FIFRA Enforcement Environmental Results

Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act

Statute, Regulations,   Enforcement   Enforcement Programs   Enforcement Priorities   Environmental Results   Cases and Settlements   Legal Decisions   "Stop-Sale" Orders

There have been immeasureable improvements in the environmental resulting from enforcement of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). Proper enforcement provides certain protections with regard to these heavily used chemicals .

Beneficial Environmental Results from Enforcement Actions

Some examples of positive environmental results and improvements achieved through settlements in Pesticides enforcement actions are as follows:

SC Johnson

As part of the settlement of the case, SC Johnson agreed to provide funding to the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America (AAFA) for the purchase of a mobile asthma clinic (the "Breathmobile®") to serve high-risk inner-city children at Baltimore, Maryland schools. Under the terms of the agreement, funding will include hiring and training a full-time staff consisting of a physician, a nurse and a respiratory therapist. The Breathmobile® will provide preventative health care as well as specialized asthma treatment to high-risk underprivileged children who do not have routine access to effective asthma care.

ITW Dymon

In August 2001 the Environmental Appeals Board executed a final order resolving the case against ITW Dymon. ITW Dymon is the manufacture of hospital disinfectants. During FY2000, EPA performed two inspections at the ITW Dymon facility in Kansas. Sterility tests performed on samples of Medaphene Plus Disinfectant Deodorant, MPDD a registered hospital disinfectant, obtained during the first inspection, showed that the samples were contaminated. EPA issued a Stop, Sale, Use or Removal Order (SSURO) in December 1999. In January 2000, ITW Dymon provided documentation that MPDD was free of the contamination and EPA issued an order vacating the SSURO. Efficacy tests of samples of Medaphene Plus Disinfectant Spray (MPDS) a registered hospital disinfectant obtained during the second inspection, showed that MPDS failed to meet the efficacy requirements for a hospital disinfectant. In September 2000, EPA issued a complaint against ITW Dymon alleging violations of FIFRA, including contained two counts alleging the sale and distribution of a registered pesticide, the composition of which differs from its composition as described in the statement required in connection with its registration, and three counts alleging the sale and distribution of a pesticide bearing false or misleading statements. Under the Consent Agreement and Final Order, ITW Dymon agreed to pay a penalty of $19,250. In addition, ITW Dymon agreed to screen three batches of the product that failed to meet the efficacy test for hospital disinfectants, Medaphene Plus Disinfectant Spray (MPDS), for efficacy every 90 days for a period of a year. If one batch of MPDS, fails the efficacy screening, Respondent further agreed to recall the individual batch. If more than one batch of MPDS fails the efficacy screening, Respondent agreed to recall the entire product.

Roxide International, Inc.

On May 30, 2001, EPA's Environmental Appeals Board executed a Final Order resolving the above-captioned matter. Pursuant to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), the complete formula of a pesticide must be submitted by the registrant as part of the required statement to support product registration. The registrant is further required to furnish, as part of its statement of formula, information about the active ingredient in the product. The statement of formula on file as of the date of EPA's approval of Respondent's registration for Roxide Technical DDVP and in effect through February 28, 2001, identified a specific product and supplier as the source of active ingredient. Respondent admitted to the Agency that it did not purchase the active ingredient from the source identified in its application for registration. Therefore, any sale and distribution of these pesticides constituted violations of FIFRA. For purposes of this action, the Parties stipulated that Roxide sold or distributed Technical DDVP and Revenge Bug Strip on fifty (50) occasions, resulting in a total proposed penalty of $275,000. The final settlement of this matter included a payment of a $55,000 penalty and voluntary cancellation of the registrations for the pesticides, Roxide Technical DDVP and Roxide Revenge Bug Strip. This will eliminate any possibility of this event occurring again.

Lesco, Inc.

