EPA’s Web Label Initiative Flawed

For those so inclined, the convenience of doing things electronically that once meant driving across town, waiting in lines, or affixing stamps to envelopes is undeniable. Trading these things for a few mouse clicks saves time, money and hassle. However, in virtually no cases — especially related to regulatory compliance — is engagement in electronic communication an absolute necessity.

So I was quite interested to read that EPA is working toward making the Internet the only means by which one could procure a pesticide label.

The Web-Distributed Label (WDL) project, in the works for the past three years, would require the end-user of a crop protection product to consult the Web and print out a label from a new, government-sponsored electronic label repository before product application.

I got a chance to talk with Daren Coppock, ARA president, about the issue last week and he raised a number of legitimate concerns the association has with such a plan. For starters, reliable Internet service is not ubiquitous in rural America, making mandatory electronic label procurement potentially problematic.

Second, despite EPA’s assurances to the contrary, ARA is concerned about adding liabilities and stress to the retailer-grower relationship. Growers will naturally lean on retailers to provide label information upon purchase of a product, and would expect retailers to be able to inform them of future label changes as they occur. Whether it’s providing a label or training growers to find the information for themselves, the retailer is ultimately liable.

Then there’s the fact that there already are a number of ways for labels to be procured electronically … but it’s optional. And the label’s availability on the container ensures that the information is accessible at the time of use.

There are other objections as well, which are highlighted in the letter. Soon, EPA will be conducting a pilot test of the WDL program, and both ARA and CropLife America are asking the agency to halt the project.

As I said, the Web is an outstanding means of communicating information and adding convenience, but it’s way too soon in its lifespan to consider making it the sole source for label information that’s so critical to proper use and stewardship.

ARA is sending a letter with as many co-signatures as it can gather by end of day Wednesday, November 17.


There are two links included in the comment below that I wanted to make live links … unfortunately I cannot do it in the actual comment box, so I moved them up here:

Paul, Perhaps it would be a good idea to include a link to the 4 page Summary of the EPA Web Distributed Labeling Pilot from USEPA website so that others not familiar with the project can become acquainted and them voice their disapproval.

Leave a Reply

8 comments on “EPA’s Web Label Initiative Flawed

  1. Paul, Perhaps it would be a good idea to include a link to the 4 page Summary of the EPA Web Distributed Labeling Pilot from USEPA website so that others not familiar with the project can become acquainted and them voice their disapproval.

    Here is the link >> http://epa.gov/pesticides/ppdc/distr-labeling/march09/virtual-pilot.pdf

    And a link to the USEPA site index page for WDL>>

    Links to minutes from the years long project(actually conceived as long ago as 2003), lists of WDL Pilot participants, and other items of interest are linked from that page.

  2. I believe the ARA is jumping to conclusions here without understanding the whole story. A major part of the EPA Web Distributed Labeling project is creating a standardized electronic label so submission is easier for manufacturers and the review is easier for the EPA. Does everyone like reading labels that all look different with no standard organization? Just think how inefficient the lack of standardization in labels is for all of us, including the EPA. It makes it harder for them to review and approve labels and for all dealers and end users to read and follow these labels. I agree with ARA, that removing the label from containers and only having them on a website is not a good idea, but my point is this only part of the project. I think the ARA needs to clarify their support of this project: The standardized label with electronic submission and review is good, the removal of labels from containers is bad. Not supporting this is entire project is not good for the industry. Here is a link to the entire story on this project: http://epa.gov/pesticides/ppdc/distr-labeling/

  3. I totally agree with the other commenter, the ARA is not truly grasping what the agenda is with this initiative! We need standards!!! Standards are a must and something that the indsutry has struggled with on many levels. I do agree that digital only with removal from containers is not the way to go but that is only part of the proposed plan. It is a very bad move on behalf of the industry to kill this project or stifle it based on this discrepancy, we need to adjust it and push for change and continue to move the project forward!!

