Skip to Navigation
Skip to Content
Share this page

Support PSR!

Your membership supports PSR's work to reduce global warming, eliminate toxics in our environment and abolish nuclear weapons. YOU make our work possible. Thank you.

Donate Now »

Take Action

Lives are at stake when funding for the EPA is up for debate.

Judge Rules Against PSR Lawsuit on Pesticides

Posted by Jenna Meltzer on July 7, 2016

A federal judge recently ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency need not require producers to disclose inactive ingredients in pesticides, even when the products are known to be dangerous to public health.

Physicians for Social Responsibility, along with the Center for Environmental Health and Beyond Pesticides, had sued the EPA for not upholding its responsibilities under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).

The Act states that companies must show that the pesticide "will not generally cause unreasonable adverse effects on the environment." FIFRA defines this as meaning "any unreasonable risk to man or the environment taking into account the economic, social and environmental costs and benefits of the use of any pesticide."

PSR sued the EPA for not disclosing inert ingredients in pesticides that are known to be dangerous. This denies consumers the ability to make informed decisions about the pesticides they are buying. It also makes it increasingly difficult for doctors to diagnose people who have been exposed to pesticides without knowing all of the ingredients.

U.S. District Judge William Orrick stated that while our arguments were reasonable, FIFRA gives the EPA much discretion already, and so he ruled to uphold the legality of the EPA's decisions.

Comments

Marilyn Britton said ..

This is irresponsible. Everything should be done to rid us of dangerous chemicals, and this judge let us down.

July 12, 2016

Comments closed.