Cooperative Extension Service
P.O. Box 391,
Little Rock, AR 72203
Telephone: (501) 671-2000 Fax: 671-2251

University of Arkansas, Division of Agriculture and USDA Cooperating

ARKANSAS PESTICIDE NEWS EDITORS

Terry Lavy and Briggs Skulman, Department of Agronomy, Fayetteville and Ples Spradley, Coop. Extension Service, Little Rock

Volume 10, March, 1996

A Personal Note

I would like to thank Diana Horton for her past assistance to Dr. Frans and then to me for her efforts in preparing the newsletter. Diana retired as of December 1995. Ples Spradley and I welcome the assistance of Dr. Briggs Skulman who is now having much input into this newsletter.

News From All Over

The Ethics of Chemical Technology

Imagine a world full of chemical plants, synthesizing toxic compounds practically nonstop. The chemicals produced are so toxic that if released into the water and air, surely adverse biological effects would result.

Imagine that these chemicals are part of the food chain. Consider a chemical in apples that is known to cause vomiting, diarrhea, ulceration, bleeding from intestines and circulatory collapse.

Would you be appalled if no government regulation could control this incessant manufacturing process? What if no law existed that was strict enough to keep these chemicals out of the food supply?

You then might ask, what are the ethics of a society that would allow such unmitigated irresponsibility? But our culprits here are not bound by codes of conduct and responsibility. Our imaginary world is not fantasy but part of natural processes in the biosphere. Our subjects are the earth's flora and fauna, producing through their metabolism chemicals that function to enhance their probability of survival and, ultimately, reproduction.

It has long been known that many organisms, especially plants, produce chemicals incidental to their normal energy producing biochemistry that function to ward off predators, protect seeds, or attract insects for pollination. Sometimes, these chemicals are just by-products of metabolism that may serve other purposes, or they are perhaps excretory products that would be toxic if allowed to accumulate in the cells. The chemical in the aforementioned apples is nothing but acetic acid. Although a natural component of apples, the acid is nevertheless listed as a hazardous substance. Even oxygen is incredibly toxic, but aerobic organisms have developed an incredible biochemical pathway that detoxifies the gas while simultaneously producing energy for their cells.

Many of the incidental chemicals produced by plants are incredibly toxic in high doses. Certain fungi of the genus Aspergillus grow on cereals and produce chemicals called aflatoxins that are hundred of times more potent than any synthetic pesticide our brains have discovered. Yet, our ethics do not apply to Aspergillus, unless one considers the timely application of a fungicide on stored grains the right thing to do in protecting food safety.

If we agree that the chemicals produced by plants are functional, has evolution not resulted in a form of chemical technology? As defined by the dictionary, technology is the totality of the means employed to provide objects necessary for human sustenance and comfort. Through our chemical technology, aren't we just "imitating" our botanical counterparts?

Members of indigenous cultures have long used plants as their medicines. The knowledge of which plants to use, how to prepare them, and the amounts to administer have been passed from generation to generation. Isn't the use of flora for our benefit, our survival, a form of chemical technology? Perhaps we should consider generations of trial and error in discovering which plants are beneficial and which are not as analogous to a risk assessment process.

Humans have always used chemical technology. Whether the chemicals are made by plants or by our own hands is irrelevant. Some have maintained there is a difference between chemicals from the tropical rainforest and chemicals from the giant chemical industries. But principles of environmental chemistry would dictate that behavior of a chemical is governed primarily by thermodynamics, not how it was made.

Some would say that our coevolution with plants over many generations have allowed us to detoxify many of the natural dietary chemicals. Consider, however, that many of our foods are recent inventions of selective breeding that still possess the same potentially toxic chemicals as their wild ancestors.

Why are we not harmed? That the answer is in the dose; one would have to eat an unreasonably large quantity of potatoes to overdose on solanine, a toxic but natural alkaloid. Yet, we are exposed to this known toxin and teratogen (by EPA testing criteria) with every french fry. So, dose must make the poison, as the toxicological cliche goes.

