Web-Distribution of Labeling Work Group Discussion Paper
 

Lifespan of Web-Distributed Labeling 

ISSUES: 

Assuming that EPA establishes a system whereby purchasers and users may obtain a 

legally valid copy of the labeling for a pesticide product from a website or toll-free 

telephone service, 

1] should such labeling have an expiration date that definitively limits its 

“lifespan”? 

2] if so, how long should the “lifespan” of such labeling last? 

BACKGROUND: 

A. The Current System 

Because FIFRA’s misuse provision in §12(a)(2)(G) makes it unlawful to “use a 

pesticide in a manner inconsistent with its labeling,” the labeling1

 for a pesticide product 

becomes the primary mechanism by which EPA communicates enforceable requirements 

to pesticide users about how to use a product safely and effectively. Under historical and 

current industry and regulatory practice, nearly all pesticide products are distributed with 

all labeling accompanying the pesticide container.2 Consequently, each time that a 

pesticide is used up and the container is disposed of, the user must get a new container 

with new labeling that he cannot alter or deface. (FIFRA §12(a)(2)(A) makes it unlawful 

for a person to detach or alter the labeling approved for a registered pesticide.) This 

means that the labeling accompanying the container is legally valid for as long as the user 

possesses the specific product container and is only valid with respect to quantity of 

pesticide originally in that container. 

Under this system has one very important advantage: a person who purchases a 

pesticide can confidently expect to be able to use the pesticide according to the labeling 

accompanying the product until the all of the pesticide has been used up, unless EPA 

takes regulatory action to prohibit use of the product. Although EPA has the legal 

authority under FIFRA §§ 6, 12(a)(2)(J), and 12(a)(2)(K) to issue cancellation and 

suspension orders prohibiting the use of pesticide stocks in the hands of end-users, it 

should be noted that the Agency has only imposed such prohibitions in very rare 

1

 As defined in FIFRA §2(p)(2), “labeling” is “written, printed, or graphic matter—(A) accompanying the 

pesticide or device at any time; or (B) to which reference is made on the label or in literature accompanying 

the pesticide or device. . . .” Labeling typically includes extensive “directions for use” and contains 

provisions regarding the use of a pesticide that are designed to ensure that its use does not cause 

unreasonable adverse effects on the environment. 

2

 Only a small number of pesticide container labels contain reference to materials – thereby making that 

material “labeling” – that do not accompany the pesticide product. For example, portable chlorine gas 

products labeled for use in “shooting” swimming pools refer to the application practices manual issued by 

the Chlorine Institute. 

February 27, 2009 1 of 9 PPDC Discussion Paper Draft 
circumstances when EPA believed that the continued use of a pesticide posed an 

extraordinarily high risk to public health or the environment. As a consequence, users 

have come to expect EPA will not take action that would make their planned use of the 

pesticide unlawful. 

While anecdotal reports indicate most people use up a pesticide reasonably soon 

after they purchase it (i.e., within 6 - 12 months after purchase), this is not always the 

case. Sometimes a person may buy a product and not need to use it because, for example, 

the expected need to control a pest problem did not arise, and the product is kept in 

inventory until it is next needed – for agricultural products, commonly the growing 

season in the following year. A small percentage of pesticides are kept for even longer 

periods; chemical collection days indicate that some containers may be years, even 

decades, old. As far as EPA is concerned, therefore, the labeling of pesticide products 

effectively has an indefinite and potentially long lifespan – the amount of time that the 

user has possession of the pesticide container which the labeling accompanies, which 

may vary significantly. 

Because the current system creates no definitive lifespan for pesticide labeling, 

there are ongoing problems with enforcement and existing stocks of pesticides. The 

major problem is that users do not have the benefit of the most current directions about 

how to use a pesticide safely and effectively. Using the product according to old labeling 

may result in unnecessary risks to public health or the environment. 

Finally, the existing regulatory system typically involves significant delay 

between an EPA decision to add new or revised labeling provisions to protect public 

health and the environment and the actual appearance of the labeling on products in the 

hands of pesticide users. Once EPA makes a regulatory decision and a registrant agrees 

(or is legally compelled) to revise existing product labeling, the registrant must develop a 

new version of the labeling and submit it to the Agency for approval. Then, the registrant 

must print new labeling and ensure that the new labeling is attached to newly produced 

products. Although EPA may specify a shorter time period, the Agency typically allows 

the registrant 12 to 18 months to implement the labeling requirements on product newly 

released for shipment.3 Quantities of a product bearing the revised labeling must then be 

distributed through wholesale and retail distribution networks before they finally reach 

the user. 

