Stephen L. Tvedten, TIPM, CEI
Director, President and Director, Professional Development Services, IPM, Inc., President, Get Set, Inc., Inventor, Faculty

George Campbell, Retired Industrialist,
Adventurer and Environmentalist

Merrill Clark, Organic Farmer/Livestock Producer

Gary Coller, D.O., Founder and Chairman, Integrated Therapies

Paula Davey, M.D., Environmental Medicine

Bryna Eill, Ed.D., A.A.S., FIT, Lecturer in Architecture and Environment

Samuel Epstein, M.D., Professor of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Internationally Recognized Authority on the toxic and carcinogenic effects of environmental pollutants, Author, Lecturer, Legal Expert. Advisor to a wide range of public interest groups

Jay Feldman, Co-founder and Executive Director, National Coalition Against the Misuse of Pesticides

Zane R. Gard, M.D., Detoxification Expert, Environmental Consultant, Professor, Lecturer, Author

Claire Gilbert, Ph.D., Editor and publisher, "Blazing Tattles"

Glenn D.Gordon, TIPM, Chairman and Owner, Home Guard Pest Control, Inventor

Donnelly W. Hadden, J.D., Environmental Attorney, Author.

R. Michael Kelly, M.D., MPH, Medical Director, Occupational Health Services.

Robert L. Laing, Founder, President, CEO and Chairman of the Board, Clean-Flo Laboratories, Inc., Inventor, Faculty

Harvey A. Loomstein, Ph.D., LPC, LMSW-APC, Clinical Director, BioTech Institute

Peter Lurker, CIH, Ph.D., P.E., Environmental Health Consultant.

Robert McClintock, Assistant Superintendent, Northmont Schools

Kenual (Ken) Okech Ogwaro,Ph.D., Entomologist, PCO, Environmental Consultant, Pest Expert

Warren P. Porter, Ph.D (Phynological Ecology), Chair, Dept. of Zoology, University of Wisconsin, Madison

Doris Rapp, M.D., FAAA, FAAP, Environmental Medical Specialist, Pediatric Allergist, Author, Assistant Professor, Lecturer.

Ted Rescorla, Director, Buildings, Grounds and Construction, Grand Haven Schools.

Elihu D. Richter, M.D., MPH, MPII, Sr.,  Lecturer and Head, Unit of  OEM, Hebrew University, Jerusalem

Janette Sherman, M.D., Author, Legal Expert, Lecturer.

Robert K.Simon, Ph.D., DABB, Director, Toxicology International, Inc.

Will Snodgrass, Director of Chemical Injury Communications Network, Director of Missoulans for Clean Environment.

Milton Weiss, DDS, Retired Dentist, Environmentalist

Linda F. Person
Freedom of Information Officer
Headquarters Freedom of Information
Operations Staff (1105A)
email: hq.foia@epa.gov
person.linda@epa.gov

Dear Ms. Person:

For the record, EPA has a stated mission to (supposedly) protect human health and to safeguard the natural environment - air, water and land - upon which life depends. In 1993, EPA, USDA and FDA (supposedly) agreed to find alternatives to dangerous pesticides. Through the Common Sense Initiative, EPA and multiple stackholders are (supposedly) exploring how to replace the pollutant-by-pollutant approach of the past with a more comprehensive industry-by-industry approach for the future. Participants are looking at all regulatory responsibilities as a step towards simplifying requirements and encouraging practices that could improve environmental performance while also cutting costs. EPA has consistently said that they will (supposedly) promote the use of integrated pest management (IPM) techniques.

Instead of doing any of the above, I believe your enforcement branch has decided to fine and/or harass any and all manufacturers of any/all alternative IPM products that can be used to mitigate pest problems in any way. One of your enforcement officers was recently very adamant in stating that if you say that you can use soap and water to wash away germs and/or to use mayonnaise to control lice, you would have to register both these products as pesticide poisons; that the use of these or any other food-grade and or GRAS products to control any pest problems automatically made them "unregistered pesticides" and every instance of their use as "unregistered pesticides" would or could result in a fine of $5,500. Obviously, your enforcement policies, mission statement, common sense initiative, "supposed" alternative search, definition of IPM and/or lack of any real attempts/steps toward simplifying regulatory requirements and encouraging practices that could improve environmental performance while also cutting costs appears to be nothing more than a smoke screen to continue to promote only the continued use of your dangerous pesticide poisons.

When I wrote a FOIA request on 8/27/01, you wrote me the following letter on August 28, 2001:

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (1105A)
WASHINGTON, DC 20460

August 28, 2001

Mr. Steven Tvedten
Institute of Pest Management Inc
2530 Hayes Street
Marne, M149435-9751

RE: Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552
Request No. HQ-RIN-02955-01

Dear Mr. Steven Tvedten:

By letter dated, August 27, 2001, received in this office on August 28, 2001, you asked for expedited processing of your FOIA request for records related to LISTED INFORMATION RE UNREGISTERED PESTICIDES and for a waiver of fees in connection with that request.

