Tree Damage From Crop Spraying

[Bill G]

More off topic but for years I have heard folks say that dogs are not judgemental. I understand that and their thoughts are valid. There is true in that but if you have ever looked into the eyes of your buddy he/she can give you a look of disappointment. Next to a hog they may be the smartest (and dumbest) animal on earth

 

[Tony Waldron]

Actually, if you look it up, that isn't really correct. What was banned was the registration, which means that the product was no longer available for sale.

"An end to the continued domestic usage of the pesticide was decreed on June 14, 1972, when William D. Ruckelshaus, Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, issued an order finally cancelling nearly all remaining Federal registrations of DDT products. Public health, quarantine, and a few minor crop uses were excepted, as well as export of the material."​

​

This is typically how the US government "bans" a product. They don't make it illegal to use, they just prohibit the manufacture and sale. If they straight up banned the use of a product, they would have to take possesion of all the sold products, they would have to pay for the legal disposal of banned products, and they would have to re-imburse the manufacturers and distributors for their un-sold products. And... They would have to confront the legal issue of prosecuting anyone that properly used the product according to the label.

So! If you bought it legally, you can still use it.

As far as the EPA goes, if it deregisters a product it can no longer be used (just like you can not legally drive a deregistered car).

DDT Ban Takes Effect​

[EPA press release - December 31, 1972]
The general use of the pesticide DDT will no longer be legal in the United States after today, ending nearly three decades of application during which time the once-popular chemical was used to control insect pests on crop and forest lands, around homes and gardens, and for industrial and commercial purposes.
An end to the continued domestic usage of the pesticide was decreed on June 14, 1972, when William D. Ruckelshaus, Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, issued an order finally cancelling nearly all remaining Federal registrations of DDT products. Public health, quarantine, and a few minor crop uses were excepted, as well as export of the material.
The effective date of the EPA June cancellation action was delayed until the end of this year to permit an orderly transition to substitute pesticides, including the joint development with the U.S. Department of Agriculture of a special program to instruct farmers on safe use of substitutes.
The cancellation decision culminated three years of intensive governmental inquiries into the uses of DDT. As a result of this examination, Ruckelshaus said he was convinced that the continued massive use of DDT posed unacceptable risks to the environment and potential harm to human health.

Anyway this is a post for TNTreeHugger, can we get back to his problem and leave the idol chit chat for Facebook?

 

[Bill G]

I took some updated pictures of the cover crops Sunday. They look a lot different now. I will post later

 

[pdqdl]

As far as the EPA goes, if it deregisters a product it can no longer be used (just like you can not legally drive a deregistered car).

DDT Ban Takes Effect​

[EPA press release - December 31, 1972]
The general use of the pesticide DDT will no longer be legal in the United States after today, ending nearly three decades of application during which time the once-popular chemical was used to control insect pests on crop and forest lands, around homes and gardens, and for industrial and commercial purposes.
An end to the continued domestic usage of the pesticide was decreed on June 14, 1972, when William D. Ruckelshaus, Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, issued an order finally cancelling nearly all remaining Federal registrations of DDT products. Public health, quarantine, and a few minor crop uses were excepted, as well as export of the material.
The effective date of the EPA June cancellation action was delayed until the end of this year to permit an orderly transition to substitute pesticides, including the joint development with the U.S. Department of Agriculture of a special program to instruct farmers on safe use of substitutes.
The cancellation decision culminated three years of intensive governmental inquiries into the uses of DDT. As a result of this examination, Ruckelshaus said he was convinced that the continued massive use of DDT posed unacceptable risks to the environment and potential harm to human health.

You need to be a bit more learned about our laws and conventions. A press release isn't a law, nor even a regulation. The label on a product, however, is binding upon a registered applicator. Just trust me on this, if the label tells you how to apply a product, it's legal. Not having that label with you at the time of application can lead to legal problems, however. When that deregistration of some of the DDT products was made, that didn't remove the label from the products legally purchased, nor did it remove them from the shelves of distributors and farmers around the country. What it did was tell the manufacturer that they could no longer produce that product for sale in the United States.

Just because FORD (NOT GM, as stated prior to my correction by Grizz55) quits making Pinto cars for safety reasons, that doesn't make it illegal to drive the one you have in your driveway. Even if there is a manufacturer recall, it is still legal to drive that vehicle. The same rules apply to herbicides.

Anyway this is a post for TNTreeHugger, can we get back to his problem and leave the idol chit chat for Facebook?

That's rich. You post a slightly off topic post, contending with certain facts, and then you try to slam the door on any follow-up to that conversation? I'm not about to concede that any conversation should be discontinued into another website. If you wish for a new thread about the legal use of discontinued herbicides, then you should have started a thread here at AS that everyone could switch to. I don't go to Facebook, and have never chit-chatted there.

