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.

THE FOLLOWING WAS ADDED BY THE AUTHOR:

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

    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:

    http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/ppdc/distr-labeling/june09/elabel-overview.pdf

    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:
    http://epa.gov/pesticides/ppdc/distr-labeling/

    Their presentation gives a much brighter picture of this program than the ARA letter message. Here is a link to the presentation slides:
    http://epa.gov/pesticides/ppdc/distr-labeling/nov2010/ppt-outreach-final.pdf

    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
LegislationUSDA: Quick Implementation Of Disaster Assistance Programs A ‘Top Priority’
July 9, 2014
USDA has processed 106,000 payments to farmers in 40 states across the country who suffered livestock and grazing losses between Oct. 2011 and passage of the 2014 Farm Bill. Read More
LegislationTFI Praises White House For Signing WRRDA Into Law
June 11, 2014
The bill streamlines U.S. Army Corps of Engineers projects, prioritizes authorized waterway improvements and provides needed adjustments to the Inland Waterways Trust Fund. Read More
LegislationAg Policy: Plenty Of Fertilizer Issues Ahead
January 2, 2014
From West Fertilizer to the Chesapeake Bay, fertilizer producers and dealers are keeping an eye on several Beltway developments in 2014. Read More
Farm Bill
LegislationLack Of Farm Bill Leaves Farmers Facing Uncertainty In 2014
December 13, 2013
With just a few legislative working days remaining in 2013, the likelihood of a new farm bill is waning, leaving farmers in limbo once again. Read More
Top 100 Articles
CropLife 100BRANDT Commemorates National Ag Day
March 20, 2015
The Illinois agriculture community gathered at BRANDT global headquarters on March 18 to celebrate National Ag Day behind this year's theme Sustaining Future Generations. Read More
Wheat Growers, North Central Farmers Elevator Pursue Merger
CropLife 100Wheat Growers, North Central Farmers Elevator Pursue Merger
March 3, 2015
Two CropLife 100 retailers — South Dakota Wheat Growers (ranked No. 11) and North Central Farmers Elevator (No. 19) — have entered into a Letter of Intent to unify the two companies into a newly named cooperative. Read More
Growmark Group
CropLife 100GROWMARK In 2015: Back, To The Future
March 2, 2015
The nation’s third largest ag retail organization is simultaneously moving forward while remembering its past. Read More
CropLife 100Pinnacle Expands Sanders Brand In The South
February 27, 2015
Pinnacle has acquired Hopkins Seed and Chemical in Qulin, MO, which expands the company's Sanders brand to nine Southern states. Read More
CropLife 100Pinnacle Launches New Providence Agriculture Location In Indiana
February 27, 2015
Pinnacle Agriculture Holdings — ranked No. 6 on the CropLife 100 — has established a new retail location in New Castle, IN, which will operate as part of Pinnacle's Providence Agriculture brand. Read More
Carl Casale of CHS
CropLife 100Cooperative CHS Returns $518 Million To Owners
February 23, 2015
The 2015 cash return to owners is based on CHS net income of $1.1 billion, the company's second highest on record. Read More
Latest News
FungicidesSyngenta Suing Willowood Over Azoxystrobin Fungicide
March 27, 2015
Syngenta announced today that it has sued agrochemical maker Willowood, LLC., for patent and copyright infringement, as well as unfair Read More
ManagementRetail Week: The Future Of Mycogen Seeds; The 4Rs At Na…
March 27, 2015
Editors Eric Sfiligoj and Matt Hopkins discuss recent trips, including a look at the future of Mycogen Seeds at Dow Read More
Eric SfiligojMonsanto Hears The WHO
March 27, 2015
Another challenge to the safety of glyphosate, and the responses from supporters and opponents, calls to mind a classic Dr. Seuss story. Read More
Industry NewsMonty’s Plant Food Expands Sales Team
March 27, 2015
Monty’s Plant Food Company, a leader in natural soil enhancement and  plant fertility products, has hired Andrew Bullock as a Read More
Crop InputsSyngenta Louisiana Plant Poised For 2015 Production
March 26, 2015
As the 2015 planting season gets underway, growers across the country will need crop protection products to combat pests and Read More
Lake Erie Nutrient Stewardship
LegislationOhio Lawmakers Finalize Phosphorus Restrictions
March 25, 2015
State lawmakers on Wednesday finalized new rules designed to curb toxic algal blooms on Lake Erie, calling the regulations a major step forward in addressing the problem. Read More
Spreaders17 Fertilizer Spreaders For 2015
March 25, 2015
Manufacturers shoot for versatility and accuracy in this year's crop of fertilizer spreaders. Read More
Industry NewsMonty’s Hires Mid-South Product Consultant
March 25, 2015
Monty's Plant Food Co. has hired Matt Woodring as a Product Consultant for portions of Central Kentucky and Tennessee.    Read More
StewardshipMapShots Integrates With DriftWatch
March 23, 2015
Growers and agricultural providers using AgStudio FARM and AgStudio PRO can now view vital information about specialty crops and apiaries through a recent integration with the DriftWatch Specialty Crop Site Registry from FieldWatch, Inc. Read More
Crop InputsWorld Health Organization Report Contradicts Scientific…
March 23, 2015
A new report from the World Health Organization has classified glyphosate with a “2A” rating as a probable carcinogen, a Read More
Eric SfiligojSeed Treatment Stays Necessary
March 20, 2015
Grower-customers looking to scale back spending in 2015 won’t consider seed treatment, say experts. Read More
HerbicidesMARCH MADNESS: Industry Rallies Around Glyphosate Safet…
March 20, 2015
A newly published report from the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classifies the herbicide glyphosate as a "2A-rated possible carcinogen" and the ag industry responds by circling the wagons. Read More
ManagementRetail Week: Precision survey, a technology acquisition…
March 20, 2015
Editors Paul Schrimpf and Eric Sflilgoj discuss recent travel, the upcoming precision adoption survey, and an unusual sighting at a Read More
CropLife 100BRANDT Commemorates National Ag Day
March 20, 2015
The Illinois agriculture community gathered at BRANDT global headquarters on March 18 to celebrate National Ag Day behind this year's theme Sustaining Future Generations. Read More
Crop InputsBioSafe Launching TerraGrow Soil Inoculant
March 20, 2015
TerraGrow is a blend of beneficial bacterial and fungal spores and nutrients carefully designed to promote healthier soil and crops. Read More
Winter Wheat
AdjuvantsMax Systems Debuts New Adjuvant NanoRevolution 2.0
March 18, 2015
Added to a tank mix of glyphosate at the conservative rate of two to four ounces per acre, NanoRevolution 2.0 has proven effective in killing resistant weed species that had already had up to two applications of the leading glyphosate product. Read More
Photo credit: United Soybean Board/the Soybean Checkoff
Seed/BiotechAgnition Launches Microbial Catalyst Seed Treatment
March 18, 2015
Agnition it has launched Commence for Soybeans, a microbial catalyst seed treatment for soybeans that stimulates microbial activity for healthier soil and a superior growth environment. Read More
4R Certified, Nutrient Stewardship Council,
StewardshipTyler Grain & Fertilizer Now 4R Certified
March 18, 2015
The 4R Nutrient Stewardship Certification Program has announced Tyler Grain & Fertilizer Co. in Smithville, OH, has been added to Read More