DOJ Files Lawsuit Against eBay for Environmental Violations

/in , , , ,

On behalf of EPA, the Department of Justice (DOJ) has filed a lawsuit against the online retailer eBay for selling and distributing “hundreds of thousands of products” that allegedly violate the Clean Air Act (CAA), the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), and the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).

DOJ first alleges that eBay violated the CAA by selling or causing the sale of over 343,000 automotive aftermarket defeat devices.  These devices, which are often advertised as vehicle power enhancers, “can cause motor vehicles to emit hundreds to thousands of times more pollution than a motor vehicle with properly functioning emission controls,” the complaint says.  DOJ alleges that each aftermarket defeat device sold, offered for sale, or caused to sell by eBay constitutes a violation of CAA section 203(a)(3)(B), which forbids selling or offering to sell a motor vehicle part that bypasses an emission-related element of design.

Second, the complaint alleges that eBay committed a series of FIFRA violations by selling or distributing a minimum of 23,000 unregistered, misbranded, or restricted use pesticide products.  DOJ also alleges 8,074 violations of a Stop Sale, Use, or Removal Order (SSURO) issued by EPA in 2020 (and amended in 2021), which identified some of these allegedly unlawful pesticide products.  Among the products sold in alleged violation of the SSURO was an insecticide containing dichlorvos, which DOJ characterizes as highly dangerous, and a “disinfection card” claiming to protect users from COVID-19 when worn around their neck.

Finally, eBay is being sued under TSCA for violating a 2019 rule prohibiting the manufacture, processing, and distribution of products containing methylene chloride for consumer paint and coating removal.  The TSCA section 6(a) rule was the result of EPA’s determination that those uses pose an unreasonable risk of injury to health due to methylene chloride’s acute human lethality.  According to the complaint, eBay has distributed over 5,600 items in violation of the rule.

The lawsuit seeks injunctive relief to prevent eBay from further selling products violating the CAA, FIFRA, and TSCA.  The complaint additionally requests civil penalties for each of the CAA violations, which could amount to $5,580 per violation.

EPA Faces Lawsuit for Classifying Water Filtration System as a Pesticide Product

/in , ,

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas will be tasked with determining whether EPA’s Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) enforcement actions against Berkey, a water filters brand, were arbitrary and capricious in the case Shepherd v. Regan.  The case concerns seven Stop Sale, Use and Removal Orders (SSUROs) issued by EPA against third-party distributors and manufacturers of Berkey water filtration products due to their alleged use of silver as an unregistered antimicrobial pesticide.

The complaint does not deny the presence of silver in Berkey products.  However, the plaintiffs say that they are unaware of any instances where a Berkey-authorized entity claimed that the silver in their products was “used for any purpose other than to protect the filter itself.”  This is significant because articles treated with a FIFRA-registered pesticide for the purpose of protecting the article are exempt from FIFRA under the treated articles exemption at 40 CFR 152.25.

The plaintiffs argue that the orders were the result of an unlawful reinterpretation of a 2007 notice, which clarified EPA’s position that equipment that uses electrodes to emit ions for pesticidal purposes is a “pesticide,” rather than a “device,” under FIFRA.  The complaint alleges that EPA reinterpreted this notice without opportunity for public comment to “now apply to the presence of inert silver in water filters.”

In its response, EPA argues that the plaintiffs—which do not represent Berkey itself—lack standing.  The Agency also characterizes the 2007 notice referenced in the complaint as a “straw man” with no bearing on the case.  EPA does not believe there is any ambiguity regarding the distinction between “pesticides” and “devices,” arguing that EPA has excluded water filters containing pesticidal substances from its interpretation of “devices” since 1975.

EPA focuses on claims made by the SSURO recipients, which allegedly advertised that Berkey filters removed viruses and pathogenic bacteria.  The Agency has long held that such public health claims make a product ineligible for the treated article exemption, EPA says.  Combined with knowledge of the presence of silver in the products, and no pesticide registration, EPA argues that it had “reason to believe” (the requirement for issuance of an SSURO) that the substances were sold in violation of FIFRA.

EPA Sued Over Herbicide Registration Renewal

/in , ,

On June 6, 2023, the Center for Food Safety and two other environmental groups sued EPA over the Agency’s decision to renew registrations for Enlist One and Enlist Duo, two herbicides manufactured by Corteva Agrisciences, LLC.  The case is currently pending before the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia as Center for Food Safety v. EPA.

