Jump to main content.


Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA): Agriculture-Related Enforcement Cases 2005

The following are agriculture-related enforcement cases pertaining to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, Rodenticide Act. This information is provided for reference. Over time, links to news items may become unavailable. In these cases the item will remain listed, but no link will be provided. Also, please be aware that the information in any particular article may be outdated or superseded by additional information.

EPA Enforcement Cases 2008 through present

EPA Enforcement Cases 2007

EPA Enforcement Cases 2006

EPA Enforcement Cases 2005

EPA Enforcement Cases 2004

EPA Enforcement Cases 2003

EPA Enforcement Cases 2002

EPA Enforcement Cases 2001

EPA Enforcement Cases 1999 and 2000


December 22, 2005

EPA Fines BASF Corporation for Importing an Improperly Labeled Pesticide
BASF Corporation (BASF) has agreed to pay $5,200 for importing nearly 20,000 lbs of an improperly labeled wood preservative in violation of the Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). BASF is a large international chemical company. "It is important that shipments have the required labels because they have information about the product's environmental and human toxicity, what to do in case of an accidental exposure and how to safely and effectively use and handle the pesticide," said Scott Downey, EPA's Pesticide and Toxics Unit Manager in Seattle. FIFRA requires importers of pesticides to first submit a Notice of Arrival (NOA) to EPA. EPA then reviews the NOA to ensure that the pesticide is properly registered and can be imported to the U.S. In June 2005, BASF Canada Inc., (BASF's Canadian counterpart), submitted a Notice of Arrival (NOA), declaring that they planned to import nearly 20,000 lbs of Mycostat P into Portland, Oregon. Due to a discrepancy on the NOA, EPA requested that the Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA) conduct an import inspection of the shipment. The ODA inspection found that the products did not bear the required label for Mycostat P. Following the ODA inspection, EPA issued a Stop Sale Use or Removal Order (SSURO) to BASF which outlined specific conditions BASF had to follow to legally sell and distribute the product. BASF is cooperating with EPA and has agreed to pay the penalty and has met the specific conditions of the SSURO.

Top of Page


December 15, 2005

Norwood, Mass. Manufacturer Agrees to Pay $8,250 for Pesticide Violations
A Norwood, Mass. manufacturer has agreed to pay an $8,250 penalty to settle EPA claims that it sold improperly labeled pesticides in violation of federal law. In the recent settlement, Analab, Inc. of Norwood, which produces and sells disinfectants primarily for hospital use, did not admit wrong-doing. In a complaint filed in September, EPA’s New England office alleged that Analab offered for sale and distribution two products - Penta Pine Disinfectant and Citron Lemon-Scented Detergent Disinfectant - with container labels that misrepresented their effectiveness. In particular, EPA claimed that each disinfectant was sold at least once with EPA-approved labels indicating they were effective against bacteria known as pseudomonas aeruginosa. This microorganism is often found in hospitals and can cause infections acquired in medical settings. The penalty stems from an inspection done in April 2003 by EPA inspectors who collected three samples of Penta Pine Disinfectant and one sample of Citron Lemon-Scented Detergent Disinfectant from a wholesaler/distributor of Analab disinfectants. EPA's inspection was part of an ongoing agency effort to ensure the efficacy of antibacterial and antimicrobial products. One sample of Penta Pine and the one sample of Citron Lemon were found by EPA to be ineffective against the bacteria at the concentrations on the product label. These products are regulated as pesticides under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) because they claim to prevent or destroy pests, which include bacteria, viruses, and other infectious pathogens. Under EPA's regulatory oversight of pesticides, products are carefully evaluated to ensure that when they are used according to labeled directions, people's health and the environment will not be harmed. EPA's work also seeks to ensure that antibacterial products work effectively. Analab recalled the products as soon as they were notified by EPA that they were ineffective when used as directed.

