(Beyond Pesticides, August 10, 2010) Senator Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), Chair of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, and Ranking Member Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) introduced legislation on August 6, 2010 that would strip the public of the protection provided by the Clean Water Act (CWA) from the toxic hazards of pesticides applied to or near U.S. waterways. If successful, the bill, S. 3735, would nullify regulations that require pesticide applicators apply for National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits under CWA before applying pesticides on or near surface waters. Beyond Pesticides encourages its members to contact their Senators and let them know how they feel about S. 3735. Senators Lincoln and Chambliss say that because pesticides are registered under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) additional regulation is unnecessary and the legislation will reduce the burden on farmers, foresters and ranchers. Environmentalists argue that CWA is more protective, and pesticides should be regulated under both statues to improve protections for human health and the environment. CWA uses a health-based standard known as maximum contamination levels to protect waterways and requires permits when chemicals are directly deposited into rivers, lakes and streams, while FIFRA uses a highly subjective […]

(Beyond Pesticides, July 22, 2010) In a press release submitted last week, the Monsanto Company, Inc. announced that it has taken a vital step towards commercializing a new soybean product that is tolerant to the neurotoxic pesticide dicamba by completing its regulatory submission to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) for dicamba-tolerant soybeans. Monsanto expects to complete regulatory submission to the USDA and key global markets in the coming months. The dicamba tolerance trait is expected to also be stacked with the glyphosate-resistant, or “Roundup Ready” soybean trait upon commercialization. While Monsanto claims that this is a “highly effective and economical weed control package,” it is likely to be similar to Roundup (glyphosate) Ready crops, just another way to sell more pesticide product. Monsanto is banking on the idea that mixing dicamba with glyphosate will help manage the hard-to-control broadleaf weeds in chemical-intensive farming systems, targeting both pre-plant and post-emergence weed control in an effort to reduce resistance. In a report published last year, analysts found that genetically engineered (GE) crops have been responsible for an increase of 383 million pounds of herbicide use in the U.S. over the first 13 years of commercial use of GE crops (1996-2008). The […]

(Beyond Pesticides, July 14, 2010) The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced that Monsanto Company Inc. has agreed to pay a $2.5 million penalty to resolve misbranding violations related to the sale and distribution of cotton seed products containing genetically engineered (GE) pesticides. This is the largest civil administrative penalty settlement ever received under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). “This agreement shows that when a company violates the law by distributing misbranded pesticides, EPA will take action,” said Cynthia Giles, assistant administrator for EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. “The regulated community should understand that we take these violations seriously, and the public will accept nothing less than compliance.” “People who manufacture and distribute pesticide products must follow the federal registration requirements,” said Steve Owens, assistant administrator for EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. “These requirements are critical to preventing the development and spread of insect resistance.” Monsanto Bollgard and Bollgard II cotton seed products contain genetically engineered pesticides known as plant incorporated protectants (PIPs), which are registered as a pesticidal product under FIFRA. As a condition of the registrations, EPA included planting restrictions on Bollgard and Bollgard II, which contain the PIP Bacillus […]

(Beyond Pesticides, July 13, 2010) Beyond Pesticides is urging the public to send comments by July 19, 2010 to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on its recently issued draft “general permit” under the Clean Water Act (CWA) that will govern aquatic pesticides and certain pesticide spraying over or near surface waters, including mosquito spraying and spraying over forest canopies and near irrigation ditches. Environmental groups believe the pesticide industry is lobbying to make this permit as weak as possible. Beyond Pesticides encourages individuals to send comments to EPA supporting strong, meaningful regulation of pesticide applications in order to fully protect public health and the environment. See talking points and instructions for sending comments below. Background EPA announced the public availability of a draft National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit, posted here, for certain pesticide use patterns, also known as the Pesticides General Permit (PGP) on June 2, 2010. The action stems from a 2009 court decision in the case of the National Cotton Council et al. v. EPA, in which the 6th circuit court of appeals ruled that pesticide discharges into water are pollutants and require permitting under the CWA. This ruling overturned the Bush administration policy that […]

