ICR Response to Comments:

In its comments dated April 19, 2011, S. C. Johnson & Son, Inc. (SJC) specified its concerns about EPA’s 

proposed collection of information:

1. The proposed research is inadequate to realize the EPA’s stated goals.

2. The current EPA proposals for an efficacy mark for repellent labels could in fact cause 

consumers to make inappropriate choices when selecting a repellent product.

3. The current efficacy data are not appropriate for the purpose of comparing between products 

and would in fact be misleading.

4. Due to risk to the public, EPA must require that all pesticides making claims against public health 

pests meet the same efficacy and labeling requirements. FIFRA § 25(b) products should not be 

exempt from any of these standards.

5. Submitted an appendix with recommended changes to the questionnaire.

Concern 1: The proposed research is inadequate to realize the EPA’s stated goals.

SCJ appears to have mis-understood EPA’s stated goals for the survey. SCJ’s comments indicate 

their belief that EPA is conducting this research to “cause a shift in consumer decision making.” This is 

incorrect. As stated in the Supporting Statement for an Information Collection Request (ICR) that EPA 

provided in the docket EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-1085 available at http://www.regulations.gov, EPA had two 

goals:

identify the types of information that users of insect repellents want on the label of an insect 

repellent product, and 

test four versions of an efficacy mark

EPA does not intend to use the information collected through this survey to attempt to shift 

consumer decision making, but rather to determine whether individual labels are adequately informing 

consumers about individual products. The proposed survey questions were deliberately designed to 

allow EPA to judge if the content and design of the label communicates the safety and performance 

information that consumers desire. If such information were required on pesticide labeling, it may 

impact consumer behavior because by providing information that consumers readily understand, 

consumers can make more informed choices. 

Under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), EPA works to assure that 

the information on pesticide labeling is neither false nor misleading. It is not EPA’s intention to change 

consumer behavior, to influence a consumer to choose one product over another. It is not our intention 

to interfere in the consumer’s personal decision-making process. During the focus groups, conducted by 

EPA in 2010, participants identified the information that they want on a label. EPA’s intention is to 

assure that the information the consumer has asked for, as well as information necessary to safely and 
effectively apply an insect repellent product is on the label, and that the consumer understands and 

correctly interprets that information. In the 10 focus groups conducted by EPA, participants indicated 

that they want clearer, more concise statements on the labels, and that they are looking for a consistent 

standard of measurement for evaluating the efficacy and safety of personal insect repellents. 

Once EPA has assured that labels provide the appropriate and understandable information, then 

consumers are free to compare products and to make a personal choice based on their needs.

Concern 2: The current EPA proposals for an efficacy mark for repellent labels could in fact cause 

consumers to make inappropriate choices when selecting a repellent product.

In their comments, SCJ stated their belief that if icons displaying hours of protection were on an 

insect repellent product label, then consumers would make “shopping choices based on what product 

will give the longest protection for the best price.” SCJ asked instead that EPA “choose a label 

communication that encourages to choose repellents based on the situations in which they need 

repellency.” SCJ suggested using percent active ingredient instead of hours.

EPA understands that we will need to provide information to consumers on the EPA website, 

such as explanations of how to “read” the efficacy logo. Some of the questions in the survey will assist 

EPA with that purpose.

EPA agrees that the “situation” is a consideration. In fact, EPA’s website states: “Shorter 

protection time does not mean the product is less effective. Be sure to use a repellent product with a 

protection time that fits your activity, perspiration, water, temperature, and how attractive you are to 

insects.” (see http://cfpub.epa.gov/oppref/insect/index.cfm) However, EPA disagrees that percent 

active ingredient can serve as a surrogate for protection time. While this may be an obvious (and 

somewhat accurate) comparison for products with the same active ingredient, it is not an effective 

comparison for products with different active ingredients.

Concern 3: The current efficacy data are not appropriate for the purpose of comparing between 

products and would in fact be misleading.

EPA does not consider that an efficacy marker is a comparative claim. The efficacy marker 

would only indicate the level of efficacy supported by the efficacy data submitted to the Agency and its 

purpose would be explained in any education materials created by EPA. This is similar to the acute 

toxicity categories that are used for labeling purposes. Acute toxicity data supports the categorization 

of products into different hazard categories. The categories can be used by consumers to compare 

products, but that doesn’t make them comparative claims. In fact, any unique feature of a product label 

can be used to compare the product to another. But generally, EPA would not treat labeling information 

that doesn’t reference another product, explicitly or implicitly, as a comparative claim. 