C. The Proposed System 

EPA is considering a system that would establish a new way of making all of the 

labeling of a pesticide product available to purchasers and users. Instead of obtaining the 

labeling along with the pesticide container at the time of product purchase, a purchaser or 

user would be required to obtain a copy of the labeling either by downloading a file from 

a website or by calling a toll-free telephone service that would then mail or fax the 

labeling to the caller. Because the new system of obtaining labeling would depart from 

3

 Under the requirements at 40 CFR 152.130(c), registrant-initiated changes have to be incorporated within 

18 months. 

February 27, 2009 2 of 9 PPDC Discussion Paper Draft 
the widely prevailing practice of associating labeling with a specific container (which 

physical association effectively establishes a lifespan for the validity of labeling), the new 

system raises questions about how EPA should design the system so that users obtain and 

follow a relatively current version of the labeling for a pesticide they use repeatedly. 

One premise of the new system is that labeling would not physically accompany 

the pesticide product at the time of sale. Instead, material would become “labeling” 

because the container label would refer to it and make it legally binding. Referenced 

labeling would be obtained separately from the product container. Once obtained, such 

labeling could be considered to “accompany” a product, but it does not necessarily 

accompany just a single specific container as has been and currently continues to be the 

case. Rather the customary physical association of the labeling and a pesticide container 

is attenuated, and the downloaded labeling could legitimately “accompany” more than 

one container. (If a user possesses multiple containers of the same pesticide product, it 

may not be necessary to require the user to obtain separate labeling for each discrete 

container of a pesticide he possesses.) 

The attenuation of the labeling and the product container creates an issue about 

whether the downloaded labeling may be associated with different containers obtained 

over time. If the labeling is not uniquely associated with a container that the user empties 

and disposes of, the user in theory could continue to use an old version of labeling 

indefinitely with multiple containers. But versions of labeling for a pesticide approved 

by EPA are expected to change over time. Taken to its logical extreme, a version of 

labeling obtained under the new system could, in theory, be used with any product 

container, unless there were a restriction that limited its applicability to specific 

containers or for a specific time period. Unless users must replace old labeling for a 

product with an updated version, any improved protections for public health and the 

environment would not become applicable. 

DISCUSSION: 

The new approach is expected to accelerate the time between an EPA decision to 

require new risk mitigation measures and the appearance of the new use directions or 

restrictions in labeling. Following an agreement with the registrant, the Agency could 

make the revisions in labeling posted on the website, and users would be able to obtain 

the labeling for products already in the channels of trade. In that way users would get the 

new labeling sooner than if they had to wait for the revised labeling to be printed and 

applied to the containers of newly produced pesticide that would then be distributed 

through wholesale and retail channels. 

As indicated in the Background section above, however, the new approach of 

distributing labeling via the internet attenuates the physical connection between labeling 

and a single specific container. Such attenuation means that, in the absence of any 

restriction, the labeling potentially could be used indefinitely with multiple pesticide 

containers and that changes in labeling designed to improve protection for public health 

and the environment might never be fully implemented. Thus, EPA believes any new 

February 27, 2009 3 of 9 PPDC Discussion Paper Draft 
approach to web-based distribution of labeling needs to make a link between specific 

containers and the web-distributed labeling in a way that avoids this problem. 

A. Should There be a Definitive Lifespan for Web-Distributed Labeling? 

The Agency sees at least two possible ways to address the issue of linking labeling to 

specific containers. 

•	 First, EPA could require product containers to bear a statement that the specific 

container was “produced on [date]” and also require the user to obtain a version of 

the labeling approved on or after that date. This approach would essentially 

duplicate many characteristics of the existing system with its current advantages 

and disadvantages. 

•	 Second, EPA could require that web-distributed labeling have a defined lifespan, 

after which the user would need to obtain a new, potentially updated version of 

the labeling. This approach would impose some costs on users, but it would have 

many advantages in terms of quicker, universal implementation of new risk 

mitigation measures. 

Labeling linked to production date. The first approach would work as follows. 

Each pesticide container would bear a registration number and another “unique 

identifier” (possibly an alphabetical code) associated with a specific version of the 

container label for the product, as well as the date on which the product was “produced,” 

e. g., the date on which the pesticide mixture was put into the labeled container. The 

container label would also require the user to obtain a copy of the labeling for the product 

from either a website or a toll-free telephone service. Finally the container label would 

specify that the product could be used only in accordance with a version of the labeling 

obtained after the production date from one of these sources. 