One perspective we overlook in our myth about the quality of natural chemicals versus synthetic chemicals is our own biochemistry. Our detoxification systems are quite general in their function. Perhaps as a result of exposure to a bewildering array of plant chemistry, animals have evolved a flexible oxidative enzyme system that makes no distinction as to chemical source. Why one chemical is more rapidly degraded and excreted from the body than another chemical is a matter of kinetics. The question the biochemical toxicologist asks is what is the affinity of the enzyme for the chemical and how fast does the reaction occur. Thus, even DDT, which is stored in our fat tissue (as DDE), is degraded into an acid and eventually eliminated from our body. The process just occurs more slowly than with the other so-called biodegradable chemicals.

So, what are the ethics of chemical technology? A case can be made that chemicals are just tools we use to survive, no different than what we find in the botanical world. It takes time to learn what works and what doesn't, but because we can produce new kinds of chemicals so quickly, we have conflicts about functionality and safety. We have passed legislation over that the years that allows us to compress the "trial and error" approach into a comparatively fast assessment of risk.

While many would agree that the regulatory process certainly needs some adjustments, under current practices there should be no ethical dilemma in using our chemical tools.

Allan Felsot, Agrichemical and Environmental News, Coop. Ext. Serv. Washington State University, Issue 118, pp. 14-15.

Pesticides and Food Safety

The United States produces a bountiful supply of foods that are unparalleled in terms of their ability to be processed, stored, transported, and consumed with only a minimum of waste. This bountiful supply has generated prices that, while highly variable due to the vagaries of nature, are affordable to the vast majority of American consumers. An affordable food supply undoubtedly has contributed to the improved health and longevity of Americans. Whereas in the early 1900's the average lifespan was some 50 years, Americans today are living well into their late 70's.

Despite these highly desirable attributes, there are questions regarding the need to use pesticides to produce a sufficient quantity of high quality foods. This issue of "Chemically Speaking" will be primarily devoted to issues related to food safety.

Federal Food Agencies

The food supply of the U.S. is among the safest in the world. Although many foods we consume contain low levels of pesticide residues because of the legal use of these products, many safeguards are built into the pesticide regulatory process to ensure that the public, including infants and children, are protected from unreasonable risks posed by eating pesticide treated foods. According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), improvements in public health, such as the increase in Americans' average lifespan, can in part be attributed to pesticides. Pesticides have increased crop yields and the availability and affordability of foods such as grains, fruits, and vegetables year-round. The consumption of a wide variety of grains, fruits and vegetables is promoted as the foundation of a healthy diet.

Chemically Speaking, December 1995, Univ. of Florida IFAS.

Pesticide Residue Monitoring

The FDA Compliance/Surveillance regulatory monitoring program typically analyzes 12,000 food samples per year. Some years, the number of analyzed food samples reaches 19,000. In 1994, for instance, FDA's regulatory monitoring program analyzed 11,348 samples of domestically produced food and imported food from 101 countries. For domestic samples analyzed, no pesticide residues were found in 63 percent of the 5,366 samples, less than 1 percent had residues that were over EPA tolerances, and less than 1 percent had residues for which there was no established tolerance for that particular pesticide/commodity combination. Of the 5,448 imported samples analyzed, 67 percent had no residues detected, less than 1 percent had residues that were over tolerance, and 3 percent had residues for which there was no tolerance.
Conventional vs. Organic Food Production

The California Department of Pesticide Regulation (CDPR) also monitors produce for pesticide residues. In the late 1980's, CDPR started separating the data for organic produce and conventionally grown produce. CDPR's report of their 1993 pesticide residue monitoring program states that organic produce may contain a pesticide residue and still be classified as organic, as long as the residue is less than 10 percent of the tolerance. This is to cover accidental contamination or holdover in soils from previous agricultural practices.