SC Johnson states that "The only practical significance of mandating an icon of hours of duration 

on repellent labels is the facilitation of direct comparisons between insect repellents." First, EPA has not 

decided to mandate the use of an efficacy logo on an insect repellent product, and notes that 

rulemaking would be required for such an action. However, EPA could initiate a pilot project, or a 

voluntary program to encourage such efficacy logos. EPA may also decide, based on the results of the 
survey, to use label information other than efficacy logos to convey this information to consumers. 

Second, there are reasons other than facilitating direct comparison to provide for such standardization,

such as readability and understandability. During 2010, EPA conducted 10 focus groups on insect 

repellent labeling. Participants indicted that the claims on current insect repellent labels were variable, 

confusing and not always easy to read or understand. They wanted clearer, more concise statements on

insect repellent labels.

EPA understands SCJ’s concerns that some products would not have the efficacy data necessary

to facilitate use of an efficacy logo since “methodologies vary greatly.” While it may not have been true 

some years ago, today there is a great deal of standardization in testing for personal insect repellents 

given the recent finalization of the guideline for testing, and the requirement to have insect repellent

testing protocols reviewed by the Human Studies Review Board (HSRB). 

Additionally, EPA is in the process of preparing a proposed rule entitled: “Data Requirements 

for Product Performance.” As described in EPA’s Regulatory Plan and Semiannual Regulatory Agenda

(see http://www.epa.gov/lawsregs/documents/regagendabook-fall10.pdf page 301),

EPA will propose to amend efficacy data requirements that specifically 

address the registration data needs of invertebrate pesticide product 

registrations as mandated by Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and 

Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). This rulemaking will provide clarity, consistency, 

and transparency. This proposal will seek to amend the current efficacy 

data requirements codified in 40 CFR Part 158, which describes the 

minimum data and information EPA typically requires to support an 

application for pesticide registration or amendment; and the 

maintenance of a pesticide registration, e.g., as in the registration review 

program.

EPA expects this rule will standardize the current practices for insect repellent testing, such as number 

of studies and species to be tested. Thus, when these data requirements are finalized, there will be 

standardized data requirements, which would provide the minimum set of data needed to support 

providing pest and duration information in the efficacy marker. Even if the testing does have some 

variation, it would still all be judged by EPA/OPP who would consider the variations and the weight-ofthe-evidence to determine what efficacy has been proven, and if the information to be presented in the 

logo is supported. Since these are not comparative claims, the mark will only be indicating that one 

particular product is proven to be effective as described by the logo and label claims.

Concern 4: Due to risk to the public, EPA must require that all pesticides making claims against public 

health pests meet the same efficacy and labeling requirements. FIFRA § 25(b) products should not be 

exempt from any of these standards.

At this time EPA is developing a proposed rulemaking entitled, “Reconsideration of Exemptions 

for Insect Repellents.” As described in EPA’s Regulatory Plan and Semiannual Regulatory Agenda (see 

http://www.epa.gov/lawsregs/documents/regagendabook-fall10.pdf page 250),
EPA is developing rulemaking to modify the minimum risk pesticides 

exemption under 40 CFR 152.25(f) to exclude personally applied insect 

repellents from the exemption and require an abbreviated data set for 

such products. EPA is taking this action because these pesticides claim 

to control pests of significant public health importance.

This proposed rule should publish several months after the publication of the Product 

Performance Rule, and would propose which data would be needed for a currently-exempt product to 

transition to a registered product. Additional information on this rulemaking is in the docket EPA-HQOPP-2010-0227 available at http://www.regulations.gov.

Based on comments received, EPA has made only minor clarifying changes to the Supporting 

Statement for an Information Collection Request (ICR) entitled “Use of Surveys in Developing Improved 

Labeling for Insect Repellent Products.”

Concern 5: In the table below, EPA has provided responses to SCJ’s comments (the Appendix ) on the 

questionnaire, by adding a third column entitled “EPA’s Response.” (The first two columns are as 

submitted by SCJ.) Changes resulting from the comment are described.

Research Principle Questionnaire Change 

Recommendations by SCJ

EPA’s Response

Proactively stating the criteria 

by which a decision will be 

made

Clearly establish which 

question(s) will be used to 

make a decision and how

Key decision-making questions are Q. 