(Beyond Pesticides, June 30, 2010) The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approval process for thousands of antimicrobial products is woefully inadequate, according Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). Despite a growing body of scientific evidence about the side-effects of these products, EPA rubberstamps registrations without duly considering an array of potential public health and environmental impacts. Antimicrobials are now a billion dollar business with more than 5,000 such products currently registered with EPA. Initially designed for hospitals and clinics, antimicrobial pesticides are today found in products ranging from household cleaners to mattresses and bedding, cosmetics, toys, toothpaste and even chopsticks. Antibacterial products are being marketed to the health conscious without firm evidence of real benefits and amid growing concern about downstream consequences. One prime example of this is the antibacterial pesticide triclosan that is formulated into hundreds of personal care products, toys and textiles. Studies show that triclosan is an endocrine disruptor, accumulates in human fatty tissue and can influence the onset of bacterial resistance. Beyond Pesticides, Food and Water Watch and several other groups petitioned FDA in 2009 and EPA in January 2010, calling for the ban of triclosan citing the possibility of bacterial resistance to antibacterial substances and […]

(Beyond Pesticides, June 10, 2010) After years of pressure from environmental and international groups concerned about the chemical’s health effects, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agencey (EPA) announced that it is taking action to end all uses of the insecticide endosulfan in the United States. EPA has decided that new data presented to the agency in response to its 2002 reregistration eligibility decision (RED) have shown that risks faced by workers are greater than previously known. EPA also has found that there are risks above the agency’s level of concern to aquatic and terrestrial wildlife, as well as to birds and mammals that consume aquatic prey which have ingested endosulfan. Farmworkers can be exposed to endosulfan through inhalation and contact with the skin. An organochlorine insecticide first registered in the 1950s, endosulfan is used on a variety of vegetables, fruits, cotton, and on ornatmental shrubs, trees and vines. It poses unacceptable neurological and reproductive risks to farmworkers and wildlife and can persist in the environment. According to the EPA, crops with the highest use in 2006 — 2008 included tomato, cucurbit, potato, apple, and cotton. The use of endosulfan decreased overall from 2001 to 2008. A restricted use pesticide, endosulfan may […]

(Beyond Pesticides, June 7, 2010) With thousands of violations cited, the pest control company and applicator responsible for the deaths of two young children are only fined several tens of thousands of dollars, a mere slap on the hand. The Utah Department of Agriculture and Food’s (UDAF) Division of Plant Industry has finally filed multiple charges of violations against Bugman Pest and Lawn, Inc. of Bountiful, Utah, and employee Cole Nocks associated with the February 5, 2010 application of the pesticide Fumitoxin (active ingredient: aluminum phosphide) at the residence of Nathan and Brenda Toone of Layton, Utah that lead to the death of their two daughters ages 15-months and 4 years. In addition to the Layton incident, investigators discovered additional violations of the Utah Pesticide Control Act by the company and other employees. The UDAF seeks to revoke Mr. Nocks’s applicator license and has issued him a $27,000 fine, while Bugman Pest and Lawn, Inc. is fined $32,000. Under law, the UDAF is only allowed to file civil penalties. Investigators determined that on February 5, 2010 applicator Cole Nocks operated in a faulty, careless or negligent manner by misapplying the highly toxic and restricted use pesticide, Fumitoxin. Mr. Nocks’s improper […]

(Beyond Pesticides, June 4, 2010) The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed new permit requirements for the discharge of pesticides into US waterways. EPA announced the public availability of a draft National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for certain pesticide use patterns, also known as the Pesticides General Permit (PGP). The agency is accepting public comments until July 19, 2010. This action stems from a 2009 court decision in the case of the National Cotton Council et al. v. EPA, in which the 6th circuit court of appeals ruled that pesticide discharges into water are pollutants and require permitting under the Clean Water Act (CWA). This ruling overturned the Bush administration policy that exempted pesticides from regulation under the CWA, and instead applied the less stringent standards of the Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). CWA uses a kind of health-based standard known as maximum contamination levels to protect waterways and requires permits when chemicals are directly deposited into rivers, lakes and streams, while FIFRA uses a highly subjective risk assessment that does not consider safer alternatives. EPA will issue permits in territories, Indian Country Lands, 6 states and the District of Columbia where the Agency is […]