Interestingly, the CDPR residue results from conventionally raised produce known to have been treated with a pesticide (Priority Pesticide Program Monitoring) show that 90 percent of analyzed produce samples have either no detectable residues or residues 10 percent of the tolerance. For CDPR's marketplace surveillance samples, this figure was 88 percent. Thus, in California, 88 to 90 percent of conventionally raised produce could be considered "organic" based solely on the pesticide residues. Organic production methods are considerably different, and this comparison holds only for the pesticide residues.

Public Perception According to the Food Marketing Institute's 1994 consumer survey, seven out of ten shoppers are completely or mostly confident in the safety of the food supply. When asked about their views on an unaided basis about food safety threats, consumers reported food spoilage as their primary food safety concern.

However, when asked in the survey specifically about pesticides, 72 percent of respondents said they are a very serious health hazard. This finding outranks concerns about antibiotics and hormones, nitrites, irradiated foods, and food additives. Other surveys show that Americans will reduce their consumption of fruits and vegetables when issues related to pesticides undermine their confidence in food safety.

With less than two million American families actively engaged in farming, many consumers have lost touch with the complex food chain. Consequently, they may not be familiar with farming and may not fully appreciate the multiple pest pressures that can devastate entire crops. Additionally, information received from the media about pesticides may cloud consumer perceptions. Many journalists lack sufficient understanding on interpreting scientific methods to analyze reports critically.

According to the American Medical Association, there is no scientific evidence supporting a risk between the proper application of pesticides and any adverse health effects in humans. Furthermore, human epidemiology does not support the hypothesis that cancer or other human related illnesses are related to pesticides as food residues. The scientific consensus of the American Medical Association, the Surgeon General, the National Institutes of Health, the American Cancer Society, and American Academy of Pediatrics, and numerous other health authorities, is that the health benefits of eating more fruits and vegetables far outweigh any possible pesticide related risks.

IFIC Review on Pesticides and Food Safety, January, 1995; via Agriculture and Env. News;, October, 1995 and Environmental Toxicology Newsletter, November, 1995.

Poisonings in 1994 Most Often at Home

Most U.S. human poisonings in 1994 occurred at home and involved children under six years of age, according to an American Association of Poison Control Centers report.

Sixty-five poison control centers in 44 states and that the District of Columbia, serving 83% of the U.S. population, or 216 million people, participated in the 1994 study. The report includes 1,926,438 human exposures of all types.

Of human exposures in 1994, 90.4% occurred at a residence. In 4% of the cases, multiple patients were involved in the exposure. Forty percent of the cases occurred in children younger than three years of age, while 54% occurred in children younger than six years of age. In the majority of poisoning reports, children younger than six years comprised only 3.4% of fatalities, while 59% of poisoning fatalities occurred in individuals 20 to 49 years of age.

As for pesticides implicated in the poisonings, the breakdown is as follows: fungicides were implicated in 1,347 incidents, herbicides in 8,262 incidents, insecticides in 61,882 incidents, and rodenticides in 16,478 incidents.

Agrichemical and Environmental News, Issue 118, p. 9.

Miscellaneous

The House Agriculture Committee has gone online this month for the latest committee news. To gain access, use 1) their World Wide Web address: http://www.house.gov, or, 2) their GOPHER address: gopher.house.gov, and follow the menu selections for House Committee Information, then Agriculture, and finally Press Releases. Food Chemical News, October 16, 1995.

"Farming looks mighty easy when your plow is a pencil and you're a thousand miles from the field." Dwight Eisenhower, via Progressive Farmer, October, 1995.

"Pesticides are like the prescriptions you get from a doctor. When used according to label directions, they offer tremendous help with very little risk to people and the environment." P. Fogarty, "The Root of the Matter" via The Bottom Line, October, 1995.

The USDA Joint Council on Food and Agriculture Issues Report, entitled: "Fiscal Year 1997 Priorities for Research, Education, and Economics" outlines five priority areas for agricultural research, education, and economics needed to prepare American agriculture for the 21st Century's primary challenges. That is, finding environmentally and economically sustainable ways to continue and build on the most successful agricultural production system in history. The five priorities are:

Achieve economically viable production systems that are compatible with environmental and social values;

Provide a safe, affordable, reliable, and nutritious food supply;

Educate scientists and professionals to meet future challenges;

Improve global competitiveness of U.S. food, agricultural, and forest products; and, Empower individuals, families, and communities to improve their quality of life.