24, 26 and 31 since these are the 

questions where the consumer rates 

the efficacy marks. These questions 

will help determine which efficacy 

mark should be used on product 

labels. Q. 11-23, 25, 27-30 all support 

the key decision-making questions 

and provide extra information for 

decision-making. In particular Q. 11, 

12, and 15 provide information for 

consideration on whether EPA may 

pursue placement of an efficacy mark 

on the label. The rest of the questions 

are important to provide profiles of 

those who preferred each mark in 

terms of demographics and insect 

repellent product use. In this regard, 

they also support decision-making 

about which mark would have the 

most impact on specific segments of 

consumers. 

Randomize non-scale responses 

to avoid bias

Randomize responses at Qs. 

3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 25, 

Randomization is automatically done 

for these response categories during 
28, 29, 30, 33. In Qs. 24, 26, 

and 31 order of efficacy mark 

should reflect rotation order 

questionnaire programming. We will 

add the instruction “RANDOMIZE” 

before the list for each question to 

convey to readers that this is done 

during programming. We will also 

note that for Q. 24, 26, and 31 the 

order of the efficacy marks should 

reflect the rotation order presented 

to participant.

Ensure content of lists is 

exhaustive to make information 

actionable

List at Qs. 9 and 10 should 

include all front label 

communication, including: 

Type of insects repellent

Number of hours of 

protection OR instructions on 

when to reapply

Active ingredient(s)

Other ingredient(s)

Scented / unscented

Waterproof

Expiration date

Safety warning

Brand

Long lasting protection

Dry/non-greasy skin feel

Non-plasticizer= gear safe

Sweat resistant

Protection against West Nile 

Virus

% of active ingredient

Size

Price 

The lists for Q. 9 and 10 were 

compiled from the results of the 10 

consumer focus groups conducted as 

the first phase of this study. A major 

purpose of the focus group study was 

to aid in design of the quantitative 

survey questionnaire. The compiled 

list represents what focus group 

participants (consumers) stated that 

they wanted on an insect repellent 

product label. There is an “Other 

(Specify)” response which means that 

survey respondents can write in other 

information they look for that may 

not be listed. Information on the 

labels such as brand, size, price are 

not relevant to this study. EPA also 

notes that price is rarely on the label. 

Other items such as sweat resistant, 

non-plasticizer/gear safe, protection 

against West Nile Virus were not 

mentioned by participants during the 

segment of the focus group where 

this was specifically asked, and are 

therefore not included. Long lasting 

protection is a vague phrase that 

focus group participants found nonspecific (What does that mean?), and 

therefore not helpful. Percent of 

active ingredient is required to be on 

the label.

Include internal benchmarks Provide a “none” option at 

Qs 24, 26, 31

Add an option without an 

efficacy mark at Qs. 25, 26

EPA determined to force a choice of 

which efficacy mark is preferred. 

Since the purpose of this question is 

to determine which mark is the best 

at communicating the desired 

information, offering an opt-out does 

not serve EPA’s need for information. 

This question would not determine if 
EPA pursues placement of an efficacy 

mark on the label. Therefore, if none 

or a visual of a repellent bottle 

without an efficacy mark were added 

to these questions it alters the 

question, to become somewhat 

equivalent to the decision to use an 

efficacy mark. Additionally, if a 

number of consumers chose the

“none” response, it may be difficult 

to statistically determine which mark 

should be used. The specific marks to 

be tested in the quantitative survey 

have been vetted in the focus groups. 

The first four focus groups winnowed 

the number of efficacy marks down 

from five to three. These three were 

then re-designed based on focus 

group participant feedback. The next 

6 focus groups gave feedback on the 

three revised and the new RF mark. 

No comments were made as to not 

wanting any mark at all: Focus group 

participants were receptive to having 

a mark on the label.

Avoid forcing respondents to 

make arbitrary choices

Q. 10 should be a scale 

where respondents can 

assign importance to each 

variable, since they may find 

+/- 2 most important 

Focus group participants were asked 

a similar question, and had no 

challenges in responding. The 

purpose of this question is to 

determine what label information is 

most important to consumers. A 

scale will more likely result in 

respondents rating all or most of the 

items as important. Therefore, there 

is a need to ask survey respondents 

to prioritize what they consider to be 

the two most important pieces of 

information.

Align order of questionnaire 

with research objectives

Move Qs. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 after Q. 

31

Ask Qs. 25, 26 before Qs. 11-

24 to understand real-life 

impact before collecting 

diagnostics

Delete Qs. 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 

since not an objective 

EPA originally considered placing Q. 

