“Pursuant to Section 12(a)(1)(E) of FIFRA, 7 U.S.C. § 136j(a)(1)(E), it is unlawful for any person to distribute or sell to any person any pesticide that is misbranded.”

💡 This establishes that distributing pesticides with inadequate labels is not just a technical violation but explicitly illegal under federal law.

“The labels for the imported AgLogic Aldicarb Technical did not include the hazard and precautionary language required by the EPA-approved label that was necessary for ensuring that the product is used in a manner that is protective of health and the environment.”

💡 EPA determined the missing information was not optional but necessary to protect people and the environment from harm.

“The Precaution Statements on the labels for the imported AgLogic Aldicarb Technical product stated that users and handlers should wear safety goggles and use a NIOSH-approved respirator whereas the most recent EPA-approved label states that users and handlers should wear coveralls, long-sleeved shirt and long pants, socks, chemical-resistant footwear, and gloves.”

💡 Workers following the old instructions would have inadequate body protection when handling an acutely toxic chemical.

“The Physical and Chemical Hazards section on the labels for the imported AgLogic Aldicarb Technical product was missing the following language from the most recent EPA-approved label: Do not allow contact with oxidizing agents. Hazardous chemical reaction may occur.”

💡 This omission meant handlers had no warning about dangerous chemical reactions that could occur during storage or use.

“The EPA alleges that by importing and distributing the misbranded pesticide product, AgLogic Aldicarb Technical, as described in Section IV above, the Respondent violated Section 12(a)(1)(E) of FIFRA, 7 U.S.C. § 136j(a)(1)(E).”

💡 This is EPA’s formal allegation that AgLogic broke federal law by distributing pesticides with inadequate safety labels.

“For the purpose of this proceeding, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 22.18(b)(2), Respondent neither admits nor denies the factual allegations set forth in Section IV (Findings of Facts) of this CAFO.”

💡 AgLogic paid the fine but refused to publicly admit it distributed misbranded pesticides, limiting accountability.

“By executing this CAFO, certifies to the best of its knowledge that Respondent is currently in compliance with all relevant requirements of FIFRA and its implementing regulations, and that all violations alleged herein, which are neither admitted nor denied, have been corrected.”

💡 The company claims it fixed the problems but provides no public details about what changes it made to prevent future violations.

“Respondent consents to the payment of a civil penalty for the violations alleged herein, which was calculated in accordance with the Act, in the amount of TWENTY-TWO THOUSAND DOLLARS ($22,000.00), which is to be paid within thirty (30) days of the Effective Date of this CAFO.”

💡 The total financial consequence for four shipments of misbranded toxic pesticide over 19 months was $22,000.

“Pursuant to Section 2(q)(1)(G) of FIFRA, 7 U.S.C. § 136(q)(1)(G), a pesticide is misbranded if the labeling accompanying it does not contain a warning or caution statement which may be necessary and if complied with, together with any requirements imposed under Section 3(d) of the Act, is adequate to protect health and the environment.”

💡 Federal law recognizes that accurate labels are essential protection for health and environment, not optional marketing details.

“In accordance with 40 C.F.R. § 22.18(c), Respondent’s full compliance with this CAFO shall only resolve Respondent’s liability for federal civil penalties for the violations and facts specifically alleged above.”

💡 This settlement only covers these specific shipments, leaving EPA free to pursue other violations if discovered.

“On or around April 15, 2021, the licensed customs broker BDP World Houston filed entries via the CBP ACE System on behalf of AgLogic for the importation of two shipments of the pesticide AgLogic Aldicarb Technical (EPA Reg. No. 87895-2), under Entry Numbers 916-44004664 and 916-44004763.”

💡 The misbranded shipments passed through official import channels without triggering immediate detection or enforcement.

“After a review of the product labels that were uploaded by the broker into the ACE System, the EPA determined that while the labels matched the EPA-approved label from 2012, they did not match the EPA-approved label from August 23, 2019, or the most recent EPA-approved label dated January 12, 2021.”

💡 EPA only caught the violations after reviewing uploaded documents, not through real-time import screening.