(Beyond Pesticides, June 3, 2010) City lawmakers in Albany, New York want to strengthen an 11-year-old ban on the use of some pesticides on city land after the revelation last week that one such banned chemical was sprayed near a local playground earlier this month. Albany’s Parks and Recreation Commissioner John D’Antonio said last Friday he was unaware of the ban, passed by the council in 1998, until he began researching a recent citizen complaint. The city is now rethinking its use of pesticides and exploring why the ban on city use of pesticides dubbed most toxic by the federal government was not more widely known. The law also required departments using less toxic pesticides to annually report plans to phase them out to the Common Council. TruGreen, a city contractor, used Trupower 3 Selective Herbicide, which is a mixture of 2,4-D, mecoprop-p and dicamba, and is listed in Toxicity Category 1 (most toxic) by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) — causing potentially irreversible eye damage, but is also toxic if ingested and can be irritating to the skin. The herbicide has been banned from city land, except in rare circumstances, since 1999. Under the same ordinance, all city agencies […]

(Beyond Pesticides, May 4, 2010) On April 30, 2010, despite significant cancer and reproductive health risk, especially to farmworkers and people living near agricultural fields, the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) proposed the use of a new and highly toxic pesticide, methyl iodide, for widespread agricultural use in California. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) registered methyl iodide in 2007 as a replacement for the ozone-depleting pesticide, methyl bromide. Environmental and public health advocates believe that blocking methyl iodide registration in California will prevent its use elsewhere, since the state will account for the vast majority usage and profitability nationwide. Public comments may be sent to [email protected]. If registered, methyl iodide will be used primarily to fumigate and sterilize the California’s strawberry fields, although the pesticide will also be used in nurseries and nut tree production. DPR’s proposal does not require neighbor notification before use of this extremely toxic chemical. As evidenced by California’s thriving organic industry, alternatives to fumigants exist and are in use in California. In a hearing on February 8, 2010, before the California Senate Committee on Food and Agriculture, two panels of California growers and researchers discussed a number of safe and effective alternatives to […]

(Beyond Pesticides, April 27, 2010) On April 22, 2010, Representative Keith Ellison (D-MN) introduced H.R.5124, legislation to prohibit the use, production, sale, importation, or exportation of any pesticide containing atrazine. The bill’s introduction coincides with an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP) meeting this week to reevaluate the human health effects of the popular endocrine disrupting herbicide. Environmentalists point to the 2003-2006 reregistration of atrazine as a prime example of the broken system of pesticide regulation in the U.S. and call on EPA to reassess atrazine fairly and for consumers to support an end to all unnecessary pesticide use by supporting organic whenever possible. “On this 40th Anniversary of Earth Day, I can think of no better tribute to our planet and our people than protecting it from known harmful chemicals,” Rep. Ellison said. “No one should ever have to worry if the water they drink is making them sick or preventing fertility.” Rep. Ellison’s bill cites widespread environmental contamination, health and environmental effects, as well as bans in other countries, as justification for the ban. The current SAP meeting follows EPA’s October 2009 announcement that it would begin a new evaluation of atrazine to determine its effects […]