Top of Page


November 8, 2005

EPA Settles with Dow Corning/Aegis Environmental Management on Pesticide Export Violations
EPA Region 5 has settled with Dow Corning Corp. and Aegis Environmental Management Inc., Midland, Mich., on alleged violations of federal rules on the sale and export of pesticides. A $268,288 penalty has been assessed against the companies as part of the settlement. According to the EPA order, Dow Corning (the distributor) and Aegis (the registrant) sold and exported the pesticides AEM 5700 Antimicrobial Agent, AEM 5772 Antimicrobial Agent, Dow Corning 5700 Antimicrobial Agent and Dow Corning 5772 Antimicrobial Agent without proper labeling. An EPA inspector collected labels and shipping records from samples of pesticides packaged, labeled and released for shipment from a Dow Corning facility at 3901 S. Saginaw Road in Midland to Korea, Thailand, Columbia, Peru, Taiwan, Belgium and Japan. The labels were written entirely in English and lacked translation, as required, of certain key pesticide information into the predominant language of the countries receiving the products. Dow Corning has since revised its labeling of international pesticide shipments. EPA registers all pesticides and pesticide products under FIFRA.

Top of Page


October 24, 2005

Two Pesticide Manufacturers Fined for Violating Federal Regulations
EPA issued Consent Agreement and Final Orders (CAFO) to two companies for violating the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). The McGregor Company of Colfax, Washington was cited for failing to report a pesticide in an annual production report. Libertas Now, Inc. of Washington, D.C. was cited for failure to properly label a pesticide imported into Washington State. According to EPA officials the McGregor Company produces pesticides in twenty-eight locations across Idaho, Oregon and Washington State. In June 2004, the Washington Department of Agriculture inspected McGregor’s Waitsburg, Washington facility. The inspectors found that the facility was producing a pesticide called Harmony Extra XP. McGregor’s 2004 annual pesticide production report failed to include Harmony Extra XP as required under the federal pesticide law. McGregor has agreed to pay a penalty of $2,624 to settle this matter.Libertas Now, Inc. is a new pesticide registrant and recently registered a pesticide called Knockout Extra. In May 2005, the company received their first shipment of nearly 80,000 Lbs of Knockout Extra from China. At a routine import inspection EPA discovered that the individual product containers did not have end-use labels, as required by federal regulation. EPA issued a Stop Sale Order on May 25, which prohibited the sale and distribution of the product until properly labeled. In settling the case Libertas has also agreed to pay a penalty of $3,120.” Following the proper labeling and reporting requirements allows us to maintain a safe pesticide industry in the United States,” said Scott Downey, EPA’s Northwest Regional Pesticide Program Manager. “McGregor and Libertas made a mistake, owned up to it and are ready to continue to safely distribute their products.”

Top of Page


October 11, 2005

Delaware Company Settles Violations of Federal Pesticide Law
The owner of Air Med of Delmarva, a Dover, Del. indoor air cleaning business, has agreed to pay a $5,460 penalty to settle alleged violations of federal pesticide regulations. EPA cited Air Med’s owner for violating the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), a federal law requiring the registration of pesticide products and pesticide-production facilities, and the proper labeling of pesticides. FIFRA’s requirements protect public health and the environment by ensuring the safe production, handling and application of pesticides; and by preventing false, misleading, or unverifiable product claims. FIFRA also prohibits the marketing of misbranded, improperly labeled, or adulterated pesticides. EPA alleged that Air Med violated FIFRA by repackaging and selling Bio-Chem Environmental Technologies’ unregistered pesticide products “Bio-Stop+” and “Bio-Stop+II,” as an Air-Med “Bio-Stop +” pesticide product. The alleged violations were discovered in an October 2004 inspection of Air Med’s facility by the Delaware Department of Agriculture. The settlement reflects Air Med’s cooperation with EPA, and prompt actions to comply with FIFRA. As part of the settlement, Air Med neither admitted nor denied liability for the alleged violations.

