties, is featured in over 70 styles of shoes by the company. These claims, according to the EPA, are in violation of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). The company could face up to $1 million in fines. While these products do not purport to usie nano-sized silver materials, the claims that are made for these products are suspiciously similar to those made by manufacturers for other nano-based antimicrobial products. These claims include: inhibiting the growth of disease-causing bacteria; preventing bacterial and fungal growth; and the continuous release of antimicrobial agents. Because of the lack of regulation, nanotechnology products are not always easy to recognize in the marketplace, and even the best lists do not include everything. Consumer products that include nano-based technologies, however continue to grow. EPA has taken a few regulatory actions against other manufacturers whose products made similar claims as this case, including action against […]
Posted in Label Claims, Litigation, Nanotechnology | No Comments »
18
Aug
(Beyond Pesticides, August 18, 2009) In a letter to Responsible Industry for a Sound Environment (RISE), the national trade association representing producers and suppliers of specialty pesticides and fertilizers, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) clarifies for pesticide companies federal pesticide label regulations and the agency’s position on use of false and misleading claims like “Professional Strength.” The letter, dated May 15, 2009 and posted on EPA’s website last week, addresses pesticide products that are sold and distributed and labeled “Professional” and “Professional Grade” among others, in product names and advertising. EPA finds that such statements are “inappropriate.” According to the letter, “Section 12 (a) (1) (E) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), states that it is unlawful to distribute or sell ”˜any pesticide which is”¦.misbranded.’ A pesticide is misbranded if ”˜its labeling bears any statement, design or graphic representation relative thereto or to its ingredients which is false or misleading in any particular.’ FIFRA § 2(q)(1)(A) [emphasis added]. The following describes why EPA finds use of “Professional Grade” in these products’ labeling and marketing to be a false and misleading claim and therefore unacceptable.” The letter continues, “”¦’Professional Grade’ implies a falsehood that pesticides are classified […]
Posted in Corporations, Label Claims, Pesticide Regulation | No Comments »