(Beyond Pesticides, April 9, 2010) U.S. Representative Edward J. Markey (D-Mass), Chairman of the Energy and Environment Subcommittee of the Energy and Commerce Committee, yesterday called for a ban on many applications of the antimicrobial chemical triclosan ””which is found in many consumer soaps and countless other products ranging from toys to lipstick. Rep. Markey called for the ban in conjunction with the release of correspondence from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that raise serious concerns regarding the use of the chemical triclosan. In response to the FDA and EPA letters, Chairman Markey also announced plans to introduce legislation that will accelerate the evaluation and regulation of substances such as triclosan that may harm the human endocrine system. “Despite the fact that this chemical is found in everything from soaps to socks, there are many troubling questions about triclosan’s effectiveness and potentially harmful effects, especially for children,” said Chairman Markey. In January 2010, Chairman Markey sent letters of concern regarding triclosan to FDA and to EPA. In FDA’s response letter to Chairman Markey, the FDA stated that, “existing data raise valid concerns about the [health] effects of repetitive daily human exposure to these […]

(Beyond Pesticides, April 8, 2010) The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is requiring new restrictions on aluminum and magnesium phosphide products in an attempt to better protect people, especially children, from dangerous exposures. The new restrictions prohibit all uses of the products around residential areas and increase buffer zones for treatment around non-residential buildings that could be occupied by people or animals from 15 feet to 100 feet. Human exposure to these toxic chemicals, though slightly minimized, would nevertheless continue because of their continued availability for use on athletic fields and playgrounds, around non-residential buildings, and in agricultural production. Phosphide fumigants are known to be highly acutely toxic when ingested or inhaled. Symptoms of mild to moderate acute exposure include nausea, abdominal pain, tightness in chest, excitement, restlessness, agitation and chills. Symptoms of more severe exposure include diarrhea, cyanosis, difficulty breathing, pulmonary edema, respiratory failure, tachycardia (rapid pulse) and hypotension (low blood pressure), dizziness and/or death. Aluminum and magnesium phosphide fumigants are used primarily to control insects in stored grain and other agricultural commodities. They also are used to control burrowing rodents in outdoor agricultural and other non-domestic areas. The fumigants are restricted to use by specially trained pesticide applicators. […]

(Beyond Pesticides, March 31, 2010) Last week the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced that it was taking action aimed at improving residential safety and reducing risks associated with bug bombs, or total release foggers (TRFs). The agency is calling for significant changes to product labeling to address the most common causes of exposure incidents associated with TRFs. However, product labels do not adequately protect the public from toxic pesticide ingredients and calls to ban foggers and promote safer alternatives, action that has been urged for years both within and outside the agency, continue to go unheeded. Prompted by concerns raised by a 2009 petition from the New York City Department of Health to reclassify TRFs as restricted use pesticides, EPA sent a letter of notification to manufacturers on March 23, 2010 stating that the agency is now requiring a number of labeling changes by September 30, 2011. In spite of New York’s recommendation, the agency concluded that reclassification is inappropriate and would unnecessarily remove these inexpensive pest control tools from the residential market. Since, according to the agency’s analysis, the largest proportion of incidents is attributable to failure to follow label instructions, the changes are targeted at minimizing those […]

(Beyond Pesticides, February 24, 2010) On February 22, 2010 the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a federal notice requesting data and information regarding the potential environmental impact of triclosan’s use in acne and antiplaque/antigingivitis products. The agency, in order to comply with the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA), must complete environmental assessments (EA) for active ingredients before they are included in the agency’s over-the-counter (OTC) drug regulation system. Triclosan, a controversial antibacterial agent found in hundreds of consumer products, from hand sanitizers to toys, is one of 13 chemicals being assessed by FDA for environmental impacts according to their proposed uses. According to FDA regulations, the agency must conduct EAs before chemicals are approved for use in OTC drug products. In this case, triclosan is being considered for use in acne and antiplaque/antigingivitis products. Even though this action is being taken, FDA has never been able to finalize and approve the use of triclosan in any OTC products, despite the proliferation of these products in the consumer marketplace. It appears that EAs for the vast majority of triclosan uses have been completed. Other FDA regulations on triclosan have not been updated since 1994 and much of the data […]

