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.
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.
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).
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.
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.”
(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.
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.
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.
