The Straight Dope

Go Back   Straight Dope Message Board > Main > General Questions

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 05-24-2011, 09:02 AM
kayaker kayaker is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Western Pennsylvania
Posts: 15,254
"It is a violation of Federal law"

Quote:
It is a violation of Federal law to use this product in a manner inconsistent with its labeling.
We sometimes have an ant problem, and Terro works nicely. It has the quoted warning on the packaging. So what's the deal with the warning? Is it enforceable? Seems too vague. What is the "Federal Law" and why isn't it cited in the warning?

The package labeling says I should place new product out every 3 months even if I see no ants. If I disregard this am I subject to prosecution?

I'm thinking it is just a CYA label statement so that if I figure out a way to convert the product to meth There will be a way law enforcement can come after me.
Reply With Quote
Advertisements  
  #2  
Old 05-24-2011, 09:06 AM
Whack-a-Mole Whack-a-Mole is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
It is a CYA label.

If you poison your neighbor with it then it is your fault and not theirs.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 05-24-2011, 09:07 AM
KneadToKnow KneadToKnow is offline
Voodoo Adult (Slight Return)
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Charlotte, NC, USA
Posts: 24,087
FWIW, this was the fourth hit when I Googled the phrase:

Quote:
Originally Posted by http://www.ppp.purdue.edu/Pubs/ppp-24/ppp24pg19-28.html
Every pesticide label includes the statement, "It is a violation of federal law to use this product in a manner inconsistent with its labeling." This language obliges the purchaser or user of any pesticide to assume responsibilities for the use of the product. Further, courts of law and regulators generally recognize the pesticide label is a binding contract which requires the person using the product to do so exactly as directed. Terms such as must, shall, do not, and shall not mean that the user is responsible for specific actions when applying or handling the given product; any departure from such directions is, in the eyes of the law, an illegal use of the pesticide.
Linky

Last edited by KneadToKnow; 05-24-2011 at 09:07 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 05-24-2011, 09:15 AM
kayaker kayaker is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Western Pennsylvania
Posts: 15,254
I was going to google the phrase, but IU don't have the package with me and was lucky to remember it exactly. Also, I'm curious about enforceability of such a general statement. "(I)nconsistent with its labeling" in particular.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 05-24-2011, 09:19 AM
KneadToKnow KneadToKnow is offline
Voodoo Adult (Slight Return)
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Charlotte, NC, USA
Posts: 24,087
Follow the link and scroll down a bit and you'll see references to specific sections of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). I suspect that's the particular federal law in question.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 05-24-2011, 09:31 AM
Whack-a-Mole Whack-a-Mole is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by kayaker View Post
I was going to google the phrase, but IU don't have the package with me and was lucky to remember it exactly. Also, I'm curious about enforceability of such a general statement. "(I)nconsistent with its labeling" in particular.
What enforceable?

They are covering themselves from a potential civil liability suit.

If you break the law then you break the law whether they told you something was illegal or not. "Ignorance of the law is no excuse" and all that jazz.

Last edited by Whack-a-Mole; 05-24-2011 at 09:31 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 05-24-2011, 09:31 AM
kayaker kayaker is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Western Pennsylvania
Posts: 15,254
Quote:
Originally Posted by KneadToKnow View Post
Follow the link and scroll down a bit and you'll see references to specific sections of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). I suspect that's the particular federal law in question.
Thanks! I have been using products the past few weeks that contain the warning, but didn't realize they are all pesticides (wasp spray, ant killer, flea control product).
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 05-24-2011, 09:52 AM
johnpost johnpost is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
the government has a direct interest in use of these chemicals. people will use more than allowed or in ways that it is not allowed and create hazards to people, unintended targets.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 05-24-2011, 10:20 AM
Markxxx Markxxx is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Chicago,IL
Posts: 14,962
When you don't know something, look to the Family Circus to provide the answer
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 05-24-2011, 10:27 AM
robert_columbia robert_columbia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
But have there been any arrests, prosecutions, or convictions for this?

"Mr. Smith, you stand charged with using a product in a manner inconsistent with its labeling. How do you plead?"

"So, why are you in jail?"
"I used ant spray for a roach problem, and did not use it in a ventilated area like the label said I should. I got convicted of 2 counts of Using a Product in a Manner Inconsistent with its Labeling."
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 05-24-2011, 10:32 AM
kayaker kayaker is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Western Pennsylvania
Posts: 15,254
Thanks, robert columbia! That is actually the thinking that led to my OP.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 05-24-2011, 10:37 AM
Kimmy_Gibbler Kimmy_Gibbler is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by kayaker View Post
We sometimes have an ant problem, and Terro works nicely. It has the quoted warning on the packaging. So what's the deal with the warning? Is it enforceable? Seems too vague. What is the "Federal Law" and why isn't it cited in the warning?

