United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Prevention, Pesticides
and Toxic Substances
(7501C)
EPA-730-R-97-001
. .August 1997
X*EPA Pesticides and
! New Audio
Technology
1 1
}
Summary Report
-------
-------
New Audio Technology
Pesticide Partnership Meeting
Acknowledgments
The Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) of EPA would like to extend its greatest
appreciation to Ben Everidge of SpaceMark International, Terry Telzrow and Mike Adkins of
Energizer Power Sy stems, and Gerry Youngman and Ross Hay den of Information Storage
Devices for their hard work with the Agency, this past-year, in concept development. Their
contributions were invaluable to the successful presentation of this technology.
OPP would also like to extend a special thanks to the other guest speakers who offered
their special insights on pesticide risk-reduction initiatives, potential audio applications and how
their implementation would be impacted by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide
Act. They are Rob Denny of the Agricultural Container Research Council, Mary Ellen Setting
representing the Association of American Pesticide Control Officials, Jesse Baskerville and
Phyllis Flaherty of EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, and Steve MorriU
of EPA's Consumer Labeling Initiative.
• .' • ' -."•-. ' ' '
OPP would like to recognize Alvaro Yamhure for the idea of communicating risks of
pesticides via an audio message; OPP also wishes to extend special appreciation to Amy
Breedlove, Jim Downing, Judy Smith, Steve Morrill, Linda Murray, Scott Schwenk, Mary
Frances Lowe, Arty-Williams and especially Laura Dye for their tireless efforts in concept ,
development and meeting preparation. In addition; many others in EPA provided invaluable
perspectives about implementing audio technologies with pesticides during OPP's developmental
phase of this project. They are Mark Dyner of the Office of General Counsel; Brian Dyer,
David Stangel, Phyllis Flaherty and Jon Jacobs of the Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance; Denise Keehner, Joe Merenda, Bill Jordan, Arine Lindsay, Jim Jones, Janice Jensen,
Jean Frane, Norm Cook, and Tony Maciorowski of the Office of Pesticide Programs; Rob
Koethe,, Region 1; Fred Kozak and Dan Kraft, Region 2; Don Lott and Gerry Florentine, .
Region 3; Carlton, Layne and Richard Pont, Region 4; John Ward, Region 5; Jerry Oglesby,
Greg Williams, Teddy Brown, and Jerry Collins, Region 6; Dave Wilcox, Region 7; Debbie
Kovacs, Dallas Miller, and Carol Belew, posthumously, Region 8; and Glenda Dugan,
Region 9.
Lastly, the Office of Pesticide Programs of EPA is indebted to the many participants
listed on the next pages who provided their ideas, insights, suggestions and issues about this
new audio technology and its potential usefulness and practicality in reducing pesticide misuse.
Daniel M.Barolo, Director
Office of Pesticide Programs
December 17, 1996
Acknowledgments
-------
-------
New Audio Technology
Pesticide Partnership Meeting
Meeting Participants and Affiliations.:
Mike Adkins,
Edward Allen .
Daniel Barblo
Jesse Baskerville
Nancy Bockrath
Amy Breedlove .
Amy Brown
Kevin Cannon
Melissa Chun
Daniel Clark
Jesus A. Cota
Rob Denny
Susan Dilts •
Darlene Dinkins
Jim Downing v
Teresa Downs
Laura Dye
Avis Effinger
Benjamin Everidge
Laurie Flanagan
Phyllis Flaherty
Bob Fugitt
Jean Frane
Michael Glikes
Wayne Hillebrecht
David J. Hoelzel
Nancy Huebl
John Impson
Jirti Jones
Michael Kelley
Denise Keehner
JeffKempter
Brigid Klein
Vince Leclair
Donald Lott
Kimberly Lowe
Michael Magner
Ray McAllister
Energizer Power Systems
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Zeneca Agricultural Products
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
University of Maryland ,
Solaris Group, Monsanto Company
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency -• ' :
Migrant Legal Action Program '
U.S. Forest Service
Agricultural Container Research Council ,r
American Gyanamid Company
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency v
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency •
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
American Pet Products Manufacturers Association
Everidge Group and SpaceMark International Corporation
D.C. Legislative & Regulatory Services
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
DuPont Agricultural Products
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Zeneca Agricultural Products
Bell Laboratories, Inc. , '
Sandoz Agro, Inc.
U.S. Department of Agriculture
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Great Lakes Chemical Corporation
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Chemical Specialties Manufacturers Association
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Regions
Jellinek, Schwartz & Connolly, Inc.
Newhouse Newspapers
American Crop Protection Association
December 17, 1996
Acknowledgments
-------
New Audio Technology
Pesticide Partnership Meeting
William Metzger
Steve Morrill
Peter Mueller
Al Muench
Maureen O'Donnell
Judy Oldham
Beth Outterson
Bonnie Poli
Tom Ranallo
Lori Rottenberg
Gary Schifilliti
Mary Ellen Setting
Terry Telzrow
Margaret Tucker
Mary Vihstadt
Judy Vogt
Ralph Wright
Sonia White
James C. Wright
Gerry Youngman
United Industries Corporation
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Allied Signal
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
Occupational Safety & Health Administration
Helena Chemical Company
Association of Farm Worker Opportunity Programs
U.S. Department of Agriculture
American Cyanamid Company
Association of Farm Worker Opportunity Programs
Olin Corporation
Association of American Pesticide Control Officials
Energizer Power Systems
Washington State Department of Agriculture
Dial Corporation
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
BASF Corporation
Law Offices
Information Storage Devices
December 17,1996
IV
Acknowledgments
-------
New Audio Technology - ' . Pesticide Partnership Meeting
Table of Contents
Acknowledgments...'.. i
Introduction .......... ....... 1
Opening Remarks
Daniel M. Barolo, Director of the Office of Pesticide Programs 3
New Housing & Audio Technologies .> , " ,
BenEveridge, CEO, TheEveridge Group andSpaceMarkInternational Corporation.... 1
Multi-Level Storage, Reprogrammable Chips
Gerry Youngman, Regional Director of Sales, Information Storage Devices. ..13
New Battery Technology
Terry N. Telzro\v, Manager of Standards, Product Safety •. • ••
& Environmental Affairs Worldwide...'. .......... i.....'! :...', •..'.. 19.
Birth of the Audio Message Concept & Its Applications
Laura Dye, Office of Pesticide Programs:.,.... .41
' - . '' ' • s
EPA's Consumer Label Improvement Initiatives
Steve Morrill, Office of Pesticide Programs ;, ; 47
EPA's Preliminary Pesticide Compliance & Enforcement Perspectives
Phyllis Flaherty,, Chief of the Compliance Branch, Office of Compliance : 53
Jesse Baskerville, Director of Enforcement.....:...'........ 55
State Perspectives, ;
Mary Ellen Setting of the Maryland Department of Agriculture,
representing the Association of American Pesticide Control Officials (AAPCO).......... 57
Recycling & the Label
Robert Denny, Agricultural Container Research Council (ACRC) ;.' 59
Audio Message Technology & Pesticides: Panel & Audience Discussion........ 63
Potential Pesticide Policy & Feasibility Issues. 77
Report prepared by Laura Dye, Amy Breedlove, and Donna Price.
December. 17,1996 ~~ ^~ ~ v-,-: .-.,-,-. ' " Table of Contents
-------
-------
New Audio Technology , , Pesticide Partnership Meeting
Introduction
, Pesticides are an important industry in the United States and abroad,, with pesticide sales
and usage, each year, in the billions of dollars and millions of pounds. The key factor in most
cases of reported human injury or environmental damage incidents involving pesticides,is
misuse. A major focus of EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs (C)PP) is reducing the risks
associated with pesticide Use. .
Recently, new technology has emerged that could allow recorded, audio messages to be
activated to reinforce directions for safe and proper use, storage and disposal of pesticides'and
pesticide-related products. On December 17, 1996, OPP hosted an open meeting to solicit the
public's thoughts about this new. technology and its potential usefulness and practicality in
reducing misuse.
At the meeting, participants were introduced to. new micro-computer chip, battery and
product housing technologies. EPA staff provided additional background on the audio message
concept and discussed how it may relate to other efforts to improve product labeling. EPA's
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance provided preliminary perspectives on the use
of audio message technology with pesticides. In addition, a representative of the Association of
American Pesticide Control Officials provided state perspectives. The Agricultural Container
Research Council presented current programs in agricultural container recycling and how new
audio message technology may "fit in" with present programs.
' EPA had three primary meeting objectives. The first was to provide an occasion for an
initial airing of ideas, issues and/or concerns about the use of this technology with pesticides
and pesticide-related products. The second objective was to discuss regulatory policy,
compliance and enforcement issues associated With the possible use of the technology. Third,
the meeting, was an opportunity to foster partnerships among EPA, State Lead Agencies and
other potential stakeholders. This report represents the summary minutes of the December 17,
1996 open meeting. , ' ' '
December 17, 1996 1. New Housing & Audio Technologies
-------
-------
New Audio Technology • . Pesticide Partnership Meeting
Opening Remarks
by Daniel M. Barolo '
Director, Office of Pesticide Programs'
. I appreciate this opportunity, and welcome you to this exchange of information, ideas
and issues because I am personally excited.about this new technology. It brings great
opportunities to the Program in many, many ways. '.'-••'.
We need your help, stakeholders and interested parties. We are interested in getting
your ideas, thoughts and recommendations on how we can advance this concept and actually put
•it into practice. To the extent that it can be piloted on certain issues within the Program, we ,
look forward to the opportunity, but beyond that, we see it as a valuable and hopefully/in time,
an invaluable,communications tool. '
Communication is at the top of everyone's list about problems with any institution, and
the Office of Pesticide Programs has its fair share of issues. I think that labeling•, as a part of
our Program, has gotten a larger proportion of criticism. I don't know how many of you, like
me, don't read the total label. Pesticide product labels are complex and convoluted, and often,
they are too comprehensive for most of us at our advanced stages to Understand. We think, I
think, this audio technology provides many opportunities to educate how to properly use, store,
and dispose of pesticides and pesticide-related products. -
'* ' ' ",'.'' ' .
We have three broad objectives for this meeting today that I will relay, not in order of
priority, but with some emphasis on a couple of aspects of each objective. First, we want to
have a general discussion about the feasibility of the technology. Given.your collective insight
and understanding on what it is and what it may be, how effective can it be, how feasible is its
actual application in the real world, and under what circumstances and conditions could it work?
Second, we want to discuss regulatory policy, compliance and enforcement issues. As we are
reminded that the label is the law, we need to be particularly careful when applying this
technology. The audio message would be an adjunct to labeling initiatives-a supplement rather
than a replacement for the written label. We also heed to find the best way to implement the
audio message rather than merely duplicating the written label or making the label more
complicated or difficult. Our Program's third objective, and perhaps the most important and in
accord with our principles of transparency and openness, is to build partnerships. The better
our customers I stakeholders understand what the Office of Pesticide Programs is, the better that
you can help us make it all it can be. We are looking forward to these discussions and
interactions but, even more importantly, we are aspiring to foster partnerships with, you over the
long term. We need to walk the line between our being a regulatory agency and regulators, but
at the same tune, there is plenty of room for us to find ways and means to better work with
Stakeholders affected by regulations and what we do for a living.
December 17, 1996 * '3, New Housing & Audio Technologies
-------
New Audio Technology Pesticide Partnership Meeting
Our current workload is overwhelming. The new law, the Food Quality Protection Act,
is adding great complexities to our core program. It calls for constant innovation, re-invention,
renovation and, frankly, revolution on how we conduct business in the Program. Otherwise, we
will not be able to keep pace. We are getting some new resources; however, there will not be
enough, never be enough, in today's market to do the total job available to us. So, we need to
take advantage of new, emerging technologies, and this audio technology is a piece of it.
Use and misuse are sources of serious credibility problems and real life, health and eco-
incidents. Many of you have been following the situation in Mississippi where a series of
illegal uses of a pesticide product have resulted in, at latest count, $50 million in Superfund
costs. That is a tragedy not only for the American taxpayer but also for the homes and families
Affected by it. We need to find ways to communicate messages in clear language so that, in
turn, people will use pesticides as they are intended to be used with all the care, conditions and
restrictions that are appropriate.
Risk reduction is part science, part regulation and part communication. Although
science is the foundation for what is on the label and we have regulatory and compliance
responsibilities, the fact is that communication is a critical ingredient in being able to educate all
segments of the United States about pesticides, their uses and their restrictions. Using audio
messages is an opportunity for us to do it.
I give a lot of credit to the staff of the Pesticide Program who have taken the initiative to
work with industry representatives and others to get this concept off the ground. It is very
difficult in government to get any new idea and advance it an inch-and-a-half, let alone actually
put it into place. I challenge both our staff to continue not to worry about the cynics out there
who say that it can't be done but to look at this as an opportunity to take this as far as it can be
taken and still make it a meaningful new innovation for the Pesticide Program. Not only am I
willing to support it verbally but also the Program has a resource base to fund some high-level
initiatives in this area, if we are convinced it is the right thing to do.
My last remark is general good advice: do not get lost in the morass of details. We
tend to take an idea, a concept, a regulation and a policy and spend forever refining it and not
looking at the opportunity that most new initiatives provide. I would much rather,see us
continually move forward exploring the unknown as we take a fork in the road. I encourage all
of you surrounding this technology, to participate in some pilots, test some ideas and learn from
the mistakes and build on the experiences rather than believing we need to refine it or resolve
all the potential problems associated with a bright idea. As you are talking this through, I
encourage you to not to get caught up in 4,000 reasons why it can't be done, but to look for
ways and means to test it, and to find niches for this type of technology in today's and
tomorrow's marketplace.
December 17,1996 4 New Housing & Audio Technologies
-------
New Audio Technology
Pesticide Partnership Meeting
I appreciate the opportunity to kick this off and hope this day is both productive and
worthwhile for all of us. I hope you can look back and say that this-was the start of a very
valuable contribution to public education on pesticides and risk management in 1996. Thanks
very much. '
December 17, 1996
New Housing & Audio Technologies
-------
-------
New Audio Technology , Pesticide Partnership Meeting
New Product Housing and Audio Recording Technologies
-. - by Ben Everidge ,
. / CEO, Everidge Group and. SpaceMark International Corporation
Good Morning. On behalf of SpaceMark, let me thank EPA for giving us the
opportunity talk to you about our technology. We also wish to thank EPA for the leadership that
they have been providing during concept development. 'We have a project that started off as a
trading card and has now ended up as talking label technology for the pesticide industry. We
always knew that the chip-cprder features would work very uniquely, and we're glad that we
can, at least, present it to you as an option.
I have been asked to come and talk to you about our company, the services we provide
and our products. Then later this afternoon, I will have the opportunity to talk with you, one-
on-pne, about your services, products and needs. ; ,
SpaceMark Corporate Background
SpaceMark is a corporation that we formed on July 20, 1994, on the 25th Anniversary of
the Apollo 11 moonwalk.. We use a lot of the technology that was developed by NASA and the
Space Program. We are a Florida-based, for-profit corporation. We are ruled by a nine-
member Board of Directors, who serve three terms. We give 10 percent of our net revenues to .
charities, and we are educationally focused, using Space as a motivator.
Our mission, basically, is to develop and market unique trading cards, both sports and
npnsports. For those of you who are not enthusiasts, trading cards are currently a $2 billion-
per-year industry. In fact, one of the jokes constantly told in the Wall Street Journal is that
"many kids collections of trading cards outpace their parents portfolios from WallStreet." So,
it has been a very lucrative market.
