Guidance: Pesticides; Evaluation of Products for Claims against Viruses

A student interested in public health and environmental policy supports the EPA's interim guidance to expand antiviral claims for antimicrobial pesticides. However, the commenter suggests improvements such as clearer labeling distinctions between sanitizers and disinfectants and a more frequent review period than the proposed ten years.

The commenter supports the EPA's interim guidance to expand virucidal claims for antimicrobial pesticides, provided that rigorous scientific testing and labeling standards are maintained. They argue that this expansion can improve public health by helping consumers and institutions identify effective products for reducing viral contamination in non-healthcare settings.

The commenter supports the EPA's goal of increasing access to effective products against viruses but argues that the guidance must require more rigorous, use-specific evidence. They emphasize that virucidal claims should only be granted when testing demonstrates efficacy under real-world conditions and at specific labeled concentrations to ensure public safety and environmental protection.

The commenter supports the EPA's issuance of interim guidance for evaluating virucidal claims on product labels. They argue that standardized criteria will improve public health and access to effective products, while suggesting that future efforts should focus on stricter classification and enforcement.

The commenter supports the proposed guidance, stating that products should be allowed to make claims against viruses if there is substantial evidence of effectiveness. They also suggest that companies should be required to update their research and labeling as resistance to these products develops over time.

The commenter supports the EPA's initiative to provide guidance on evaluating pesticide products for claims against viruses. They suggest that the EPA should provide more specific details on efficacy data generation, labeling requirements, environmental stewardship, and transparency in the evaluation process.

The commenter argues that the EPA should adopt much stricter regulations on atrazine, including buffer zones, cumulative risk assessments, and mandatory public reporting to protect human health, farmworkers, and the environment. They also call for financial support for farmers transitioning to organic alternatives and increased engagement with impacted communities.