FIEN's Environmental Weekly; October 6, 1995.

Approximately fifty million people, or about 20 percent of the U.S. population, are considered more susceptible to foodborne illness as a result of their age, health, or antibiotic use. The majority, about thirty million, are over age 65. Physiological mechanisms that make individuals more susceptible to foodborne illness include decreased gastric acidity, decreased intestinal mobility, and impaired or underdeveloped immune systems.
Food Chemical News, September 25, 1995.

As an alternative to using herbicides, certain ranchers in Kansas are importing dromedary (one hump) camels from Australia to see if they can control brush. Ranchers say that the camels are 90 percent effective in eliminating woody weeds such as thistle, ragweed, and/or brush. An extremely tough lining in their mouths apparently allows the camels to chew on stems of brush and woody weeds.
Natural and Env. Resources Report, October, 1995.

Farming, Pesticides, and the Endangered Species Act

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) is a far reaching law that has sparked intense economical and social controversies over the use of public lands, the rights of property owners, and economic costs versus environmental benefits. Species extinctions have occurred since life began on earth, but human activities may be contributing to the loss of biological diversity.

Endangered species and their critical habitats receive extremely strong protection; the taking of any endangered species in the U.S., its territorial waters, or the high seas is illegal. Besides this direct prohibition, the act prohibits any federal action that will jeopardize the future of any endangered species, including any threat to designated critical habitats. The act also requires that the secretaries of interior and commerce use programs in their agencies in furtherance of the act, and requires other agencies to "utilize their authorities in furtherance of the purposes of the act by carrying out programs for the conservation of endangered and threatened species."

With the movement to save habitats and the diversity of wildlife within them, we cannot ignore the food challenges of the next century. Forecasts indicate that we must triple the output of global agriculture systems by 2050 in order to better feed a stabilized world population of about nine billion people. To feed everyone, do we plow down enormous areas of habitat, do we bring increasingly marginal lands into production, or are there other alternatives.

Many believe we should be able to achieve this goal through the use of high yield farming with the same amount of land and water as we use today. As a case in point, since 1950 we have nearly tripled the output of agricultural systems on the same 5.8 million square miles of land.

Some demand that we provide wildlife with zero risk from farm chemicals. Often, but not always, the real danger to wildlife seems to be the loss of habitat, not chemicals.

If all agricultural production chemicals were banned, growers would suffer yield losses of 40-50 percent. This would require the plowdown of millions of square miles of habitat to make up for the yield reductions and increased loss to pests. How much wildlife habitat would be lost in order to have chemical free agriculture?

Modern farming systems are the most sustainable farming systems devised in 10,000 years. Soil erosion, a major problem for sustainability, has been radically cut by the no-till and conservation tillage systems. These systems usually require the use of certain pesticides, but eliminate the need for moldboard plowing and other bare-earth farming techniques. This results in tremendous cuts in soil erosion, and improvement in soil tilth. High yields cut erosion by allowing an equal amount of food to be produced on less land.

Pesticides today undergo extensive testing to ensure minimal risk to wildlife and the environment. Chemical delivery systems continue to lower the risk of spills, and increase the accuracy of application.

Yields from organic' farms are currently too low to feed the expected population without a massive loss of wildlife habitat. To date organic techniques have not matched the high yields of modern farming systems, nor offered the ability of tripling yields per acre in the next few decades. And because the planet only has enough organic nitrogen to support roughly 20 percent of the current production, large plantings of green manure crops would be needed. This means that still more habitat would be lost to the plow. In all, it is estimated that we would need to plow up an addition 20-30 million square miles of wildlife habitat in order to meet the food demands for the world in 2050.

Chemically Speaking, University of Florida, IFAS, January, 1996.