Top of Page



September 22, 2005

EPA Settles With Two Southern California Pesticide Companies
EPA has settled with two Southern California pesticide companies for failing to submit their 2004 pesticide reports on time, a violation of the federal pesticide law. "The EPA uses pesticide reports to track pesticide production, their safe management and distribution; companies must report their pesticide production accurately and on time," said Enrique Manzanilla, the EPA's Communities and Ecosystems Division director for the Pacific Southwest region. "Because of the potential for pesticides to impact public health, this agency will see that pesticide laws are actively enforced."The two firms are: Pure O3 Tech, Inc. of Escondido, Calif., which settled for $3,120. This company received a warning letter for failing to report pesticide production in 2004; California Pool and Chemical Service of Artesia, Calif., which settled for $5,200. This company received a warning letter for failing to report its 2004 pesticide production on time. Under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, companies must annually report pesticide production to the EPA; production records provide information on the quantity of pesticides produced and where they are produced.

Top of Page


August 24, 2005

Judge Finds Pesticide Distributor Guilty of Illegal Pesticide Sales and Orders Payment of $14,850
On July 15, 2005, an administrative law judge for EPA found a pesticide distributor in Woodland, Washington, guilty of five violations of the federal pesticide law and ordered him to pay a civil penalty of $14,850. Specifically, Judge William B. Moran's decision affirmed the allegations found in EPA's March 18, 2004 civil complaint that the pesticide distributor sold and distributed two unregistered and incorrectly labeled bee miticide products named "Mite Solution Concentrate" and "Herbal Bee Calmer Gel." The Judge also found that these two products were produced in a facility not registered with EPA. "EPA understands that mites pose a significant problem for bee keepers, but [the pesticide distributor] is marketing bee miticides that have not passed safety tests required by law," said Scott Downey, Manager of EPA's Pesticides and Toxics Unit in Seattle. "[The pesticide distributor] needs to comply with the law, especially when his competitors are doing so." The pesticide distributor was also fined $3,780 for selling one of these products in 1997.

Top of Page


August 23, 2005

EPA Fines Honolulu Company $2,376 for Importing Unregistered Mothball
EPA fined Flash International Trading Inc., $2,376 for allegedly importing unregistered mothballs, a violation of federal pesticide regulations. The mothballs allegedly imported by the company, Daiso Naphthalene, were not registered with EPA and did not have approved labels, including directions for use in English. "Importing unregistered pesticides is a serious violation, as the registration process ensures we know what the pesticide contains and whether it is properly packaged and labeled," said Enrique Manzanilla, division director for EPA Pacific Southwest Region's Communities and Ecosystems Division. "These illegally imported products lack appropriate packaging, warning statements and directions for use." The illegally imported mothballs were discovered during an inspection conducted by the Hawaii Department of Agriculture in Dec. 2003. EPA's pesticide regulations require registration and approved labels on all pesticide products before they are sold in the U.S.

Top of Page


August 23, 2005

EPA Fines Porterville, CA Company $4,400 for Pesticide Packaging Violations
EPA fined Gillespie Ag Service of Porterville, Calif. $4,400 for violations of federal pesticide regulations. EPA cited Gillespie for not reporting its repackaging of "Roundup Ultra Max" and "Roundup Original" at its facility on 15301 Road 192 in Porterville. EPA requires pesticide producers to report repackaging activities as part of their annual production report. "Companies need to remember that repackaging a herbicide like Roundup is a regulated activity," said Enrique Manzanilla, director of EPA's Communities and Ecosystems Division. "Pesticide producing establishments must make sure that what they report to EPA is accurate, and all products are included, including repackaged products." Federal law requires that before selling or distributing a pesticide in the United States, companies must register the pesticide with EPA. Pesticides that have been registered with the Agency will have an EPA registration number on the label. Each producer, seller, and distributor has certain obligations to ensure that the pesticide being produced, distributed, or sold is properly registered and labeled.

Top of Page


August 22, 2005

California Chemical Company Agrees To Pay $51,480 To Resolve Pesticide Violations
EPA fined the Hughson Chemical Co. $51,480 for allegedly distributing and selling misbranded pesticides in violation of federal pesticides regulations. EPA cited Hughson Chemical, of Hughson, Calif., for selling and distributing pesticide products known as Gramoxone Max, Gramoxone Extra, First Choice Gavicide Super 90, and Roundup Ultra Max with pesticide labeling that did not include registration number identifying the facility where each pesticide was produced. In addition, Hughson was cited for making pesticides in a facility that is not registered with EPA. "EPA registration for the manufacturing facility, as well as proper labeling of the facility's pesticides, enables federal and state agencies to better track and regulate these products for consumer protection," said Enrique Manzanilla, director of EPA's Communities and Ecosystems Division in the Pacific Southwest Region.

