It does not seem to be well know that the National Resources Defence Coucil may be indirectly involved with the EPA’s decision to dis-allow Porpoxur for Residential Use.
The NRDC has been taking anyone they can to court and then asking for costs associated with their claims.
SAN FRANCISCO (April 23, 2009) – The Natural Resources Defense Council has filed a lawsuit in California against major pet product retailers and manufacturers for illegally selling pet products containing a known cancer-causing chemical called propoxur without proper warning labels.
“Just because a product is sold in stores does not mean it is safe,” said Dr. Gina Solomon, NRDC senior scientist and physician. “Under California law, consumers have a right to know if a flea control product exposes them to health risks before they buy it.”
“The NRDC labels Propoxur as Cancer-Causing.”
The Natural Resources Defense Council is a national, nonprofit organization of scientists, lawyers and environmental specialists dedicated to protecting public health and the environment. Founded in 1970, NRDC has 1.3 million members and online activists, served from offices in New York, Washington, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco and Beijing.
The Chemical companies are required to spend millions of dollars more to back up the safety of their claims or in this case they just De-Register the product for residential use and only let the Professionals use it.
Then we see everyone freak out because they cannot buy Propoxur for their homes and the alternatives are not economical for all, or better yet don’t even work.
So the homeowners go underground and use the products illegally. This causes even more trouble as the label is usually ignored and products are mis-applied, People get hurt.
The NRDC is systematically taking away citizens rights without anyone noticing. The NRDC are claiming its for Health reasons (protecting end users, pregnant women and children, the environment) but is that really the case. Ask someone with bedbugs in their home.
Other Blogs related to NRDC
In 1990, a Notice of Intent To Suspend (NOITS) was issued for certain propoxur
registrations of indoor and outdoor aerosol spray, non-pressurized outdoor spray, granular
bait and total-release fogger end-use products. Bayer failed to provide acceptable data
after committing to provide exposure data for all uses except the fogger, which they
declined to support. These exposure data were eventually provided and the suspensions
In January, 1995, the Agency issued a notice (60 FR 3210) proposing not to initiate
a Special Review of the insecticide propoxur. The Agency had received and evaluated
new exposure and carcinogenicity data on propoxur and determined that the uses which
posed the greatest concern (flea dips and shampoos for pets, and total-release fogger
products) had been eliminated through voluntary cancellation or label amendment.
Therefore, the Agency believed that the estimated risks did not warrant initiation of a
Special Review. The Agency issued a final decision not to initiate a Special Review in
February, 1996 (61 FR 7508).
EPA Not Helping in Battle Against Bedbugs
Opinion by The Volokh Conspiracy
(2 Hours Ago) in Society / Environment
By Jonathan H. Adler
Once virtually eliminated in the United States, bedbugs are back with a vengeance. Earlier this summer Environmental Protection Agency and
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported the little pests had made an “alarming resurgence,” possibly due to increased resistance to available pesticides and a decline in local pest control programs. Some pesticides once used for bedbug control have been phased out from indoor use, if not altogether, and the blood-sucking insects have developed resistance to their replacements. Lifestyle changes also play a role in the bedbug rebound.
As the Washington Post reports some state and local officials are seeking EPA approval for indoor use of chemicals that retain their effectiveness against the pesky parasites. Ohio Governor Ted Strickland, for one, has sought approval for use of propoxur, a pesticide currently banned from residential use, but so far the EPA has said no. Without a safe and effective indoor pesticide to use, bedbug infestations are spreading. As the Columbus Dispatch reports, bedbugs are spreading to schools, fire departments, and group homes, among other places, and increasing burdens on charities that collect and sell used clothes and furniture. There are also increasing reports of health problems caused by ill-advised efforts to use available outdoor pesticides indoors.
Health officials in Ohio and several other states believe that the risks posed propoxur are outweighed by the severity of the bedbug problem. The EPA disagrees. The EPA has the legal authority to preempt state preferences, and is often obliged to under existing statutes, but should it? Why should the EPA’s assessment of the relevant risk-risk trade-offs override those of the states?
There is an unquestionable case for federal intervention where activities in one state cause spillovers into another. Think of air pollution. But there’s no risk of such spillovers here. Indeed, if there’s any risk it operates in reverse — jurisdictions that fail to control bedbugs can increase the risk of infestation for their neighbors. By limiting local pest control options the EPA is protecting local jurisdictions from themselves, and some don’t want this protection.
If local communities wish to strike a different risk balance than the feds, the EPA should not stand in their way. It is one thing for the EPA to inform local choices, and help clarify the relevant health trade-offs, quite another to impose one set of health preferences on the nation as a whole. If EPA’s resistance to propoxur was motivated by spillover concerns, such as potential groundwater pollution that could cross state lines, the federal rule would make sense. But it is not and does not. This is precisely the sort of environmental problem which state and local preferences should control.