SpaceMark Products and Services ,
Our products are micro-chip, CD audio and CD video trading cards. We also have an
interactive CD-ROM, and like other CD's, it will manipulate data, video and audio clips. They
can be used for talking technology, which, is the focus of this pesticide project, as well as for
teaching and video guides, games and entertainment.
In terms of our services, we have a speakers' bureau that utilizes 32 former astronauts
mostly from the Mercury, Gemini, Apollo and Shuttle Space Programs. We do a lot of our. own
design, mastering, replication, planning, packaging and distribution. One of our first projects is
December 17, 1996 , 7 New Housing & Audio Technologies
-------
New Audio Technology Pesticide Partnership Meeting
a set of four trading cards containing micro-chips and featuring four of the original seven
Mercury astronauts.
We also have a new CD-ROM trading card that will be released in January of, 1997.
Basically, we have taken computer disks (CD's) and custom molded them on the back of a
trading card. Currently, we can put up to 12 minutes of full-color video on the back of a '
trading card, and in the near future, as impression rates improve, we'll be able to put even
more. On our CD-ROM audio cards, we can put up to 5 minutes of full-stereo, and on our CD
interactive cards from 80 to 300 megabytes ofdata.
Regarding product features, the micro-chip trading card is itself a player whereas the
CD-ROM card requires a computer with a CD-ROM drive to play it. We have the ability to put
from 10 second to 4 minute micro-chips into the player. Obviously, the longer the playing
time, the more expensive the chip and the product will be. Currently, the 20-second chip is our
preference because it is easily available and affordable. In addition, we have found the longer
the message, the more difficult it is to maintain the attention of the listening audience, and 20
seconds, the typical length of a television commercial, affords the best audience attention.
Our SpaceMark team consists of Information Storage Devices of San Jose, California,
that manufacture the micro-chips, and Energizer Power Systems of Westlake, Ohio, that
provide our battery service. We manufacture micro-chip cards in a variety of different ways. It
takes us about 6 to 8 weeks to fill an order from the time we receive it. When we get an order,
we call ISD, who sends the number of micro-chips needed to our foundry in Hong Kong,
China, Our foundry will put all the components together and master the chip by putting on the
message. The whole unit comes back to us ready to assemble.and package. Our Florida printer
prepares the final package with graphics, and it's ready to send on to the client. We sell two
sizes of trading cards, the standard which is 2.5 by 3.5 inches, and the long card, 2.5 by 4.5
inches.
Regarding chip technology, more power exists in a single chip than what was available
in the entire United States in 1958. The 20-second chip is supported by five patents on design.
It features a 100-year message retention time; it's very durable. It has a manual switch, a
micro-processor controllable circuit board, a zero-power message storage unit and an automatic
power-down feature that allows us to save on battery strength when not in use. It has an on-the-
chip clock source and an automatic game control. We have the ability to reprogram this chip
without tearing the unit apart. The card is made from injectionable, plastic solid-state surface
housing; so it is solid plastic all the way around the unit. It is powered by two 3-volt M-battery
button cells. It has a 16-ohm speaker. We have an accessible battery tray that actually opens
from the side to allow replacement of the battery. We have a seven-step quality control
inspection process, which means this unit works and it's guaranteed by us, the manufacturer.
We pay all the customs, duties, tariffs and other fees.
December 17,1996 8 New Housing & Audio. Technologies
-------
New Audio Technology, ; " Pesticide Partnership Meeting
The whole objective of the .talking label technology was to cost-effectively assist the
pesticide industry in terms of improving consumer compliance and reducing industry liability.
Some consumers may not understand and/or qan't or don't read pesticide labels. For
SpaceMark, ISD, Energizer and especially for EPA, we wanted to find a way to recycle it.
This product could be out in the public in a vast number of units, and we wanted to have it used
and reused rather than simply disposing of it:
A number of issues were identified through the U.S. EPA, other federal agencies, the
pesticide industry and SpaceMark. Among the issues and options are the following:
(1) What are the options regarding the length of the message?
. Answer: There are 10, 20, 45, and 60 second- and 2, 3 and 4 minute-chips.
(2) What are the cost factors? ' . •
Answer: The primary cost factor is master recording expenses, going into a
studio and recording the voice and any sound effects to the message. One of the
reasons we chose the ISD chip is because it can be made analog, which means it's
real voice as opposed to synthetic. ISD's chip has the ability to hold a voice
, message, sound effects and music simultaneously, and it has the reprogramming
feature. ., .-•''••".
Another cost factor is additional molding expense each time the shape of the unit'
is changed. A one-time, master mold will cost anywhere from 10-to-15 thousand
; dollars, depending on the mold's complexity.
Chip availability is also a cost .factor. A 20-second chip is very'obtainable;
however, the longer:playing chips are more difficult because companies like
Motorola have purchased a large market-share for use in their cellular products.
Regarding cost-efficiency, if the pesticide industry came together and collectively
orders, we can obviously bring.the,price down greatly. We can order in as little
- as 5,000 unit minimums, and we have an unlimited maximum order capacity. At
5,000 units, we have an $; 8.00 per-unit price of up-front costs, and if we are
dealing with 200-million units, the costs drops to $ .1.25 per unit. By adding the
reprogramming and recycling feature, the cost becomes 75 cents per unit, and
when recycled a third time, the cost becomes 50 cents per unit.
(3) How many uses can we get out of it by reprogramming the message on this chip?
Answer: The more we can reuse and reprogram, the more the per-unit cost of
the' chips will come down over time. .
December 17, 1996 , '9 New Housing & Audio Technologies
-------
New Audio Technology Pesticide Partnership Meeting
(4) Do we need to do any printing when packaging, or do we send it as an unfinished
unit off to you, the pesticide manufacturer, to encase in your product, or do we
need to do any packaging assistance?
Answer: If we need to assist you with packaging, it will have an impact on
costs.
(5) Regarding speaker volume, the speaker has been kept relatively small to maintain
a very thin trading card; this is a key feature in the trading card industry. In
addition, we have muted the sound to allow the card to be a personal player so
that it wouldn't annoy parents. But do we need to maintain these features or can
we modify them for the talking label?
Answer: The plastic mold has a large cavity that can accommodate a larger,
cheaper speaker to amplify the recorded message.
i : , * • " " ::
(6) What are the self-life and temperature tolerances of this product?
Answer: The product is very durable, having been stored in very hot warehouse
temperatures without loss of quality. Whereas the micro-chip message will last
idO years and wili not erase if you drop the unit, the speaker will disintegrate
over time. If stored in a wet place, the speaker may deteriorate over a 10-year
period. It would not be as loud, but it would play. The battery and chip can last
for a much longer period of time. A little later this morning, Energizer will be
speaking about overall battery strength.
(7) What measures can be taken to reduce the likelihood of a child swallowing the
battery? - .
Answer: The tray that presently opens to give access to the battery can easily be
secured with a screw during the manufacturing process so that a very young child
would not be, able to have access to the battery. With rounded edges and internal
components not easily accessible, the product is very child friendly.
(8) Is the product disposable?
Answer: The product does not take up much space; it is recyclable,
reprogrammable, and reusable; as a result, there are all sorts of recycling
approaches that can be developed with you.
(9) Can the message be reprogrammed on site or does it have to be sent back to the
factory?
Answer: It can be reprogrammed on site. One of the capabilities of ISD's chip
is it allows us to put a very simple microphone into the product so that one can
custom record on site. One can put on a new message, insert new batteries, and
then recycle it back into use. It gives one the ability to record in any language.
December 17,1996 10 . New Housing & Audio Technologies
-------
New Audio Technology - Pesticide Partnership Meeting
(10) What are the benefits of this technology in reducing pesticide liability?
Answer: Regarding a manufacturer doing all he/she can to ensure safe and
proper use, the message can be in any language and affords those who may be
visually handicapped the opportunity to hear the message as opposed to seeing it.
There are many marketing and public relations opportunities such as sending this
technology around to school systems in the United States to teach students about
pesticides. - ; • .
We made three samples which are on display in the back of the room: the first is a flat
label over a container debossment in which the audio unit is, stored in the debossed area and can
be played by pressing an area identified on the label; the second unit rests on the container such
that the plastic label appears slightly raised; and the third unit is,embedded in the top of an
aerosol can so that the message will play when the lid is removed, either once or many times.
These features can be modified. ... v ' „
The next steps are gauging what the industry interest is in this project, raising any other
issues that we haven't addressed, building in volumes so we can get cost efficiencies, and
tailoring the project to a particular product or service you may have. There are a variety of
ways to get in touch with us, both through the Internet and E-mail. We are located in Orlando,
Florida. We, at SpaceMark, would be happy to hear from you and answer any additional
questions you may have. < ,
Questions from the audience: , ' , '
1. • Would you explain,,a little further, what you mean by reprogramming? /
Answer: The chip is secured in the card with resin so it does not pop out easily. The
reprogramming feature allows us to go in through a little hole in the card, and using a
probe bar, one can change out the message as long as the message is the same length or
shorter than the one originally on the unit. , '
2. What would most likely happen if someone were to try and tamper with the message? ,
Answer: Because it does require a special probe bar, if someone were to tamper with it,
the message would mostly likely erase. It is a very difficult process to tamper with the
unit to the point the message would erase; however, if someone did manage to erase the
message, we could take the card back and put our message on it as long as no physical
damage had been done to the unit.
3. Do you have dated shelf-life data that indicates how well this technology will hold up?
Answer; The key issue for us is really the battery. As you know, heat and cold will
wear the battery down. Energizer has. charts indicating temperature tolerances that they
December 17, 1996, ' 11 ,' New Housing & Audio Technologies
-------
New Audio Technology Pesticide Partnership Meeting
will show you. As for the product, the chip, solder, bonding and the plastic, extremes in heat
and cold are not an issue.
4. What are the effects of dust or exposure to water sources?
Answer: The chip because it is encased in resin during the manufacturing process does
not have an opportunity to be exposed to dust or water. Dust is not an issue because
everything is covered or encased including the speaker holes, which are covered by the
card. The speaker would dissolve before dust could do damage to it.
Our concern would be exposure to water, which would affect the battery and speaker.
We have tested some units after submersing them in water, and they will play again after
the battery is dried off, but the speaker will dissolve a little bit.
Because SpaceMark is located in Florida, we were concerned about humidity. The
warehouses can become very hot, up to 140 degrees Fahrenheit, and very humid, but
we've run some tests and have had no ill-effects due to high humidity and above-normal
temperatures.
5. In terms of security, what features do you have to prevent unauthorized reprogramming
of the message? Do you have a code on the chip that will prevent someone from
reprogramming the message?
Answer: There is no code you could put on the chip to prevent someone from
reprogramming the message if someone wanted to go to those extremes; however, the
cardboard on the unit has to be pulled back to get to the probe hole, and you will notice
the damage and realize someone has tampered with it. When sending the unit back to
you, we Would always finish the unit by putting, at least, a piece of blank cardboard
over the components. Then all that would remain to be done is the final printing, and if
you wish, we could do that too.
6. Outside of trading cards, how extensively is this technology used?
Answer: These chips are used by a number of companies, such as Motorola and Fisher
Price. ISO will go into that in more detail during their presentation. There are a
number of micro-chips on the market. We chose ISD because it had a durable chip with
high-quality recording capability in real voice rather than synthetic.
7. How do you see recycling working with this technology?
Answer: This answer, for the most part, I'll defer to EPA, but one way it could work is
that SpaceMark would be willing to transfer all the cost savings of this project to the
pesticide industry with only a 10-percent mark-up for the handling, the research and
development and so on, and then buy back the product in order to use it again in the
trading card industry. It would be cheaper for us; we have .the same costs you do.
December 17, 1996 12 New Housing & Audio Technologies
-------
New Audio Technology ...-'- .'• .. . ' Pesticide Partnership Meeting
Multi-Level Storage, Reprogrammable Computer Chips
• ' . by Gerry Youngman
Regional Sales Director, Information Storage Devices (ISD)
' *"
Good Morning. Information Storage Devices or ISD designs, develops arid markets
semiconductor voice solutions for applications in the communications, consumer and industrial
marketplace. ISD's corporate headquarters is located in. San Jose, California. We have 150
employees and have revenues exceeding 54 million dollars. We were founded in 1987. From
1987-to-1991, ISD focused its energy in the development of our ChipCorderR, which is a unique
use of existing electronic technology. What makes our device exceptional is that we have taken
digital memory and found a way to put an analog signal within it. Our first production ship-
ments were in 1992, and.today, we use many of the major offshore foundries such as Samsung,
Sanyo and Rohm, to produce our products. We feel that having multiple sources is a good
business decision; if,- for example, there was a major earthquake in California, we would still
have manufacturing capability because our foundries are located offshore.
Conventional Versus ChipCorderR Technology
Most digital solutions sound very robotic because of the compression of the digital •
memory. These systems start with an analog signal and require an analog-to-digital conversion,
which changes the signal into a series of numbers. Conversion is done using a digital signal
processor; however, due to the magnitude of numbers generated, a compression of the signal
must occur. As the message is recorded via a microphone, the conversion and compression
steps take place to allow storage in digital memory. When the stored message is played, a .,
decompression and reconversion to an analog signal must take place before the message can be
heard. > , . : • > • -
ISD's voice solution is pure voice and requires no conversion or compression. In
addition, the speaker and microphone plug directly into the device, making it a self-contained
solution. Our devices store messages in the absence of power. Thus, the message will be
preserved under normal environmental conditions (up to 85 degrees Celsius) for 100 years. (See
diagrams on following pages.)
How Do We Do It?
When the personal computer was first invented, a type of memory called the Program-
mable Read Only Memory (PROM, consisting of 1's and O's) was created. As computers
advanced, 'PROM was transformed into Erasable PROM or E-PROM; however, E-PROM was
curnbersome because erasure required sending the memory back to the manufacturer. Today,'
December 17, 1996 . .13 Multi-Level Storage, Reprogrammable Chips
-------
New Audio Technology Pesticide Partnership Meeting
we use EE-PROM, Electrically Erasable Programmable Read Only Memory. Erasure of the
memory can be done by the user on site.
What is interesting about EE-PROM is that it doesn't store the binary code (1's and O's)
all at once; it takes some time to build enough charge in the cell. ISD has taken EE-PROM a
step further using multi-level storage methodology to create 256 levels per cell. By using
precision circuitry, analog signals can be stored without conversion or compression on these
levels. This process allows high-quality human voice recording in the O-to-4,000 hertz
bandwidth. Music can also be recorded but not at the same level of quality because its best
recording bandwidth is 15,000 hertz. Because of multi-level storage, ISD is able to store data
in one bit that a digital voice solution stores in eight bits or one byte. Because of the eight-fold
increase in storage capacity, our analog voice solution requires less memory.
Another significant feature of the ISD chip is its higher sampling rate. Sampling is a
way of digitizing a waveform at specific, measured increments. When a waveform is sampled,
its digitized representation is like a stair step. The more pronounced the stair step the slower
the sampling rate. The faster one samples, the more memory one uses.
Typically, one wishes to sample at twice the rate of the top bandwidth one plans to use. For
example, an eight-kilohertz sampling rate represents a 4-kilohertz bandwidth. The human ear
can hear from O-to-20,000 hertz. Sampling specifications are 300-to-3,000 hertz for telephones.