The enforcement case was based on information obtained during inspections of Hughson by the California Department of Pesticide Regulation on in 2003. Under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, each pesticide manufacturer must register its facility with EPA and annually report its pesticide production. Production records provide information on the quantities of pesticides produced and distributed. In addition, the number assigned to the establishment must appear on the label. These reports and labeling requirements allow the tracking of pesticide products back to the companies that produce them and are necessary to ensure safe management and distribution of these pesticides.

Top of Page


August 18, 2005

EPA Settles With Ohio Corporation on Pesticide Export Violations
EPA Region 5 has settled an administrative complaint against State Industrial Products Corp., Cleveland, Ohio, for failure to comply with federal pesticide export requirements. A $56,360 penalty was paid. In the notice of violation, State Industrial Products was cited for exporting No Mix Terg-O-Cide, Apple Orchard Neutral Disinfectant Cleaner, Morning Fresh Orchard Neutral Disinfectant Cleaner and Spectr-O-Cide without proper labels and registrations. The products were exported to Canada. In order to export pesticides registered in the U.S., the exporter must, among other things, include the approved label from the pesticide registration in the shipment and translate certain portions of the label into the predominant language of the destination country. For pesticides not registered in the United States, the exporter must obtain a written acknowledgement that the purchaser understands the product is not registered and cannot be sold in the United States. State Industrial Products failed to comply with these requirements. The violations were discovered during inspections in October 2004. EPA registers all pesticides and pesticide products under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act. Except for certain limited exemptions, no pesticide may be legally sold, distributed or exported from the United States unless its label has an EPA
registration number.

Top of Page


July 27, 2005

Louisiana Man Convicted of Witness Tampering in Endangered Species Case
On July 14, Alfred Craft, of West Monroe, La., was found guilty by a jury on two felony counts of witness tampering in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas in Little Rock. Previously, on March 8, 2005, Craft pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor violation of the Federal Bald Eagle Act and two misdemeanor charges of violating the Migratory Bird Act, admitting that he intentionally lured and killed animals by baiting deer carcasses and sardine cans with Temik, a highly toxic poison that he was not licensed to possess. Also, on April 14, 2005, he went to trial on three counts of witness tampering and one count of violating the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) by illegally using a restricted use pesticide. The first trial ended with a FIFRA conviction and a hung jury on the witness tampering charges. The testimony at trial claimed that Craft admitted to a witness he had been baiting foxes, bobcats, and coyotes on his land with poison-laced sardines, and in the process killed a bald eagle and two other migratory birds. In the witness tampering counts presented at the retrial, the evidence showed Craft threatened two witnesses and urged them to keep quiet about the investigation to federal authorities and instructed them on "how to testify." Killing endangered species harms the environment by reducing biodiversity and tampering with witnesses prevents the proper administration of justice.

Top of Page



July 11, 2005

EPA Fines Sparks Company for Selling Misbranded Pesticides
EPA fined Sierra Chemical Co. of Sparks, Nev. $28,800 for the alleged sale and distribution of a misbranded pesticide in violation of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act. Sierra Chemical allegedly sold and distributed a product known as Sani-Chlor, a sanitizer, without proper labeling. The product label had incorrect directions, making it difficult for the consumer to understand the proper use of the product. "Improper labeling can result in harm to the consumer or environment," said Enrique Manzanilla, director of EPA 's Communities and Ecosystems Division for the Pacific Southwest Region. "To ensure the safe use of pesticides registrants are required to provide accurate product information and instructions, which are linked to EPA Registration Number." Before selling or distributing any pesticide in the U.S., companies are required to register the pesticide with EPA. Registered pesticides are labeled with a registration number used for product tracking purposes. Also required on the label is information concerning the producer and name, brand or trademark under which the pesticide is sold, as well as directions for use and other information to provide consumers with the information they need to use the products safely.

