|
|
 | | | |
- close
- close
- close
- close
These excerpts taken from the SMG 10-K filed Dec 3, 2008. The Regulatory
Environment
Local, state, federal and foreign laws and regulations relating
to environmental matters affect us in several ways. In the
United States, all products containing pesticides must comply
with FIFRA and be registered with the U.S. EPA (and similar
state agencies) before they can be sold or distributed. The
inability to obtain or maintain such compliance, or the
cancellation of any registration, could have an adverse effect
on our business, the severity of which would depend on the
products involved, whether another product could be substituted
and whether our competitors were similarly affected. We attempt
to anticipate regulatory developments and maintain registrations
of, and access to, substitute active ingredients, but there can
be no assurance that we will continue to be able to avoid or
minimize these risks. In the EU, the European Parliament is
considering the adoption of certain regulations, the effect of
which would substantially restrict or eliminate our ability to
market and sell certain of our pesticide products. If these
regulations were to be adopted in their current form in the EU,
the resulting impact on our consumer and professional European
controls businesses could be materially adversely impacted. In
addition, there are provincially-driven regulations pending
across Canada that, depending on the timing and scope of final
issuance, could substantially restrict or eliminate our ability
to market and sell certain of our consumer pesticide products
there.
Under the Food Quality Protection Act, enacted by the U.S.
Congress in 1996, food-use pesticides are evaluated to determine
whether there is reasonable certainty that no harm will result
from the cumulative effects of pesticide exposures. Under this
Act, the U.S. EPA is evaluating the cumulative risks from
dietary and non-dietary exposures to pesticides. The pesticides
in our products, certain of which may be used on crops processed
into various food products, are typically manufactured by
independent third parties and continue to be evaluated by the
U.S. EPA as part of this exposure risk assessment. The
U.S. EPA or the third party registrant may decide that a
pesticide we use in our products will be limited or made
unavailable to us. For example, in December 2000, the
U.S. EPA reached agreement with various parties, including
manufacturers of the active ingredient diazinon, regarding a
phased withdrawal from retailers by December 2004 of residential
uses of products containing diazinon, which was also used in our
lawn and garden products. We cannot predict the outcome or the
severity of the effect of continuing evaluations.
In addition, the use of certain pesticide and fertilizer
products is regulated by various local, state, federal and
foreign environmental and public health agencies. These
regulations may include requirements that only certified or
professional users apply the product or that certain products be
used only on certain types of locations, may require users to
post notices on properties to which products have been or will
be applied, may require notification to individuals in the
vicinity that products will be applied in the future or may ban
the use of certain ingredients. Even if we are able to comply
with all such regulations and obtain
Table of Contents
all necessary registrations, we cannot provide assurance that
our products, particularly pesticide products, will not cause
injury to the environment or to people under all circumstances.
The costs of compliance, remediation or products liability have
adversely affected operating results in the past and could
materially adversely affect future quarterly or annual operating
results.
Perceptions that the products we produce and market are not safe
could adversely affect us and contribute to the risk we will be
subjected to legal action. We manufacture and market a number of
complex chemical products, such as fertilizers, certain growing
media, herbicides and pesticides. On occasion, allegations are
made that some of our products have failed to perform up to
expectations or have caused damage or injury to individuals or
property. Based on reports of contamination at a third party
supplier’s vermiculite mine, the public may perceive that
some of our products manufactured in the past using vermiculite
are or may be contaminated. Public perception that our products
are not safe, whether justified or not, could impair our
reputation, involve us in litigation, damage our brand names and
have a material adverse affect on our business.
The harvesting of peat for our growing media business has come
under increasing regulatory and environmental scrutiny. In the
United States, state regulations frequently require us to limit
our harvesting and to restore the property to an
agreed-upon
condition. In some locations, we have been required to create
water retention ponds to control the sediment content of
discharged water. In the United Kingdom, our peat extraction
efforts are also the subject of legislation.
In addition to the regulations already described, local, state,
federal and foreign agencies regulate the disposal, handling and
storage of waste, air and water discharges from our facilities.
The adequacy of our current non-FIFRA compliance related
environmental reserves and future provisions is based on our
operating in substantial compliance with applicable
environmental and public health laws and regulations and several
significant assumptions:
If there is a significant change in the facts and circumstances
surrounding these assumptions or if we are found not to be in
substantial compliance with applicable environmental and public
health laws and regulations, it could have a material adverse
impact on future environmental capital expenditures and other
environmental expenses and our results of operations, financial
position and cash flows.