The ISD voice solution is O-to-3,300 or 4,000 hertz. That's why our voice solution sounds
better than a telephone.
Our ChipCorder11 also contains a sampling clock to control the sampling rate; an
aliasing filter to smooth out the signal and eliminate distortions; and a memory array to provide
multi-message storage capability. The ability to store and play multiple messages may be
especially useful when implementing talking label technology.
We have a variety of products. Our 3,300 hertz solutions use a 3-volt technology, which
ISD is just beginning to explore. We specify our products by the number of seconds they will
play: 10, 20, 45, 60, 120, and 240. Our products in the highest demand are the 10- and 20-
second devices, which are used in great volume.
ChipCorder* Applications
The final manufactured product is simply a microphone or some sort of audio source,
our ChipCorderR, a speaker and power. It is a self-contained solution and, there are many,
many applications. For example, in the communications area, our devices are being used by
every cellular telephone company in the world. In cellular telephones, the ChipCorderR is used
as an answering machine, a voice memo, and an outgoing message. In the consumer market,
our ChipCordersR are in language translators, interactive toys, pocket recorders, talking
\
December 17, 1996 14 Multi-Level Storage, Reprogrammable Chips
-------
New Audio Technology Pesticide Partnership Meeting
cameras and teleflora products. In the industrial market, our devices can be found in ATMs,
elevators, vending machines, hazard signs, warning devices and multi-lingual guide phones.
ISD's voice solutions are available and distributed worldwide.
What Does the Future Hold?
We are and will be shrinking our chip, increasing its storage density, reducing the
voltage necessary to record and play, and increasing the play duration up-to-30 minutes. The
end result will be an ongoing campaign to continually reduce the per-chip production and sales
costs.
Questions from the audience: -
.-(1) Do you see a chip that provides a 10- to 20- second play, that does not have a
reprogrammable feature? The problem is the cost of $1.25 per unit, which is too high
for our industry. Regarding home and garden products, this technology could be very
useful to help the customer sort out the myriad of products at point of sale; the customer
wants to be able to make a 10 second decision on which product is the most appropriate
to,buy; however, a $ 1<.25 per-unit cost eliminates profitability.
(2) If a chip could be made without all these enhancements, could the per-unit costs be
reduced to less than 50 cents? ;
(3) And, when would it be available? : '
Answer, ISD: Yes, such a chip that did not require reprogramming capability could be
made and would be significantly less expensive. Such a product could be available by
June of 1997. ; .
Answer, SpaceMark: Yes, such a chip would be available in 6 months, but your
volumes in the marketplace must be high to reduce the per-unit costs to less than 50
cents. If companies individually didn't have the volume but if the pesticide industry, as
a whole, would be willing to implement the technology, then the per-unit costs could be
significantly reduced to less than 50 cents. However, volumes would need to be high to
reduce costs. In addition, one can buy in the marketplace less expensive chips than
these, but one must remember that for most chips, if the battery goes, the message is
erased. Because of the liability issue, one would want a chip that is reliable, that would
guarantee that the message is playable whenever the consumer hits the play button.
December 17, 1996 15 Multi-Level Storage, Reprogrammable Chips
-------
o
o
(D
_*: .
CO
CD
CL
CO
o
LU
h-
Ifc
-------
LJJ
O
o
LJJ -J
O
UJ
O
O
\ -
'.'• .•
:
|
i
LJJ :
CD ;
CC- -:
0 •
1- :
CO :
_i
< :
-5»
o ;
h- :
•Z. :
UJ :
O
O
'.
<
c
Q.
C/3
Q
75
Q
Q.
Q
- C
t
3
0)
T3
O
£.
-
£>
o
E
V
tT"
0)
o
UJ
3
':
:
. i
:
]
\
•
]
'.
'.
03
-i£
CO
,
Q.
CO
LJJ
O
.<
DC
O
CO
_J
LJJ
>
LJJ
Q
CO
-------
-------
New Audio Technology - Pesticide Partnership Meeting
New Battery Technology
by Terry Telzrow ,
Manager of Standards, Product Safety *
and Environmental Affairs, Worldwide , ,
I believe I was chosen to speak to you today by virtue of the fact that I am powered by a
battery. My pacemaker, on which I am totally dependent, is powered by a lithium battery that
has successfully fifed every second of every day for the last eight years.
How Does a Lithium Battery Work?
Let's go back to lithium fundamentals. The battery that currently powers the SpaceMark
audio trading card is the lithium coin cell, # 2032, meaning 20 millimeters in diameter and 3.2
millimeters thick. We make an entire matrix of these lithium coin cells.
, To explain further, I am going to take you back to your high-school chemistry. I am
going to draw an atom with a nucleus of protons that are positively, charged and neutrons that
are neutrally charged. Outside the nucleus are layers of negatively-charged electrons. The first
layer which is closest to the nucleus always contains two electrons. Different elements have,
distinct numbers of electron layers. All chemical reactions involve the exchange—giving up or
accepting—of electrons. ';
A battery has two component parts that are separated by high-tech paper and/or
cellophane "separators." (See the diagram of a lithium coin cell on the pages following:) On
one side of the separator is lithium metal, which will act as the negative electrode or anode.
On the other side is manganese dioxide, having four protons and four electrons and serving as
the positive electrode pr cathode. Around these is placed an organic electrolyte, a solution
capable of conducting positive and negative charges to the electrodes. During the chemical
reaction, lithium donates electrons and manganese dioxide accepts electrons.,
f - * , , : . - . . .
Just sitting on the shelf, the battery is inactive; however, over tune, the sepafator can
break down limiting the shelf-life of the battery. For most alkaline and aqueous.household
batteries, the shelf-life is five years. For carbon, zinc batteries the shelf-life is three years, and
for lithium batteries, the shelf-life is fifteen-to-twenty years, that is why I have it in my chest.
By connecting wires to it, one can create a circuit for, the talking label. The circuit will
contain the .battery, a microphone, the ChipcorderR, a speaker and a switch. The battery
remains inactive (except for deterioration of the separator) until one closes the circuit using the
switch. If the circuit remains open, nothing happens. The reason is because electrons cannot
travel across the separator, a poor electrical conductor. As soon as the circuit is closed, the
December 17, 1996 , M9 ' New Battery Technology
-------
New Audio Technology Pesticide Partnership Meeting
lithium anode gives up an electron, which moves through the wire. It is the movement of
electrons through the electronics which will power the unit.
As the lithium anode is giving up an electron, what is happening to the other side of the
battery, the manganese dioxide cathode? The manganese dioxide is accepting the lithium
electron into its crystalline structure to form a new hybrid manganese dioxide. (For additional
details, see the page following entitled "Lithium Battery Fundamentals.") It is interesting to
note that a little space exists next to the mariganese dioxide cathode and lithium anode to help
maintain battery-size balance as the electrons continue to shift from the anode to the cathode;
even so, a tiny amount of shrinkage will occur.
What effect does water have on a battery? When a battery cell is submersed in pure
water, nothing will happen; however, if the water contains salts, then it will conduct a charge
and short out the submersed battery. For these reasons, the organic electrolyte is almost absent
of all water with a limit of only 100 parts-per-million remaining. Another reason is that lithium
is highly reactive with water, and as a result, this battery must be made in a "dry room," which
adds immensely to the expense of making it.
What is the voltage of the battery? We have provided a series of graphs that address
voltage changes. You will note that voltage declines as more and more capacity from the
lithium cell is removed. As you know, temperature also effects battery performance, but as the
charts and graphs indicate, a lithium coin cell has a tremendous range of performance
temperatures, making it ideal for this application. When using the lithium coin cell in the
talking label, one could count on its performance whether the pesticide was stored in a"she,d
throughout the winter in Wisconsin experiencing below zero-degree ^temperatures or throughout
the summer in Texas experiencing above 100-degree temperatures.
Questions:
1. What is the cathode can made of and is it chemically resistant?
Answer: The cathode can is made of nickel-plated steel, which is fairly resistant;
however, it can be made of other substances if it needs to be more chemically resistant,
but it will increase costs.
2. What is the shelf-life of alkaline manganese dioxide batteries?
Answer: About four to five years.
3. What are the environmental implications of disposal?
Answer: There are some shipping limitations. If each battery contains 60 milligrams of
lithium, then you could ship 2,000 before you would meet the bulk shipping limitations
December 17, 1996 20 New Battery Technology
-------
New Audio Technology ' Pesticide Partnership Meeting
on lithium. Regarding 'disposal, it is nontoxic, noncorrosive, nonignitable, and
nonflammable by requisite tests. So it is not considered toxic or hazardous waste; even
if it were, last year, President Clinton signed into law the Mercury-Containing and
Rechargeable Battery Act, which allows for all battery systems to be returned for
recycling without being manifested as hazardous waste, and EPA's Universal Waste Rule
also allows batteries to be shipped for recycling without being manifested as hazardous
waste. Energizer Power Systems has been doing a lot of work to develop sensible
recycling that is economical and user-friendly, and we will probably have a program by
. the year 2000, but there really isn't any .program available at this time anywhere that
truly recycles batteries.
SpaceMark Comment: Back to the issue of cost-for the battery.alone, if we bought a
couple of hundred-million from Energizer, the cost per lithium cell is about 19 cents. ,
With the technology in the battery and in the chip, getting this application under a dollar
is very impressive, but again, the true issue is will if work? By using a lithium cell and
the ChipcorderR, it will work. , , .
4. What is the potential for incidents, knowing that lithium is flammable when exposed'to
water? :. '
Answer: These batteries have been out for several years, and to our knowledge, there
has never been a reported incident. I even tried to see how flammable the lithium would
be when exposed to water and ran my own experiment. I cut the top off a"AA" battery
and dropped it into water, and only a little bubbling occurred. I wondered why it didn't
catch fire. So, I took a pair of pliers and pulled the battery apart; it was like a "jelly-
roll," spiral in construction. As I put it down on a,table and turned, finally the water
came into contact with the lithium and flames rose. ,
Additional questions for any of the three speakers: .
1. We have heard how you can make the audio message muted in the trading cards so that
it won't drive the parents crazy, but can you also' go the other way and amplify the
message so that it is louder? ...
SpaceMark response: Yes, the technology is very flexible. We can go-the other way
and make it louder too.
December 17, 1996 . . 21 . New Battery Technology
-------
LITHIUM BATTERY FUNDAMENTALS
Active Parts
Anode: The negative electrode, electron donor (donates
electron e"). The anode material is lithium.
At the anode: Li = Li + e
Cathode: The positive electrode, electron acceptor (collect
electron e"). The primary active cathode ingredient is MnCte.
At the cathode: Mn IVO2 + Li++ e '= Mnm O2( Li+)
Net reaction: Li + MnlvO2= MnmO2( Li+)
Electrolyte: A solution which is capable of conducting
positive and negative charges to the electrodes.
Miniature Li/MnCte cells currently utilize electrolyte
#13, which is composed of Propylene Carbonate
(PC) , Dimethoxyethane (DME) and Lithium
Trifluoromethane Sulfonate (Triflate).
Trifiate (LiCFsSOs) is a salt that is dissolved in a
mixture of the two solvents:
* Thick liquid (PC)
* Thin liquid (DME)
Electrolyte #13 is a non-aqueous (no water) organic
solution. It is almost impossible to be water-free,
therefore a specification of 100ppm (parts per
million) is set as the maximum water allowed in the
elecctroiyte.
-------
U
d
o
u
••33
-------
U
SI 5;
>•-• us:
U)
U
03
0 P
< i
•^ ^
0 o
E-
u
T
^
J
CS
2
w»
^s*
3
DIAMETER
£.
H
a
0}
O
^:
^
1
kHM
O
r- oo oo t^
****
CN Cv
CS fO TP TT
^^^^
^^r ^^r ^T ^^r
OO fO Cs OO
O O O O
Cs Cs Cs Cs
C^j ^3* ^^r ^T
in vo o IT
O CS CS CS
U U U U
Tf VO
O O
O 0
rr TT
oo oe
o o
f^) fO
o o
o o
VO O
^* CS
• VO VO
T— • 1-"
tf c*
U U
asSS
O O O 0
0000
*^T ^3* ^>J* ^3*
9 ° * fS
^ °° i- r- r-
• * • •
cs vo m
-------
m
0<
<
UJ
O Cft 00 h*
d cvl ca ol cJ cvi ol
I I - I . •'! I .
W CM T- O O>
^ M CM
SaNOO3SS@ ADO
CO
T—'
tr
o
CO
5
E
o
o
OJ
CM
E
O
't
i
CO
cvi
T-
cc
O
4
-------
LU
0-1
-------
in
i
CO
A
CD
o
=^ ' .1 I
_! LJ
< CO
IO
Q
: £
' ;*'>'
0 M i-
• • • • •
0 CO O
7:
O 0 C
o cvi c
:
' ' '
'•'• '
0 N
-------
td co
O J
(VJ ~J f^
si S *-
oil
# o o
o
'T
CJ
aovxioA
s? Sr.
-------
o
CO
o
r>
o
(O
T- £ QJ
H W
@ Z cN
O
D
Q.
<
. o
i»
T
CO
CM
> O J
esi
H < O UJ
-------
O
v\
o
x.
3 •
•»-*
CS
O
Q.
I
T- CD
03
m
i
A
f
-------
r
-------
Eveready CR2032
10K Ohm Continuous Background Discharge
With 400 Ohm 2 Second Pulse 12X/Day
to 2,0V
Discharge
Temperature
21 C
-10C
-20C
-30C
Service Life (hrs)
Bkod Pulse
739
800
778
757
567
286
242
22
Capacity (mAh)
Bkqd Pulse
207
211
194
177
163
.78
63
2
3/3/95
-------
-------
o
CM2
o
CM Q
DC
03
2c
£3
LJJ
CD
C/3
O
CD
C/5
CM
E
o
o
lieo
-------
o
r\\ O
.o
DC
O
•D.*
03^
CD *
LLJ
o
03
Q.
-o o
CD
_CO
13
Q.
O
0)
CO
eg
o
o
o
CO
13
o
13
O
o
E
.c
o
-------
o
CO
Oto
CM CD
Qo.
o
"U
03
CD
UJg
0
O
Q)
CO
CsJ
E
o
o
CO
D
O
o
o
I
o
t
||90
-------
•a-
R
a u
a s
uJ=
u
o
O
O
u
YEARS
GO
O
ON
-------
LLJ
CC
i
O
O
O-JH
-------
H
c«
^
H
TO
HO
Z e* Q
O o
ffl
O
fS
a
o
o
02
p
S5
g
ft
« M H
^1
/Si
o ^S
Y'l
-I
•rf
-------
CD
_g
o
c
8"!
CD
._g
o
^
.N
fi
UJ
iZ
O
cr
a.
UJ
co
Z>
o_
CO
CN
0
O
o
CN
CO
_J
D.
O
UJ
CO
CM
O
O
I
to
Q.
E
CNJ r=:
-------
New Audio Technology , ., -. Pesticide Partnership Meeting
Birth of the Audio Message Concept and Its Applications
. by Laura Dye, Agronomist . " ; '.
