The willingness of the Environmental Protection Agency under the Obama Administration to depart from retrogressive, self-defeating and, in some cases, absolutely dangerous policies may be one of the more encouraging aspects of the ways in which elections really do matter and can make a difference to people. In a recent initiative, the EPA indicated that it will propose a new rule to require disclosure of the many dangerous so-called "inert" ingredients used by pesticide manufacturers. This would reverse non-action by the Bush Administration in 2001, when it rejected a proposal from environmental groups and states' attorney generals asking it to take this important step.
More discussion below.
Taking the first step to reverse a decision dating to the first year of the Bush II Administration, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced on December 22, in an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, that it plans to require pesticide manufacturers to disclose to the public significantly more information about the "inert" ingredients in their products. Under current law, pesticide companies disclose all ingredients to the EPA, but do not disclose information about "inert" ingredients to the public. The new rule would make some or all of this information public.
An "inert" ingredient is not what it sounds like; specifically, it is not an ingredient that just lies there and does nothing. Rather, it is an EPA term of art that means anything added to a pesticide that is not the actual "active" ingredient that kills or controls a pest; in general, an inert ingredient is the medium in which the pest-controlling ingredients are delivered to the site infested with the pests, or performs functions like preventing caking or foaming, extending product shelf-life, or allowing herbicides to penetrate plants. Inert ingredients are often by volume the largest contributors to pesticide formulations. For example, the label of a can of Raid Ant and Roach Spray informs us that its "active ingredients" are Imiprothrin, 0.10%, and Cypermethrin, 0.10%, but the unidentified "Inert Ingredients" in Raid constitute fully 99.8% of the contents of the can.
Scientific studies have shown that, in some cases, "inert" ingredients are themselves quite toxic and thus harmful to humans, but companies do not identify them on pesticide labels, because they are not required to do so by the EPA. A recent study found that one, called polyethoxylated tallowamine, or POEA, used in the popular herbicide Roundup, is even more deadly to human embryonic, placental and umbilical cord cells than the herbicide itself.
Now, the Obama administration has issued public notice that it will draft a rule that will increase the transparency of pesticide companies with respect to "inert" ingredients and encourage companies to replace toxic substances.
What are some of the dangerous "inerts" used by pesticide manufacturers? Formaldehyde, sulfuric acid, toluene, benzene and styrene are among the ingredients that are allowed in pesticides but are not identified on labels. Some are known carcinogens, while some may cause reproductive or respiratory problems if people are exposed. Other inerts seem benign, such as coffee grounds, sunflower oil and licorice extract. In all, as set forth on the official EPA listing, nearly 4,000 "inerts" -- including hundreds of ingredients that are considered hazardous under other federal rules -- are used in agricultural and residential pesticides.
The EPA’s announcement that it will initiate the rulemaking comes 11 years after it had first been petitioned by various environmental groups and state officials seeking public disclosure of the ingredients. After the Clinton Administration proposed new regulations, in 2001, the agency denied those petitions, and its decision was upheld by a federal judge in 2004. The environmental groups and states' attorney generals went back to the drawing boards, and came up with a new proposal, that EPA designate 374 specific inert pesticide ingredients (each of which is already considered dangerous under the federal Clean Air Act) as hazardous; the petitioners asked EPA to require that these ingredients be identified on the labels of products that include them in their formulations.
Now, under the new administration, the EPA has indicated that it may end up proposing an even broader rule, indicating that it seeks a new regulation that will “increase transparency” and help protect public health. “EPA believes disclosure of inert ingredients on product labels is important to consumers who want to be aware of all potentially toxic chemicals, both active and inert ingredients, in pesticide products,” according to the agency’s announcement. EPA indicated that the chemical-by-chemical approach proposed by the petitioners was not practical and “would potentially result in numerous challenges regarding individual products.”
One goal of the planned rule is to persuade pesticide companies that it would be better to replace toxic chemicals if they must identify all ingredients on their labels. “By embarking on such rulemaking, EPA intends to effect a sea change in how inert ingredient information is made available to the public,” Debra Edwards, the EPA’s director of pesticide programs, said in a September letter to the Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides, California Attorney General Edmund G. Brown, Jr. and other petitioners. There is precedent to support this belief: in 1987, manufacturers were required to list on their labels about 50 ingredients known to be dangerous, including asbestos and cadmium. Nearly all of those substances have since disappeared from pesticides.
Predictably, manufacturers of pesticides purportedly worry about revealing their "trade secrets." In addition, the industry is expected to argue that the "inert" ingredients are disclosed to EPA, which necessarily has found that their use in pesticides is safe for pesticide users and the public.
There is a long way to go from the EPA's Advance Notice of Rulemaking to the finished product, an actual and effective rule, but the proposal and the rationale offered in support of it raise hope that the EPA is at last ready to address in a meaningful way the significant public danger posed by undisclosed toxic substances in the pesticides in common use in this country.