By Cindy Skrzycki
Tuesday, December 5, 2006
The makers of such insecticides as Raid and Off are taking a swat at what they consider a new nuisance in the neighborhood: nontoxic, botanical pesticides that are ratcheting up competition in the war on bugs.
The Environmental Protection Agency recently extended until mid-January the comment period on a petition by an industry trade group seeking to end a legal exemption from testing for the natural ingredients in "minimal risk pesticides."
The Consumer Specialty Products Association claims some of the all-natural products are being marketed as able to control pests that cause West Nile virus and Lyme disease, though the makers have not proven they work.
Americans spend $12 billion a year on pesticides, for both home and garden and agricultural uses. The market for organic versions is minuscule by comparison -- about $50 million a year. Yet it is growing because some of the same consumers who buy organic foods are looking for nontoxic ways to control pests and protect the environment.
The Washington-based specialty products group represents a variety of conventional-pesticide manufacturers, including S.C. Johnson & Son of Racine, Wis., which makes Raid and Off, and Spectrum Brands of Atlanta, the manufacturer of Cutter mosquito repellent.
The association's petition said the Internet is "bristling" with chemical-free products that claim to be as good as DEET in controlling mosquitoes that carry West Nile virus. DEET is a widely used chemical ingredient in insect repellents that the EPA says is safe if used as directed.
"These untested pesticides often misleadingly and falsely claim to control public health pests, with the result that consumers mistakenly and detrimentally rely upon these pesticides to protect their health," the petition says.
"Consequently, the innocent consumer becomes the unwitting test subject for weeding out minimum-risk pesticides that do not work."
Since 1996, the EPA has provided an exemption from pesticide-registration requirements, which are costly and time-consuming, for 31 active ingredients such as castor oil, clove oil, garlic, sesame and soybean oil. Makers of preparations containing these ingredients do not have to prove they work before they are marketed.
The agency made clear that such products could not carry claims about controlling public health problems. For example, the label can say the product controls ticks, but not that it controls ticks that carry Lyme disease.
Stephen Kellner, senior vice president and general counsel of the association, said his group wants organic makers to undergo abbreviated testing that would cover products claiming to control disease-carrying pests such as mosquitoes, rodents, ticks and cockroaches.
"We are not doing this to give anyone a hard time or for them not to be able to do business," Kellner said. "Our people may want to compete in this segment."
One maker of nontoxic pesticides disagrees. Steven Bessette, president and founder of EcoSMART Technologies of Atlanta, said the petitioner wants to quash competition, not protect public health.
His company, a maker of plant oil-based pesticides, hired a Washington public relations firm, Podesta Mattoon, to present its case to regulators.
"Companies that have invested billions in traditional chemicals are fighting to keep those around as long as they can," Bessette said. "Everyone knows this is the future."
Botanicals are now as good or better than conventional treatments because insects have not built up resistance to them, he said.
One of his clients, Western Exterminator in Santa Ana, Calif., told the EPA in comments that it had test-marketed EcoSMART products with 2,500 customers and was satisfied with their effectiveness.
Some established companies, such as Sergeant's Pet Care Products of Omaha, are jumping into the botanical pest-control market. This year, Sergeant's rolled out a natural treatment for fleas and ticks using a "unique synergistic combination" of cinnamon and clove oils.
"We're not blind to what's going on in the market," said Joel Adamson, a senior vice president at Sergeant's. "There is a very significant market demand." He said the company had tested the products extensively.
"These manufacturers were not concerned about these alternative products until they saw market share being eroded by a new generation of less-toxic and more appealing, but effective products," Sergeant's said in comments to the EPA opposing the petition.
More challenges may be ahead for the chemical-based industry. Wal-Mart recently said it was phasing out products containing 20 toxic chemicals over the next two years. Wal-Mart said in a statement that it was moving toward products "that will be better for our customers and for the environment."
At the EPA, which must decide whether to start a rulemaking, James Jones, director of the Office of Pesticide Programs, said the agency approved the exemption "to bring a common-sense approach to pesticide regulation." The EPA wanted to avoid having to spend time examining ingredients like mint oil that are not considered harmful, he said.
Jones said the EPA has received objections to the exemption before, mainly from states that preferred federal regulation of all forms of pesticides.
One state that favors the petition is Colorado, which in 2003 had to deal with West Nile virus and natural mosquito repellents. Since then the state has required all-natural pesticides to file tests proving they work.
Cindy Skrzycki is a regulatory columnist for Bloomberg News. She can be reached atcskrzycki@bloomberg.net.
View all comments that have been posted about this article.