The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act

• Author: Mary Jane Angelo
• Pages: 129-145

Page 129

Chapter 8

The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,

and Rodenticide Act

Mar y Jane Angel o

Pesticides play a signicant role in modern agriculture. Although the synthetic chemical pesticides

that are w idely used in modern industrial agriculture comprise the most obvious category of pesti-

cides, the term pesticide includes a wide range of substances, including naturally occurring substances

and living organisms.1 Nevertheless, synthetic chemical pesticides are the most ubiquitous—and frequently

the most harmful to the environment.

Humans have used pesticides for thousands of years.2 But it wa s not until the early part of the 20th

century that pesticide use became widespread in agricu lture. Until then, pest control was accomplished

primarily t hrough cultural controls such as cultivation,3 sanitation,4 crop rotation,5 and sowing and har-

vesting practices.6 During the ea rly years of the century, humans began to rely on metals such as arsenic,

lead, and copper a s important agricultural pest controls. Not until the latter half of the century did the

development of synthetic chemical pesticides lead to a global explosion of pesticide use.7 ese new syn-

thetic chemical pesticides were hig hly eective at controlling a wide variet y of pests.

It did not take long for agriculture to become reliant on large-scale synthetic chemical pesticide use.

Current estimates of global use are staggering. More than 1,600 types of pesticides are currently available.8

More than ve billion pounds of pesticides, with a value of over $40 billion, are used annually a round the

1. e term “pesticide” is dened very broadly in the law to include “any substance or mixture of substances intended for preventing, destroying,

repelling, or mitigation any pest . . .” 7 U.S.C. §136(u).

2. Homer described how Odysseus used burning sulfur as a fumigant to control pests. H, T O (Edward McCrorie transl. 2004).

For a more complete description of the histor y of pesticide use, see Clive A. Edwards, e Impact of Pesticides on the Environment, in T

P Q: E, E,  E 281 (David Pimentel & Hugh Lehman eds., 1993).

3. H F.  E  D B. P, B S S: I P M  C S 115-17

(1996). Many pest insects live out at least part of their life cycle in soil, weeds, or accumulated crop debris in farm elds. Plowing the top layer

of soil kills many of these pest insects. Accordingly, soil tillage historically was a critical component of agricultural pest management. It was

not until relatively recently that, as a way to minimize soil erosion, tillage was abandoned in favor of zero or minimum tillage systems, which

rely on herbicide usage to control weeds. e demise of tillage as a core component of modern agricultural systems has resulted in a dramatic

increase in certain soil-dwelling pests. Id. at 115. Other cultivation pest control techniques used historically include mulching, compacting,

and manuring. Id. at 115-17.

4. Sanitation practices are one of the most eective pest control practices used in both ancient and modern agriculture. Id. at 117-18. By destroy-

ing residues of crops left in elds after harvesting, many pest populations that live in such residues are destroyed. Related practices such as

destruction of weed hosts and selective pruning also serve as eective pest control tools. Id. at 118-19.

5. Crop rotation, one of the oldest forms of pest control, is a very eective pest control technique for minimizing soil-dwelling pests. By alternating

the planting of dierent crops in a particular eld, populations of soil-dwelling insects that feed on a particular crop will not be able to build

up during periods when their food crop is not present. us, when the crop eventually is planted, populations of the pest species generally will

not be large enough to cause serious problems. Id. at 120-21.

6. Timing sowing and planting dates to avoid pest outbreaks or to ensure the crop plant is in a resistant growth stage when pest outbreaks are

likely to occur, as well as carefully tailoring seed and planting rates and early harvesting, can be eective tools for avoiding pest damage to

crops. Id. at 121-23.

7. Edwards, supra note 2, at 13.

8. ese gures are based on EPA pesticide market estimates for the years 2000-2007. See A G  ., E P

A, P I S  U, 2006  2007 M E (2011), available at http://www.epa.gov/opp00001/

pestsales/.

Portions of this chapter have been adapted from, with permission, Mary Jane Angelo, e Killing Fields: Reducing the Casualties in the Battle Between

U.S. Endangered Species and Pesticide Law, 32 H. E’ L. R. 96 (2008), and Mary Jane Angelo, Embracing Uncertainty, Complexity and Change

to Protect Ecological Integrity: An Eco-Pragmatic Reinvention of a First Generation Environmental Law, 33 E L.Q. 105 (2006).

Page 130 Food, Agriculture, and Environmental Law

world.9 Pesticide use in the United States accounts for approximately 22% of global pesticide usa ge, with

U.S. exports to other countries exceeding 450 million pounds of pesticides per yea r.10 (A detailed discus-

sion of the dierent types of pesticides currently in use and the environmental risks associated with them

can be found in Chapter 3.)

Pesticides, by design, are intended to ki ll or disrupt living organisms. Moreover, agricultural pe sticides

are intentionally released into the environment, and many synthetic pesticides pose risks to human hea lth

and the environment. In the United States, these risks are addressed primarily through the regulatory pro-

cess under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act.

A. History and Provisions of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and

Rodenticide Act

Domestically, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has the primary responsibility for regulat-

ing pesticides under the authority of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFR A).11

Generally, FIFRA establishes a licensing program for pesticides manufactured, distributed or sold in t he

United States. FIFRA contains a number of provisions designed to address the human health and environ-

mental risks associated with pesticides.

1. History of the Act

e origins of FIFRA can be traced back to the federal Insecticide Act of 1910,12 a consumer economic

protection statute aimed at addressing false claims about the ecacy of pesticide products, many of which

turned out to be useless, and the converse problem of pesticides that were too strong and thus caused crop

damage.13 is emphasis on consumer economic protection carried over into the rst enactment of FIFRA

in 1947. e 1947 Act contained the rst requirement for pesticides (referred to by the Act a s “economic

poisons”) to be registered prior to being marketed in interstate commerce.14 e 1947 Act, however, did not

establish any environmental standards or a ny signicant safety standards for pesticides. A pesticide could

be registered if its composition warranted the proposed claims for it and if the pesticide and its labeling

complied with the requirements of FIFRA.15 e 1947 Act remained intact until 1972.

e controversy over the pesticide DDT, which had gained attention through the publication of Rachel

Carson’s Silent Spring in 1962, became one of the primary motivators behind the establishment of EPA in

1970. e controversy also paved the way in 1972 for a major reform of FIFRA. e 1972 Amendments

to FIFRA completely overhauled the statute and for the rst time included provisions aimed at protecting

environmental interests. e 1972 Amendments form the backbone of the current FIFRA.

2. Registration

FIFRA requires a premarket review of all pesticides to be sold, distributed, or used in the United States.

Section 3(a) provides that the EPA Administrator shall register a pesticide if the Administrator determines

that, when considered with any restrictions imposed, its composition warrants the proposed claims, its

labeling and other submitted materials comply with the requirements of FIFRA, and, when “used in accor-

dance with widespread and commonly recognized practice, it will not generally cause unreasonable adverse

aects on the environment.”16

e burden of providing EPA with the necessary information to determine whether the standard for

registration is met rests with the registrant or applicant for registration.17 As dened by FIFRA, “unreason-

9. Id.

10. Edwards, supra note 2, at 13.

11. 7 U.S.C. §§136-136(y).

12. Act of 1910, April 26, 1910, ch. 191, 36 Stat., repealed 61 Stat. 163, 172 (1947).

13. W H. R, E L 412-13 (West, 2d ed. 1994).

14. Ch. 125, 61 Stat. 163 (1947).

15. Id.

16. 7 U.S.C. §136a(c)(5).

17. Id. §136A(c)(1). See also http://www.epa.gov/oecaagct/lfra.html.