Ending Pesticide Myopia: Broadening the Role of Alternatives in Assessing Dangerous Products Under FIFRA

This Note argues that EPA should consider the broader context of alternatives in initial registration decisions and lean on it more heavily in deciding whether to cancel already-registered pesticides. Doing so would increase EPA’s ability to cancel pesticides shown to be more hazardous than their counterparts, and potentially allow EPA to decline to register such pesticides in the first place. Part I summarizes FIFRA and the process EPA uses to assess pesticides’ risks. Part II relates the history of NRDC v. EPA—a useful case study and the litigation that spawned EPA’s refusal to cancel TCVP pet collars. Part III discusses policy rationales for changing EPA’s assessment of alternatives. Part IV offers a regulatory mechanism for EPA to effect change to better consider alternatives.