 

[grizz55chev]

Pinto is made by Ford, now back to the topic.

 

[grizz55chev]

My mom had a Pinto hatchback - loved that car.

I'm a GM guy, would never want to take credit for the Pinto, no offense intended. Now to get back on topic, our mimosa trees are recovering nicely from our late hard freeze.

 

[pdqdl]

Here's an interesting tidbit: https://ordspub.epa.gov/ords/pesticides/f?p=113:6:::::P6_ACTIVE_INACTIVE:9

This is a list of DDT products that didn't have their registration status cancelled as long as 15 years after the EPA official notice that DDT products were "de-registered".

Just sayin'. What they tell you in a press release just isn't the sort of info you wish to base a court case upon.

 

[pdqdl]

Pinto is made by Ford, now back to the topic.

You got me. I fixed it.

 

[grizz55chev]

You got me. I fixed it.

☺

 

[farmer steve]

You need to be a bit more learned about our laws and conventions. A press release isn't a law, nor even a regulation. The label on a product, however, is binding upon a registered applicator. Just trust me on this, if the label tells you how to apply a product, it's legal. Not having that label with you at the time of application can lead to legal problems, however. When that deregistration of some of the DDT products was made, that didn't remove the label from the products legally purchased, nor did it remove them from the shelves of distributors and farmers around the country. What it did was tell the manufacturer that they could no longer produce that product for sale in the United States.

.

Your right. A press release is not the law. However it came from the EPA to be released to the press so that everyone was informed of the new law. Users of DDT were given 6 months from June 14 to December 31 to use product hand and find a suitable replacement. After December 31 it didn't matter if you had the label in hand or not, you couldn't use it. I couldn't find any further exemptions for use of it after that date here in the US except what it says in the press release. Public health, quarrintine and a few minor crop uses and export of it.

 

[pdqdl]

Your right. A press release is not the law. However it came from the EPA to be released to the press so that everyone was informed of the new law. Users of DDT were given 6 months from June 14 to December 31 to use product hand and find a suitable replacement. After December 31 it didn't matter if you had the label in hand or not, you couldn't use it. I couldn't find any further exemptions for use of it after that date here in the US except what it says in the press release. Public health, quarrintine and a few minor crop uses and export of it.

I'm not arguing with that scenario, either. That is what happened. That being said, they were putting up smoke and mirrors to fool people into thinking it wasn't legal to use after that date. I've looked for any such regulation; it isn't to be found. Only the press release.

• Where is the publication that states to a court that the use of a DDT product is illegal?
• There was no new law. Only a de-registration of certain products, which means the manufacturer could no longer make them for sale or use in this country.
• Where is the EPA guidance for proper disposal on any "banned" DDT product? That's right! ON THE LABEL.
• Where is the list of fines and criminal charges for violating a press release?

I think it is pretty safe to say that the widespread use of DDT in the environment was the ecological problem that needed to be stopped, and taking stuff off the market seems to have been quite effective. Incidentally, most of the products were removed from widespread usage in 1969, 3 years prior to the EPA announcement about de-registration.

 

[Bill G]

You know, I've always wondered... if these chemicals are such great "weed killers" then why does it need to be done more than twice

Simple answer is science. They are CONTACT herbicides. Seeds are still present in the soil and will germinate later. That is why most apply both a pre-emergence and post-emergence herbicide. Do you only weed you garden once a season?

 

[Bill G]

As far as the EPA goes, if it deregisters a product it can no longer be used (just like you can not legally drive a deregistered car).

​

Just a quick and simple question. Has the EPA or any other government agency ever visited you in search of items that they "deregistered" Any other member ever had that happen? I love to hear real life experiences

 

[Bill G]

Pinto is made by Ford, now back to the topic.

What a FINE car they were. Ole Esslinger made a fortune with them

 

[farmer steve]

I'm not arguing with that scenario, either. That is what happened. That being said, they were putting up smoke and mirrors to fool people into thinking it wasn't legal to use after that date. I've looked for any such regulation; it isn't to be found. Only the press release.

• Where is the publication that states to a court that the use of a DDT product is illegal?
• There was no new law. Only a de-registration of certain products, which means the manufacturer could no longer make them for sale or use in this country.
• Where is the EPA guidance for proper disposal on any "banned" DDT product? That's right! ON THE LABEL.
• Where is the list of fines and criminal charges for violating a press release?

I think it is pretty safe to say that the widespread use of DDT in the environment was the ecological problem that needed to be stopped, and taking stuff off the market seems to have been quite effective. Incidentally, most of the products were removed from widespread usage in 1969, 3 years prior to the EPA announcement about de-registration.