(Beyond Pesticides, February 19, 2010) To protect humans and the environment from the drift of pesticide spray and dust the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed new labeling guidelines last November and is seeking public comments. The Draft Guidance for Pesticide Registrants on Pesticide Drift Labeling is intended to provide clearer, more consistent and enforceable directions. EPA’s current pesticide label requirement, which instructs the user to avoid drift, is widely considered unenforceable and inadequate. Pesticides drift is a major threat to those living near agricultural areas, as wind and rain can carry these chemicals miles from the application site. A National Cancer Institute study shows that pregnant women living within 9 miles of farms where pesticides are used have an increased risk of losing an unborn baby to birth defects. Another study finds that children living near agricultural areas have twice the risk of developing acute lymphoblastic leukemia. When pest management strategies rely on spray and dust pesticide application, drift is inevitable. Aerial pesticide application is of greatest concern, where an estimated 40% of pesticides used are lost to drift. Despite this inefficiency the aerial application of pesticides. especially fungicides, is actually increasing. EPA’s labeling guidelines were introduced a month […]

(Beyond Pesticides, February 2, 2010) We’re not Cockroaches, EPA. Tell Us What’s in that Toxic Spray! EPA is taking public comments on this important public health and environmental issue and your views are critical to the process. The agency has published a notice proposing the option of full disclosure of all ingredients in pesticide products, including those ithat have been claimed to be trade secrets and withheld from the public. Take a close look at the fine print on a can of Raid, a bottle of Cutters, a jug of RoundUp, or virtually any pesticide on the market today, and you’ll see these words: “Inert ingredients.” Inert ingredients are the pesticide industry’s best-kept secret. The Bad News There are thousands of chemicals used as inerts in pesticides, and over the years we’ve discovered what some of them are. The truth is that many inert ingredients are neither chemically nor toxicologically inert. Some cause cancer, some cause genetic damage, some cause reproductive harm, and others cause a wide variety of other health problems. For decades, EPA has routinely accepted the pesticide industry’s line that these ingredients are “confidential business information.” That’s a red herring. Pesticide companies can easily test their competitors’ […]

(Beyond Pesticides, February 1, 2010) Public health, environmental and organic agriculture advocates are urging the public to submit comments to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) on its draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on genetically engineered (GE) alfalfa by the February 16, 2010 deadline, demanding that USDA protect organic food from GE contamination and not approve Monsanto’s GE alfalfa. USDA claims in the EIS that there is no evidence that consumers care about GE contamination of organic alfalfa. But, it is not just alfalfa that is at risk. Since alfalfa is fed to dairy cows and other livestock, organic dairy and meat products could also be affected. Last week, Beyond Pesticides reported that in the ongoing battle to stop the use of GE alfalfa seeds, Monsanto v. Geerston Seed Farms will be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court. The seed is modified to be resistant to the herbicide glyphosate, sold by Monsanto under the brand name Roundup. In 2006 the Center for Food Safety (CFS) and several other farming and environmental groups, including Beyond Pesticides, filed suit on behalf of Geerston Seed Farms. The suit led to a U.S. District Court ruling that the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) violated […]

(Beyond Pesticides, January 15, 2010) Yesterday, environmental and health groups petitioned the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to ban the use of the widely used antimicrobial pesticide triclosan, which is linked to endocrine disruption, cancer and antibiotic resistance and found in 75% of people tested in government biomonitoring studies. Over 75 groups, lead by Beyond Pesticides and Food and Water Watch, say EPA must act to stop the use of a chemical now commonly found in soaps, toothpaste, deordorants, cosmetics, clothing, and plastic, with a nearly $1 billion market and growing. In their petition, the groups cite numerous statutes under which they believe the government must act to stop non-medical uses of triclosan, including laws regulating pesticide registration, use and residues, clean and safe drinking water, and endangered species. “Given its widespread environmental contamination and public health risk, EPA has a responsibility to ban household triclosan use in a marketplace where safer alternatives are available to manage bacteria,” said Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides. “Scientific studies indicate that widespread use of triclosan causes a number of serious health and environmental problems,” said Wenonah Hauter, executive director of Food & Water Watch. “EPA needs to ban its use in non-medical […]

