[Technically Speaking] EPA: Consumers’ health deserves your protection more than their homes

I find it extremely perplexing that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and organizations such as the Association of Structural Pest Control Regulatory Officials have a compelling need to protect consumers’ properties from the ravages of termites.

However, when it comes to protecting those same consumers from the life-altering and threatening effects of vector-borne diseases, such as West Nile virus and Lyme disease, they stick their collective heads deep into the sand.

Both groups have spent an inordinate amount of time registering term-iticides, testing their efficacy and rewriting label requirements (some product labels are more than 12 pages). In addition, they have invested years in developing ways to ensure compliance, such as soil residue analysis.

I find it incredulous that pesticide products targeting disease vectors are flooding into the marketplace making implied efficacy claims that are not verified by EPA. The "loophole" that allows this to occur is found in the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) Section 25 (b) – "Exemption of Pesticides – The Administrator may exempt from the requirements of the Act by regulation any pesticide which the Administrator determines either:

• to be adequately regulated by another federal agency, or

• to be of a character which is unnecessary to be subject to this act in order to carry out the purposes of this act."

COMPLYING WITH THE LAW. Our industry is at a loss as to how to embrace these minimum risk pesticides — and rightfully so. My experiences are that they are not all that they should be.

• Are they environmentally responsible? – Yes!

• Are they safe around humans and pets? – Perhaps!

• Do they work? – In my experience, not as well as they should.

Products exempt from registration must comply with two requirements:

• Composition

n The active ingredients must be listed in 40 CFR 152.25(g)(1), e.g., garlic, mint oil, citronella, eugenol, salt, etc.

n Inert ingredients may contain only List 4A inerts, including commonly consumed foods.

• Labeling

n All ingredients (active and inert) must be listed by name and the active must indicate percentage by weight.

n No false or misleading statements may appear on the product’s label.

n The product may not bear any claims to control or mitigate microorganisms that link it to a threat to human health, e.g., Lyme disease, malaria or encephalitis microorganisms.

Because it may imply registration or government oversight, statements such as the following are not permitted:

• "Recommended by EPA as safe and exempt."

• "It is a violation of federal law to use this product in a manner inconsistent with its labeling."

• List an "EPA Registration No." or "EPA Establishment No."

Do these statements sound familiar? Our industry, and even the most naive consumers, have been conditioned to associate these statements with registered "pesticide products."

Manufacturers are not required to label exempt products as non-pesticides or otherwise indicate that these pesticides have not undergone the scrutiny of EPA — the assumption is that consumers will read between the lines and uncover this on their own. To use a quote from John Stossel, "Give me a break!"

WHAT NOT TO SAY. EPA, in its Pesticide Regulation (PR) Notice 2000-6, was very specific with regard to product claims and linking them to control or mitigation of microorganisms that pose a threat to human health, i.e., the product can not link the pest to a specific disease.

For instance, labels may not say:

• "Controls ticks that carry Lyme disease."

• "Controls mosquitoes that can transmit malaria or encephalitis."

However, EPA will allow the following statements to be used:

• "Controls ticks."

• "Controls mosquitoes."

To repeat John Stossel again, "Give me a break!"

Almost every consumer using these products will assume that if it controls ticks and/or mosquitoes it will protect them from Lyme disease and West Nile virus, respectfully (EPA’s rationale is that consumers will not draw this conclusion).

Show me the data! Where is the data that supports these products’ efficacy claims? As best I have been able to determine, EPA does not require it. Even when the agency requires such data for product registration (with the exception of termiticides and anti-microbials), it has no bearing on registration (EPA’s rationale is buyer beware). My own experience with one of these products was that the paper wasps I sprayed smelled good when they were stinging me.

The exemption process is great for products that have no significant impact on human health, e.g., ground beetles, crickets, cockroaches, ants, etc., but they have no place when dealing with arthropods that are proven vectors of human pathogens. The continued exemption of products that, according to the manufacturer, control arthropods that transmit diseases, is a gross disservice to the public and a greater risk to human health than the registered products that these exempt products (EPA’s rationale — since they don’t require registration they are inherently safer) purport to replace.

Come on, EPA! Give the same consideration and due diligence to the control of arthropod vectors that directly affect the lives and health of consumers as you do to the termites that destroy their homes.

The author is technical director of American Pest Management, Takoma Park, Md. He can be reached at 301/891-2600 or via e-mail at rkramer@giemedia.com.