Top of Page


July 11, 2005

EPA Settles with Three Southern California Pesticide Companies Over Pesticide Reporting Requirements
EPA settled with three Southern California pesticide companies for failing to submit their 2004 pesticide reports on time, a violation of the federal pesticide law. "EPA uses pesticide reports to track pesticide production, their safe management and distribution; companies must report their pesticide production accurately and on time," said Enrique Manzanilla, EPA's Communities and Ecosystems Division director for the Pacific Southwest region. "Because of the potential for pesticides to impact public health, this agency will see that pesticide laws are actively enforced." The three firms are:

Under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, companies must annually report pesticide production to EPA; production records provide information on the quantity of pesticides produced and where they are produced.

Top of Page


June 28, 2005

EPA Settles Case Against Three Companies for Misbranded Pesticides
EPA fined two Fresno, Calif. companies and one German company $17,248 for the alleged sale and distribution of a misbranded pesticide in violation of federal pesticide regulations. EPA cited the two Fresno firms, Creative Marketing & Research, Lawn and Garden Products, Inc., as well as the German owner and registrant of the pesticide product, W. Neudorff GMBH KG, for selling and distributing a pesticide product known as QUIK-RTU, a lawn herbicide, without all required information on its label. "Federal law requires that pesticide labels carry all proper use and warning instructions," said Enrique Manzanilla, director of EPA's Communities and Ecosystems Division. "Consumers need the proper use information to ensure they are applying pesticide products safely and correctly."

The three companies failed to provide the application rate for QUIK-RTU on the pesticide's label, thus failing to provide all directions necessary to protect health and the environment. As part of the settlement, the three companies have agreed to add the missing information to the labels for all future sales and distribution of the pesticide. The case was based on information obtained during an inspection at a North Las Vegas, Nev. pesticide retailer by the Nevada Department of Agriculture in March 2004 and a follow-up inspection at Creative Marketing & Research by the California Department of Pesticide Regulation. Before selling or distributing any pesticide in the U.S., companies must register the pesticide with EPA. Each producer, seller, and distributor is required to ensure that the registered pesticide is labeled with an EPA registration number and information concerning the producer and brand name, as well as directions for use and other information necessary to protect consumers and the environment.

Top of Page


June 16, 2005

EPA Proposes $116,150 Penalty Against Big Lots for Selling Mislabeled and Unregistered Pesticide Products
EPA Region 5 has filed an administrative complaint against Big Lots Inc., Columbus, Ohio, for distributing and selling unregistered pesticide products. A $116,150 penalty is proposed. An Illinois Department of Public Health inspector found two unregistered pesticide products, Insect Coil Burner and 8 Mosquito Repellant Coils, at a Big Lots store in Glendale Heights, Ill. The inspector placed a Stop Sale/Use Order on the products. Subsequently, EPA issued a Stop Sale Order on June 22, 2004, to all Big Lots stores nationwide for the two products. According to Margaret Guerriero, director of Region 5’s Waste, Pesticides and Toxics Division, “Consumers should make sure that any product with pesticidal claims is registered with EPA. Only then can they be certain that the product will not cause adverse effects on the environment or people.”

In addition, Big Lots sold the chlorpyrifos-containing pesticide Ortho Borer and Leaf Miner Spray even though its registration had been canceled in June 2002. Because of concerns for children's health, EPA phased out residential chlorpyrifos (also known as Dursban) products. Finally, Big Lots sold Lysol Brand II Disinfectant, a product that did not have a required complete English language pesticide label containing directions for use. EPA registers all pesticides and pesticide products under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act. Except for some limited exemptions, no pesticide can be legally sold, distributed or exported from the United States unless it has a complete label with an EPA registration number.