Office of Pesticide Programs,
I continue to be amazed by the changes in pest and vector control in our lifetimes, the
great leaps in technology occurring before us. Who would have thought when we were
children, that today they would be inserting a gene from one organism into another to impart
pesticidal activity. Or that we would be using satellite imagery to help us better target spray
applications. ' , *
Each of these advancements first came about with the identification of a problem, and it
is also true with the talking label concept. In February of 1995, many staff were in an EPA
internal meeting in the Environmental Fate and Effects Division (EFED) of OPP just after the,
announcement of yet another environmental incident involving a registered pesticide. The
EFED staff were frustrated and wondered whether anyone ever reads the Environmental Hazard
statement on a label. Mr* Alvaro Yamhure, an Ecological Effects Branch scientist, offered the
idea of a "talking label" as a means of obtaining greater compliance by pesticide applicators
regarding correct application and use of pesticides. EFED management was very supportive,
. believing the idea worthy of investigation. A feasibility study was conducted to determine if the
technology was sufficiently advanced to allow development of an audio label.
During that initial investigation, many others in the Agency were consulted for advice
and insight which included the EFED management, the Certification and Occupational Safety
Branch (COSB) of the Field Operations Division, the Labeling Unit and Product Management
- Team 19 (Dennis Edwards) of the Registration Division, and the Office of General Counsel.
All were extremely helpful in providing the necessary expertise and/or funding for success.
Key members in the pesticide industry were also queried about a "talking label" to
determine the possible roadblocks to adoption. By far the respondents identified high expense
as the predominant obstacle. Interestingly, many stated that their companies had investigated
the possibilities of a talking label several years earlier, but at that time, it was not
technologically feasible. ,
In November of 1995, EPA received a call from Mr. Bert Braddock, a regional sales
manager of ISD, one of the many who listened to our concept and worked hard to make it
possible. Bert introduced us to Mr. Ben Everidge and SpaceMark's audio trading card. Ben
responded very graciously to demonstrate his new audio trading card and help us explore how it
could be modified to create a talking pesticide label.
December 17, 1996 41 . . Concept and Applications
-------
New Audio Technology Pesticide Partnership Meeting
We formed a quasi-workgroup in OPP to continue to develop the concept. Ms. Amy
Breedlove, Mr. Jim Downing and Mr. Steve Morrill of the Labeling Unit and Ms. Judy Smith
of COSB most notably volunteered their precious time to work with me to help identify issues
and further develop the concept. In addition, many others in EPA provided invaluable
perspectives about implementing audio technologies. (These'individuals are recognized in the
acknowledgments of this document.) During the course of this year, Ben Everidge of
SpaceMark, Ross Hayden and Gerry Youngman of ISD, Terry Telzrow and Mike Atkins of
Energizer have kindly offered their time and insights to help problem solve and implement
OPP's first talking label prototypes.
In March of 1996, our quasi-workgroup, SpaceMark and ISD made presentations on the
Concept and the technology to our Program Director, Dan Barolo,.and the Division Directors of
OPP. Dan warmly endorsed the work effort and supported concept development, and as a
result, we are inviting you to enter a partnership with us to explore audio technology and its
potential usefulness and practicality in reducing pesticide misuse.
When we first started on prototype development over a year ago, the cost per unit was
ten dollars. However, SpaceMark, ISD, and Energizer are continually working on reducing
costs, and today, the cost per unit is $ 1.25.
Why Do We Need A Bilingual Audio Label?
In the late 1980's and early 1990's, two surveys were completed by EPA to determine
pesticide use. Their findings were that a large portion of the pesticide user community does
not (1) read the label prior to application, (2) follow the directions for use resulting in both over
and under application of pesticides, and (3) communicate information about the pesticide being
applied in the agricultural field to workers. When the Agency receives reports of pesticide
incidents as required under FIFRA Section 6(a)2, about possible "unreasonable adverse effects"
to humans and the environment, the paramount cause is pesticide misuse.
In addition, a portion of the U.S. population may have difficulty reading the pesticide
label. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, approximately 1.5 million individuals in the
United States in 1990 who were 15 years-old or older were also visually impaired. In addition,
six-percent of the population have limited English speaking/reading ability. And 13 percent of
the population is bilingual, with Spanish being the most commonly spoken second language.1
A Spanish-English, audio label could facilitate these individuals in our population who may
otherwise be unable to comply with written pesticide label instructions.
U.S. Census Bureau, Population, Education & Services, and Disabilities Divisions. Telephone
Communications, March 18, 1995.
December 17, 1996 42 .. Concept and Applications
-------
New Audio Technology , ' , Pesticide Partnership Meeting
What are the Implementation Opportunities?
EPA has created many pesticide labeling groups over the years to address complex-,
, multi-faceted labeling issues as they arise. Within the Office of Pesticide Programs, members
of Worker Protection, Storage and Disposal, Ecological Effects, and the Labeling staffs met to
discuss their insights on possible implementation opportunities as described below.
WPS Applications
/
o , To clearly communicate when the Restricted Entry Interval (REI) expires and what-the
protective clothing & equipment requirements are prior to early field entry to workers
who are not fluent in English or who are non-English speaking. '
o To remind mixers, loaders and applicators of the correct protective equipment that must
be worn when handling the specific pesticide product. •'•. :
,0 To alert handlers to the hazards posed by the pesticide (i.e., corrosive to the skin or
eyes), and/or ,
o To communicate first aid'steps in the event of an'accident with the pesticide.
Labeling Unit Recommendations
An excellent use of the talking label would be communicating the dangers resulting from
the use of .aerosol foggers. Because foggers are flammable and can be explosive when used
improperly, an audio message would more effectively communicate the potential dangers
resulting from product misuse . This technology, however, may increase the cost of marketing
pesticides; however, foggers are;already more expensive than other formulations such that the
additional cost may not be a factor. ' .
, If this technology increases the retail cost of the residential pesticide significantly
(i.e., adding 20 to 30 cents per product), then a talking label may preclude consumers from
buying the pesticide. However, if cost is not a consideration, then a similar tact as the
agricultural audio label is recommended for the residential pesticide. Basic audio messages
could communicate precautionary statements, such as
o Keep this product away from children, and ,
o For your safety and best product performance, read the label carefully.
December 17, 1996 < • 43 '-•' ' Concept and Applications
-------
New Audio Technology Pesticide Partnership Meeting
Cautionary Note. An audio message can unintentionally attract children to these
poisons. Therefore, adoption of this technology will require EPA and the pesticide industry to
be ever vigilant to ensure that the highest standards are maintained when using child-safety caps
and other forms of child-resistant packaging.
Pesticide Storage and Disposal
An estimated 223 million "one-way"' pesticide containers are used and disposed of each
year. However, refillable containers are becoming more widely used, relieving some of the
disposal problems caused by "one-way" containers. Because refillable containers must be
sufficiently durable to withstand the stresses of extended use and handling, including structural
and operational safeguards to prevent cross-contamination when the same container is used to
hold different pesticide products, the components necessary for a talking label could be
imbedded in these containers, allowing reuse of the micro-computer chip, and replacement and
recycling of the battery. In addition, talking label technology can provide a means of educating
the consumer on the proper use, storage and disposal of pesticides, addressing such issues as
o At the point of sale, how much pesticide is necessary for effective performance to
prevent consumer over purchase, and
o Correct cleaning procedures for both "one-way" and refillable pesticide containers.
In closing, we would like to thank Sandoz Inc. and Zeneca Agricultural Products for
their willingness to donate sample fogger containers and agricultural containers for use in
developing the prototypes you will see on display today. Currently, the 3M company is also
working with SpaceMark in exploring the use of audio technology with their respirator
products; 3M has also identified misuse as a serious problem associated with respirator use.
Our goal for mis meeting was not to have all the potential "bugs" worked out, but rather, to
explore the opportunities with you. By working together, we can reduce the risks associated
with pesticides. Thank you very much.
Questions:
1. You mentioned the possibility of developing the audio message in other languages, have
you thought of ways to implement this technology with your pesticide export policy or in
this country in other languages.
Response: Yes, we thought we could pursue a pilot program and determine if the use of
other languages in audio messages may reduce the misuse of pesticides. For example,
Spanish is spoken by 13 percent of the U.S. population. Perhaps a pilot program using
Spanish audio messages may be appropriate.
December 17, 1996 44 Concept and Applications
-------
New Audio,Technology , , Pesticide Partnership Meeting
2. Have any other parts of EPA or any other agencies gotten interested in this technology?
Response: We did invite and communicate with many other federal agencies about this
technology and its potential uses—among these were USD A, FDA, Department of
Transportation and OSHA. We will be releasing a summary report of this meeting
which will be sent not only to you but other agencies and interested parties that may
wish to pursue using this technology to reduce risk.
3. Do you see this as a replacement for'the written label?
Response: No, we are looking at something that augments the written label, and
certainly nothing could be on the audio message that is in conflict with the written label.
• - . ' ' t . . • . • ' '• i , •
4. 'What are some of the uses of this technology has EPA considered that would enable an
individual who can't read English or who has eye problems and can't read the label to
• use the product?
Response: In our internal meetings, we brainstormed many possible uses. For
example, one could create a Spanish/English audio card that communicates what
pesticide will be sprayed, .the precautionary statements and worker re-entry interval.
One card could easily be passed around, among the workers.
For this meeting, we made two sample prototypes. One prototype is on a fogger can;
within twenty-seconds, the message communicates the product name, directs the
consumer to read the entire label before product use, communicates the precautionary
statements, and again reminds the consumer to read the entire label prior to product use.
The other prototype is on agricultural pesticide containers and communicates similar
language in a thirty-second message. However, we also considered for agricultural
products, perhaps the audio message could be best used to communicate recent changes
to the label.
Or perhaps, a ten-second chip could be used to communicate the first aid on a label.
Information would be readily available via a button when an accident occurs.
Or for those who may have difficulty reading the label due to eye problems, .perhaps it
would communicate the precautionary statements such as, "DANGER. 'Keep Out of
Reach of Children. Keep away from eyes. Do not inhale. Do not get'on skin." and
other precautionary language.
5. Do you see communicating :on an audio message that they need to go get someone to
read the label, if they cannot read it for themselves? •
Response: Any of these ideas put forth are good suggestions, and if you feel that
communicating that message is a good idea, then we want to capture that idea in this
meeting and consider exploring the concept with you.
December 17, 1996 , '45 Concept and Applications
-------
New Audio Technology Pesticide Partnership Meeting
6. Has EPA considered communicating a 1-800 number on the label where the consumer
could call and have the label read in a number of languages? We have an 800 number
and the thousands of calls we receive, the information that is key to communicate is the
product and what it controls, application directions and the precautionary statements.
Response: We had not considered it within this context, but it sounds like a great idea.
Response from Jim Downing, EPA's Labeling Unit Team Leader: As we continue to
explore this technology, I think we'll see all sorts of potential for its use with pesticides.
For example, we have a Rule being released very soon about the potential for fires and
explosions from total release foggers, and I could see a lot of potential to use this audio
message with these foggers for a time period, perhaps for a couple of years. That is just
one example of how attention could be drawn to the pesticide label. By using the audio
message, we could better educate and communicate with the pesticide user. I like our
motto that the Labeling Unit developed: "Protecting life through better pesticide
labeling."
December 17, 1996 46 Concept and Applications
-------
New Audio Technology ' . Pesticide Partnership Meeting
EPA's Consumer Label Improvement Initiatives
by Steve Morrill, Co-Leader, Consumer Labeling
. Initiative, Office of Pesticide Programs
What I'd like to do today is talk to you about the Consumer Labeling Initiative (CLI),
which is a project that will eventually tie in very nicely with the talking label. First, I will
explain how the project was initiated. Second, I will speak about some of the things we have
discovered during the Initiative, and third, I will talk about where, I believe, the CLI is headed
and how it inter-relates with the talking label.
The CLI originated at the highest levels of EPA management. Administrator Carol
Browner had a personal interest in improving the label of pesticides and,other consumer
products. In her personal dealings with pesticides; she found that labels were difficult to •
understand and that they poorly communicated how to properly use the product. The Pesticide
Program has been aware of labeling problems, and I think the formation of the Labeling Unit
demonstrates the Program's resolve to address those problems.
The initiation of the CLI represents a very specific effort to conduct research to address
certain problems with labeling. EPA management directed those involved (1) to make sure that
the Initiative had a consumer focus, identifying what consumers actually needed,from: labels, (2)
to ensure that any improvements could be implemented voluntarily, and (3) to be as open and
inclusive as possible by involving all groups that had a stake in good labeling. One of the ways
that we went about accomplishing these goals .was to form a task force. We invited other
organizations involved with labeling, such as the Food and Drug Administration, the Consumer
Product Safety Commission, and the Federal Trade Commission, in order to prevent duplication
or conflicts with present labeling efforts and to learn from their labeling programs. We also
invited the States, environmental organizations, and public interest groups to participate as
stakeholders on the task force. In addition, we wanted to make sure we involved the regulated
community not only as labeling stakeholders but also as contributors with invaluable insights
due to their ongoing efforts in market research.
The initiative was launched via a Federal Register notice in the spring of 1996. A public
docket was created to capture all comments. We conducted a literature review on existing
research on the known problems about labeling and its various components. Lastly, We
completed a survey by conducting 135. in-depth one-on-one interviews with users of products in
each of the focus categories in five major cities across the United .States., As information
became available from, the literature review and Stakeholder comments,, it was incorporated into
the iterative development of the .qualitative research, Phase I, and will be considered in
subsequent phases of consumer research.
December 17, 1996" .47 Consumer Label Improvement Initiatives
-------
New Audio Technology Pesticide Partnership Meeting
Research Findings
Although there was disparity regarding specific points of view, there was also
consistency, in many of the Stakeholder comments, literature review findings, and learnings
from the consumer research. The comments, literature review, and consumer research
addressed primarily label readability, the comprehension of product ingredient information,
statements mandated by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA),
hazard identification, and precautionary labeling information. The research also assessed, to the
extent possible, consumer reliance upon labels in purchase decisions before use of the product,
for precautionary/first aid information, and at the time of container and/or product disposal.
The research addressed these questions in general, and where possible, for each of the focus
product categories, i.e. indoor insecticides, outdoor pesticides, and household hard-surface
cleaners.
The qualitative research was used as a means of identifying and probing issues
concerning messages on the selected product category labels, and do not reflect statistically
representative responses. Most of these general findings and other more specific ones not
highlighted here warrant further exploration or validation in the next phase of the CLI, which
will include quantitative consumer research. Other findings may be more appropriately
addressed through channels of communication other than labeling. Next, I will summarize each
of the key general findings. ' • •
Use of Product Labels by Consumers
The available research suggested that whether a consumer read a label depended ori the
type of product and their familiarity with the product. Most consumers read the label if the
product was new to them and if there was concern or an expectation of potential hazard if it was
used incorrectly. The literature and consumer research findings indicated that most consumers
felt mat household chemical products were safe if used according to directions. In general, the
research indicated that First Aid information was read only when there was an accidental
exposure. Purchasers of insecticides and outdoor pesticides read the label primarily to
understand product efficacy and directions for use. Consumers with children or pets were more
likely to read precautionary labeling for pesticide products before purchase, but this largely
applied to the indoor insecticide and outdoor pesticide product categories. In general,
consumers did not read disposal directions, but did report that they stored pesticides in the
house or garage out of the reach of children. Stakeholders commented that FIFRA-mandated
disposal directions often conflicted with local government household hazardous waste program
requirements.
Some Stakeholders suggested, since many people were not reading the label, that efforts
should be undertaken to educate consumers about the importance of reading the label.