Lesco, Inc. disclosed to EPA that it discovered various labeling errors on its registered pesticides Pre-M® Plus Fertilizer and 0.21% Dimension® Plus Fertilizer. These errors ranged from incorrect spreader settings and application rates to incorrect type size for precautionary language. The products were sold in various weights, sizes and brand names from 1995 to 2000. Upon identifying the label errors, Lesco announced a "stop sale" to all sales representatives, manufacturing sites and distribution centers via voice mail, e-mail and Internet. EPA and Lesco entered into a consent agreement wherein Lesco was assessed a $68,200 fine and agreed to conduct a compliance audit. Through the compliance audit, Lesco will review the labels of all of its 51 registered pesticides that it sells and distributes. It will report its results periodically to EPA in accordance with the procedures set out in the consent agreement and will produce a final report when the compliance audit is complete. If additional labeling violations are discovered, Lesco will take steps to correct the violations and subsequent penalty amounts will be capped at $22,000 per registered pesticide.

Monsanto Company

The Monsanto Company is the registrant, producer and manufacturer of the registered pesticide Monsanto Roundup L & G Ready-To-Use Fast Acting Formula Weed & Grass Killer. Monsanto packages this product with a wand and a pump dispenser ("Pull ‘N Spray"). In mid-May 2000, Monsanto voluntarily disclosed to EPA that under certain circumstances, when used according to label directions, the product could leak or spray onto the user. The product label did not bear a statement warning that the Pull 'N Spray may leak or spray the user, nor did the use directions tell the user how to use the product to prevent improper leaking or spraying. Under FIFRA, a pesticide is considered misbranded if it lacks required directions for use or if it does not contain an adequate warning or caution statement. A Consent Agreement and Final Order filed in October, 2000 stipulated that Monsanto distributed or sold misbranded Monsanto Roundup L & G in the Pull ‘N Spray dispenser on twenty occasions prior to May 15, 2000, and set the fine at $44,000. As a part of the Consent Agreement EPA and Monsanto and Scotts negotiated a corrective action plan in order to insure that the public was protected from harm and that full compliance was attained. The corrective action plan set forth a plan in which Monsanto and Scotts issued a press release to targeted consumers describing the problem and allowing for a voluntary consumer and mandatory distributor and retail recall of the defective product. The corrective action plan and the Consent Agreement also specifies the conditions in which the product maybe reconditioned, re-labeled, and returned to the retailers. If the corrective action plan was not complied with additional penalties could be assessed.

Tropical Fruit

Following several years of litigation, a consent decree was filed between the United States and Tropical Foods. The Respondents violations stem from failure to comply with the Worker Protection Standards (WPS) and labeling requirements of FIFRA. Under the Consent Degree, the Respondent agreed to $12,000 in penalties, $23,000 to cover CERCLA response costs and to injunctive relief. The objectives of the Consent Decree are to ensure: (1) the protection of the residents and public in and around the Farm from illegal and/or unregulated exposure to pesticides and hazardous substances;(2) the protection of employees of the Farm from illegal and/or unregulated exposure to pesticides and hazardous substances; (3) the protection of the environment from illegal and/or unregulated exposure to pesticides and hazardous substances; (4) strict compliance by Settling Defendants with all laws, regulations and label requirements associated with the use of pesticides and hazardous substances used at the Farm; (5) the recovery of CERCLA response costs; and (6) the payment of penalties for violations of orders issued pursuant to CERCLA. Under the Consent Decree, the Respondent agreed to:(i) establish a vegetative barrier; (ii) create a buffer zone (divided in some sections between a no-spray zone and a zone where limited hand-spraying only will be permitted (and where no mechanized spraying will occur); (iii) various other restrictions such as wind speed, maximum duration and geographic separation of spray applications; and (iv) various measures intended to enhance the ability of the Farm to comply with FIFRA and the terms of this Consent Decree, such as a computer-driven anemometer which will automatically advise the spray applicator of wind conditions outside the permissible range, and a monitor, funded by the Farm for three years, who will oversee handspray applications in the sectors of concern.

Uniroyal - Region 1

In March, 2001, Region 1 filed a Consent Agreement against Uniroyal Chemical Company. Under the terms of the Agreement, Uniroyal will pay a $9,000 penalty to resolve FIFRA violations involving importing unregistered pesticides into the U.S. Uniroyal also agreed to immediately relabel the 523 containers of Casoron 85W involved in this case. The Casoron 85W, a pre-emergent herbicide, was manufactured in the Netherlands and entered the U.S. in February, 2001. This settlement was obtained after close coordination with staffers from EPA Region 7 and EPA Headquarters. Under federal law, all pesticides sold or distributed in the U.S. must include detailed labels with valid EPA registration numbers and instructions for use which are approved by the EPA to ensure adequate protection of human health and the environment. In this case, the 523 containers arrived in the U.S. with labels bearing invalid EPA registration numbers.