Safety Measures Used in Applying Pesticides to Crops

In the 1992 Vegetable Chemical Survey, farm operators in major strawberry, tomato, and lettuce states indicated which chemicals were applied, and who did the application. When the operator or an employee applied pesticides, the operator was asked if protective gloves, eye/face shields, and respirators were used when mixing and loading pesticides, and if the same protective devices or an enclosed cab were used when applying pesticides. The survey covered States accounting for 85 percent or more of the strawberry, tomato, and lettuce production in 1992.
Other points of interest include:

Most surveyed growers applied pesticides whose labels prescribed the use of gloves and, except for lettuce growers, eye/face shields and respirators.

Generally, the majority of surveyed growers who applied such pesticides reported use of the prescribed safety measures, but use rates in some of the major producing states were higher than in others.

Surveyed growers more frequently reported use of prescribed protective gloves than they did use of eye/face shields and respirators.

AREI Updates, Number 15, 1995.

Love Canal, No. 1

Love canal's "real story," according to Michelle Malkin in the December 26 Washington Times, is one in which "no illness, not even a cold, can properly be attributed to living next to Love Canal -- although undue stress and incurable anxiety may undoubtedly be linked to the myths surrounding the site." Malkin referred to the subsequent Superfund as "the most terrifying legacy of the negligent public officials who engineered the Love Canal mess."

From Pesticide and Toxic Chemical News, Vol. 24, No. 9, via Kansas Pesticide Newsletter, January 12, 1996, Vol. 19, No. 1, p. 3.

Furadan Stewardship a Success in California

Only one bird poisoning incident stemming from ingestion of carbofuran on treated fields during the 1995 growing season is evidence that a California carbofuran stewardship program is working, Bob Hosea, California Department of Fish and Game, reported in a memo to Brian Finlayson, chief of the department's Pesticide Investigations Unit. The memo was later submitted to EPA's OPP as a comment on carbofuran.

Hosea reported that in California, preplant treatment of fields involves the application of granular carbofuran, typically as a band around the edge of each rice check, to a field before it is flooded for planting. These applications are generally made by a ground spreader towing some type of roller, he said.

The stewardship program established in the early 1990s requires that all loading of material for ground rigs take place in the fields and that the granules be incorporated into the soil prior to flooding of the field, Hosea said. The goal is to minimize the risk that waterfowl will land in a field as it is being flooded and ingest granules of carbofuran as they feed at the soil/water interface.

Pinpoint treatment of the rice fields, Hosea indicated, takes place two to three weeks after the fields have been planted, with the rice generally six to 12 inches high. At this time, the fields are drained and granular carbofuran is applied aerially to the fields, which are then reflooded and the water level maintained for the remainder of the growing season.

For the 142,840 acres of rice treated with carbofuran in the eight counties, only one loss of waterfowl was observed during the 1995 growing season, Hosea said.

Kansas Pesticide Newsletter, January 12, 1996, Vol. 19, No. 1, p. 3.

Methyl Bromide -- Update

Methyl bromide has just gone through the gamut of EPA testing requirements and has come out squeaky clean. We have found that it is not a carcinogen, mutagen, oncogen, etc., and we have found in recent studies performed by the Millers National Federation and the American Corn Millers Federation that there was no increased methyl bromide residue on corn and corn fraction and wheat and wheat fractions even after using dosages of up to seven (7) times normal fumigation dosage rates. When we throw into the equation that approximately 90% of the methyl bromide in the atmosphere comes from natural sources, and that today we do not have alternatives for most uses of methyl bromide it makes very little sense to suggest a worldwide phaseout.

The world organization charged with responsibility of clean air throughout the world "The Montreal Protocol" has just agreed to allow for the continued use of methyl bromide by the (developed) countries through the year 2010 and have agreed to allow the (developing) countries to continue using methyl bromide with no scheduled cutoff date.

From: IFC Newsletter, December, 1995 via Kansas Pesticide Newsletter, January 12, 1996, Vol. 19, No. 1.