December 17, 1996 " 48 . Consumer Label improvement Initiatives
-------
New Audio Technology. ' Pesticide Partnership Meeting
Product Label Readability
During the qualitative research, consumers mentioned that they wanted less technical
words on product labels/and some Stakeholders suggested that labels be at a fourth or fifth
grade reading level. Two major problems identified were too-small type size and inadequate
color contrast. There was also consensus that when there is a significant potential hazard, the
label should prominently instruct consumers to read the label. When they were read, consumers
judged labels on household cleaning products not regulated by_FIFRA to be easier to read and
understand than those on FIFRA-regulated products. Some Stakeholders suggested that a
standard format for key information would improve readability. A,few Stakeholders
recommended fold-out labels, but consumers interviewed in the qualitative research expressed
concern that opening a fold-out label before purchase would obligate them to buy the product.
Moreover, when they opened the booklet, many consumers expressed a sense of information
overload,that discouraged them from reading the information. Another area of investigation
was the location of label information. One finding was that consumers look at the back panel
for ingredient labeling, but FIFRA requires labeling to be on the front panel. While consumers
thought labels could be easier to read, they did not suggest information that could be deleted.
Comprehension of Ingredient and Mandated Label Statements
.Public interest groups recommended that comprehensive ingredient information,
including full chemical names and even Chemical Abstracting Service (CAS) numbers, must be
required for all ingredients. Some Stakeholders provided evidence that consumers did not read
or comprehend chemical names, and it was heard repeatedly from consumers in the qualitative
research that they did not understand chemical names. For indoor insecticides and outdoor
pesticides, qualitative research revealed that some consumers look for specific ingredients in
Comparison shopping, but they generally recognize only the active
ingredient common name. There was also consistency in comments, the literature review, and
the consumer research in finding that consumers did not understand the term "inert ingredients."
Mandated statements that consumers did not read and did not understand included the
statement, "It is a violation of Federal law to use this product in a manner inconsistent with its
labeling." -
Hazard Identification and Precautionary Labeling
Consumers also consistently misinterpreted the EPA mandated labeling, "Hazards to
humans and animals" to mean "hazardous to humans and animals." It was also interpreted as a
stand-alone statement and not as a heading. Stakeholder comments and the CLI consumer
research also showed that consumers prefer the term "first aid information" over "statementof ;-
practical treatment." The literature review (with support from the information learned from the
December 17, 1996 . 49 Consumer Label Improvement Initiatives
-------
New Audio Technology Pesticide Partnership Meeting
qualitative consumer interviews) led to the conclusion that consumers understand that the term
Danger is more serious than Caution or Warning, but there was not a clear distinction between
the latter terms. Some consumers perceived outdoor pesticides and indoor insecticides to be
very hazardous (as opposed to cleaners and disinfectants). The implications of consumer
reception to new or additional labeling information merits further investigation. Public interest
group Stakeholders urged the Agency to provide extensive and explicit hazard information on
the label for all ingredients, including acute, chronic, and reproductive health hazards, noting
particularly risks to children and pregnant Women.
Next Steps and Recommendations
EPA worked with the Stakeholders, through meetings with our Partners and open
discussion forums with others wishing to participate, to categorize all the findings into one of
the following three categories: 1) labeling issues requiring further development or statistical
validation through quantitative research, for example, the need to establish the hierarchy of
importance of label content to consumers, and how satisfied consumers are with each specific
label section (e.g., ingredients), 2) labeling issues not requiring further validation, for example,
consumers prefer the term "first aid" over "statement of practical treatment," and 3) education,
policy planning, and coordination issues.
Based on the above categories, the recommendations in the report focus on the following
areas: 1) a subsequent phase of quantitative and secondary research review,
2) interim label improvement measures, and 3) label-related education, policy, and procedural
improvements.
Recommendations for Quantitative and Secondary Research
EPA recommends that the next phase of the CLI include a quantitative assessment of
consumer comprehension, attitude, behavior, and satisfaction of (FIFRA and non-FIFRA)
labeling and an evaluation of labeling alternatives. In addition, undertaking a subsequent
literature review is recommended to explore more detailed existing information in the specific
topic areas to be examined during the quantitative phase of research. This research will result
in comprehensive and specific recommendations for: 1) label design and content improvements,
2) regulatory or policy changes needed to allow improvements, and 3) additional research to
further clarify issues or to test alternative labeling.
Following completion of the second phase of research, EPA will combine the findings
from the primary and secondary CLI research phases over two years with input from CLI
Stakeholders to develop recommendations for the Administrator.
December 17, 1996 50 Consumer Label Improvement Initiatives
-------
New Audio Technology ' Pesticide Partnership Meeting
Recommendations for Interim Label Improvement Measures
Based directly on the findings land information presented in Phase I of the CLI, the
Office .of Pesticide Programs should consider three areas as an immediate starting, point for label
improvement: 1) broader use of common names for active ingredients in addition to chemical
names approved by International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC), 2) use of the
heading "first aid" instead of "statements of practical treatment," and 3) inclusion on labels bf
phone numbers for general or emergency information. The pesticide program can take steps
right now to improve information on labels in these three areas.
Recommendations for Education Activities
Recommendations call for the formation of a Product Label Consumer Education Task
Force-. The task force would be comprised of staff from Federal, state, and local government
agencies and interested CLI Stakeholders, and would be mandated to recommend and implement
consumer education activities throughout EPA that emphasize the importance of reading the
label. ./'.••'
Policy Planning and Coordination Activities
Recommendations in these areas will focus on establishing processes for identifying and
presenting the. other important factors or considerations that, go into the development of labels,
so that once it has the consumer perspective in hand, EPA can make sound policy decisions
based on all relevant factors. These other factors include the scientific, legal, regulatory, -
business, and right-to-know issues that may affect how information should be presented on
labels or through some other mechanism. Some specific recommendations are as follows:
Standard Labeling Policy Coordination and Development: The Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) houses responsibility for general coordination of
environmental marketing and labeling issues and policy development. Many of the
general learnings from the qualitative research, Stakeholder comments, and literature
review will be furnished to those who manage labeling programs and related policy
issues throughout EPA, in other Federal Agencies, and at the state government level. In
addition, these learnings will be considered appropriate in the development of EPA
. comments on developing international industry standards (e.g. International Organization
for Standardization or ISO work on environmental labeling) for the Organization for
Economic Cooperation and Development, and in the development of environmental
labeling programs.
CLI Research Process: The process used for this pilot was well received by the EPA
Partners and Task Force Members. A work group of CLI Stakeholders and others
1 . l '
December 17, 1996 - . 51 Consumer Label Improvement initiatives
-------
New Audio Technology Pesticide Partnership Meeting
should be formed to develop recommendations for EPA use of the CLI process to
perform other Agency policy work.
Pesticide Labeling Needs Vary: The Office of Pesticide Programs should recognize the
difference between consumers' label needs and the label needs of agricultural sector
users (for whom FIFRA labels were first developed). The Program should take steps
now to explore how to eliminate policy or regulatory barriers to address this difference.
Continued Coordination Between EPA and FTC: The EPA and FTC continue to
coordinate on environmental marketing and labeling issues across all environmental
media programs (e.g., pesticide programs, trade and environmental activities,
environmentally preferable products guidance, Energy Star, etc.): Specifically, the
Office of Pesticide Programs' Labeling Unit is attempting to better coordinate claims
approved for pesticide labels with the FTC Guidelines for Environmental Marketing
Claims. -
Form Inert Ingredients and Health and Safety Information Work Groups: Form
one or two small work groups made up of representatives of all interested Stakeholders
to work with the Office of Pesticide Programs, and charge them with the development of
a white paper that identifies and discusses the.scientific, legal, regulatory, business, and
right-to-know points of view as they relate to the presentation of ingredient and health
and safety information on registered pesticide labels.
Storage and Disposal Labeling: Form a work group made up of representatives of CLI
Stakeholders to work with the Office of Pesticide Programs to identify all current
applicable storage and disposal regulations and issues affecting storage and disposal for
development of a white paper.
CLI Pilot: The CLI was designed as a pilot project. EPA should determine whether to
further examine additional product categories.
Standardization of Environmental Messages on Product Labels: EPA should
consider if it is possible to somehow standardize messages on product labels beyond
pesticides (e.g.. format, elements of the message).
In summary, the goal of the CLI is to foster pollution prevention, empower consumer
choice, and improve consumer understanding by presenting clear, consistent, and useful safe
use, environmental, and health information on household consumer product labels. I appreciate
this opportunity to report on the CLI's Phase I findings and to be a part of this meeting to
introduce audio technologies and how they could tie in with EPA's consumer labeling
improvement initiatives.
December 17,1996 52 Consumer Label Improvement Initiatives
-------
New Audio Technology Pesticide Partnership Meeting
EPA's Preliminary Pesticide Compliance Perspectives
by Phyllis Flaherty, Chief of the Compliance Branch,
Office of Compliance
Each of the previous speakers introduced many ideas about this technology and how it
could be implemented with pesticides and pesticide labeling. I will be highlighting areas where
I see potential for enforcement issues to arise. ,
First and foremost, correctly implementing audio messages with pesticides is a quality
control issue; however, its implementation probably is not any different than the quality, control
issues associated with advertising. Advertisements can't make any claims that differ from the
EPA-approved label. But, as you know, we have seen some deviations.
I heard one of the speakers suggest using this technology to communicate Restricted
Entry Interval (REI). I think that is a good idea, but I am little nervous about it because I also
understand the idea is to recycle-and market the chips. As a result, there could be
opportunities for mistakes that can lead to enforcement action. For example, if the label on one
• product says twelve hours, and another label says twenty-four hours, but someone gets the little
components mixed up, and the wrong chips are accidentally replaced onto each pesticide, then
you would have strayed too far, resulting in a "claims differ," and that's a violation. The label
is the law, and it's the label with the product. Perhaps this is not where we are right now
because from listening to the other speakers, it sounds more controlled, but further down the
road, you might have the idea that you can pop out the chip, put in another one and have a
different message which could lead to mistakes. So, exceptional quality control is something to
keep in mind.
Another concern is child resistant packaging. I noticed that on some of the product
prototypes, the audio unit was being placed in the top of the container lid. That's probably fine,
but you do need to be thinking about whether your homeowner product requires child resistant
packaging, and whether changing the top part of the container may require you to recertify your
product. I think there's probably lots of ways to deal with it so that it won't be an issue, but, at
the same time, be aware. In addition, this technology will make the pesticide more attractive to
children. .1 think I heard the gentleman earlier say that, ."Even if the child pushes the button a
hundred and twenty times to hear the label read...". If a child can push the button, then
someone is not following the "Keep out of reach of children" precautionary statement on the
label. If, in fact, we are not following the instructions on the label, and implementing audio
messages makes the pesticide more attractive to children, then that's probably a downside.
Another potential issue is refillable containers. Refillable containers will probably be
refilled at the dealer's location. New regulations which are being proposed but are not yet final
December 17, 1996 -53 '. Preliminary Compliance Perspectives
-------
New Audio Technology Pesticide Partnership Meeting
encourage and foster the use of refillable containers. If the label is being changed when these
containers are being refilled, then making sure that the chip gets changed with consistent
information is also important. I don't think any of these issues are major enforcement issues;
however, I see the potential for enforcement issues arising if people don't pay attention to their
quality control efforts.
Regarding disposal and recycling of the units, when I heard these discussed previously,
the batteries and the little chip would be returned, and the unit would be recycled rather than
going into the environment. If the unit is returned and reused, then relabeling issues will be
involved. Again, I don't think this raises major issues, but a label statement that says, "Recycle
it," or how you recycle it may be needed.
A final issue that may arise is establishment registration. Under FIFRA, producing and
repackaging a pesticide are defined very broadly. Anytime one changes the container, the
labeling or the packaging of the product, one has to have an establishment number on the unit
and submit an Annual Pesticide Production Report. My presumption is that much of this
activity will occur at the registrant's establishment or by contract with those already registered
and reporting. On the other hand, if the technology progresses where others would be involved
further down the distribution chain, then establishment registration will be an issue. If the
dealer will be changing the chips such that the container is being repackaged, then the dealer
must have a pesticide establishment registration number and submit an Annual Pesticide
Production Report. At that time, we may want to consider amending the regulations to provide
an exemption from this requirement.
December 17, 1996 54 ' Preliminary Compliance Perspectives
-------
New Audio Technology • Pesticide Partnership Meeting
EPA's Preliminary Pesticide Enforcement Perspectives
by Jesse Ba$kerville, Director of Regulatory Enforcement,
Office of Statutory Enforcement
My responsibilities are very, very narrow and that is the single issue of enforcing the
law. In this case, we have something that's being presented in terms of audio labeling, and as
Phyllis said, I'll put that in quotes: "In terms of the definition, we don't feel that it is labeling
by the statutory definition nor is it a substitute."
j ' *• ; * ,_ ' „. ' , • ' ' '-''•''
If it's not butter, sometimes we use oil, but with labeling one can't substitute. So we do
expect to see,your approved labeling to accompany a particular product. If you add something
in addition in terms of audio, we hope that particular addition is something that is already on the
label. ^1 know that this can be a very attractive concept to marketers for a particular product,
and they might want to get creative in terms of what might go on an audio label. Representing
EPA, I know what we would like to hear in that audio message but that may not necessarily
conform with what a particular marketer would want, to see on a label. And to make it
attractive and to distinguish one product from another, all kinds of things may show up in that
particular audio. As a result, those are the things we'll be concerned about because we can
enforce against "claims that are made that are different from what is on that label," as Phyllis
noted. .-..-.. , ,
I was on Capitol Hill with Dr. Goldman, and she was testifying before the Senate '
Agriculture Committee. I noticed that the Committee loved to ask one question in particular.
One of the congressmen asked, "Dr. Goldman, do you agree that pesticides are beneficial to our
agricultural practices and help us to feed all the hungry people in the world ?" And of course
she said, "Yes." He threw up his hands and exclaimed, "Well, there you have it! What are all
these regulations about"?!
Well, we are also dealing with very poisonous, in some instances, extremely poisonous
substances. These substances are designed to destroy things, and we have to be careful how we
use them. We need to approach this exercise from that particular standpoint. For example,
what is unfolding in Mississippi right now is'a misuse of the pesticide, parathion, It takes a
couple of teaspoons full to kill a human being about my size. So, you can guess how.much it
takes to kill a child, and it was sprayed illegally in homes for pest control. We've tested nearly
a thousand homes in Mississippi. A hundred and sixty-six of those homes have been evacuated
or the families have been temporarily relocated. Presently, almost seven-hundred people are in
temporary living space because of this parathion misuse.
December 17, 1996 , 55 Preliminary Enforcement Perspectives
-------
New Audio Technology Pesticide Partnership Meeting
When the two applicators involved were asked why they misused parathion, one of those
individuals said, "Well, I did not know." He apparently didn't read the label. He said, "I
didn't know it was so poisonous, or I wouldn't have done it!" The other one said, "Well, I
don't think it's so bad. I sprayed it in my own home, and I'm not going to leave." Even though
he should have evacuated with his family, he did not leave. He didn't particularly care whether
it was extremely poisonous or not. They were simply looking for something that would do the
job. So that's the diversion of a product.
Now, in this case, hopefully for one of those individuals, maybe .the audio message
would be very helpful. Regarding the other applicator, one has to deal with that person in a
different way because the individual doesn't seem to care about the consequences of his actions.
We are very much interested in this process, and we will be following it very closely
because there is a lot of potential for people to go astray using this kind of technology. An
example might be if one confused marketing concepts with very strict regulatory requirements
that must be followed when using pesticides. Thank you.