The package labeling says I should place new product out every 3 months even if I see no ants. If I disregard this am I subject to prosecution?

I'm thinking it is just a CYA label statement so that if I figure out a way to convert the product to meth There will be a way law enforcement can come after me.
(1) The law is probably FIFRA.
(2) While the enforcement of a law may be defended against by asserting its vagueness, that pertains to the law as actually promulgated by the legislature. It is no defense to say that the warning label on the product is too ambiguous, because ignorance of the law is no defense to its application. You are presumed to know what the relevant statutes say (and, indeed, how prior case law has construed those statutes) about the activities you undertake. Unless the statute specifically requires it, you need not even be informed of its applicability on the label, just as cars don't ordinarily carry admonitions that driving them while intoxicated may subject you to criminal and civil prosecution.
(3) It seems pretty doubtful that the U.S. Attorney will prosecute you, but if he or she did, a lack of previous prosecutions obviously will not exonerate the accused.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 05-24-2011, 02:11 PM
jtgain jtgain is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Cop: Sir, did you shake the can vigorously before using?
You: Well, I did shake it, but I would say I shook it more in a spirited fashion
Cop: Place you hands behind your back.

Last edited by jtgain; 05-24-2011 at 02:12 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 05-24-2011, 02:35 PM
FatBaldGuy FatBaldGuy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: SLC, USA
Posts: 4,052
We had a sad case here in Utah about a year or so ago where a worker for a pest control company used a chemical pest repellent "in a manner inconsistent with its labeling" by placing it too close to the house and in higher concentration than allowed. Two little girls died from the fumes and both the worker and the company faced criminal and civil charges.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 05-24-2011, 02:39 PM
Dolores Reborn Dolores Reborn is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Houston
Posts: 13,873
I always thought that warning had to do with "huffing."

Ignorance fought...
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 05-24-2011, 02:42 PM
FatBaldGuy FatBaldGuy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: SLC, USA
Posts: 4,052
Quote:
Originally Posted by FatBaldGuy View Post
We had a sad case here in Utah about a year or so ago where a worker for a pest control company used a chemical pest repellent "in a manner inconsistent with its labeling" by placing it too close to the house and in higher concentration than allowed. Two little girls died from the fumes and both the worker and the company faced criminal and civil charges.
Missed the edit window. Here is a link to the story.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 05-24-2011, 03:02 PM
KneadToKnow KneadToKnow is offline
Voodoo Adult (Slight Return)
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Charlotte, NC, USA
Posts: 24,087
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dolores Reborn View Post
I always thought that warning had to do with "huffing."
Same here, until I found the above-linked article.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 05-24-2011, 04:06 PM
kunilou kunilou is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 17,691
Quote:
Originally Posted by FatBaldGuy View Post
We had a sad case here in Utah about a year or so ago where a worker for a pest control company used a chemical pest repellent "in a manner inconsistent with its labeling" by placing it too close to the house and in higher concentration than allowed. Two little girls died from the fumes and both the worker and the company faced criminal and civil charges.
And that's really what the label is for -- not Joe Householder who wants to kill roaches with ant spray. Your major badass pesticides are supposed to be used only be licensed or certified applicators. When they abuse the stuff, bery bad things can happen and it does open them up to federal charges.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 05-24-2011, 10:12 PM
Northern Piper Northern Piper is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Back in Riderville
Posts: 17,719
Quote:
Originally Posted by Markxxx View Post
When you don't know something, look to the Family Circus to provide the answer
Or even better, check what the Perfect Master has said on the topic:

Is misuse of Pine-Sol a federal crime?
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 05-26-2011, 12:49 AM
BigT BigT is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Here's a question I had from the other thread:

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigT View Post
Why not just say, "Disregard the written instructions at your own risk"?
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 05-26-2011, 09:22 AM
digs digs is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by KneadToKnow View Post
FWIW, this was the fourth hit when I Googled...
But you do realize it's a lot more fun to check things here, right? Google never gives me wry quips, clever snark, or cool anecdotes. The Dope's always there for me.
Reply With Quote
Reply



Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:18 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright 2013 Sun-Times Media, LLC.