<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: EPA Withdraws Cause Marketing Pesticide Label Proposal</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/?feed=rss2&#038;p=696" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/?p=696</link>
	<description>News on pesticide science, policy and activism</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 16 May 2013 16:03:44 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jay Feldman</title>
		<link>http://www.beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/?p=696#comment-74224</link>
		<dc:creator>Jay Feldman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Oct 2008 13:44:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/?p=696#comment-74224</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The decision means that EPA reverts to the original guidance which is very clear that cause marketing and symbols like the Red Cross are misleading and unacceptable, despite EPA&#039;s muddled language. The original EPA guidance will be the basis for challenging any future proposals to EPA that might emerge and be reviewed by the agency on a case-by-case basis. While EPA does equivocate by leaving the door open to case-by-case reviews, its language explaining why it is withdrawing the rule is clear: “The Agency agrees that cause marketing claims and third-party endorsements as outlined in the draft PR Notice generally would not contribute meaningfully to improving protection of human health and the environment. The addition of such statements is not likely to enhance users’ ability to understand the labeling required to inform the user about how to use the product safely and effectively. In fact, the addition of such statements could interfere with that goal.&quot; While we would have written the withdrawal explanation differently, the agency is saying that the cause marketing language and symbols could be misleading and undercut compliance with label restrictions. Regardless, the rule now in effect is clear. That&#039;s why EPA (and industry) wanted to change it in the first place. We&#039;ll have to track this. If you see any cause marketing pesticide labels in the marketplace, please let us know. Interesting to note that the response we received from EPA on the status of the clorox Red Cross deal is &quot;The effect on Clorox/Red Cross cause marketing is unknown at this time. No decision has been made.” Let&#039;s keep up the pressure and let EPA know that it is an outrage!]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The decision means that EPA reverts to the original guidance which is very clear that cause marketing and symbols like the Red Cross are misleading and unacceptable, despite EPA&#8217;s muddled language. The original EPA guidance will be the basis for challenging any future proposals to EPA that might emerge and be reviewed by the agency on a case-by-case basis. While EPA does equivocate by leaving the door open to case-by-case reviews, its language explaining why it is withdrawing the rule is clear: “The Agency agrees that cause marketing claims and third-party endorsements as outlined in the draft PR Notice generally would not contribute meaningfully to improving protection of human health and the environment. The addition of such statements is not likely to enhance users’ ability to understand the labeling required to inform the user about how to use the product safely and effectively. In fact, the addition of such statements could interfere with that goal.&#8221; While we would have written the withdrawal explanation differently, the agency is saying that the cause marketing language and symbols could be misleading and undercut compliance with label restrictions. Regardless, the rule now in effect is clear. That&#8217;s why EPA (and industry) wanted to change it in the first place. We&#8217;ll have to track this. If you see any cause marketing pesticide labels in the marketplace, please let us know. Interesting to note that the response we received from EPA on the status of the clorox Red Cross deal is &#8220;The effect on Clorox/Red Cross cause marketing is unknown at this time. No decision has been made.” Let&#8217;s keep up the pressure and let EPA know that it is an outrage!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Fawn</title>
		<link>http://www.beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/?p=696#comment-74046</link>
		<dc:creator>Fawn</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 06 Oct 2008 13:52:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/?p=696#comment-74046</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I thought this was a really vague decision by EPA.  The notice says that they will officially &quot;discourage&quot; applications for cause marketing on labels, but also that they would review such applications on a case-by-case basis.  This seems like a back-handed way of allowing the practice, but shutting out public scrutiny.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I thought this was a really vague decision by EPA.  The notice says that they will officially &#8220;discourage&#8221; applications for cause marketing on labels, but also that they would review such applications on a case-by-case basis.  This seems like a back-handed way of allowing the practice, but shutting out public scrutiny.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