The lawsuit alleges that EPA failed to properly evaluate the Enlist products’ risks as required by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (“FIFRA”) and the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”) when the Agency renewed the herbicides’ registrations until 2027.  According to the plaintiffs, the herbicides cause numerous adverse environmental effects, including harm to crops growing on neighboring properties and drinking water contamination.  The plaintiffs allege that EPA understated these risks in making its decision, while overstating the herbicides’ effectiveness.  In addition, the plaintiffs argue that EPA’s decision harms the survival, growth, and reproduction of exposed plants and animals, including endangered and threatened species.  The plaintiffs ask the court to vacate EPA’s decision and to stop the sale and use of the Enlist products.

In an EPA memorandum supporting the Agency’s decision, EPA stated that it had “evaluated the benefits and risks to human health and the environment from these products’ uses, including potential risk to non-target organisms, and conducted effects determinations for federally listed endangered and threatened species.”  According to EPA, the results of its evaluations and assessments were sufficient for the Agency to conclude that granting the registration renewal met the requirements of FIFRA and ESA.  These requirements include FIFRA section 3(c)(5), which directs EPA to register a pesticide when the Agency finds that the pesticide will not generally cause unreasonable adverse effects on human health or the environment, among other criteria; ESA section 7(a)(2), which requires EPA to consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service to ensure that actions taken by EPA do not jeopardize endangered and threatened species; and ESA section 7(d), which prevents EPA from taking irreversible action during 7(a)(2) consultation that eliminates the implementation of reasonable alternatives.

Enlist Duo has previously been the subject of litigation.  In National Family Farm Coalition, et al., v. U.S. EPA, et al., 966 F.3d 893 (9th Cir., 2020), petitioners challenged EPA’s decisions to register the herbicide in 2014, 2015, and 2017 on FIFRA and ESA grounds.  The panel rejected the petitioners’ ESA claims and the majority of the petitioners’ FIFRA claims, allowing Enlist Duo registration, but agreed with the petitioners that EPA did not properly assess harm to monarch butterflies due to the herbicide’s effects on milkweed.  The panel remanded the registration decision to EPA so the Agency could assess this concern and determine whether it presented an unreasonable adverse effect under FIFRA.

According to EPA, Enlist One and Enlist Duo are registered for use in 34 states for a variety of uses on corn, cotton, and soybeans.  Both herbicides contain the active ingredient 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid choline salt.  Enlist Duo also contains the active ingredient glyphosate.

Oral Arguments in Monsanto “Roundup” Case

/in ,

On June 13, 2023, the full Eleventh Circuit heard oral arguments in the case Carson v. Monsanto Co.  The case hinges on whether a Georgia law that requires Monsanto to warn consumers about risks the company knows about or has reason to know about is preempted by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).

The appellant, John D. Carson Sr., alleges that he developed cancer due to regular use of Roundup, a glyphosate-based pesticide manufactured by Monsanto. Carson claims that Monsanto “has known for decades” that Roundup use can cause cancer and failed to label their products in a way that notified consumers of this risk as required by Georgia law.

FIFRA requires pesticide manufacturers to include warning labels on products that adequately protect consumer health, but EPA has concluded that glyphosate is “not likely to be carcinogenic” to humans.  FIFRA prohibits state labelling laws that are “in addition to or different from” FIFRA requirements (7 U.S.C. § 136v(b)). Monsanto argues that this language expressly preempts the Georgia law, while Carson contends that the Georgia law merely “parallels” FIFRA’s provisions. Carson cites Bates v. Dow AgroSciences LLC, interpreting the ruling to mean that claims “equivalent to” or narrower than FIFRA provisions are not preempted (544 U.S. 431, 447 (2005)).

Also at issue in the case is the question of whether EPA’s actions with regard to Roundup constitute “force of law.” Carson asserts that EPA’s registration of Roundup does not have the force of law necessary to preempt Georgia law.  Monsanto argues that no force-of-law analysis is required because “EPA determinations define the scope of preemption as a matter of statutory construction,” but also argues that EPA’s actions constitute force of law even if such an analysis is undertaken.

During oral arguments the court posed questions to Carson’s attorney regarding whether a force-of-law analysis is necessary and questioned the attorney representing Monsanto on whether the grounds for an impossibility preemption were met. In addition, both attorneys were asked whether the appeal was “collusive” due to the type of settlement the parties reached in the case.

Carson’s suit was initially dismissed by a Georgia court, which held that FIFRA expressly preempted the Georgia law. In July 2022, it was reinstated by a three-judge Eleventh Circuit panel which ruled in favor of Carson. The panel reached the same result in a new opinion in October 2022. Last December, the full Eleventh Circuit vacated the opinion, ordering that the case be heard en banc.