California Ponders Methyl Bromide Use

California governor, Pete Wilson, called a special legislative session January 3 to consider legislation allowing the continued use of methyl bromide as a registered pesticide. Because pesticide health effects studies required by a 1984 California law have not been completed, methyl bromide's registration is slated to expire March 30. If that happens, California is expected to lose the ability to export produce to several countries that require methyl bromide treatment of many crops. California would be the only state where the product would become unavailable.

Agrichemical and Environmental News, p. 2, #119, January, 1996.

Methyl Bromide Happenings

A panel released a statement declaring that "the critical issue is not whether adequate alternatives for all methyl bromide uses are available now, but whether they will be available by the time the phase-out deadline arrives. EPA knows that it will be a combination of chemical and nonchemical methods that replaces the many uses of methyl bromide, not a single chemical."

In the European Community, the European Union Council of Ministers approved a negotiating stance favoring an accelerated phase out of methyl bromide and hydrochlorofluorocarbons under the Montreal Protocol to protect stratospheric ozone. The accelerated schedules would outpace existing law in the European Union as well as timetables established under the international treaty.

The European parties to the Montreal Protocol position for methyl bromide calls for a 25 percent reduction by 2001, a 50 percent reduction by 2005, and a phaseout by 2010. The issue of exemptions for critical uses that, according to some account for up to 40 percent of methyl bromide use, will be addressed in 1997.

Locally, the Dec. 7 Journal of Commerce reported that U.S. farmers are unlikely to prevail in attempts to have other countries ban use of methyl bromide by Jan. 1, 2001, the date at which the fumigant is set to be phased out in the U.S. Growers claim they will be overrun with imported produce if all countries do not ban the pesticide. The article says the farmers' problems reflect deep divisions within the administration where USDA is opposed to any reduction in methyl bromide's use before 2001 and others are offering an earlier reduction to gain concessions. Farmers are expected to turn to Congress where legislation is proposed to lift the ban's deadline until the Secretary of Agriculture determines an effective and affordable substitute to methyl bromide has been found or a uniform international phaseout date has been set. The article notes support for the legislation by President Clinton and Sec. Glickman.

Chemical Regulation Reporter, October 17 and December 15, 1995 via Chemically Speaking, January 1996.

Triazine Report Released

Ciba, manufacturer of atrazine and simazine, has recently released a report on the benefits associated with the use of the two herbicides. The company states that the loss of both herbicides would lead to losses for all crops in the range of $1.2 billion to $2.9 billion; the greatest impact would be on corn and grain sorghum. On a per acre basis, crop losses would be greater for minor crops. Examples of crops affected by the loss of triazines, such as atrazine and simazine, include grapes (loss of $12,201,000), conifers (loss of $6,502,000), turfgrass and ornamentals (loss of $12,757,000), and fruit and nuts (loss of $10,290,000).

Agrichemical and Environmental News, p. 1, #119, January, 1996.

EPA Issues New Interpretation of Policy Affecting Cross-Contamination of Pesticide Products

EPA has issued a notice to pesticide registrants (PR Notice 95-X) to explain the Agency's new interpretation of what "toxicologically significant" means in terms of contamination of pesticide active ingredients, particularly as it pertains to the contamination of one pesticide by another. EPA recognizes that contamination of one pesticide by another in minute levels is a reality of manufacturing, transportation and distribution systems and is not always problematic. According to the objectives in the PR notice, the new policy should: set a clear standard that can be readily applied by the regulated industry as well as EPA; maintain accountability of the product from the producer to end user; minimize the possibility that cross contamination will pose a significant problem; and not preclude marketplace or private solutions to correct problems that do arise. Under the new policy, which goes into effect after a 60-day comment period, EPA will move from a zero-based to a risk-based approach in considering the "toxicological significance" of contamination of one pesticide by another. Risk considerations include potential human health effects from both dietary and non-dietary exposure, ecological effects (e.g., harm to birds, aquatic organisms and plants), potential groundwater contamination and the potential for leaving unwanted residues on food. The Agency has concluded that potential toxicity to plants by the contaminant poses the greatest potential for harm, given the low concentration of contamination being considered. The new policy sets numerical limits of contamination for all categories of pesticides, above which EPA would consider the contaminant to be toxicologically significant. A contaminant that is toxicologically significant must be reported to the Agency for a determination of its potential effects and possible corrective or regulatory action. Reporters can obtain copies of the new policy by contacting Al Heier. Others can obtain copies by calling the Office of Pesticide Communications at (703) 305-5017.