3-7 after Q. 31. However, EPA 

believes it is important to place Q. 3-7 

(which are about usage) in the 

questionnaire before the questions 

about the labeling so insect repellant 

use behavior and reasons for 

use/non-use are not influenced/ 

informed by the detailed label 

information questions. Q. 11-24 are 
intended to introduce survey 

participants to the efficacy marks, 

which they have never seen before, 

and to then obtain their reaction(s) to 

the marks. The marks, in a reduced 

size that would fit onto an insect 

repellant product, are then evaluated 

to understand if the consumer can 

accurately obtain information from 

the reduced-size. (Q. 25, 26). We 

believe this is the correct sequence 

for these questions for our purposes. 

Q. 27-31 relate to repellent factor 

(RF) logo which focus group 

participants found confusing and 

difficult to understand, and therefore 

less desirable that the other efficacy 

marks. Q. 27-31 were added to test 

this hypothesis from the focus groups 

in the large, statistically reliable 

quantitative survey. Therefore, it 

became an objective of the survey.

Questions should match 

research objectives

Qs. 8, 9, 10 should be asked 

for front label only 

Based on our prior research, 

consumers do not recall whether the 

information on the front or the back 

panel. We believe that adding the 

phrase “front label” at this point will 

be confusing and not important to 

consumers.

Questions should provide 

meaningful data

- Delete Q. 7 (not sure how 

someone could be 

responsible for purchasing 

insect repellents and not 

have ever looked at the 

label

- Rephrase Q. 11 to provide 

more direction (how 

would this information 

help you make a choice 

between mosquito 

repellents 

- At Qs. 12, 28 ask either 

informative OR helpful 

(not both terms)

- Provide context for Q. 15 

(why would a consumer be 

looking for this label if they 

- EPA wants to retain Q. 7. Our 

previous surveys have shown that 

up to 25% of respondents who 

purchase insect repellents selfreport that they do not read the 

product labels at purchase. 

- EPA intended Q. 11 as way to 

determine what the symbol 

communicates to consumers on an 

unaided or “cold” basis. This is 

precisely how some consumers 

could come across the efficacy 

mark in the store. EPA wants to 

understand what the symbol is 

communicating to consumers 

before they know it is an efficacy 

mark. Additionally, this 

information will help EPA to 

design an 
weren’t aware outreach/communication program 

if the decision is made to include 

the logo on the label.

- We will delete the rating for 

Informative in Q. 12 and 28 and 

retain Helpful. Helpful is more 

actionable.

- Q. 15 can be rephrased in the 

hypothetical so that it applies to 

all consumers, such as “Now that 

you have seen this efficacy mark, if 

you were shopping for an insect 

repellent product, how likely 

would you be to look for and 

consider the logo information in 

making a purchase of an insect 

repellent product?” 

Maximize consumer 

understanding

Add which specific products 

consumers have used in the 

past year

How use product against 

mosquitoes vs. ticks (is there 

confusion if the numbers are 

different) 

EPA already has consumer research 

data on this. Specific product use 

behavior is not the purpose of this 

study.

EPA agrees that there may be 

confusion if the numbers are 

different, and will add a question (see 

below) about this issue.

Ensure technical integrity Fix skip logic at Q. 4 We will fix this.

EPA also identified the following additional issues while responding to SCJ’s comments.

Fix skip logic at Q. 7 We will fix this.

With regard to the “confusion” 

mentioned above, “if the 

numbers are different,” what 

would consumers think if one of 

the numbers was zero? 

EPA will also add a question about 

this issue. (see below)

Also, may want a question about 

SCJ concern about always 

purchasing the product with the 

longest duration.

EPA will also add a new question 

on this issue. (see below)

New Qs:

Duration:

If you are comparing two products, and you are looking for a product to use while watching your 

son/daughter’s soccer game, which would you choose:
Insert three logos (use the same design for both) it should be the logo they selected in Q26, and insert 

this as a new Q 27. For option 1 have M8, T8, and option 2 M4, T4 and option 3 M2, T2 and option 4 (I 

want a different product.)

(Randomize)

Differing Times:

How would you interpret the following: Insert logo, also the logo they selected in Q26 with M6 and T2, 

and insert this as new Q 28.

The product repels insects for approximately 6 hours

The product repels insects for approximately 2 hours

The product repels mosquitoes for 6 hours and repels ticks for 2 hours

I don’t know.

(Randomize)

Zero:

How would you interpret the following: Insert logo, also the logo they selected in Q26 with M0 and T6, 

and insert this as new Q 29.

Select one answer:

The product repels insects for approximately 6 hours

The product repels insects for an average of 3 hours

The product repels ticks for 6 hours and does not work on mosquitoes

The product repels ticks for 6 hours, and must work on mosquitoes for six hours too.

I don’t know.

(Randomize)