USEPA registration clarification

Dear Editor:
I was disappointed to see the ad on p. 88 of your September issue. The Bestech ad claims in its headlines, “U.S. EPA registered products sell!” To my knowledge, there is no USEPA registry of POU or POE devices. It is our understanding that product testing and certification is done to ANSI/NSF standards by an authorized laboratory. Furthermore, EPA does not test, certify or in any other way endorse products. innowave takes pride in its ANSI/NSF tested and certified products.

If I am incorrect, I apologize and would appreciate an article in your next edition about the EPA registration and how to go about getting it. If I am correct, I would suggest that you more carefully review ad content for accuracy and legitimacy. We have been running a 1/3 page [ad] every month and have chosen WC&P because we have felt that it takes a professional approach to water treatment. However, ads like this appear to give Bestech an unfair advantage by having USEPA registered products to sell. I look forward to your reply.

Jenny Christensen
National Marketing Director
innowave incorporated, Omaha, Neb.

Editor’s note: As I suspected, the issue you raise regards an actual “registration” that’s required for all U.S.-marketed products claiming bacteriocidal, sterilization or bacteriostatic properties. In speaking with Bestech president Gary Barr, he notes that the registration is with the USEPA Office of Pesticides Program (OPP): “It falls under the insecticide, pesticide and rodenticide rules and that’s because we make a bacteriostatic claim. All silver-impregnated carbons must be registered if they make bacteriostatic claims. However, there is a treated article exception whereby you can say the device contains an antimicrobial agent to prolong filter life.” There’s also a device exemption claim that can be made, relating to equipment such as ozone and ultraviolet light disinfection systems. This and some other clauses, however, are a bit ambiguous on specifics of how they’re applied, Barr said, and may require clarification from OPP staff. You’ll recall that, in our review of the Long Beach WQA 2000 convention (see “Between the Cracks: Controversial Subjects Miss Out on Final Agenda,” WC&P, May 2000, pp. 62-63), we related how the OPP enforcement staff cited companies on the trade show floor who were exhibiting related products without USEPA registration. We provided a website at that time to learn more information on the subject (www. epa.gov/pesticides/chemreg.htm). Keep in mind, though, WC&P does not monitor claims made in paid advertisements for factual correctness. The onus for ensuring such claims and any ensuing legal responsibilities fall on the shoulders of the advertisers, as clarified in our Media Kit under “Advertising Contracts.” Generally, most—if not all—publications follow the same legal guidelines. Now, if something is glaringly incorrect, publishers do have the right to refuse advertising. We, of course, would try to resolve the issue with the advertiser beforehand on a case-by-case basis, since it’s always possible a simple mistake was made—or not, as in this case. Meanwhile, we’ll see if someone over at the USEPA would be willing to contribute an article on this topic. Thanks for your interest.


Corrections: Photographs that illustrated the article “INTERNATIONAL: North American Development Bank—Initiatives in the U.S.-Mexico Border Region” (WC&P, September 2002, pp. 56-61) were incorrectly attributed to the author, Linda D. Wurts Martínez. They actually were provided courtesy of the North American Development Bank (NADBank).

Also in our September 2002 issue, two photo captions were inadvertently transposed on page 48 (“Where Hard Water Equals a Jolly Good Ol’ Time…). The first photo (from left to right) should have carried the third caption and vice versa.

And, in the October 2002 issue, we incorrectly stated Rick Crawford’s job title at Choice Water Conditioning (Dealer Profile, p. 58). He is a full-time business partner.

Share.

Comments are closed.