The Regulatory Environment Local, state, federal and foreign laws and regulations relating to environmental matters affect us in several ways. In the United States, all products containing pesticides must comply with FIFRA and be registered with the U.S. EPA (and similar state agencies) before they can be sold or distributed. The inability to obtain or maintain such compliance, or the cancellation of any registration, could have an adverse effect on our business, the severity of which would depend on the products involved, whether another product could be substituted and whether our competitors were similarly affected. We attempt to anticipate regulatory developments and maintain registrations of, and access to, substitute active ingredients, but there can be no assurance that we will continue to be able to avoid or minimize these risks. In the EU, the European Parliament is considering the adoption of certain regulations, the effect of which would substantially restrict or eliminate our ability to market and sell certain of our pesticide products. If these regulations were to be adopted in their current form in the EU, the resulting impact on our consumer and professional European controls businesses could be materially adversely impacted. In addition, there are provincially-driven regulations pending across Canada that, depending on the timing and scope of final issuance, could substantially restrict or eliminate our ability to market and sell certain of our consumer pesticide products there. Under the Food Quality Protection Act, enacted by the U.S. Congress in 1996, food-use pesticides are evaluated to determine whether there is reasonable certainty that no harm will result from the cumulative effects of pesticide exposures. Under this Act, the U.S. EPA is evaluating the cumulative risks from dietary and non-dietary exposures to pesticides. The pesticides in our products, certain of which may be used on crops processed into various food products, are typically manufactured by independent third parties and continue to be evaluated by the U.S. EPA as part of this exposure risk assessment. The U.S. EPA or the third party registrant may decide that a pesticide we use in our products will be limited or made unavailable to us. For example, in December 2000, the U.S. EPA reached agreement with various parties, including manufacturers of the active ingredient diazinon, regarding a phased withdrawal from retailers by December 2004 of residential uses of products containing diazinon, which was also used in our lawn and garden products. We cannot predict the outcome or the severity of the effect of continuing evaluations. In addition, the use of certain pesticide and fertilizer products is regulated by various local, state, federal and foreign environmental and public health agencies. These regulations may include requirements that only certified or professional users apply the product or that certain products be used only on certain types of locations, may require users to post notices on properties to which products have been or will be applied, may require notification to individuals in the vicinity that products will be applied in the future or may ban the use of certain ingredients. Even if we are able to comply with all such regulations and obtain Table of Contentsall necessary registrations, we cannot provide assurance that our products, particularly pesticide products, will not cause injury to the environment or to people under all circumstances. The costs of compliance, remediation or products liability have adversely affected operating results in the past and could materially adversely affect future quarterly or annual operating results. Perceptions that the products we produce and market are not safe could adversely affect us and contribute to the risk we will be subjected to legal action. We manufacture and market a number of complex chemical products, such as fertilizers, certain growing media, herbicides and pesticides. On occasion, allegations are made that some of our products have failed to perform up to expectations or have caused damage or injury to individuals or property. Based on reports of contamination at a third party supplier’s vermiculite mine, the public may perceive that some of our products manufactured in the past using vermiculite are or may be contaminated. Public perception that our products are not safe, whether justified or not, could impair our reputation, involve us in litigation, damage our brand names and have a material adverse affect on our business. The harvesting of peat for our growing media business has come under increasing regulatory and environmental scrutiny. In the United States, state regulations frequently require us to limit our harvesting and to restore the property to an agreed-upon condition. In some locations, we have been required to create water retention ponds to control the sediment content of discharged water. In the United Kingdom, our peat extraction efforts are also the subject of legislation. In addition to the regulations already described, local, state, federal and foreign agencies regulate the disposal, handling and storage of waste, air and water discharges from our facilities. The adequacy of our current non-FIFRA compliance related environmental reserves and future provisions is based on our operating in substantial compliance with applicable environmental and public health laws and regulations and several significant assumptions:
If there is a significant change in the facts and circumstances surrounding these assumptions or if we are found not to be in substantial compliance with applicable environmental and public health laws and regulations, it could have a material adverse impact on future environmental capital expenditures and other environmental expenses and our results of operations, financial position and cash flows. These excerpts taken from the SMG 10-K filed Nov 25, 2008. The Regulatory
Environment
Local, state, federal and foreign laws and regulations relating
to environmental matters affect us in several ways. In the
United States, all products containing pesticides must comply
with FIFRA and be registered with the U.S. EPA (and similar
state agencies) before they can be sold or distributed. The
inability to obtain or maintain such compliance, or the
cancellation of any registration, could have an adverse effect
on our business, the severity of which would depend on the
products involved, whether another product could be substituted
and whether our competitors were similarly affected. We attempt
to anticipate regulatory developments and maintain registrations
of, and access to, substitute active ingredients, but there can
be no assurance that we will continue to be able to avoid or
minimize these risks. In the EU, the European Parliament is
considering the adoption of certain regulations, the effect of
which would substantially restrict or eliminate our ability to
market and sell certain of our pesticide products. If these
regulations were to be adopted in their current form in the EU,
the resulting impact on our consumer and professional European
controls businesses could be materially adversely impacted. In
addition, there are provincially-driven regulations pending
across Canada that, depending on the timing and scope of final
issuance, could substantially restrict or eliminate our ability
to market and sell certain of our consumer pesticide products
there.