Top of Page


June 14, 2005

EPA Settles Case Against Southern California Company for Pesticide Violations
EPA fined a South Gate, Calif. chemical company $28,512 for the alleged sale and distribution of mislabeled pesticides in violation of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. EPA cited the Los Angeles Chemical Company for sale and distribution of a pesticide known as “Acid Anionic Sanitizer and Cleaner” with a label failing to include directions for use necessary to adequately protect health and the environment, and a pesticide known as “LA Chemclor” with a label lacking the Establishment Registration Number. In addition, the company was cited for the alteration and defacement of a label accompanying the pesticide known as “Leslie’s Swimming Pool Supplies Liquid Chlorinizer.” “Federal law requires that pesticide labels carry all proper use and warning instructions,” said Enrique Manzanilla, director of EPA’s Communities and Ecosystems Division in the Pacific Southwest Region. “Consumers need the proper information to ensure that they are applying pesticide products safely and correctly. We would much rather identify problems before they occur rather than fine companies after the damage has been done.”

EPA encourages companies to call (415) 947-4204 if they have questions on pesticide registration or labeling. State inspectors from California and Nevada discovered the violations during a series of inspections from 2000 through 2003. Before selling or distributing any pesticide in the U.S., companies must register the pesticide with EPA. Each producer, seller, and distributor is required to ensure that the registered pesticide is labeled with (1) an EPA Registration Number specific to that product; (2) an EPA Establishment Number that identifies the facility at which the product was produced; (3) information concerning the producer and name, brand, or trademark under which the pesticide is sold; and (4) directions for use and other information necessary to protect consumers and the environment. Alteration or destruction of any portion of this required labeling is unlawful.

Top of Page


June 6, 2005

EPA Reaches $4,550 Settlement with J.R. Simplot for Misbranding Pesticide
The J.R. Simplot Company (J.R. Simplot) has agreed to pay $4,550 fine for violating the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (misbranded Pesticide) in a settlement with EPA. On June 23, 2004, the Washington State Department of Agriculture (WSDA) conducted a routine inspection at J.R. Simplot's Simplot Grower Solution Facility in Royal City, Washington. During the inspection, the WSDA inspector discovered a bulk tank containing Volck Clear Oil without a proper label. Volck Clear Oil is an insecticide used for a variety of agricultural crops. The WSDA forwarded the investigation report to EPA for review. On March 25, 2005, EPA issued an Expedited Settlement Offer/Agreement to J.R. Simplot of Boise, Idaho to resolve J.R. Simplot's failure to properly label the bulk tank. J.R. Simplot has agreed to pay the full penalty amount.

Top of Page


June 1, 2005

EPA Reaches $300,000 Settlement With Argent Chemical Labs for Pesticide Violations
To resolve one of the largest federal pesticide cases in the Northwest, EPA has signed a Consent Agreement and Final Order with Argent Chemical Laboratories and two individuals of Redmond, Washington. According to Mike Bussell, Director of EPA’s Office of Enforcement & Compliance, in Seattle, “This a landmark case in many respects,” said Bussell. “It took a lot of hard work, but we’re pleased with the settlement and hope it represents a turning point for the company. “As part of this action, Argent Chemical Laboratories and the two individuals have demonstrated a clearer understanding of their responsibilities under federal pesticide law and have committed to comply.” The settlement agreement includes a penalty of $300,000 and requires the Respondents to:

  1. Cease sale of a number of specified products;
  2. Cease production of pesticides;
  3. Cease export of unregistered pesticides;
  4. Provide copies of specified records to EPA for five years;
  5. Submit annual certifications that they are complying with the agreement; and
  6. Consent to EPA inspections.

The complaint, filed in May 2004, alleged 304 Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act violations. The violations included the sale of unregistered pesticides, sale of restricted use pesticides to uncertified users, export of pesticides without appropriate foreign language labels or receipt of acknowledgement statements, production of pesticides in an unregistered establishment and the failure to file annual production reports.

Top of Page


April 25, 2005

EPA Fines Three California Companies for Pesticide Reporting Violations
EPA fined three California businesses $13,200 for allegedly failing to submit accurate 2004 pesticide production reports in violation of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). Niklor Chemical Company Inc. of Mojave, Calif., failed to report all the pesticide products it produced in the preceding year in its required 2004 pesticide production report. Hollister, Calif. companies Soil Chemical Corporation and Trical, Inc. each included pesticide products in their required 2004 pesticide production reports that the companies had not produced during the preceding year.