Hawkeye Cooperative Co. - Region 7

February, 2001, Region 7 issued a complaint against Hawkeye Cooperative Company, alleging violation of FIFRA Section 12(a)(2)(f). The Respondent distributed and sold a restricted use pesticide (RUP) to four separate uncertified applicators. A Consent Agreement and Final Order (CAFO) was issued to the facility. It required payment of a civil penalty of $11,000. In addition, th4 Respondent established procedures to prevent sales of RUPs to uncertified applicators, and notified its customers that RUPs will not be sold to uncertified applicators. The Respondent hired two consulting firms to provide compliance assistance and training.

Asplundh Tree Expert Co. - Region 3

In May, 2001, Region 3 filed a CAFO which simultaneously initiated and resolved an administrative action under FIFRA against the Asplundh Tree Expert Company for distribution and sale of an unregistered pesticide by its Arborchem division in Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania. The CAFO resolved 32 violations of the FIFRA §3 prohibition on distribution and sale of an unregistered diluted mixture of a registered pesticide without complying with the conditions set forth in the "custom blend" policy. In addition, the CAFO resolves a violation of FIFRA §7 which prohibits pesticide production at an unregistered establishment. The CAFO assessed a penalty of $73,920 for the violations.

ECOLAB Inc. - Region 5

In May, 2001, Region 5 entered into a CAFO resolving claims against ECOLAB, Inc. for violations of FIFRA. On September 8, 2000, EPA filed a Stop Sale, Use or Removal Order requiring ECOLAB to immediately cease any distribution, sale, use, or removal for disposal of the pesticide products known as ChloraSorb Stabilized Chlorine, Clean Up Kit with ChloraSorb, and Mess Kit with ChloraSorb, which are not registered with U.S. EPA. ChloroSorb is an absorbent containing 10,000 ppm of stabilized chlorine, used primarily in decontaminating surfaces in contact with infectious body fluids. An Amended Complaint was filed on October 5, 2000, alleging that the violation occurred on at least 141 occasions. Under the terms of the CAFO, ECOLAB agreed to pay $277,953 and to execute two SEPs valued at $74,900. The SEPs required ECOLAB to distribute its existing inventory of ChloroSorb products to two hospitals, write two articles concerning registration requirements for cleaning products, and give a presentation to the legal committee of the Soap and Detergent Association. The total settlement was $352, 853.

JTM Products, Inc. - Region 5

In December, Region 5 entered into a CAFO with JTM Products, Inc., Cleveland, Ohio, for failing to submit an annual production report as required under FIFRA and for sale or distribution of an unregistered pesticide product. A January, 2000 inspection of the JTM Products facility in Cleveland, Ohio uncovered the violations relating to an insecticidal soap manufactured by JTM Products. The CAFO requires payment of a civil penalty of $11,880, submission of the required annual report, and cessation of sale or distribution of the pesticide until a registration or contract manufacturing agreement with a registrant is obtained.

YES Systems - Region 8

Region 8 entered into a CAFO with Yield Enhancement Service (Y.E.S.) Systems of Limon, Colorado with a penalty of $9,690. The CAFO resolved a complaint filed in September, 2000 stemming from an inspection in August, 1999. In that inspection, YES Systems was found to have produced bulk Roundup RT herbicide and bulk Roundup Ultra RT herbicide without registering the establishment in which the herbicides were produced. The inspection also revealed two sales of Tordon, a restricted use pesticide, to an uncertified applicator.

Eaton Veterinary Laboratories - Region 9

Under the terms of an April, 2001, CAFO, Eaton Veterinary Laboratories agreed to pay $115,000, plus interest, to resolve the action. In an administrative complaint filed in September, 2000, EPA alleged that Eaton had violated FIFRA by repackaging and distributing imported unregistered pet flea products under the "Advantage" and "Frontline" name brands to pet stores located in Florida and Virginia in 1999 and 2000.

Note: The photographs on this page relate to the topics and are not specifically related to the described cases

Return to Top