EPA Exempts Categories of Genetically Engineered Plant-Incorporated Protectants from Regulatory Requirements

/in , , ,

On May 31, 2023, EPA published a final rule exempting two categories of plant-incorporated protectants (PIPs) created using genetic engineering from certain Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) registration requirements and from food or feed residue tolerance requirements under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).  In addition to reducing regulatory burden, EPA stated in a press release that the final rule may result in increased research and development in this sector and provide more pest control options for farmers, ultimately reducing the use of conventional pesticides.

PIPs are defined (in part) at 40 CFR 174.3 as “pesticidal substance[s] that [are] intended to be produced and used in a living plant, or in the produce thereof, and the genetic material necessary for production of such a pesticidal substance.”  In 2001, EPA exempted PIPs derived through conventional plant breeding from FIFRA registration and FFDCA food tolerance requirements, but did not exempt PIPs created using biotechnology.  Because of recent scientific advances, however, EPA writes that PIPs “can now be created through genetic engineering that are virtually indistinguishable from those created through conventional breeding.”  The final rule adds exemptions for the following two categories of genetically engineered PIPs, which EPA states pose no greater risk than PIPs created through conventional breeding:

  1. PIPs in which genetic engineering has been used to insert a gene from a sexually compatible plant or to modify a gene to match a gene found in a sexually compatible plant. This category of PIPs requires EPA confirmation of eligibility for the exemption.
  2. Loss-of-function PIPs, in which a gene is modified through genetic engineering to reduce or eliminate the activity of that gene. The loss of the activity of that gene then results in the pesticidal effect.  For this category of PIP, biotechnology developers can either make a self-determination that their PIP meets the exemption criteria, which requires notification but no EPA review, or request EPA confirmation of eligibility for the exemption.

Exempted PIPs are still subject to the adverse effects reporting requirements at 40 CFR 174.71 and recordkeeping requirements.

In the preamble to the final rule, EPA established that the Agency is open to considering additional PIP category exemptions and expanding the categories of PIPs that are allowed to self-determine without EPA confirmation of their eligibility exemption.

EPA Revokes Interim Approval of Glyphosate

/in , ,

EPA recently withdrew its 2020 Interim Approval of glyphosate, often referred to by its trade name Roundup. Interim approvals are part of a conditional registration process used by the Agency to allow new active ingredients to enter the market for an unspecified period of time while the registrant generates missing data required by the Agency for the formal registration process.  Although the Interim Approval was revoked, EPA maintains that the chemical is not carcinogenic, and the product will remain on the market as the Agency completes its periodic review as required by law. In its registration review of glyphosate, the Agency will attempt to elaborate on its evaluation of the carcinogenic potential of glyphosate. EPA will also consider whether a better explanation is needed for its findings on other aspects of the human health analysis. EPA expects to complete the review of glyphosate in 2026.

The 2020 Interim Approval was challenged in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Petitioners made two main allegations, first that EPA’s analysis of human health, particularly related to cancer analysis, was faulty. Second, the Agency violated the Endangered Species Act (ESA) which requires the weighing of such risks against the benefits of glyphosate and the interim risk mitigation measures.

In June 2022, the Court vacated the human health portion of the glyphosate interim review decision and held that EPA’s registration review decision under FIFRA triggered ESA obligations. It also granted EPA’s request for voluntary remand, without vacatur, of the ecological portion of the interim registration review decision but imposed a deadline for EPA to issue a new ecological potion.

While the EPA has made this withdrawal decision, it is unable to finalize the new ecological portion in a registration review decision as mandated by the Court decision. The Agency states the delay is necessary to appropriately address the issues EPA sought to remedy in the ecological potion and satisfy the ESA requirements. EPA is currently working on a consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Services. Any proposed decisions will require a 60-day comment period and an assessment of comments received. You can read EPA’s full release on its withdrawal decision here.

EPA Allegedly Refuses to Address Toxic Pesticide Ingredients

/in ,

The Center for Food Safety and other non-profit organizations dedicated to environmental advocacy brought suit against the EPA, claiming that the Agency fails to assess the full environmental and health impacts of pesticides in its approval process. Current EPA regulations require pesticide producers to submit toxicity data on active ingredients as part of the registration process.  However, such data is not required for inert ingredients. Active ingredients are those designed to harm the targeted pests, while inert ingredients, which can also be toxic, are used for other purposes, such as acting as a solvent to help the active ingredient penetrate a plant’s leaf surface, preventing foaming or caking, and extending a product’s shelf life. EPA is required to determine the safety of all active and inert pesticide ingredients. Petitioners argue this isn’t achievable without toxicity data for inert ingredients. This is not the Center for Food Safety’s first plea to the Agency to address this issue; in 2017, it filed a petition with EPA requesting a rulemaking change for pesticide regulations, but the Agency never responded.