"As soon as these companies were notified of the error they quickly took action to correct the records," said Enrique Manzanilla, EPA's Cross Media Division director for the Pacific Southwest region. "The reporting requirements are necessary in EPA's effort to ensure safe management and distribution of these pesticides." The three violations were discovered through investigations arising from inspections undertaken by the California Department of Pesticide Regulation in January 2004. Under FIFRA, each pesticide manufacturer must annually report its pesticide production to EPA by March 1. Production records provide information on the quantities of pesticides produced and distributed. These reports allow the tracking of pesticide products back to the companies that produce them.

Top of Page


April 20, 2005

EPA Fines Fresno Company For Selling Misbranded Pesticides
EPA fined Wilbur-Ellis Co. of Fresno, Calif., $4,400 for the alleged sale and distribution of a misbranded pesticide in violation of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). EPA cited Wilbur-Ellis Co. for failing to properly label a bulk tank of Superior Spray Oil, a pesticide product used to control insects on fruit trees, that it sold to a Turlock, Calif. retailer for repackaging purposes. More specifically, Wilbur-Ellis failed to provide any labeling to this bulk tank of pesticide, resulting in the absence of all required information, including most importantly directions for use necessary to protect health and the environment.

"EPA's pesticide regulations require proper labeling of bulk pesticide containers, even if the product is sold for repackaging," said Enrique Manzanilla, director of EPA's Communities and Ecosystems Division. "Registered pesticides must be sold with their approved label. Without that label, there is a risk of misusing the product, which could harm public health and the environment." The enforcement action was based on information obtained during an inspection at the Turlock, Calif. retailer by the California Department of Pesticide Regulation in January 2004.

Before selling or distributing any pesticide in the U.S., companies must properly register the pesticide with EPA. Pesticides that have been registered with the Agency will be labeled with an EPA Registration Number and information concerning the producer and name, brand, or trademark under which the pesticide is sold, as well as directions for use and other information necessary to protect consumers and the environment.

Top of Page


March 21, 2005

Two California Facilities Pay $92,400 To Resolve Pesticide Violations
An Oakland company and a Novato group agreed to pay EPA $92,400 for distributing unregistered and misbranded pesticides. EPA fined Chemical Compounding Co. of Oakland and PolyChem/Q Labs of Novato for violations of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. EPA fined the companies for distributing MicroTreat 50 and MicroTreat 88, two pesticides whose registrations were cancelled in 1989. The pesticides were marketed to kill microbes in industrial water cooling towers. Chemical Compounding manufactured the pesticides and Polychem sold the products to various industries, including dairies and technology companies.

EPA alleged that both cancelled products were mislabeled and contained language that was misleading, incomplete, and out of date. Both product labels also contained the words “non-regulated material,” which could have misled the user to assume the product was safe and that no regulation was required. “Failure to properly label and register pesticides could result in harm to public health and the environment,” said Enrique Manzanilla, director of EPA's communities and ecosystems division for the Pacific Southwest region. “Companies are required to properly register pesticides before selling or distributing these products in the United States.”

The complaint was based on information provided by the companies and obtained during two inspections conducted in 2003 by the California Department of Pesticide Regulation.Each producer, seller, and distributor must ensure that pesticides being distributed or sold are properly registered and labeled. Before registering a new pesticide, EPA must first ensure that the pesticide, when used according to label directions, can be used without posing unreasonable risks to people or the environment. The agency also ensures that pesticide labels provide consumers with the information they need to use the products safely.

Top of Page


January 25, 2005

EPA Settles With Quality Chemical Company of North Miami, Florida for Unregistered Products
EPA announced the settlement of an administrative enforcement action against Quality Chemical Company (Quality Chemical), located in North Miami, Florida for alleged violations of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). The settlement requires Quality Chemical to comply with FIFRA and pay a $69,520 penalty. On May 8, 2003, EPA sent a letter to Quality Chemical regarding potential violations from the production and distribution of “DESTROY Black Mold Remover.” The Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services collected samples of this product, as well as other unregistered antimicrobial, pesticides such as “DEFEND – Finally, Your Defense Against Black Mold,” “BIO-STOP + Mold Preventer,” and “BIO-STOP + II Mold Preventer,” during subsequent inspections at the Quality Chemical facility. The product labels included pesticidal claims to control black mold, but the products were not registered with EPA as required by FIFRA. EPA also alleged that Quality Chemical used a registered pesticide in a manner inconsistent with its labeling on at least two occasions, which represents separate violations under FIFRA.