Under the Food Quality Protection Act, enacted by the U.S.
Congress in 1996, food-use pesticides are evaluated to determine
whether there is reasonable certainty that no harm will result
from the cumulative effects of pesticide exposures. Under this
Act, the U.S. EPA is evaluating the cumulative risks from
dietary and non-dietary exposures to pesticides. The pesticides
in our products, certain of which may be used on crops processed
into various food products, are typically manufactured by
independent third parties and continue to be evaluated by the
U.S. EPA as part of this exposure risk assessment. The
U.S. EPA or the third party registrant may decide that a
pesticide we use in our products will be limited or made
unavailable to us. For example, in December 2000, the
U.S. EPA reached agreement with various parties, including
manufacturers of the active ingredient diazinon, regarding a
phased withdrawal from retailers by December 2004 of residential
uses of products containing diazinon, which was also used in our
lawn and garden products. We cannot predict the outcome or the
severity of the effect of continuing evaluations.
In addition, the use of certain pesticide and fertilizer
products is regulated by various local, state, federal and
foreign environmental and public health agencies. These
regulations may include requirements that only certified or
professional users apply the product or that certain products be
used only on certain types of locations, may require users to
post notices on properties to which products have been or will
be applied, may require notification to individuals in the
vicinity that products will be applied in the future or may ban
the use of certain ingredients. Even if we are able to comply
with all such regulations and obtain all necessary
registrations, we cannot provide assurance that our products,
particularly pesticide products, will not cause injury to the
environment or to people under all circumstances. The costs of
compliance, remediation or products liability have adversely
affected operating results in the past and could materially
adversely affect future quarterly or annual operating results.
Perceptions that the products we produce and market are not safe
could adversely affect us and contribute to the risk we will be
subjected to legal action. We manufacture and market a number of
complex chemical products, such as fertilizers, certain growing
media, herbicides and pesticides. On
Table of Contents
occasion, allegations are made that some of our products have
failed to perform up to expectations or have caused damage or
injury to individuals or property. Based on reports of
contamination at a third party supplier’s vermiculite mine,
the public may perceive that some of our products manufactured
in the past using vermiculite are or may be contaminated. Public
perception that our products are not safe, whether justified or
not, could impair our reputation, involve us in litigation,
damage our brand names and have a material adverse affect on our
business.
The harvesting of peat for our growing media business has come
under increasing regulatory and environmental scrutiny. In the
United States, state regulations frequently require us to limit
our harvesting and to restore the property to an
agreed-upon
condition. In some locations, we have been required to create
water retention ponds to control the sediment content of
discharged water. In the United Kingdom, our peat extraction
efforts are also the subject of legislation.
In addition to the regulations already described, local, state,
federal and foreign agencies regulate the disposal, handling and
storage of waste, air and water discharges from our facilities.
The adequacy of our current non-FIFRA compliance related
environmental reserves and future provisions is based on our
operating in substantial compliance with applicable
environmental and public health laws and regulations and several
significant assumptions:
If there is a significant change in the facts and circumstances
surrounding these assumptions or if we are found not to be in
substantial compliance with applicable environmental and public
health laws and regulations, it could have a material adverse
impact on future environmental capital expenditures and other
environmental expenses and our results of operations, financial
position and cash flows.