December 17,1996 • 56 Preliminary Enforcement Perspectives
-------
New Audio Technology '. . . . , Pesticide Partnership Meeting
State Perspectives
• by Mary Ellen,Setting of the Maryland Department of Agriculture,
representing the Association of American Pesticide Control Officials
. Ms. Setting could not attend the meeting due to illness; however, she submitted these
talking points to be included in the report. .
The following issues need to be considered when using audio messages to alert , ,
consumers about pesticide use hazards and agricultural producers about Worker Protection
Standard requirements: , '
* Any additional means to effectively inform consumers about proper pesticide use would
certainly be a welcome asset to existing pesticide education programs.
* Applicability would appear to be limited to consumer products since information that
could be relayed in this manner would be of limited nature and could not be very
complex. Workers would not usually have access to actual pesticide products.
* Would the added cost to the product justify the return in benefits of using the
technology? :
%., • = . '
* Does the addition of the computer chip and/or battery raise concerns about disposal of
the product? , /
* It appears that EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance is satisfied that
a number of enforcement issues that come to mind can be addressed. However, if false
or misleading claims are made, what recourse do states have hi .terms of enforcement?
* In order for the message to be effective, it needs to be reinforced and repeated to
enhance understanding. Additional, education programs should accompany this aspect of
consumer awareness such as an audio display at pesticide retail stores reminding
consumers to read the label and public service announcements about the importance of
reading the label would reach a wider audience.
* While audio technologies may address one issue, the added benefit to getting consumers .
to read the label will be voided if the product labels are poorly formatted or difficult to
read and understand. . ,
December 17, 1996 57 State Perspectives
-------
New Audio Technology Pesticide Partnership Meeting
In summary, the concept of using audio technologies to enhance consumer awareness
and to reduce potential hazards to the user and the environment is one that can be supported
with several caveats. This concept could certainly be added to the current arsenal of methods to
promote safe and proper pesticide use. However, it appears that the number of issues that
would be resolved with this technology would be limited.
Additional Comments submitted by other state regulatory agencies:
Gary J. Calaba, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality: This technology would be
helpful in reducing pesticide misuse. However, I want to point out that some states, such as
Oregon, have pesticide residue management programs. In Oregon, pesticide residue means
residuals generated from pesticide use, such as pesticide-contaminated rinsates from washing the
interior surfaces of pestiqide equipment. Our program is geared towards not generating any
wastes. Thus, when developing audio messages about pesticide disposal, it would be prudent to
remind folks that some states may have requirements that supersede, or at least, augment the
pesticide waste disposal instructions on a pesticide label.
As communicated to Laura Dye, EPA: Early on, when we began this project, we contacted
OECA, Office of General Council, the Regions, Industry and the State regulatory agencies to
ensure early feedback as to whether this audio message technology would be useful and to find out
what enforcement and compliance issues would arise. The states, of course, have an unique
prospective and offered that it may, indeed, reduce misuse problems; however, they wanted to
remind us that, in certain instances, the states have restrictions or programs that supersede the
EPA-approved labeling on the pesticide product. They also requested that they be kept informed
so that they can stay involved as this technology progresses.
December 17, 1996 58 State Perspectives
-------
New Audio Technology Pesticide Partnership Meeting
Recycling and the Label
by Robert L. Denny, Agricultural Container Research Council (ACRC)
We are talking about how to communicate some, very complex information effectively,
and we are trying to figure out how best to do it. I had a lesson about this just recently. I went
home to eastern North Carolina, and I had a rare occasion to go Christmas shopping with some of
. my little old lady aunts. We went out, and as we were going into the shopping center, my mother
said; "It's windy," and my Aunt Bert said, "It's not Wednesday. It's Thursday," and my Aunt
Mary Ellen said, "I'm thirsty, too. Let's go get a drink." - , .•
I had the occasion to be concerned about the efficacy of communication some fifteen years
ago. A much younger man became aware of this problem when I was Director of the state
program in Maine. A large number of containers were starting to build up around the countryside,
and we began to realize what was the source of the fish kills occurring every spring. As the creeks
and streams overflowed their banks, the trout and the salmon were Skilled. When we investigated,
we found pesticide container storage sites above each area where fish kills were occurring. t •
So, we thought, wouldn't it be a much better idea if these containers were returned where
we could be assured that they were properly rinsed and discarded.' From the onset, preventing the
waste of energy was a consideration, and we also began to .think about the pesticide label, which
clearly states triple rinse or the equivalent. The necessary information was'already present and
included a prohibition against dumping. But, what was missing was effective communication to
mixers, loaders, and applicators to.ensure their understanding about how to properly handle these
containers. "
We tried enforcement actions and compliance activities, but that wasn't the long-term
solution. The end result was that containers were stockpiled in barns, and the landfill still
wouldn't take them. The landfills needed assurance that the containers were safe to handle.
As a consequence, we passed an authorizing statue in 1983 creating this program to collect
pesticide containers. What we needed was some way to return all of the pesticide containers after
use, and do it in a way that this was effective. Also, communicating the why was really important-
-not just triple rinse and no open space dumping. Our approach was to communicate the why by
gathering everyone in a room to explain how the containers ought to be handled. Shortly
thereafter, three other states, Oregon, Minnesota and Iowa, set up their own independent programs.
Certain commonalities exist among each of these programs.
At this point, pesticide manufacturers and formulators realized they had a role in making a
better program. It was 1989, and a pilot program for the American Chemical Industry was just
beginning in Mississippi. The Industry wanted to determine how to get the pesticide containers
December 17, 1996 59 . Recycling and the Label
-------
New Audio Technology Pesticide Partnership Meeting
returned, how expensive would it be, and how to divide the costs fairly. What Industry
discovered was—
* Key components that cannot be omitted are education, enforcement and compliance
monitoring. Sometimes critical information has to be communicated in Spanish or other
languages in certain communities. Initially, implementation without enforcement and
compliance monitoring was tried. How these containers came back, I think, is very
instructive for today's discussion. They came back in every shape imaginable until there
was a trained enforcement person working with the program. Having the container
properly rinsed and returned was the key to success, and compliance was absolutely
necessary.
ID ^
* The other thing that Industry discovered while working in partnership with the States was
that there has to be effective communication. One has to be willing to do whatever it takes
to set up a collection site, and these sites have to be advertised. In addition, by establishing
an inspection process that required individuals to personally return their pesticide
containers afforded us the opportunity to communicate better techniques on how to clean .
and return containers. Human interaction was very important to the program's success.
* What we also began to discover is that pesticide labels had to be removed in order for the
program to be really effective and that pesticide labels are printed on a tremendous amount
of paper. As we increased recycling efforts, the resulting paper became a serious problem.
Some pesticides labels are booklets that, on average, are 20-to-25 pages in length. As a
result, there is significant amount of associated paper pulp.
* I think sometimes that we have a hard time recognizing the sheer number of containers that
are sold and could be recycled. It's sometimes difficult to visualize, but one small
agricultural community will fill a cotton trailer many, many times over in the course of a
season.
* I think that it's important that when we are thinking about this addition to containers,' that
we understand some of the impediments to this process. The number of container-
collection sites in the United States is staggering. In some areas, we may .have half-a-
dozen sites within a county and thatrequires a huge infrastructure. In one respect, that's a
wonderful thing because we are getting back an awful lot of containers. However, we also
had to understand that certain transportation issues result.
* Turning the containers into a granulation worked best. I predict in a few years we'll be
using railcars and highway vehicles that handle these materials in bulk. Clearly, we are
trying to produce clean granulated flake that can be used to create something. But what is
(hat something?
December 17,1996 60 • Recycling and the Label
-------
New Audio Technology • '. . Pesticide Partnership Meeting
* We also must be flexible when setting up a program. To show you how flexible we have
to be—in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, for instance,, we have over a dozen sites because
of the distance that an Amish farmer will drive his horse and buggy to drop off his '
pesticide containers. In other counties out west, the farmer may drive seventy miles to go
to a movie. So, greater distances to a container drop-off site may not be such a problem,
One has to take in the cultural practices of the area and fit that to the community that one is
serving:. '. .' • ;: • . , '.'-.'
* A role exists for local governments. More and more, county and city governments are the
authority .that"runs the solid waste facilities.in the United States, and fewer pesticides'
dealers are involved with container collection.
After 1989, the program began to slowly grow, and in 1992, the Agricultural Container
Research Council (ACRC) was officially formed. From 1993 through 1995, we had significant
growth. In 1996, we added Massachusetts. This year, we will likely add New Hampshire and
Utah. Throughout this timeframe, Hawaii has. had an independent program, but we believe it will
be joining the ACRC in the next few years. We expect to have full-participation by the
conterminous 48-states next year. Then, we will focus on Puerto Rico and Alaska.
What does this mean in numbers of containers? In 1996, we collected more than six
million pounds, and in 1997, we predict we will collect over seven million pounds. How does that
translate in numbers of containers? If these containers were all two-and-a-half gallon jugs laid
lengthwise, their path would extend from the White House in Washington, D.C., to the suburbs of
Salt Lake City, Utah. -
We are currently having the farmer pull off the label before the container is recycled.
Obviously, I have been thinking about the additional costs of pulling off these devices for just one
• type of container and to say that I'm concerned would be mild. What do we make these things
into? Potential uses for pesticide-residue impregnated plastic are somewhat limited. We wouldn't
want them to be used to make Fisher Price toys, for instance. We would want them to be
controlled uses such as storage pallets or other commercial uses which don't involve human
handling. • . ' "' • •, '
I would like to, close with these remarks. In the late 1980s, there was a task force formed
to deal with the ever increasing complexity of pesticide labeling. The task force identified the
need for a label proper. Certain .information needs .to be imparted with the pesticide such as
. precautionary statements. However, a general use manual would better communicate certain
repetitive and necessary information such as explaining why certain steps or procedures are
required. As a result, the manual would enhance compliance with labeling and would be easily
available for reference when stored in the applicator's vehicle.' The explanation as to why a
/ '
December 17, 1996 ' i. ' , 61 Recycling and the Label .
-------
New Audio Technology Pesticide Partnership Meeting
procedure must be followed is absent on today's pesticide label. Maybe it's time to rethink the
label and make it more streamlined for the future. Maybe that's the true long-term solution. ,
December 17,1996 62 Recycling and the Label
-------
New Audio Technology Pesticide Partnership Meeting
j Audio Message Technology and Pesticides: Panel and Audience Discussion
At the beginning of the panel discussion, one of the audio prototypes, the Roach
iDefogger Three, was played:
"This is Roach Defogger Three, It. is very important that you read the entire label
before use. Keep out of the reach of children. Do not breath vapors. Cover counter
tops, foods and utensils before use. Do not use more that one defogger per. room. Keep
.away from open flame and electrical appliances. Rernember, read the entire label before
use."; '' • •'. '• ' •" ; '. • '.'".-.
Laura Dye, EPA: That is twenty seconds, and we have covered all the precautionary language
in that timeframe. We also covered some of the important key elements such as covering
counter tops. • - ,
6 • '
Amy Brown,- UM .Cooperative Extension: I assume that was music playing in the
background. As an educator, I .would want the message to come through, not the music. The
music was very bright, happy, and extremely distracting to the message.
Laura Dye, EPA: This was our first attempt at this. We recorded it, I guess, nine months
ago. We've learned a lot since then. What should be or could be done. It was a very
interesting, exploratory experience for us. One thing we'll certainly note right now is that
music shouldn't be played with the message. .
Panel Discussion with Jim Jones as Panel Moderator: I'm here today to moderate the panel
on questions and answers. Before we get started, I would like to ask that each of you who have
questions or observations that you would come up to the microphone and introduce yourself,
first, before directing your questions to the panel. I would also like to encourage our panel
members to ask questions'of each other. Before we get started, if the panel members could
reintroduce themselves for the audience's benefit. Let us know who you are representing.-
Panel Members
Gerry Youngman, Eastern Regional Sales Manager for ISD, Manufacturer of the Talking Chip.
Mike Atkins, representing the Marketing and Sales Department for Energizer. .,
Ben Everidge, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of SpaceMark International Corporation.
Jim Downing, Team Leader for the Labeling Unit, EPA.
December 17, 1996 63 Panel & Audience Discussion
-------
New Audio Technology Pesticide Partnership Meeting
Terry Telzrow, Manager of Standards, Product Safety & Environmental Affairs Worldwide for
Energizer.
Kevin Keaney, Worker Protection Regulations and the Certification and Training Program, in
Field Operations Division of OPP, EPA.
Jim Jones, Moderator: Okay, why don't we open it up for questions either from the group or
from panel members themselves.
Question: My name is Kevin Cannon. I'm the Director of New Business Development for the
Solaris Group. We are the makers of the consumer products, Ortho and Roundup. They are
used throughout the nation and my question is very basic. I would like a summary of the state
of the technology. Summary meaning, the feasibility in terms of costs and some of the
implications that we might face if we were to use this type of technology in our consumer
labels.
Ben Everidge, SpaceMark: In terms of the feasibility, the labels, the technology, everything
that is needed to make another label talk is already in production. We went into the
marketplace about May of 1996 with what we considered to be our production unit. The chips
can be interchanged. A few components need to be added for each message to be longer. The
chip technology is in place all the way up to the four-minute chips. There are a couple of chips
that are coming online in the Summer of 1997, which will make this product considerably
cheaper. We started off, as Laura mentioned to you, over a year ago with a product that was
about $10.00 a unit. We are already down to a chip that runs us roughly $2.50. We will be
down to $1.50 by summer of 1997. Maybe even a $1.00 for a new chip that's coming out
called the Diamondback.
Perhaps Gerry can talk about that. In terms of the components, they get cheaper by volume.
We have a lot of labor involved to piece together all those materials. I gave you five charts
during my presentation that explained all of the technology that is in the chip. If you open it
up, you'd see that there's a lot of material to make the chip talk. In terms of pricing, if you are
going to buy in 5,000 unit minimums, the price is about $ 8.00 per unit. If you, as an
Industry, want to come together and bundle those pieces, the price comes down dramatically.
Yes, we can get it down to $1.25, if we are dealing with tens of millions of units. If we are
not, then it's going to be a higher price. It's just a matter of labor, supply and demand, and
what we can get out of our manufacturers. But the technology is in place. There's nothing
much more for us to do in terms of tailoring it to a particular product or service. It's just a
matter of a couple weeks for us to put it in production. Most of the time, we use our own
molding. We would provide the talking unit just exactly the way you would want it and deliver
it to whoever you specified That's the technology that we can do today, six-to-eight weeks on
the market for you.
December 17, 1996 64 Panel & Audience Discussion
-------
New Audio Technology •' Pesticide Partnership Meeting
Question: I'm John Impson of the USDA. All morning, the topic and discussion has lent itself
to consumer education in regards to either this concept'or use of pesticides by the urban
consumer, not the agricultural product consumer. Who do you see taking the lead on the
educational program for consumers?
Jim Downing, EPA: Well, let me see if I understand, "by take the lead," what you were
thinking about.. '
John Impson, USDA: Who is going to conduct the educational program?