(Beyond Pesticides, January 7, 2010) Family farm groups across the Midwest are calling on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to prioritize independent science as the agency begins reviewing the health and environmental threats posed by the herbicide atrazine. In a letter sent to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson on January 5, 2010, over a dozen groups maintain that only a completely transparent process that rejects biased research produced by the pesticide’s primary manufacturer, Syngenta, will result in a review that serves the interests of farmers, the general public and the environment. “As farmers on the front line of chemical exposure, we need EPA to make science-based decisions in the interest of our health, our family’s health and the health of our community,” said Paul Sobocinski, a southwest Minnesota crop and livestock farmer and Land Stewardship Project member. “Unfortunately, EPA has a track record of allowing agrichemical companies like Syngenta to hijack the process with bad science.” The letter to Ms. Jackson was accompanied by a new report, The Syngenta Corporation & Atrazine: The Cost to the Land, People & Democracy, jointly produced by the Minnesota-based Land Stewardship Project (LSP) and Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA). The report provides farmers […]

(Beyond Pesticides, January 6, 2010) The House Energy and Environment Subcommittee chairman asked federal regulators for an open discussion about the health and environmental impacts of two controversial chemicals- triclosan and triclocarban- commonly found in antimicrobial hand soaps and other consumer products. Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) is asking U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for answers to questions about triclosan and triclocarban. The synthetic antimicrobial chemicals are found in many soaps, toothpastes, deodorants and cosmetics. “Despite serious questions regarding the safety of these potentially dangerous products, these substances seem to exist in a regulatory black hole,” Rep. Markey said in a statement. “We must ensure that these products … kill germs without adversely impacting human health.” Read letter to EPA and FDA. In the letter to EPA, Rep. Markey questions whether the agency is reviewing existing data on the two chemicals, and if it has made a decision about further regulating them. He also asked if the agency has examined the impact of triclosan on wildlife, and whether it plans to evaluate the chemicals under its hormone-screening program, the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program. The lawmaker also pushed FDA on its plan for finalizing a […]

(Beyond Pesticides, December 17, 2009) Earlier this week, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) announced the availability of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that preliminarily concludes that there is no significant impact on the human environment due to granting nonregulated status to Roundup Ready (RR) alfalfa. Much to the dismay of environmentalists, the draft EIS outlines plans to allow unlimited commercial planting of genetically-engineered (GE) alfalfa that is resistant to the herbicide glyphosate, despite increasing evidence that GE alfalfa will threaten the rights of farmers and consumers, as well as damage the environment and the integrity of organic food. The agency prepared this draft EIS to comply with a February 2007 judgment and order by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, in which Judge Charles R. Breyer found that USDA violated federal environmental law by failing to conduct an EIS on GE alfalfa seeds before deregulating them in 2005. The lawsuit, originally brought on by The Center for Food Safety (CFS) and several other environmental and farming groups, including Beyond Pesticides and Sierra Club, led to a 2007 court order that the deregulation may have significant environmental impacts […]

(Beyond Pesticides, December 10, 2009) Following news that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is considering a higher uncertainty factor in all pesticide risk determinations, the agency is making available for comment a policy paper entitled “Revised Risk Assessment Methods for Workers, Children of Workers in Agricultural Fields, and Pesticides with No Food Uses.” The paper describes how EPA will assess pesticide risks not governed by Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) amendments to the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). EPA describes its proposal as incluing a more thorough assessment of risks to workers, including farmworkers and farm children, as well as risks posed by pesticides that are not used on food. The agency is asking the public to comment on the new approach and how best to implement the improvements. “Better information and applying these tools will strengthen EPA’s protections for farm workers exposed to these chemicals, and children living in and around the areas of highest possible exposure,” says EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson. “It’s essential we have the tools to keep everyone, especially vulnerable populations like children, safe from the serious health consequences of pesticide exposure.” EPA licenses or registers pesticides for sale and distribution under the […]