    “Progress is impossible without change, and those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything” -George Bernard Shaw-

  4. Dear Anonymous,

    You may be having difficulty separating the EPA’s E-Label Submission (PRISM) from the proposed Web Distributed Labeling (WDL) Pilot.

    One has absolutely nothing to do with the other as it pertains to the ARA/CropLife proposed Letter. EPA’s “PRISM” could be accessed in the future to output a State specific Label for a Crop and Pest and format a uniform Label. But you need the buy-in from each State in order to do so.

    WDL cannot work without PRISM. They are not the same thing, but WDL would become dependent upon PRISM in the future.

    The WDL will never function outside of the Pilot until E-Label is adopted universally by all Registrants and their sub-Registrants and functions without error.

    For the Registrant and EPA, and perhaps the 30 or so States that are integrated into one system or another at this time then E-Label is a Great Concept once every one of them owns current PDF software (they don’t) and complies with a uniform and standardized appearance that most will never be able to agree upon. Or, the development and management of a submission database is complete and live and applied uniformly across the Country.

    Current Statistics (not all Agriculture specific)

    1300+ Product Registrants (inc sub-Registrants)
    16,000+ Currently Registered Pesticides
    68,000+ Currently Registered Distributor Pesticides
    265,431 Product/Pest combinations (currently active)
    529,112 Product/Site combinations (current)

    EPA WDL was proposed in the Pilot to include “one broad spectrum insecticide and one broad spectrum herbicide” and the input from 50 States + possessions. Many but not all with their own Registration facilities. And then the proposal seeks comment from Dealers / Distributors / Regulators / Registration Professionals / End-Users via Surveys. (!?)

    For the servicing Dealer / Distributor and the End-User WDL could create technical problems for years. Enterprise POS and other systems might require upgrades and overhauls costing millions of dollars to access the WDL portal. The system cannot work until we all have bar code readers built into our eyeglasses and microchips implanted in our forearms to decipher the most current version of a Label.

    It took one Chemical industry sponsored project three years to agree upon a barcode schema. Sam Walton had completed his own version of that project ten years earlier AND he mandated RFID in his operations long before the Crop Chemical industry ever began to even consider such a thing. We have some catching up to do.

    WDL proposes the system also be multi-lingual capable?

    And what of the MSDS? This is an important document, perhaps more important in some respects than the Label itself. Oh, that’s right. The MSDS cannot appear with the Container (err WDL) Label without EPA approval because the MSDS is mandated by another government agency. Whatever happened to Global Harmonization of the MSDS anyway?

    What happened Pesticide Registration Notice (PR) Notice 93-3 regarding Labeled Storage and Disposal Statements that couldn’t be fulfilled? That was “easy” compared to WDL. 93-3 deadlines were recently extended another year.

    And possibly just as big a hurdle is the fact that EPA WDL doesn’t even consider the use of non-Registered products. Adjuvants, “water conditioners”, and so forth may in some cases exhibit an even greater hazard to the User. And that was part of the purpose of WDL… to make the Label easier to use and encourage the User to be familiar with the entire contents of the applicable Label that pertain to his location, his crop, and his target pests. WDL only complicates things now because one has to refer to a WDL website and other sources to find information on the non-registered products that are in use as well.

    Versioning, Supplemental Labels, 24(c), 2ee, Section 18 and out-of-date products (those recently cancelled, but still ‘legal to use”) all fall somewhere between the lines in the WDL program and could become a Regulator’s and User’s nightmare should a Pesticide application ever be questioned or an enforcement action be investigated. Questions regarding valid dates, expiration dates, application, end-of-life, etc all need to be addressed.

    And one final thought. Let’s not forget the cost to perhaps re-write Pesticide Use Laws and Enforcement Regulations in each and every State and some political subdivisions in the Union.

  5. DonH,

    Thanks for comments, you bring up some important points. It sounds like you see a clear distinction between WDL and PRISM programs, but does EPA, does the ARA, does the industry? Where has the EPA documented this clear difference? Do you have a source where they have?