Jim Downing, EPA: Maybe I can answer that by trying to clarify our role from the Agency's
standpoint. Looking around at some of the policy, procedural and regulatory issues, I see it
fitting into some of;the areas we have already explored: the label itself, the advertising, and
. the shelf unit. And, I see it being a great asset to the pesticide educational programs that are
already in existence such as the worker protection educational requirement that was mentioned
and with the bilingual educational requirements. I think that, from our prospective, that's
where we see our roles. At this point, I don't know whether it's appropriate for the Agency to
be taking any Bother kind of a lead. I see there's lots of opportunities here for leadership in the
Industry, for product stewardship or enhancement of the.,product's communication capability.
There are the Consumer Labeling Initiative findings included in the CLI report that suggest
consumer education. There are a lot of possibilities that we are trying to explore. Any other
EPA compatriots that can add something'to that?
Jim Jones, Moderator: Any other questions?
Question: Hi. I'm Bob Fugitt with DuPont Agricultural Products. I wonder if anybody has
looked at the psychology of presenting a message this way. I gather that the chip you are
currently using have been marketed from an entertainment use, and there is a whole psychology
around that. You want to push the button, and you want to hear the message. I'm concerned
that there may be some conflicts with the messages—one that somebody wants to hear versus,one
that aggravates and no one particularly wants to hear. I'm thinking about those dial into
telephone data bases, and you have to listen to punch one, two, three or whatever as you try to
get the information you want. When you can't get it easily, you find yourself getting frustrated.
I also wonder—I know someone in the audience was identified as a teacher^-I'd like to know if
you only have twenty seconds, I'm not sure how your going to get an educational nugget that
will work. It would be great if you could. I don't think that we've overused the term,
consumer education, this morning, I think we all agree that the more of that we do, the better
we. will do it. I see John Impson sitting over there, and I think, to a large extent, we are really
ignoring one of the best educational facilities that we have, and that is the Cooperative
Extension Service of the USDA. The people who actually understand EPA and who explain
person-to-person why you need to do something as opposed to saying, "Don't do it!" or "Do
December 17, 1996 ,65 Pane! & Audience Discussion
-------
New Audio Technology Pesticide Partnership Meeting
it!", but I'll go back to my original question. What's the psychology of the message you want
versus one that you might not want?
Ben Everidge, SpaceMark: I'll approach more from the standpoint of advertisement and a
business prospective. We understood this whole technology to be more of a supplement to the
Warning on the label~the fact that you need to read it, and that you are dealing with a chemical
that can be potentially very hazardous to your health, if it is improperly used. That's our
primary approach. In terms of how you get' the message across, you can get a warning across
in twenty seconds. Somebody, typically, is going to be inclined to want to read more if they
hear somebody saying to them, "Be careful with this product. It can be bad for you if you don't
use it properly. I think there would be an inclination to go ahead and want to delve a little bit
deeper into the product. If they already know that product, inside and out, they'll bypass the
warning. But the fact of the matter is the warning is supplemental not primary. The primary
warning is on the label. What we hope to do is to encourage more people to read the label
before they use the product the first time. In terms of educating, the more messages that are out
there, the more you can use this product as an educational tool. It's a very valuable educational
tool. There are a lot of studies that have been done by teachers. I happen to teach, on
occasion, at the University level. There is a proclivity of students to want "to hear it, or to see it
before they want to read it. They like to get that medium. They like to get their message
through that medium. They will then go back and read it, and they will add to their knowledge
base once you've got their attention, but hearing it or seeing it helps get their attention. I think
that it would work this way as well. Whether or not we have enough products to make it an
educational tool is another matter.
One of the items that crosses over into the question about the costs—if we are able to take, .let's
say for example, Solaris got five million units, and there's five other products they have that are
also five million units, we are not giving them a price for five million units. We can actually do
a price for 25 million units because that same player unit is going to cost us the same to
produce, only we get the cost efficiency by the volume. Putting a message on it doesn't really
matter. What message we put on it is just a matter of putting pins on the chip and the chip
recording it. So we can change the message very easily, but you can't build the player as
easily. If there are ten or fifteen different messages, then in that twenty-five million, you have
an educational tool. An educator might be able to put it together and use it in classroom
instruction. Perhaps those chip cards could also be supplemented with a VHS tape that could be
used during classroom instruction. Maybe it's classroom instruction that could be used over the
Internet because the chip technology can transfer to the Internet, and you can pick it up as a
sound bite. Maybe it can be used along with other audio recordings, or some other printed
material. How creative you can be in terms of what you want to teach about that product will
depend on whether it has the educational value. One of the things that we have talked about, as
a for instance, was recycling this technology into a chemistry class and teaching the chemistry
students about the chemicals used hi the pesticide products. It's a good way to show them how
December 17, 1996 66 Panel & Audience Discussion
-------
New Audio Technology Pesticide Partnership Meeting
it works. The battery discussion earlier today was a classic example of how do certain
chemicals interact with one another. How do they work? What's the complexity? What's the
simplicity? What's the volatility versus the stability of the product or those chemicals. There's
things we can do along those lines, but I don't think we should forget what the primary mission
is, which is, for right now, to help people read the label,,to encourage people to read the labels
so that they are not endangering themselves when they use the chemicals.
Jim Jones, Moderator: Jim, as a follow-up, I wonder if the Consumer Labeling Initiative or
anything that we are doing is going to test that theory?
Jim Downing, EPA: Well, I certainly think that it can. I think Steve alluded to that in the
quantitative research. Basically, do. we know, Or do we have some sense about the general
consumer-including the agricultural and commercial applicators-what the general reaction of
pesticide users will be to this kind of technology? In other words, I'm thinking about some
other applications not as sophisticated technology. For instance, back in the 1970s, car
manufacturers decided to put in voices to tell you that your door was ajar or that your lights
•were on. ~
**''•'•',.
Mike Atkins, Energizer: I think the question is can this technology provide some level of
value to the pesticide industry? I think it becomes readily apparent that it can if used properly.
Is it going to eliminate pesticide catastrophes, perhaps not, but will it enhance consumer
awareness of the label? Yes, it draws attention to ,it, at least, which is more than what is
occurring right now.
Gerry Youngman, ISD: I think regarding the example of the car manufacturer is the control
issue. If you never want to hear \t again, you don't have to, but you at least hear it once. The
control issue has had many applications in the cellular phone industry, which is an immensely
popular technology.
Mike. Atkins, Energizer: It can heighten awareness. There are many things it can't do, like
eliminate all the selective listening out there. But what it can do is increase awareness about
pesticides, and is,that a good thing? '..•-. '
Jim Wright, Law Offices: As to whether this technology has value to Industry, I suspect that
issue will be answered in the marketplace. However, if the Agency decides that this is a
technology that it wants to see, the question I have is whether you believe that you have,
currently, statutory authority to require this technology, if you accept the premise that this audio
message is not a label by statutory authority. Do you foresee, in the future, that you would
want to impose some statutory requirements? And'if so, what would be your authority for
doing so? , , •
December 17, 1996 : . 67 Panel & Audience Discussion
-------
New Audio Technology Pesticide Partnership Meeting
Jim Downing, EPA: I think currently our thinking is that this is voluntary, just like a lot of the
labeling language is voluntary, yet some is prescribed. I think we would have a lot to say
about how it is used. Whether or not a registrant chooses to use it would be an independent
business decision on his/her part.
Mike Atkins, Energizer: Well, I would be really curious to see how they are addressing this,
is it a label or not issue. It is definitely an information audio delivery system whether that is
classified as a label or not. '
Jim Downing, EPA: In one sense, it may not matter whether we are going to call it a label or
call it part of advertising. FIFRA controls what you say in your advertising just like it controls
what you say on your label. .
Mike Atkins, Energizer: I question whether it is advertising or labeling. I think it is an
information delivery system.
Jim Downing, EPA: Well, that is what the label is.
Mike Atkins, Energizer: Then it's labeling.
Phyllis Flaherty, OECA, EPA: I just wanted to comment on whether it is advertising. Under
FIFRA, any claim made as part of the product's sale or distribution, meaning, almost anything
after the product is packaged, a very broad definition, we have jurisdiction over. We don't call
it advertising when we enforce, we call it a claims differ. If it is labeling, it doesn't really
matter what portion of FIFRA we charge, whether it's a claims differ or labeling inconsistent
with labeling on file with EPA. It is a pretty minor distinction. The court does in the case, but
I don't know whether this would be a major factor, unless we decide that everyone must have it,
then we could mandate labeling. Labeling would be a little stronger regulatory, enforcement
tool. Whether anyone had made a false or misleading claim, a claims differ, we would still
have jurisdiction.
Jim Downing, EPA: And Phyllis, that claims differ would cover advertising and even claims
verbally made by the salesman. ' - •
Phyllis Flaherty, OECA, EPA: Pretty much, that is where you get into the advertising—any
claim made during sale or distribution, over the Internet, over the telephone, verbally by a
salesman—the real advantage to this technology, I see, is that we have a record of what was
said, instead of going into court with, "He said... She said....".
Ben Everidge, SpaceMark: Again, it goes back to what we were trying to accomplish with
this. I don't think anyone has envisioned this to be a sales tool. I think what everyone has
December 17, 1996 68 Panel & Audience Discussion
-------
New Audio Technology . Pesticide Partnership Meeting
envisioned this to be is how do we get people to read the label, and how do we get Industry off
the hook from people who misuse their pesticide because they don't read it, can't read it, don't
know how to read it, or don't understand the message. This may not remove the liability, but,
at least from a business perspective, it is another attempt to try and deliver the message, "Please
be careful with this product." From an advertising perspective, we would hope that it would
not become a tool for advertising such as, "This is the best pesticide made of this type by this
company." • , ' .
Jim Wright, Law Offices: Let me hasten to add that I agree with everything that Phyllis just
said. The FIFRA Section 1.2 statute, that she relied upon, says that if you make any claims
inconsistent with the labeling, then that is a FIFRA violation. ,But, the important distinction
there is that that's a tool that the Agency has to prescribe activity, not affirmatively require
activity. Where you affirmatively require activity is through your authority to control the label.
That is the key distinction here. Absolutely, if the company is saying something on the audio
message that is contrary to the labeling, like your example, that would be a violation, and there
have been enforcement cases.
So, I think it comes down to what I originally asked, apart from helping to sell 'the product or
protecting the company against a product liability claim, I don't see a whole lot of utility to the
pesticide industry to adopt this technology. If, however, the Agency believes that there may be
some utility, you may lack statutory authority other than controlling the content for those
voluntarily using it from making a claim inconsistent with labeling. I don't know that there is
much more that the Agency can do. .
Ben Everidge, SpaceMark: Let me make a few points about that—obviously, as an attorney,
you don't see the utility in the technology, but as'a businessman, I do. What would be the
business advantage to me to go this extra step. Let me step back a bit, we started off this
morning by saying how impressed we are that EPA is attempting to work with Industry rather
than telling Industry what to do. From the very beginning, EPA has made it very clear to us
that they wanted a collaborative effort.- We are trying to find a mutual solution to some
problems raised by various agencies, businesses, and Industry. One of the things that we would
propose as the manufacturer of the talking technology, we would not want to put any label or
any message on a label that has not been pre-approved by EPA. We don't want to get outside
of all of those messages. Frankly, as a businessperson, it seems to me you get more for your
money going through traditional advertising routes than using this particular warning label.
Jim Wright, Law Offices: I am intrigued by the technology, and I'm not trying to be resistive
or throw up any negatives. I am really trying to understand what the regulatory framework will
be for this. I think it is going to be very hard to convince the Office of Pesticide Programs that
they need to approve the message, if the conclusion is that the audio message is part of labeling.
Many of them feel that they are very overworked as it is. So, other than possibly applying.
December 17, 1996 ~ ' 69 . Panel & Audience Discussion
-------
New Audio Technology Pesticide Partnership Meeting
existing guidelines prescribing advertising or marketing claims that go beyond the labeling, and
it seems to me that those are very easily translated into this field without a whole lot of
additional effort by the Agency, if your hope is getting the Agency to approve these messages,
then I would be very interested in hearing the Agency representatives here. But, I would be
very doubtful that you are going to get that.
Ben Everidge, SpaceMark: I don't mind negatives being raised. That is what we have been
doing for the last year is raising negatives so that we can find solutions to them. My experience
with EPA is that I have looked at EPA from both sides. I spent ten years on Capitol Hill with
both the House and the Senate working for a committee that had oversight of EPA. Now, I
have had the opportunity to look at EPA working from the inside. I believe that EPA will'
provide that opportunity because their whole goal is to find a way to encourage people to read
the label. I see EPA trying to step away from being big brother and saying, "This is what you
must do." They are reaching out asking, "How can we accomplish this?" It seems to me that
Industry and EPA are in agreement about it. How we get there, that is something we are all
trying to work toward. If this technology applies great, if it doesn't, maybe there is another
technology that will. The fact that this technology is designed to go with the label, it would
make sense that there would be some level of review by the Agency as standard operating
procedure. To date, I have not seen any indication from them that they would not provide that
review because they are trying to accomplish a certain goal that I believe Industry is willing to
do. Would they take the full liability of it? Probably not nor should they. I would not expect
them to because this is something between Industry, EPA and SpaceMark that we are all trying
to accomplish together!
Question: I'm Amy Brown from the University of Maryland, Cooperative Extension, Pesticide
Education Program. If the objective is to* really get people to read the label and follow label
directions, then what it needs to say is, "This product can be dangerous when misused. It can
be dangerous to human health and the environment. Read the label directions to find out how to
use it properly." If this is a voluntary program, I don't see Company A putting that message on
its product, while Company B is not required to put a message on its product. Company B
would have a marketing advantage because the consumer would think that Company B's product
is not dangerous and Company A's is because this little chip tells me it is. So, I don't think you
are going to get the compliance that you think you want to get.
Ben Everidge, SpaceMark: I don't know that I would agree with that, to some degree yes but
to some degree the messages can be tailored without an overt advertisement initiative. I would
go back to the recycling issue, taking cans, newspapers, etc., things that cost companies real
money to do, they did it to be environmentally freely. It was good business. It was also good
for the environment. It did cost them money, but they saw it as it as a necessary thing to do.
I think, in some respects, you could have this'. Will the entire Industry have this? No, probably
not. Will a couple of key companies step forward and possibly do this. I think the possibility is
December 17, 1996 70 Panel & Audience Discussion
-------
f ' . '•'''; . . -
New Audio Technology , Pesticide Partnership Meeting
there to do that. Is there enough ways to distinguish yourself without overtly advertising? There
are hundreds of different ways you could say these messages. They could be a celebrity
endorsement. There could be a celebrity statement without going into the advertising to get
people to read these labels. It may be an environmental activist who won't take money to do it,
but who wants to get the message across, and who wants to be identified with'helping to get the
message across to promote this awareness. It is done every day on other products. I wouldn't
necessarily rule it out saying that if it is exactly "A," then this is the only way to do it, or if it i's
exactly " A," no one else will do it, I think there are creative ways to do it. That is part of the,
challenge, and that is why, as part of a collective, we are trying to determine ways to make it
work. We are trying to stick with the intention rather than get off on all these other tangents
about how this product can be used.
Amy Brown, UM Cooperative Extension: If this group is serious about wanting to find out if
it works, then I think that you need to work with educators who are used to dealing with these
issues. The Cooperative Extension Service, when we run programs, we have to decide whether
they are effectively changing the behavior of the people we are trying to educate. The comment
that was raised before is that if we raise consciousness, then that means that we are doing a
good job. Not really. If we raise consciousness, then we are doing a little bit. But what we
really want to do is get the person to read the label and follow the directions.
i .,"-.,. .