E-Mail Update from USDA, December 22, 1995.

EPA Publishes New Pesticide Guide for Citizens

EPA's new 49-page brochure, "Citizens Guide to Pest Control and Pesticide Safety," covers pest management including non-chemical methods; pest prevention indoors and outdoors including gardens and lawns; choosing the right pesticide; reading the label; using pesticide products safely and correctly; pesticide poisoning and handling the resulting emergency; pesticides and child safety; and choosing a pest control company. The public can obtain the new pesticide guide by contacting the National Center for Environmental Publications and Information, P.O. Box 42419, Cincinnati, OH 45242-2419. The guide is also available on Internet through two pathways: EPA's gopher server at the address GOPHER.EPA.GOV.; the World Wide Web at the address HTTP://WWW.EPA.GOV.

Chemically Speaking, p. 7, January, 1996.

Are Workers Taking Contamination Home with Them?

The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), has released a report to Congress advising them that contamination of workers' homes from toxic substances used on the job may be a serious health problem, although the extent of the potential hazard is not known. NIOSH asserts that adverse health effects and even deaths from contaminants brought home from the workplace have been reported in 28 countries and 36 U.S. states. NIOSH's report outlined the following recommendations:

Employment practices and controls that work best in preventing transport of contaminants from the workplace to the home should be identified; and Educational programs to prevent home contamination should be developed for employers, workers, children, teachers, parents, physicians, and other health professionals.

According to the NIOSH researchers, workers can inadvertently carry hazardous materials home from work on their clothes, skin, hair, tools, and in their vehicles. Chemicals affiliated with take-home contamination include asbestos, arsenic, beryllium, fibrous glass, mercury, and pesticides.

The report notes the difficulty of decontaminating clothing brought home from the workplace. Normal house cleaning and laundry practices appear to be inadequate for decontaminating workers' clothing and homes, since some of the aforementioned materials can be especially persistent.

NIOSH stresses concern about how decontaminating methods can increase the hazard to those performing decontamination operations (ex., the person doing the laundry). Measures outlined for preventing home contamination include:

Reducing exposures in the workplace;

Changing clothes before going home and leaving soiled clothes at work;

Storing street clothes away from work clothes;

and, showering before going home.

Copies of this report can be obtained by calling NIOSH at (800) 356-4674.

Chemical Regulation Reporter, October, 13, 1995; via Chemically Speaking, University of Florida IFAS, November, 1995.

EPA Gives Conditional Approval for Full Commercial Use of Cotton Plant Pesticide to Combat Cotton Bollworm, Tobacco Budworm, and Pink Bollworm

EPA has given conditional approval for full commercial use of a cotton plant pesticide targeted to combat lepidopteran pests including the cotton bollworm, tobacco budworm, and the pink bollworm. EPA scientists have reviewed all the relevant information on this product and have determined that it will not pose adverse effects on humans or nontarget organisms and will result in only low levels of exposure to the environment. Named Bollgard by the producer and registrant, Monsanto Chemical Co. of St. Louis, the plant pesticide is Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) subsp. kurstaki CryIA(c) delta endotoxin and the genetic material necessary for its production. The product works by producing small quantities of a version of the naturally occurring insect toxin, Bt CryIA(c) delta endotoxin, in the cotton plant. The Bt CryIA(c) delta endotoxin is a protein produced by the Bt bacterium that is not toxic to mammals, birds and most other insects. Bt bacteria are naturally occurring in the soil. The registration will expire on Jan. 1, 2001. Before the expiration date, EPA will reevaluate the effectiveness of the insect resistance management plan required as a condition of registration, and decide whether a full, non-expiring registration is warranted.

