Return to the Roses Forum | Post a Follow-Up

pesticides receipt-of-requests-to-voluntarily-cancel-certain-pest

Posted by henry_kuska z5 OH ( on
Wed, Jun 26, 13 at 17:59

New EPA Notice of receipt of requests to voluntarily cancel certain pesticides.

Here is a link that might be useful: link for above

Follow-Up Postings:

RE: pesticides receipt-of-requests-to-voluntarily-cancel-certain-

Several Imidicloprid compounds there . . .

But, SULFUR? That surprises me.


RE: pesticides receipt-of-requests-to-voluntarily-cancel-certain-


You have to understand what this notice means. ALL pesticides have to follow specific EPA regulations - no exceptions.

This notice means that a particular manufacturer has voluntarily decided they don't want to comply with the specific EPA regulations. By itself, it doesn't mean anything for or against that particular pesticide and/or the active ingredient

Many of those on the list are simply there for economic reasons, The manufacturer is not making enough money on its version of the product and doesn't want to go though the expense of compliance.

It also may be that other manufacturers produce the same product.

For example: You'll notice that Clorox cleaner (active ingredient- sodium hypochlorite) is on the list. I fully expect that you will able to continue to buy laundry bleach (active ingredient- sodium hypochlorite) after January 2014 ;-)

This is a different situation from when the EPA ITSELF issues a notice that they are cancelling the registration on a product and/or an active ingredient.

This post was edited by nickl on Thu, Jun 27, 13 at 9:01

RE: pesticides receipt-of-requests-to-voluntarily-cancel-certain-

nicki stated: "This is a different situation from when the EPA ITSELF issues a notice that they are cancelling the registration on a product and/or an active ingredient."

H.Kuska comment. Please notice the following from a 2006 government document: "EPA officials say the act’s legal standards for demonstrating unreasonable risk are so high that they have generally discouraged EPA from using its authorities to ban or restrict the manufacture or use of existing chemicals. Since Congress enacted TSCA in 1976, EPA has issued regulations to ban or limit the production of only five existing chemicals or groups of chemicals."


nickl, of course your original statement is formally correct that the manufacturer may have decided to cancel on its own. However, it is my impression that the EPA often/always? gives a manufacture with a problem chemical the chance to not reapply (sort of to save face), and as stated above in the testimony quote rarely has utilized the second option.

Thus, the general public cannot say why a product is not reregistered.

Here is a link that might be useful: Actions Are Needed to Improve the Effectiveness of EPA’s Chemical Review Program

 o Post a Follow-Up

Please Note: Only registered members are able to post messages to this forum.

    If you are a member, please log in.

    If you aren't yet a member, join now!

Return to the Roses Forum

Information about Posting

  • You must be logged in to post a message. Once you are logged in, a posting window will appear at the bottom of the messages. If you are not a member, please register for an account.
  • Please review our Rules of Play before posting.
  • Posting is a two-step process. Once you have composed your message, you will be taken to the preview page. You will then have a chance to review your post, make changes and upload photos.
  • After posting your message, you may need to refresh the forum page in order to see it.
  • Before posting copyrighted material, please read about Copyright and Fair Use.
  • We have a strict no-advertising policy!
  • If you would like to practice posting or uploading photos, please visit our Test forum.
  • If you need assistance, please Contact Us and we will be happy to help.

Learn more about in-text links on this page here