EPA has the power to enact rules and laws through Congressional authority. Here's the link to the official EPA document.
1.https://archive.epa.gov/epa/sites/production/files/documents/DDT-Ruckelshaus.pdf
2. See #1
3. Page 3 of this document from the CDC although DDT isn't specifically mentioned. Possession of a label on a banned chemical doesn't allow a person to still use that chemical. If you think so maybe you should turn in your spray license. https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/81-123/pdfs/0174.pdf
4. Why post a stoopid question like that? Now if you knowingly violate something in that press release you are subject to fines/penalties set forth by FIFRA. Page 76/77. https://www.agriculture.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/FIFRA.pdf

 

[ATH]

Just a quick and simple question. Has the EPA or any other government agency ever visited you in search of items that they "deregistered" Any other member ever had that happen? I love to hear real life experiences

Ohio Department of Agriculture inspects pesticide storage for licensed businesses...

 

[Bill G]

Ohio Department of Agriculture inspects pesticide storage for licensed businesses...

I was referring to private individuals but I guess I should have been more clear. Here the bureau of weights and measures inspects scales. I can assure you they have never looked at mine though. It says woah fatty one at a time

 

[pdqdl]

EPA has the power to enact rules and laws through Congressional authority. Here's the link to the official EPA document.
1.https://archive.epa.gov/epa/sites/production/files/documents/DDT-Ruckelshaus.pdf
2. See #1
3. Page 3 of this document from the CDC although DDT isn't specifically mentioned. Possession of a label on a banned chemical doesn't allow a person to still use that chemical. If you think so maybe you should turn in your spray license. https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/81-123/pdfs/0174.pdf
4. Why post a stoopid question like that? Now if you knowingly violate something in that press release you are subject to fines/penalties set forth by FIFRA. Page 76/77. https://www.agriculture.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/FIFRA.pdf

1. From your first document, I have extracted this quote: "In order to implement this decision, no DDT shall be shipped in interstate commerce or within the Dist of Columbia after Dec. 31, unless it's label bears in a prominent fashion in a manner satisfactory to the Pesticides Regulation Division the following language: ..."

In other words, the label still governs. That entire article was about the registration of DDT products, the data used to come to that decision, and not the usage according to the label.

#2: See #1

#3. Your 3rd document doesn't even mention not using DDT. In fact, it is a 1998 document that describes the OSHA safety precautions for using DDT safely. That is 16 years after the 1972 "ban" on the use of DDT.

#4. GEEZ! That is the entire FIFRA act.
The applicable law section is #13, that states the conditions for penalties imposed by section 12. It states:

"SEC. 13. 7 U.S.C. 136 STOP SALE, USE, REMOVAL, AND SEIZURE.​

(a) STOP SALE, ETC., ORDERS. Whenever any pesticide or device​

is found by the Administrator in any State and there is reason to​

believe on the basis of inspection or tests that such pesticide or​

device is in violation of any of the provisions of this Act, or that​

such pesticide or device has been or is intended to be distributed​

or sold in violation of any such provisions, or when the registration​

of the pesticide has been canceled by a final order or has been suspended,​

the Administrator may issue a written or printed ``stop​

sale, use, or removal'' order to any person who owns, controls, or​

has custody of such pesticide or device, and after receipt of such​

order no person shall sell, use, or remove the pesticide or device de-​

scribed in the order except in accordance with the provisions of the​

order. "​

​

In other words, before anyone or any company can be penalized, they must receive a written order to desist sale or use of said registered product. The written order that you showed us in #1 stipulated that the interstate distribution of the products was banned. NOTHING you posted indicates that a user may not use a DDT product according to the label.​

​

#5: No part of the FIFRA act stipulates violating a press release. Go back and read section 12, which describes "SEC. 12. [7 U.S.C. 136] UNLAWFUL ACTS."​

​

Like I said to begin with.​

​

As to stoopid questions, I disagree. My questions must have been pertinent, as you spent a great deal of effort trying to address each one. An effort for which I have a great deal of respect!​

​

After careful review, I think you have drawn erroneous conclusions about both the nature of the press release in question, the lawful order that you provided a citation for (excellent work, btw), and the governing laws following said lawful order.​

​

Now! If you wish to continue this argument, let's post a thread somewhere else with an appropriate topic, and let this argument continue there. OK?​

​

​

​

​

​

 

[pdqdl]

Ok. I don't care. I think others have stated otherwise, though.

 

[farmer steve]

True, but I have to confess, I occasionally enjoy a good thread derailment.
They almost always get back on track eventually... just let it take it's course naturally.

Me too!!