The consequence of this first approach would be that the pesticide could lawfully 

be used according to any version of the labeling that existed after the date on which the 

product was produced. Once the pesticide in the container was used up (or disposed of), 

if the user wanted an additional quantity of the pesticide, the user would need to obtain a 

new container of the pesticide labeled with a new “produced by [date].” Labeling that 

predated the production date on the newly obtained quantity of pesticide would no longer 

be valid. In effect, this approach gives web-distributed labeling an indeterminate lifespan 

equal to the amount of time a user takes to use up the pesticide material. 

Finite labeling lifespan. The second approach would work as follows. The label 

on a pesticide container would bear a registration number and another “unique identifier” 

associated with a specific version of the container label for the product, as well as a 

requirement that the user obtain a copy of the labeling for the product from either a 

website or a toll-free telephone service. When the user obtained a copy of the labeling, 

the labeling would bear an expiration date, after which the labeling would no longer be 

valid. The lifespan would be of a fixed length – for example, 6, 9, or 12 months (or 

February 27, 2009 4 of 9 PPDC Discussion Paper Draft 
longer) – and would be calculated from the date of the downloading / printing of the 

labeling. For example, if the labeling lifespan were 12 months, labeling downloaded 

from the website on March 12, 2009, would be valid through March 11, 2010. (Note: 

the expiration date would not affect the validity of the registration or the validity of any 

tolerances or tolerance exemptions.) Also, an expiration date for downloaded labeling 

would be independent of any statement about the time period for which the product could 

reliably be stored without any adverse changes in the composition of the formulation. 

Under this second approach the pesticide could lawfully be used according to the 

downloaded labeling only for the lifespan of the labeling. Consequently, if a user thought 

he might still possess some quantity of the pesticide after the lifespan of his version of the 

labeling had expired, he would need to obtain a newer version of the labeling with a 

lifespan running until a later expiration date. Of course, the labeling available for the 

product could change between the user’s downloads. For example, EPA might have 

approved additional uses, and if so, those uses would be reflected in the new labeling and 

the user could then lawfully apply the product on new sites. Similarly, EPA might have 

approved new labeling to mitigate potential risks. In either case, the user would be 

required to comply with all directions and restrictions on the subsequent version of the 

labeling. 

Among other things, the web-distributed labeling system would dramatically 

accelerate the speed with which new labeling requirements to protect public health and 

the environment could take effect. Rather than waiting for paper labeling to work its way 

through the printing and distribution processes, the new requirements could appear in 

labeling downloaded from the website within a week or even a day or two after EPA 

approval. Users who purchased products after the changes were posted on the website 

would find the new requirements in the labeling they downloaded. Thus, like the current 

system the new requirements would apply prospectively, to products purchased after the 

date of EPA’s decision. Unlike the current system, it would implement changes much 

sooner after EPA concluded they were needed. 

To the extent that the web-distributed labeling system incorporates a limited 

lifespan on labeling, it would straightforwardly permit EPA to apply new requirements to 

products that had not been completely used up prior to the posting of the changes on the 

website. As noted above, if users possess some quantity of a pesticide for which their 

downloaded labeling had expired, they would need to obtain and follow all requirements 

contained in new, current versions of labeling for the products. Therefore, all of EPA’s 

regulatory decisions would eventually take effect as the lifespan of older labeling 

expired. For example, if EPA had imposed new risk mitigation measures on all labeling 

downloaded after April 8, 2009, and downloaded labeling had a 12-month lifespan, by 

April 8, 2010, all users should be complying with the new risk mitigation measures. 

Of course, a user who failed to use up all of the pesticide during the lifespan of 

the labeling would take a chance that the pesticide could no longer be used in the manner 

allowed when the user acquired the product. For example, a user might buy a pesticide 

that he intended, under web-distributed labeling, to use on his green beans in 2009. If the 

February 27, 2009 5 of 9 PPDC Discussion Paper Draft 
pest problem that would have necessitated using the pesticide did not occur in 2009, and 

the labeling had a 12-month lifespan, the user would then need to download a new 

version of the labeling to cover use in 2010. There would be some possibility that the 

new version of the labeling might no longer allow the green bean use. Such a change 

would, however, be unlikely since the Agency does not ordinarily limit the use of a 

pesticide except as a consequence of the periodic EPA reexamination of existing 

pesticides through the registration review process. (In registration review, EPA plans to 

reexamine all registered pesticides at least every 15 years. Thus, apart from the 

unexpected appearance of new data, changes to restrict the use of a pesticide will not 

occur as frequently as other kinds of changes.) The potential for future labeling changes 

that might affect the intended use of a pesticide would, nonetheless, create an additional 

incentive for users to use up their inventory of pesticide products within the lifespan of 

the labeling valid when they purchased their product. Many stakeholders have argued 

that if EPA adopts an approach that creates a limited lifespan for downloaded labeling, 

the lifespan should be quite lengthy in order to avoid creating unusable inventories of the 

product that would require expensive disposal. 