Ben Everidge, SpaceMark: Absolutely, you want results. I would be the first to say that. We
would want it done responsibly, and if it is not going to be done responsibly, then we would
prefer not to be involved in the project. But we haven't seen any evidence of that. We would
stick to trading cards. That is our business. This whole project is not meant to be a
moneymaker for us. It is meant to be a service delivery vehicle. There are certain things that
we want to do simply because it is a good thing to do. We'll make our money from trading
cards. It is a big industry, and there is plenty of room for us. But, if our technology can be
used for better things, like education, like charitable support, or something like it, then that is a
natural for us. " '. . ' . ' / .
Jim Downing, EPA: Another advantage for a registrant to participate is to limit liability. I
don't know how strong a selling point that is, but it is certainly one more advantage.
Mike Atkins,, Energizer: I believe that you are trying to ensure that there is some kind of
quantitative, measurable way to get at the effectiveness of this technology, in making sure that it
is achieving or assisting in achieving the objective.
Amy Brown, UM Cooperative Extension: Somebody said before that the marketplace is going
to take care of that. If this isn't effective, then companies won't implement it.
December 17, 1996 71, Panel &'Audience Discussion
-------
New Audio Technology Pesticide Partnership Meeting
Ben Everidge, SpaceMark: Isn't that what Steve Morrill was working on as part of the
Consumer Labeling Initiative?
Jim Downing, EPA: Yes.
Ben Everidge, SpaceMark: I remember that we spent most of this year trying to figure out
how to do that.
Jim Downing, EPA: Perhaps the CLI research could pull some of that out.
John Impson, USD A: Amy has basically made the points that I want to make. Put yourself in
the consumer's or homeowner's place who goes into the store. They know they want to buy a
product to control roaches or to spray their apple tree. I think that it would be effective, if that
product would focus on one or two points in addition to reading the label. I have a real
problem with "read the label." You have seen what labels look like currently. If you were to
focus on one product, for example, to say,"This product cannot and should not be used indoors.
It is toxic to.,., please see such and such section to the label..." Then we are moving towards
the objective. I think it is facetious to consider anything else as far as label information.
And two, this brings up a point, regarding focusing the priority on consumers. There are
several reasons why. As far as commercial applicators and private applicators (agricultural
producers)--we should continue educational programs for them, however—we are moving into
an era now where more of the decisions are being made not by that private applicator or
agricultural producer, but by his agricultural consultant. It is my firm belief that consulting will
continue to grow like it has in the last twenty years. We are seeing it in the Midwest too. There
is more use of pesticides by custom applicators than by agricultural producers. The agricultural
producer is no longer making the pesticide decision. Therefore, let's focus this on the
homeowner to get that good, basic education.
Mike Kelley, Great Lakes Chemical Corporation: The point was made that there was a
marketing advantage in the label. I don't want to see that glossed over too lightly. I see, within
my own corporation, fights over whether we are going to use a color label, whether the label
really adds value to the product or whether it sells the product. And if you are adding cost; you
are also facing the potential that there is another product that doesn't have this technology on it
such that not only are you at a cost disadvantage but also there is a hidden implication that the
other product doesn't have the problem. In a voluntary world, that is a very real problem.
Amy Brown, UM Cooperative Extension: That is the point I was trying to make.
Mike Kelley, Great Lakes Chemical Corporation: You made it very well. I was afraid it
was getting lost.
December 17.1996 72 Panel & Audience Discussion
-------
New Audio Technology _ ' Pesticide Partnership Meeting
Jim Jones, Moderator: I think one of the things we can do is test that theory through the
Consumer Labeling Initiative because we are doing interviews with consumers. We could run a
couple of tests, and we can see if we have greater comprehension and. greater desirability for
this technology with the label. One that has ease of communication to me has desirability, even
if it's giving me a message that I'm not thrilled to hear. That is testable, and we do have a
mechanism to test that theory. So, we need to look into doing that.
Jim Downing, EPA: Again, the novelty and the attractiveness may get the consumer's
attention resulting in the desired behavior change which is to read and follow the label.
Question: I am Bonnie Poli of the USD A. I manage the pesticide record keeping program.
I would like to emphasize what John Impson has already said. We are seeing a trend that
agricultural producers are moving away from applying pesticides and depending upon
commercial applicators or agricultural consultants for their pesticide application. Also, if the
message is always the same, you .listen to it once, but the next time, you may bypass it. I think
before there is an investment in dollars, I would urge you to focus on a particular group,, like
the homeowner, and do some good pilot tests to see how this affects the consumer.
*» • • ; •
Ben Everidge, SpaceMark: One of the points I'd like to continue to emphasize is making the
player is costly; changing the message is not. It seems to me that if there is going to be testing
that it needs to occur all the way through this because the technology will continue to evolve.
The better that the technology is applied the more easily we will reach our objective. I would
hope that everyone believes that we should continue to test, change, and test some more; as the
process continues to evolve. .In that way, it becomes a win-win-win for everyone. , For
example, the $2.00 per unit chip couldn't be used on the homeowner product right now, but in a
year or two, the technology^would continue to evolve, the price will continue to drop, and it
will be possible sometime in the future. And if the message changes, people will continue to
listen to it, but if it doesn't change then people will continue to ignore it.
Robert Denny, ACRC: Regarding consumer products for the pilot test, they are the hardest to
retrieve and most expensive from a recycling point of view. There is already an infrastructure
set up for the commercial and agricultural products. Regarding consumer products, when you
start talking about costs, ,1 suspect that the'costs of retrieval is much, much higher than the costs
of manufacturing and programming at this time. So, we need to think about all of these factors.
Sonia White, BASF Corporation: It seems that what I'm hearing more and more is that what
we really n^ed is consumer education in how to apply a pesticide. As Laura said this morning,
most people don't even know they are applying a pesticide when they are spraying that foam
cleaner in their bathtub. What about using a public service message. The crash dummies get
everyone's attention. What about, instead of investing a lot of money in these chips, using a
series of public service announcements (PSA's) that change every six months.
December 17, 1996 , 73 Panel & Audience Discussion
-------
New Audio Technology Pesticide Partnership Meeting
Jim Downing, EPA: That is actually one of the things that came out of the qualitative research
We did with the CLI. There is going to be a Task Force put together to work with Industry and
others to do it. Sure, I think that public service messages can be a plus. Consumers get all
sorts of messages all the time. We are barraged by all kinds of messages constantly. But,
certainly the public service ads can go along way. One of the key components will be
identifying the risk, stating the why, has got to be thoroughly communicated first in order to get
the consumer's attention.
Ben Everidge, SpaceMark: Let me also address the PSA question. If you could get one to
work, like the crash dummies, it might be very effective. Yes, it would be more cost effective.
My experience with PSA's is that (1) you don't control the content, and (2) you don't control
the frequency of the message. That is the biggest problem, and you may run into that here. If
you don't advertise as an Industry, then it seems to me that it is going to be a lot more
expensive than doing some type of label technology. Maybe the chip is not the answer. Maybe
there is another technology out there. I know EPA spent an awful lot of time trying to identify
it, whether it is there or not, or whether there is some alternative, I don't know. But the
problems with PSA's have existed for a long time, and from what I've been hearing, it is getting
worse, not better. This goes back to the initial question as to who takes the leadership role in
educating the consumer? We would never try to be a leader on it, but we would love to assist
companies who are trying to educate the consumer..
Robert Denny, ACRC: I didn't have time to go into everything that I would like to have said
this morning, and I saw lots of blank stares when I got off into this topic. So, I think I was
probably stepping on a few toes. But, in my opinion, and it's only my opinion and not my
client's, the pesticide label today has a number of different customers. The customers are the
enforcement officials; mixers, loaders and applicators; land owners; consultants; custom
applicators; and new customers such as the solid waste facilities who manage the recycling.
There are many different customers. My observation is that the current labeling system is only
serving one customer well, and that's enforcement. All of the rest are deficient in their
communication. I feel that is the root of the problem. We are scurrying around it and trying to
put a fix on the,end with technology. Now, I want you to understand that I would probably
benefit, as a recycling consultant, if this concept was implemented. So I'm doing something
against what would be financially beneficial to me, but I feel that I needed to say that.
Phyllis Flaherty, OECA, EPA: I wanted to make one final comment about a voluntary versus
a mandatory program. When we've talked about this in terms of enforcement and whether or
not it's labeling, I was giving our preliminary enforcement view. We are still looking at the
issue, but, I think, I don't want to leave anyone with the false impression that we could never
require this technology on the label because I think that we could. EPA's Office of General
Counsel is looking at whether we could require it, at anytime, along with other regulatory
restrictions or as a condition of registration. I think that there are mechanisms we could use.
December 17, 1996 74 Panel & Audience Discussion
-------
New Audio Technology , Pesticide Partnership Meeting.
So, I don't want to mislead anyone to say that we could never require it.
I think these are the points worth discussing: Would people do it on their own? Would it be
worthwhile? Would it be voluntarily? Would it be a supplemental and/or an environmental
expenditure for those companies that are facing penalties? In that case, there might be an
advantage to having the technology to reduce misuse of a pesticide product because misuse costs
the company in other ways, I don't think it affirmatively reduces this liability, but certainly, if
they can get more users to follow the label, they're going to have less people complaining about
the product. • , ' ;
Jim Jones, Moderator: I thank the panel and all of you for your questions/ I think we got a
lot of good questions, input, and food for thought that I know we'll be taking back as we
deliberate on this issue.
December 17, 1996 _ '. 75 , ' Panel & Audience Discussion
-------
-------
New Audio Technology - Pesticide Partnership Meeting
Potential Pesticide Policy and Feasibility Issues
Jim Downing, EPA: Thanks, Jim. That was a good job, and the panel-we got a lot of ground
covered. In fact,! suspect that'some of the policy and feasibility issues we've already touched
on, but that's okay. Maybe we'll be able to explore some of those points. :
I just thought I'd make a quick attempt to Wrap up or summarize what we!ve discussed. I first
heard that the technology is basically ready.' The cost factors are getting into the fields now
where it can be applicable to this Industry, as well as probably some others, and there is at least
a potential educational use. The remaining question is about the psychology of using a talking
label. However, it can.enhance the attention to the fabel. Certainly, we would want to work
with educators, particularly extension folks, when trying to capture the aspects of the pesticide
label to educate consumers. It should be a voluntary use, at this point. The law requires that
the audio part must be consistent with the label. Implementing this technology needs to be a
collaborative effort. There are several ideas for potential pilots, and lots of other ideas have
been suggested on how to proceed. The talking label needs to more than draw attention to it, it
needs to change behavior. Pilot testing will be good, and probably continuous testing will be
needed as we proceed. Rob's points were about the difficulty of recycling consumer products.
From a recycling standpoint, implementing this technology is probably a problem. Does anyone
else have a comment that he or she wants to make to the summary? Did I miss anything?
Kevin? ,
Kevin Cannon, Monsanto: I'd like to say one thing. We can't overlook the use of this as a
marketing and merchandising tool. Now, Iknow that you probably want to shoot me for saying
this. We can't possibly put this on a label without gaining some kind of lift in the area of sales.
I mean this is why we exist. Now, we want people to use the products correctly. We want
them used according to label instructions, but at the same time, we want them to use them. If
we have a statement, No sales tool for advertising, I can assure you that if that statement was
taken and blocked off and put on the table, then industry wouldn't accept it at all. We are in "the
business to make money. Let's not kid ourselves, okay. So we've got to figure out a way in
which everybody wins, and I think, from a merchandising, marketing standpoint, if you can
produce a message that attracts a consumer's attention and, at the same time, provide them with
valuable information on how to use the product properly, it's a win-win. I jusTwant to make
sure that this idea of...(interrupted by unidentified man) . •-
Unidentified man: That's a marketing issue as opposed to an advertising issue. I would agree
with you on that. It's the blatant statements that we are trying to avoid that says, "This is the
best product because we manufacture it." - ••.••..-•'*.
December. 17, 1996 ,. .j ... \. - Policy & Feasibility Issues
- ' • .: : - •' , ' ' 77 : :
-------
I, , , . .. ',,,/'
New Audio Technology ' Pesticide Partnership Meeting
1 ~ " • : '~ : " '
Kevin Cannon, Monsanto: It's not a question. It's one-hundred percent. We have plenty of
evidence. We have talked to consumers, as I mentioned earlier. We talk to them everyday on
the phone. We have forty-thousand calls a month on our products. We meet with them
regularly before we launch products. Confusion and complexity are the key barriers to trial and
usage. We want people to try to use our products. They don't because they don't understand
them. We have plenty of data that shows forty-percent of the people that approach a store with
a need to buy something walk away without a product in their hands not because they consider
them dangerous or they're afraid of them, but because they just don't understand them. They
just can't figure out what kind of weed that they have, what kind of bug that they have, etc. So,
if you can tell them, very quickly and succinctly, that this product does such and such, it can be
mixed at this rate, and you should read the label thoroughly, then you have accomplished the
number one task, the goal of getting them to take the product off the shelf.
* ' , i
Jim Downing, EPA: Good point. So maybe that really ought to be rephrased, "this is not to
be used merely as an a marketing ploy," or something like that.
»
Terry Telzrow, Energizer: I agree with Kevin thoroughly, and the thing that I was thinking
about as I was listening is once one company does it, it becomes a defacto regulation because
the other company that doesn't have it gets sued for product liability. The lawyer is going to
say, "But, for a measly dollar you could have put this speaking label on, and it could have
protected my client."
Kevin Cannon, Monsanto: It appears that you have a marketing tool. So let's not
differentiate. You are showing some kind of gain. Everyone is going to follow it. It's a trend.
It's a marketing tool.
Mike Atkins, Energizer: But we've identified the flip side. Terry identified that side.
Someone else identified the flip side where we don't want the product stating that because the
other one does. So you are getting both sides of the coin here.
John Impson, USDA: If I may have a couple of minutes. I led off my questions earlier asking
who is going to take the lead on consumer education of pesticides. Let me assure you that I'm
with USDA, and as such, I administer the programs that Amy Brown described, a while ago, at
the Extension Service Land Grant University in Maryland. We are very serious and very
concerned about pesticide usage and especially some of the misuses that have occurred in the
last several years. One example is the incident with methyl parathion in Mississippi and a
couple of other states this year. We need a basic pesticide education program, and if we are
successful in getting funds in the USDA budget this year, it has been proposed to go into the
administration budget. It has to go before Congress in a very few, short months. We have the
December 17, 1996 Policy & Feasibility Issues
78
-------
New Audio Technology Pesticide Partnership Meeting
facilities. We have the avenues. We want to conduct the pesticide education programs for
consumers or, at least, to participate. Certainly, the industry conducts educational programs
now. Some of the other organizations do also.
We are very serious on how it impacts agricultural production and production of food and fiber
in this country. We need that basic educational program to make sure that consumers
understand why they should not be using products such as the methyl parathion indoors because
of, the potential harm to individuals where it was used. We also look at the effects that this
could possibly have on the agricultural industry and production agriculture. We may lose
methyl parathion, and it's important in a couple of our commodity production programs, or it
may be further restricted to those agricultural producers. We don't need this. The agricultural
industry, the user industry, and certainly the consumers need that basic educational program.
Jim, I want to offer pur Agency through the USD A and the Land Grant whatever we can do to
work with EPA. ' - '
December 17, 1996 Policy & Feasibility Issues
• . 79 ' ••.--.
-------
------- |