EPA Keeps the Transparency Coming

Two back-to-back announcements by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) this week extend the agency's admirable record on transparency [1] since the beginning of the Obama administration. EPA announced two policy changes that increase the transparency of the agency's pesticides programs: opening up the registration process for pesticides to public scrutiny and moving to require all pesticide ingredients be listed on product labels.

Pesticide Registrations

On October 1, EPA announced [2] that the public will now be able to review and comment on the risk assessments and proposed registration decisions for new pesticides. The public will be given 30 days to comment on the agency's analysis prior to the agency's final decision. EPA assistant administrator Steve Owens claimed, "This new process will give the public greater opportunity to participate and understand decisions about new pesticides."

EPA has been criticized [3] for years over the lack of transparency [4] and public involvement [5] in the process that determines what new pesticides are approved for use and how existing pesticides are reviewed. This action engages the public at a key point in the registration process, creating an opportunity to challenge the agency's analysis and proposed decision.

In addition to the risk assessment, it is crucial that EPA also publish the underlying data and methodologies used to develop the risk assessment. The announcement does not indicate these data will also be released. More time for review would be useful as well. Although 30 days is not a long time to review in depth the agency's analysis and the industry science that supports it, it is a welcome "transparency window."

Pesticide Ingredients

Just prior to the announcement opening up the pesticide registration process, EPA responded to two petitions submitted in 2006 calling for disclosure of hazardous pesticide ingredients. The agency announced it will develop a new rule to disclose the identities of all inert ingredients in pesticides including those that are not deemed hazardous – a step beyond what the petitioners requested. Unlike the "active" ingredients in pesticides, so-called inert ingredients need not be listed on the label. However, inerts are often hazardous substances that pose a risk to human and ecological health.

The petitions, one [6] from the Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides and 22 other groups and the other [7] from several state attorneys general, identified more than 350 inert ingredients that are considered hazardous under one or more different government programs. For example, creosols are listed as a “hazardous waste” under Superfund regulations, yet they are listed as inert ingredients on labels for pesticide products. According to Beyond Pesticides [8], "creosols are known to produce skin and eye irritations, burns, inflammation, blindness, pneumonia, pancreatitis, central nervous system depression and kidney failure."

According to the agency's statement [9], "This increased transparency will assist consumers and users of pesticides in making informed decisions and will better protect public health and the environment." The agency will publish an advance notice of proposed rulemaking – an early step in the process – "in the next few months."

In EPA's response [10] to the petitioners, the head of the pesticides office said she anticipates a "sea change" in how pesticide information is made available to the public. Additionally, according to the response, "EPA believes one way of discouraging the use of the more hazardous inert ingredients in pesticide formulations is by making their identities public." I couldn't agree more, and the history of environmental right-to-know policies bears this out.

The EPA is leading the way on transparency in the new Obama administration. The agency suffered greatly under the previous administration in terms of excessive secrecy, politicized science, and shutting out the public. Now the agency is quickly making up ground lost during the Bush administration and even breaking new ground in transparency and regulation. I hope that momentum continues.