    My worry with ARA’s letter and comments against the WDL program is the fact they make no mention of supporting the PRISM project. Does the ARA support the PRISM program? I also worry by going against the WDL program and slowing down or stopping EPA’s adoption it of it could also do the same with the PRISM program.

    This needs to be clarified by the ARA or they could be killing or delaying the PRISM program that I think we all all agree is for the better of the industry.

  6. As to the comments regarding standards – yes, standards would certainly benefit the users, the dealers, the EPA, and regulators alike. What is that standard? Where is it written? And how can registrants be held to a standard when there is none? If we can’t do it on paper labels, how can we do it on electronic labels?

  7. It is written here. This is a link to details on the PRISM structured e-label initiative:


    If this PRISM initiative is approved and implemented, then there would be a standard the registrants would be held to.

    So we always need to live in the past? If we don’t have standardized labels today, we can’t in the future? If we always had that attitude, how would we get any improvement or progress in this industry?

  8. I’m not sure anyone will really come back to the comments of this now old article but the WDL committee had a meeting on Nov. 30 and several documents from that are now on the following site under the new section:

    Their presentation gives a much brighter picture of this program than the ARA letter message. Here is a link to the presentation slides:

    I think we all agree that removing the full label from containers is a bad idea, but this program has some very good features as well such as the improved label standardization and compliance. ARA needs to be clearer in their message that they support that part of this, just not the full label removal option on containers. Otherwise, we all lose in these efforts.