There are at least four ways to mitigate this disadvantage of a finite labeling 

lifespan: 1] advance notice to users; 2] the development of “user-to-user sales markets;” 

3] repurchase by the registrant; and 4] length of the lifespan. Each is explained below. 

To the extent EPA knows that it will be making a change in product labeling that 

will significantly limit an approved use, the Agency could minimize the potential for 

users to be left with unusable inventories by indicating on downloaded labeling the dates 

when uses will be canceled or other significant risk mitigation measures will be 

implemented. Here is how this could work under the web-distributed labeling system. 

Assume that in 2009 EPA and the registrant agreed that use A would be “phased out” by 

the end of 2011, i.e., in 2012 and afterwards, the product could not be sold with labeling 

permitting use A. Once that agreement had been reached, all downloaded labeling could 

contain a statement that use A was prohibited, effective January 1, 2012. This statement 

would appear on all downloaded labeling for years before it took effect, and all users 

would have ample advance notice. Note that even though labeling downloaded in the fall 

of 2011 would be valid for other uses after the phaseout date, under the downloaded 

labeling the product to be used for use A only until January 1, 2012. 

Another way to address the problem of unusable inventory is through the 

development of user-to-user sales markets. In this kind of secondary sales market, a user, 

who no longer could apply a product for the use intended at the time of purchase, would 

offer the product to buyers who might want to use the product for one of its lawful 

remaining uses. EPA would encourage such secondary sales, because they would cost 

less and be environmentally preferable to disposal of the product. The Agency 

understands, however, that some states impose regulatory requirements that may 

constrain the operation of such markets. EPA intends to work with states to explore how 

to allow safe, efficient operation of secondary sales markets. 

February 27, 2009 6 of 9 PPDC Discussion Paper Draft 
Registrants could help to address this problem by repurchasing unusable products 

from its customers. While there is not likely to be a legal requirement on registrants to do 

so, a company that offers this option will build significant good will among its customers. 

Further, since the product would likely not need relabeling, it is likely to impose 

relatively smaller burdens on the registrant. 

Finally, as suggested by many stakeholders, the problem of unusable inventories 

could be lessened by extending the time period for using up the product. But, of course, 

extending the lifespan of the labeling would tend to reduce the advantages of having a 

limited lifespan for downloaded labeling. The next section discusses this issue in more 

depth. 

Comparison of options. Each of these two approaches has advantages and disadvantages: 

Pros Cons 

Labeling linked to • Similar to historical • Delays comprehensive 

production date system. 

• Users may always 

use a pesticide 

according to the 

labeling approved 

at the time of 

manufacture. 

implementation of new risk 

mitigation measures. 

• Does not change users’ 

incentives to act unlawfully 

by refilling containers with 

out-of-date labeling. 

Labeling with a 

finite, limited 

lifespan linked to 

the “download 

date” 

• Would ensure 

comprehensive, 

timelier 

implementation of 

new risk mitigation 

measures. 

• Would create an 

additional incentive 

for users not to 

acquire and hold 

large inventories 

for long periods of 

time. 

• Represents a change to 

historical system. 

• Users would need to acquire a 

new version of the labeling if 

they did not use up all of the 

pesticide within the labeling 

lifespan, a modest additional 

burden. 

• Users would face some 

chance that new versions of 

labeling would change the 

way in which a product could 

be used, making it “unusable.” 

• Any unusable product would 

need to be disposed of 

properly, increasing the costs 

to users and / or registrants. 

B. How Long Should the “Lifespan” of Downloaded Labeling Last? 

If EPA imposes a limited lifespan on the validity of downloaded labeling, such an 

approach has the potential to accelerate the pace with which users should begin 

February 27, 2009 7 of 9 PPDC Discussion Paper Draft 
complying with changes in the directions and restrictions on pesticide labeling. 

Obviously, the shorter the lifespan of downloaded labeling is, the more rapidly the new 

risk mitigation measures will apply to all users. This important benefit, however, must be 

weighed against the possibility that a new labeling restriction will represent so significant 

a change that the user will no longer be able to apply the pesticide as originally planned. 