Your request does not contain the proper justification for expedited processing as set out in the Electronic FOIA Amendments of 1996, 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(6)(E)(v). In order for your request to receive expedited processing, you must show compelling need by either:

1. establishing that the failure to obtain the records quickly could reasonably be expected to pose an imminent threat to the life or physical safety of an individual; or

2.  if you are a person primarily engaged in disseminating information, by demonstrating that an urgency to inform the public that actual or alleged Federal Government activity exists.

Your justification should include a statement certified to be true and correct to the best of your knowledge and belief. Upon receipt of your expedited processing justification the Agency will make a determination whether to grant your request and timely notify you of that determination.

Moreover, for purposes of justifying or granting a waiver of processing fees, the FOIA directs agencies to furnish records without any charge or at a reduced charge "if disclosure of the information is in the public interest because it is likely to contribute significantly to public understanding of the operations or activities of the government and is not primarily in the commercial interest of the requester". 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(A)(iii)(1994 & Supp. IV 1998). Requests for fee waivers must be considered on a case-by-case basis and address the requirements for a fee waiver in sufficient detail for the agencies to make an informed decision as to whether it can waive the fees in question. See U.S. Department of Justice, Freedom of Information Act Guide & Privacy Act Overview 502 (May 2000 Edition). In determining whether the statutory requirements are met, agencies must consider six factors in sequence. Id. at 504 - 513. These factors are summarized below.

1. The subject matter of the requested records must specifically concern identifiable operations or activities of the government. A request for access to records for their informational content alone does not satisfy this factor.

2. For the disclosure to be "likely to contribute" to an understanding of specific government operations or activities, the releasable material must be meaningfully informative in relation to the subject matter of the request.

3. The disclosure must contribute to the understanding of the public at large, as opposed to the understanding of the requester or a narrow segment of interested persons. One's status as a representative of the news media alone is not enough.

4. The disclosure must contribute "significantly" to public understanding of government operations or activities.

5. The extent to which disclosure will serve the requester's commercial interest, if any.

6. The extent to which the identified public interest in the disclosure outweighs the requester's commercial interest.  

Should you wish to receive a fee waiver, you must address, in sufficient detail, these six factors. Accordingly, your FOIA request will be placed on hold until we receive your detailed response. You may send your response by facsimile to this office (202)501-1818. If we do not hear from you by September 10, 2001, we will issue a determination on your request for expedited processing and for a waiver of fees based solely on the information already provided in your request letter. Should you have any questions, please contact me directly on (202) 564-7333 .

Sincerely,

/s/ Linda F. Person
Freedom of Information Officer 1105A
Headquarters Freedom of Information
Operations Staff (1105A)
Office: (202)564-7333
Fax: (202)501-1818
Email: hq.foia@epa.gov 

In answer to your 8/28/01 letter:

1. I believe that in 1993 USDA, EPA and FDA agreed to find alternatives to dangerous pesticides. I know of no list of acceptable alternatives to pesticides that have been made by any regulatory agency since that 1993 agreement; in my opinion, this inactivity on EPA’s part poses an imminent threat to the lives and/or physical safety of many individuals.

2.  I have asked various people who routinely receive my disseminated information on the dangers of your "registered" pesticide poisons to write you demonstrating that the urgency to inform the public clearly exists.

3. I want you to specifically show me where EPA has ever defined and/or found and/or allowed any (unregistered) alternatives to EPA’s own "registered" pesticides. Conversely, I want to know where EPA has fined and/or brought to court any alternative producers of foods and/or GRAS materials for selling them as "unregistered pesticides".

4. If EPA can still not even define any (unregistered) alternative to EPA’s "registered" pesticide poisons, it is obvious we will continue to be poisoned with EPA’s "registered" poisons.

5. The public clearly awaits what EPA has determined can be "legally" used as an unregistered alternative to EPA’s registered pesticide poisons. The majority of the public no longer wants to be contaminated with EPA’s "registered" pesticide poisons.

6. The public has a right to know if EPA is protecting the people, air, water and land or the poison "industry’s" profits.

I will personally dispense this information to the public at my cost for free!

The public, including manufacturers of literally thousands of unregistered alternatives, governmental agencies, lawn care companies, schools, hospitals, day care centers, farmers, PCO’s and IPM practitioners, etc., are continually being poisoned/contaminated by EPA’s "registered" poisons and would like to "legally" use "unregistered," safe and far more effective alternatives to these dangerous pesticide poisons, but they clearly can not do so without this definition. I currently do not sell any products, alternatives and/or pesticides.

I have asked various people to confirm my recent FOIA request and we continue to do so until EPA decides what an "alternative" to EPA’s "registered" pesticide poisons is. If there truly are none, we either have to live with the pests and/or continue to be poisoned with EPA’s "registered" pesticide poisons.

I certify that the above is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. 

Stephen L. Tvedten /s/
2530 Hayes Street
Marne, MI 49435-9751
http://www.getipm.com
copy: Others