The Regulatory Environment Local, state, federal and foreign laws and regulations relating to environmental matters affect us in several ways. In the United States, all products containing pesticides must comply with FIFRA and be registered with the U.S. EPA (and similar state agencies) before they can be sold or distributed. The inability to obtain or maintain such compliance, or the cancellation of any registration, could have an adverse effect on our business, the severity of which would depend on the products involved, whether another product could be substituted and whether our competitors were similarly affected. We attempt to anticipate regulatory developments and maintain registrations of, and access to, substitute active ingredients, but there can be no assurance that we will continue to be able to avoid or minimize these risks. In the EU, the European Parliament is considering the adoption of certain regulations, the effect of which would substantially restrict or eliminate our ability to market and sell certain of our pesticide products. If these regulations were to be adopted in their current form in the EU, the resulting impact on our consumer and professional European controls businesses could be materially adversely impacted. In addition, there are provincially-driven regulations pending across Canada that, depending on the timing and scope of final issuance, could substantially restrict or eliminate our ability to market and sell certain of our consumer pesticide products there. Under the Food Quality Protection Act, enacted by the U.S. Congress in 1996, food-use pesticides are evaluated to determine whether there is reasonable certainty that no harm will result from the cumulative effects of pesticide exposures. Under this Act, the U.S. EPA is evaluating the cumulative risks from dietary and non-dietary exposures to pesticides. The pesticides in our products, certain of which may be used on crops processed into various food products, are typically manufactured by independent third parties and continue to be evaluated by the U.S. EPA as part of this exposure risk assessment. The U.S. EPA or the third party registrant may decide that a pesticide we use in our products will be limited or made unavailable to us. For example, in December 2000, the U.S. EPA reached agreement with various parties, including manufacturers of the active ingredient diazinon, regarding a phased withdrawal from retailers by December 2004 of residential uses of products containing diazinon, which was also used in our lawn and garden products. We cannot predict the outcome or the severity of the effect of continuing evaluations. In addition, the use of certain pesticide and fertilizer products is regulated by various local, state, federal and foreign environmental and public health agencies. These regulations may include requirements that only certified or professional users apply the product or that certain products be used only on certain types of locations, may require users to post notices on properties to which products have been or will be applied, may require notification to individuals in the vicinity that products will be applied in the future or may ban the use of certain ingredients. Even if we are able to comply with all such regulations and obtain all necessary registrations, we cannot provide assurance that our products, particularly pesticide products, will not cause injury to the environment or to people under all circumstances. The costs of compliance, remediation or products liability have adversely affected operating results in the past and could materially adversely affect future quarterly or annual operating results. Perceptions that the products we produce and market are not safe could adversely affect us and contribute to the risk we will be subjected to legal action. We manufacture and market a number of complex chemical products, such as fertilizers, certain growing media, herbicides and pesticides. On Table of Contentsoccasion, allegations are made that some of our products have failed to perform up to expectations or have caused damage or injury to individuals or property. Based on reports of contamination at a third party supplier’s vermiculite mine, the public may perceive that some of our products manufactured in the past using vermiculite are or may be contaminated. Public perception that our products are not safe, whether justified or not, could impair our reputation, involve us in litigation, damage our brand names and have a material adverse affect on our business. The harvesting of peat for our growing media business has come under increasing regulatory and environmental scrutiny. In the United States, state regulations frequently require us to limit our harvesting and to restore the property to an agreed-upon condition. In some locations, we have been required to create water retention ponds to control the sediment content of discharged water. In the United Kingdom, our peat extraction efforts are also the subject of legislation. In addition to the regulations already described, local, state, federal and foreign agencies regulate the disposal, handling and storage of waste, air and water discharges from our facilities. The adequacy of our current non-FIFRA compliance related environmental reserves and future provisions is based on our operating in substantial compliance with applicable environmental and public health laws and regulations and several significant assumptions:
If there is a significant change in the facts and circumstances surrounding these assumptions or if we are found not to be in substantial compliance with applicable environmental and public health laws and regulations, it could have a material adverse impact on future environmental capital expenditures and other environmental expenses and our results of operations, financial position and cash flows. | EXCERPTS ON THIS PAGE:
RELATED TOPICS for SMG: |
| |||||||