While neither admitting nor denying the alleged violations, Quality Chemical agreed to pay the penalty of $69,520. In addition, Quality Chemical ceased production and distribution of the unregistered pesticides when notified of the violations. FIFRA defines a pesticide as “any substance or mixture of substances intended for preventing, destroying, repelling, or mitigating any pest” and requires that all pesticides be registered with EPA prior to distribution or sale. Registered pesticides are required to conform to FIFRA’s labeling regulations, and establishments that produce pesticides must be registered with EPA.

Top of Page


January 6, 2005

Three Northwest Companies Cited for Pesticide Violations
As part of an on-going regional campaign to insure compliance with federal pesticide regulation, EPA has issued Consent Agreement and Final Orders (CAFO) to three Pacific Northwest companies for violating Section 7 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). Section 7 requires companies to submit Annual Pesticide Production Reports to EPA on March 1 of each year. Skylane Farms in Woodburn, Oregon, Pro-Energy Service System in Burley, Idaho, and Steritech LLC in Spokane Valley, Washington, each received CAFOs including pre-settlement agreements and penalties of $1000.

According to EPA officials: Skylane Farms has submitted late annual pesticide production reports twice in the last three years. In 2002, Skylane Farms submitted their annual report to EPA on March 19. A Notice of Warning was issued on March 29, 2002, which notified the establishment that a civil penalty would be issued if their annual report was late in the future. Last year’s report, due to EPA by March 1, 2004, was received on April 7, 2004. Pro-Energy Service System was late in providing required annual pesticide production reports for the past two reporting years. In 2003, Pro-Energy Service System submitted their report to EPA on April 9th. EPA then issued the Company a “Notice of Warning” on August 20, 2003, which notified the establishment that a civil penalty would be issued if their annual report was late in the future. Last year's annual report was received on May 28, 2004.

Steritech has submitted late annual pesticide production reports for the past two years. In 2003, Steritech LLC submitted their annual report to EPA June 17. A "Notice of Warning" was issued on August 20, 2003, which notified the establishment that a civil penalty would be issued if their annual report was late in the future. Last year’s report was received on December 1, 2004. Penalties can be as high as $6500 for reporting violations. The pre-settlement agreement was reached at $1,000 because the companies are not currently producing pesticides and have agreed to cancel their establishment registrations.

Top of Page


January 6, 2005

EPA Sues Mosquito Control Company for Failure to Protect Its Workers' Safety
EPA has filed a complaint against Clarke Environmental Mosquito Management, Inc. for violating the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) between May and November of 2000. During that period, the company applied pesticides throughout the five boroughs under a contract with the New York City Department of Health to control disease-carrying mosquitoes and reduce the risk of West Nile Virus. Clarke Environmental is headquartered in Roselle, Illinois. EPA is seeking penalties of $742,500 against the company for having pesticide applicators use the registered pesticides Anvil and Vectolex in a manner not permitted by the labeling.

"In an atmosphere of heightened concern about the spread of West Nile Virus, Clarke Environmental sent its employees out into the neighborhoods of New York City to apply mosquito control sprays with disregard for their health," said Kathleen C. Callahan, Acting EPA Region 2 Administrator. "By failing to comply with label precautions, the company allowed the workers to be exposed daily to the potentially harmful effects of the chemical ingredients of these products, clearly violating federal pesticide rules." Clarke Environmental has the opportunity to plead its case before an administrative law judge or to contact EPA to negotiate an informal settlement of the matter.

Top of Page

 

This page is sponsored by EPA's Ag Center. Ag Center logo


Local Navigation


Jump to main content.