Legislation Stories

LegislationFall Fertilizer Transportation Could Be At Risk With Possible Rail Stoppage
October 1, 2015
Failure by Congress to extend the deadline for the implementation of Positive Train Control (PTC) on the railroads could gridlock Read More
LegislationEndangered Species Act, Pollinator Health Among Key Issues For CropLife America
September 7, 2015
Recently, CropLife® magazine had the chance to talk with CropLife America about the association’s key objectives and concerns. CropLife (CL): Read More
FertilizerTFI Weighs In On Fertilizer Rail Transport Bill
May 14, 2015
With today’s House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure as a backdrop, The Fertilizer Institute (TFI) registered its support for policies Read More
LegislationGov. Kasich Signs Ohio Bill For Lake Erie Water Quality
April 2, 2015
Gov. John Kasich has signed a bill aimed at protecting Lake Erie and Ohio’s water quality, reports editorial staff at Read More
Top 100 Articles
CropLife 100CHS, MKC Consider Second Grain Terminal In Milan, KS
November 30, 2015
CHS Inc., an energy, grains and food company and the nation’s leading farmer-owned cooperative, and MKC, a full-service farm cooperative Read More
CropLife 100United Cooperative Acquires Four ADM Wisconsin Facilities
November 12, 2015
United Cooperative, based out of Beaver Dam, WI, recently acquired four grain and agronomy locations from Archer Daniels Midland (ADM) Read More
CropLife 100BRANDT Car Makes NASCAR Xfinity Series
October 29, 2015
BRANDT will join JR Motorsports with driver, Justin Allgaier, for the 2016 NASCAR Xfinity (NXS) Series season. Allgaier will pilot Read More
CHS Building exterior
CropLife 100CHS Leaders Help Shape Succession Report
October 22, 2015
Succession planning was listed as a main concern of cooperative leaders at this summer’s 15 regional CHS owner town hall Read More
Fall Harvest
CropLife 100Pinnacle Purchases Eight Regional Seed Companies
October 12, 2015
Pinnacle Agriculture Holdings has announced the purchase of eight regional seed companies to advance its seed business. Pinnacle has acquired: Read More
MRM Agricultural Service
CropLife 100Pinnacle Acquires CropLife 100 Ag Retailer
October 8, 2015
Pinnacle Agriculture Holdings, LLC has successfully acquired the Missouri-based agronomy business of MRM Agricultural Service, LLC and its affiliates (MRM). Operating Read More
Latest News
CropLife 100CHS, MKC Consider Second Grain Terminal In Milan, KS
November 30, 2015
CHS Inc., an energy, grains and food company and the nation’s leading farmer-owned cooperative, and MKC, a full-service farm cooperative Read More
Dow AgroSciences Logo wall
HerbicidesGowan Co. To Acquire DNA Herbicides From Dow AgroScienc…
November 30, 2015
Gowan Co. has entered into a definitive agreement to acquire the entire global dinitroaniline (DNA) herbicide portfolio from Dow AgroSciences Read More
Palmer pigweed in soybean stubble
Herbicides‘Back to the Future’ Weed Control: Herbicide Outlook 20…
November 30, 2015
What’s new for herbicides in 2016? Well, not much, but the learning process is sure to continue for fine-tuning resistance Read More
Tim Hassinger Dow AgroSciences President and CEO
HerbicidesDow Expects Enlist Duo To Be Available For The 2016 U.S…
November 30, 2015
Relative to EPA’s recently filed motion to vacate the registration of Enlist Duo herbicide, The Dow Chemical Co. is confident Read More
HerbicidesBREAKING: EPA Pulls Registration On Dow’s Enlist …
November 25, 2015
EPA on Wednesday withdrew approval of a controversial new weed killer to be used on genetically modified corn and soybeans, Read More
FertilizerYara Tampa Ammonia Terminal Garners ResponsibleAg Honor…
November 25, 2015
Yara has received its first ResponsibleAg Certification for its Tampa, FL, Ammonia terminal location. This achievement demonstrates Yara’s commitment to Read More
ManagementReviewing The Top Ag Stories For 2015
November 24, 2015
Editors Eric Sfiligoj and Paul Schrimpf discuss the most noteworthy events from this past year in agriculture. Read More
EmployeesAgriculture Jobs May Be Plentiful, But New Grads Are Sc…
November 24, 2015
Close to 60,000 jobs are set to open up in agriculture each year for the next five years, but there's not enough grads to fill them. Read More
Radish cover crop
StewardshipCover Crops Guide Helps Growers Improve Water Quality
November 23, 2015
A publication that teaches growers the advantages of using cover crops to improve soil health and crop yields has won Read More
Crop InputsThe Andersons’ Products Receive California Organi…
November 23, 2015
The Plant Nutrient Group of The Andersons, Inc. announced today that its Humic DG and Black Gypsum DG products are Read More
Eric SfiligojNew European Study Seems To Support Glyphosate Safety
November 23, 2015
Looking at any international news over the past few years, it might seem as if the European Union (EU) is Read More
Toggle Biostimulant corn roots
Crop InputsTwo New Biostimulants Added To United Suppliers’ …
November 20, 2015
Winfield US announces the launch of two new products in the United Suppliers portfolio for the 2016 crop season, Optify Read More
StewardshipNRDC Report: Cover Crops Contain Vast Benefits
November 19, 2015
As harvest season ends and farmers in the United States ready themselves for winter, one small change could make a Read More
Fall Harvest
Seed/BiotechArysta Launches New Seed Protectant
November 19, 2015
As spring wheat growers begin planning for a strong start to their season, Arysta LifeScience North America announces RANCONA V Read More
Crop InputsInocucor Receives U.S. Patent For Microbials
November 19, 2015
Inocucor Technologies Inc., the Montreal-based agriculture biotech company, was issued patent No. 9,175,258 by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to protect Read More
ManagementSyngenta Rumors and ARA 2015 Preview
November 19, 2015
CropLife Editor Eric Sfiligoj looks at the latest rumors involving Syngenta selling its crop protection business and talks about events Read More
EquipmentAGCO Announces Finalists For Operator Of The Year Honor
November 19, 2015
AGCO Corp. has announced the four top operators chosen as finalists for AGCO’s 10th Annual Operator of the Year program, Read More
High Plains Aquifer
StewardshipStudy: High Plains Aquifer Overall Usage In Decline
November 18, 2015
A new Kansas State University study finds that the over-tapping of the High Plains Aquifer’s groundwater beyond the aquifer’s recharge Read More