EPA Advances Early Pesticides Protections for Endangered Species

/in ,

On November 16, 2022, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released an update to its Endangered Species Act (ESA) Workplan that outlines steps to increase protections for wildlife while also providing regulatory certainty for pesticide users. The update, which follows the EPA’s April 2022 ESA Workplan, aims to address the complexity of meeting the Agency’s obligations under the ESA under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). When registering or reevaluating a pesticide, EPA has an obligation under FIFRA to determine whether the pesticide presents unreasonable adverse effects on human health or the environment.   EPA is also obligated under the ESA to ensure pesticide registrations do not imperil the continued existence of ESA-listed species or adversely impact their respective critical habitats.

To better fulfill the Agency’s obligations under the ESA, the Workplan update stresses the need for pesticide registration review and other FIFRA actions to provide protections for nontarget species, including endangered and threatened species, earlier in the review process. As well as resulting in better ESA compliance, these changes could provide farmers with more predictable access to pesticides.

  1. Describes EPA’s overall approach to mitigating ecological risks in registration review, which includes prioritization of registration review cases based on opportunities to reduce a pesticide’s risk to human health or the environment.
  2. Proposes a menu of FIFRA Interim Ecological Mitigation measures that EPA will draw from for future conventional and biological pesticide registration and registration review actions to protect non-target species
  3. Proposes label language to expand the use of online endangered species protection bulletins to implement geographically specific mitigation measures for individual listed species. These measures are designed to focus protections only in specific needed areas, thus minimizing impacts to agriculture..
  4. Describes current and future programmatic initiatives with other federal agencies to prioritize mitigation for listed species that are particularly vulnerable to pesticides and to improve the efficiency and timeliness of the ESA-FIFRA process.

The FIFRA Interim Ecological Mitigation measures will focus on reducing pesticide spray drift and runoff. and will be applied on a case-by-case basis, depending on the level of risk that a particular pesticide presents to species and the exposure route. This approach is intended to more efficiently protect nontarget species, including listed species, and to standardize protections across similar pesticides, rather than addressing risks on a pesticide or species-specific basis as the EPA has done in the past.

Additionally, the Agency plans to work with registrants of pesticides to add language to pesticide labels that direct users to reference Bulletins Live! Two, a website containing endangered species protection bulletins. These bulletins contain use limitations to protect threatened and endangered species and their designated critical habitat in specific geographic areas. The EPA expects that adding the reference to Bulletins Live! Two, to pesticide labels in advance of consultation with the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service, will save time and resources by reducing the number of amendments to labels. It further plans to add language on pesticide incident reporting and advisory language to protect insect pollinators to protect listed and other non-target species better.

Verdant Law’s Irene Hantman Gives Presentation to Chemical Society of Washington on Chemical Commercialization

/in , ,

Verdant Law is pleased to announce that Irene Hantman gave a presentation, Chemical Commercialization: What to Know about EPA Regulations, before the Chemical Society of Washington. The presentation provided a comprehensive overview of chemical commercialization under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). The overview of TSCA detailed the definitions of chemical substances and substances in commerce, background on the TSCA Inventory and the premanufacture notification (PMN) process, and the EPA platforms for reporting and submitting data related to PMNs and active Inventory substances. The overview of FIFRA outlined the definition of pesticides under the law, the pesticide registration process, data requirements, review timelines and fees, and potential tolerance limitations EPA may set on chemicals with food uses. For questions about this presentation, contact Irene Hantman.

EPA Takes Enforcement Action Against Companies for Misbranded Pesticide

/in , ,

On September 21, 2022, EPA announced settlements with two New Jersey companies for the sale and distribution of the pesticide Zoono Microbe Shield. The companies made false and misleading claims stating that the registered pesticide was suitable for use as a disinfectant or sanitizer against the virus which causes COVID-19. The companies’ claims were a violation of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (“FIFRA”) which prohibits false and misleading claims of registered pesticide products.

The two companies, Zoono USA and Zoono Holdings, advertised and sold the Zoono Micro Shield product on their own company websites as well as on Amazon. The product’s labeling contained public health claims that EPA stated differ substantially from statements submitted to the Agency in connection with its pesticide registration; in other words, the companies were committing misbranding under FIFRA, The product’s registration allows only for labeling claims related to effectiveness against odor-causing bacteria, bacteria that cause staining and discoloration, fungi, and algae. The product is not registered for use as a disinfectant or sanitizer, nor is it registered for any public health purpose. Therefore, it was a violation of the statute to make such claims. The settlements included civil penalties in the amounts of $205,000 and $120,000.