For example, if EPA cancelled the registration of a pesticide for a specific use, once the 

labeling changed and the lifespan of old labeling (the labeling which allowed the 

cancelled use) expired, users who had bought the pesticide intending to apply the product 

for that use would be left with a product of little or no value to them. Although this type 

of cancellation is rare, the impacts can be serious. In the past, EPA has negotiated with 

the registrant to accept return of unused product, but the Agency cannot necessarily 

compel such a solution, which would put increased burden on the end user following the 

cancellation. The Agency also recognizes that while changes in use directions or other 

restrictions may not effectuate complete cancellation of a use, for some users such 

changes may operationally have a comparable effect. For example, a new labeling 

requirement to employ highly specialized application equipment may result in a “de facto 

cancellation” for some users because they cannot afford the added cost of buying or 

renting such equipment. Extending the lifespan of downloaded labeling, however, would 

reduce such potential impacts by allowing users additional time to use up the pesticide 

they have purchased. 

Most people think the lifespan of downloaded pesticide labeling should be only as 

long as users would typically need to use up purchased pesticide products. Longer 

lifespans would potentially delay the implementation of important risk mitigation 

measures. Conversely, shorter lifespans would potentially impose some burden on users 

to obtain new versions of labeling and occasionally could lead to some quantities of 

purchased pesticides becoming unusable due to changes in labeling. 

The Agency believes there is considerable variation across kinds of pesticides and 

among users of the same type of pesticide product in terms of the timing of when a user 

purchases a product in relation to when the user intends to use the product, as well as in 

terms of how much and how long a user keeps inventory. The timing of use of an 

agricultural pesticide depends on the production cycle of the crop to which the pesticide 

is applied and the timing of the occurrence of pest problems. In general, before the start 

of the growing season an agricultural pesticide user will typically purchase the 

pesticide(s) he expects to apply during the season. Representatives of various 

agricultural groups have indicated that a grower would expect almost always to use up 

the purchased pesticide during the crop’s growing season. Excess pesticide carried over 

to the following growing season would represent an unproductive capital expense. Other 

kinds of pesticide products do not have the same cyclical use patterns. Other pesticide 

uses – for example, in the wood preservative treatment, for slime control in paper 

production, or in greenhouses – may occur more or less constantly throughout the year. 

In such cases, EPA thinks users would typically try to maintain enough inventory to 

address both scheduled and unexpected pest-control needs. But, like agricultural users, 

these users try to limit the quantity of pesticide products in their inventories to minimize 

cost. Thus, they will generally try to carry only as much as they need to address shortFebruary 27, 2009 8 of 9 PPDC Discussion Paper Draft 
term needs until such time as they could obtain any needed resupply. Nonetheless, 

representatives of some non-agricultural pesticide users have indicated that occasionally 

individual users will keep a pesticide in inventory to deal with infrequently occurring pest 

problems and will only need to purchase a new quantity of the pesticide every several 

years. 

In sum, EPA thinks that most users of most pesticides obtained for use in a 

business context will, for financial reasons, try to minimize the size of their inventories 

and how long they hold a product. They will attempt to buy only as much pesticide as 

they think they will need to use before they could reasonably obtain a new supply to meet 

their anticipated pest-control needs. Accordingly, EPA would expect that a pesticide user 

in a business context would rarely hold significant quantities of pesticide products for 

longer than a year, and usually for much shorter periods. 

Balanced against the impacts on the user are the benefits resulting from 

implementation of the labeling requirements. The Agency directs changes in labeling in 

order to mitigate risks to public health or the environment. The sooner users implement 

such changes, the quicker the unreasonable risks are redressed. EPA has previously 

considered how to weigh such impacts in its Endangered Species Protection Program 

(ESPP). In this program EPA will vary localized restrictions on the use of a pesticide in 

order to avoid potential adverse effects on threatened and endangered species. The 

Agency will communicate these localized restrictions to users through ESPP County 

Bulletins, available from an EPA website. Pesticide products will require users to obtain 

and comply with all requirements in the bulletin(s) for the counties in which the products 

will be used. After weighing the urgency of implementing new protections for 

endangered species and the users’ need to rely on being able to apply a product to address 

his future pest control needs, EPA decided that ESPP bulletins will be valid only for a 6 

month period following download. (It should be noted that users could be confused if 

web-distributed labeling has a different lifespan from ESPP County Bulletins.) 

RECOMMENDATION: 

EPA supports the position that web-distributed labeling should have a timelimited lifespan calculated from the date on which it is downloaded or requested by tollfree telephone system. The Agency does not yet have a recommendation regarding the 

specific lifespan for web-distributed labeling. While it should be long enough to allow 

most users to use up the quantities they purchase, it probably should not last significantly 

longer than a single use season. Finally, EPA would also support taking steps to diminish 

the potential for creating unusable inventories, especially providing advance notification 

of EPA phase-out decisions, i.e., decisions that specified uses of a pesticide would no 

longer be allowed after a certain date. 

February 27, 2009 9 of 9 PPDC Discussion Paper Draft