Skip to main content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Here’s how you know

Dot gov

Official websites use .gov
A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

HTTPS

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
A lock (LockA locked padlock) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

    • Environmental Topics
    • Air
    • Bed Bugs
    • Cancer
    • Chemicals, Toxics, and Pesticide
    • Emergency Response
    • Environmental Information by Location
    • Health
    • Land, Waste, and Cleanup
    • Lead
    • Mold
    • Radon
    • Research
    • Science Topics
    • Water Topics
    • A-Z Topic Index
    • Laws & Regulations
    • By Business Sector
    • By Topic
    • Compliance
    • Enforcement
    • Laws and Executive Orders
    • Regulations
    • Report a Violation
    • Environmental Violations
    • Fraud, Waste or Abuse
    • About EPA
    • Our Mission and What We Do
    • Headquarters Offices
    • Regional Offices
    • Labs and Research Centers
    • Planning, Budget, and Results
    • Organization Chart
    • EPA History

Breadcrumb

  1. Home
  2. Pesticide Labels

Label Review Training: Module 3: Special Issues, Page 39

Section 8: How should I review labeling claims?

Efficacy-Related Claims

Even though registrants/applicants must conduct efficacy studies, EPA only routinely requires the submission of these studies for certain types of products. As discussed in Module 1, EPA reviews efficacy data (also referred to as product performance data) when a pesticide product bears a claim to control pest organisms that pose a threat to human health.

The following table provides examples of acceptable and unacceptable efficacy claims.

Acceptable Unacceptable
The terms “microbiocide,” “microbicide,” and “microbiostat” on a non-public-health product if the claim indicates that the product does not provide public health protection. The terms “microbiocide,” “microbicide,” and “microbiostat” on a public health product.
The term “biocide” on a non-public-health product if the directions for use or other statements make clear the types of organisms to be controlled. The term “biocide” on a public health product, because it implies that the product can kill all living organisms.
True, non-misleading claims regarding the effectiveness of a product against target pests. For example:
  • “Kills roaches”
  • “Controls target pests”
  • “Controls ticks, which may carry Lyme disease”
Exaggerated or misleading claims regarding the effectiveness of a product against target pests. For example:
  • “Complete control”
  • “100% kill”
  • “Controls Lyme disease”
Terms that describe a specific level of efficacy and that are standard EPA-accepted claims, when data support their use. For example:
  • “Bacteriostatic”
  • “Sanitizer”
  • “Disinfectant”
  • “Sterilant”
Terms that describe a specific level of efficacy but that are not supported by data.
Terms that function only to define a use site and that are not themselves claims of heightened efficacy, provided that such terms are not used in a manner that is misleading. For example:
  • "Hospital use" as long as it does not imply “hospital strength,” is not used in the product name, and is not highlighted on the label to the exclusion of other acceptable use sites.
Implied claims of heightened efficacy of a pesticide product by itself or as compared to another product or device. For example:
  • “Professional strength”
  • “Hospital strength”
  • “Industrial strength”
  • “Hospital grade”
  • “High potency”
  • “High-powered”
The claim of “new” if the product is of new composition and has been approved for a period of six months or less. The word “new,” if it is part of the product name of record.
  Words or phrases that imply a product possesses unique characteristics because of its composition. For example:
  • “Unique formula”
  • “Strongest on the market”
  Claims that are inconsistent with efficacy established by testing. For example:
  • A claim of 30-second efficacy if testing and/or use directions require 2-minute contact time for efficacy.
  Claims of efficacy based on an unsubstantiated, or improbable site/pest relationship. For example:
  • A claim for control of Legionnaires' disease in cooling tower water.

Resource

For more information about efficacy-related claims, see Chapter 12, Section VII of the Label Review Manual.

Page 39 of 43
Previous Page   Next Page

Resources

  • Introduction
  • Table of Contents
  • Resources

Module 3
Page 39 of 43
Previous Page   Next Page

Pesticide Labels

  • Introduction to Labels
  • Reading Labels
  • Label Review Manual
  • Logos and Graphic on Labels
  • Label Q&A
Contact Us About Pesticide Labels
Contact Us to ask a question, provide feedback, or report a problem.
Last updated on January 30, 2025
  • Assistance
  • Spanish
  • Arabic
  • Chinese (simplified)
  • Chinese (traditional)
  • French
  • Haitian Creole
  • Korean
  • Portuguese
  • Russian
  • Tagalog
  • Vietnamese
United States Environmental Protection Agency

Discover.

  • Accessibility Statement
  • Budget & Performance
  • Contracting
  • EPA www Web Snapshot
  • Grants
  • No FEAR Act Data
  • Plain Writing
  • Privacy
  • Privacy and Security Notice

Connect.

  • Data
  • Inspector General
  • Jobs
  • Newsroom
  • Regulations.gov
  • Subscribe
  • USA.gov
  • White House

Ask.

  • Contact EPA
  • EPA Disclaimers
  • Hotlines
  • FOIA Requests
  • Frequent Questions
  • Site Feedback

Follow.