Pesticide manufacturers, EPA & Advocacy Groups: Failure to State a Claim Under Which Relief can be Granted

Here is a breakdown of what I think happened in the case against the EPA for failing to provide proper labeling for products with deadly chemicals. Here is what the judge said at the end of the case.

Plaintiffs are understandably frustrated that they may be no closer to fulfilling their goal eight years after petitioning the EPA to require that pesticide product labels list hazardous inert ingredients.

But the EPA has unambiguously ‘concluded’ the ‘matters’ presented to it in plaintiffs’ petitions, as required under the Administrative Procedures act, 5 U.S.C. §553(e),

(e)Each agency shall give an interested person the right to petition for the issuance, amendment, or repeal of a rule.

Here is what the judge is saying, the EPA fulfilled its duty under the  statute to allow you to petition for the issuance, amendment, or repeal of a rule. They allowed it, but did nothing. The statute does not require them to do anything only to allow you to petition.

and I can offer the plaintiffs no relief. This matter is moot, a deficiency which cannot be cured by amendment.

The second part he is saying the plaintiff has failed to state a claim under which a relief cant be granted, the case being moot a point of law if it is raised in a litigation, the point does not any longer affect the decision in the case before the court. The problem cannot be cured by an amendment, the judge is basically saying that you need to bring a case that he can provide relief.

My suggestion is to bring a common law claim against the EPA that violates a right, like civil servant misconduct. You need to file a claim against the man or women in the EPA who is allowing these chemicals to be used in products or is allowing the labeling to continue.