Atrazine Degraders

Go ahead, put atrazine on the bacteria buffet menu and see how quickly one group orders it. And refill the water glass, please. While working with pesticide-contaminated soil, Ohio State University researchers discovered one organism with a taste for atrazine. The bacteria, tested only in a laboratory so far, finds both the carbon and nitrogen in atrazine quite palatable, cleaning most of the atrazine molecule off its plate. The scientists believe the organism could effectively remove the herbicide from water supplies and contaminated soil.

FC, November, 1995. via Pesticide Coordinator Report, January 1996, Vol. XIX, No. 1.

Silicon Fights Rice Diseases

Researchers at the University of Florida have found that silicon has fungicidal properties valuable to rice growers. Researchers Lawrence Datnoff has boosted rice disease resistance by using a soil amendment called calcium silicate slag. He believes the silicon is absorbed into the cell walls of the plant creating a barrier to fungal diseases.

He found that silicon controls brown spot as well as any fungicide and that when combined with fungicides it controls blast better than does either used alone.

Silicon has long been recognized as a key element for agriculture by those involved in biodynamics and others.

Acres, October, 1995 via Pesticide Coordinator Report, January, 1996, Vol. XIX, No. 1.

Jasmine Blocks Sprouting of Stored Potatoes

Jasmine fragrance could waft away the problem of spuds that sprout in the storage bin. ARS has patented this use of jasmonates, the compounds that lend aroma to jasmine flowers and perfumes. Sprouting lowers potato quality, as consumers know if they've ever kept store-bought spuds in the drawer too long. In large potato storage facilities, sprouting causes multimillion-dollar losses. Only one sprout-inhibiting compound is commercially available. But ARS scientists found that jasmonates performed just as well, delaying sprouting for months.

Edward C. Lulai, USDA-ARS Red River Valley Potato Research Laboratory, East Grand Forks, Minnesota; phone (218) 773-2473 via Agricultural Research, December, 1995.

Gene Probe Unmasks Culprit in Soybean Sudden Death

DNA probes devised by ARS scientists quickly reveal the fungal villain blamed for Sudden Death Syndrome (SDS) in soybean fields. Diagnosis takes under 24 hours, compared with up to 4 weeks for standard methods. SDS affects soybeans in about a dozen states. The probes are based on computerized genetic data from all species of Fusarium fungi including the SDS pathogen.

Kerry O'Donnell, USDA-ARS National Center for Agricultural Utilization Research, Peoria, Illinois; phone (309) 681-6383 via Agricultural Research, January 1996.

EPA Retains Pesticide Coordination Policy Affecting Impact of Delaney Clause

Significantly impacting the implementation of the Delaney clause, EPA has reaffirmed its long-held policy of coordinating food safety regulations under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCS|A) with pesticide registration under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). EPA's decision regarding the coordination policy completes the Agency's response to a 1992 Delaney-related petition by the National Food Processors and others which asked, in part, that EPA's policy of linking processed and raw food pesticide tolerances be discontinued. The Agency's decision is based on the rationale that actions approved under one law should not lead to violations of another law. In place since 1963, the coordination policy is designed to insure that the lawful use of pesticides by farmers will not result in violation of food processing requirements.

The Delaney clause prohibits the approval of food or feed tolerances (maximum residue levels) for pesticide residues in processed food and animal feed if the pesticide is found to induce cancer in man or animals. Before a pesticide may be sold or distributed in the United States, it must be registered under FIFRA. EPA regulations specify that registration of food-use pesticides will not be approved until all necessary tolerances (required under FFDCA) for both raw and processed foods have been obtained. Without an established tolerance, a food containing a pesticide residue is considered to be adulterated and in violation of the FFDCA. Similarly, EPA has traditionally not granted raw food tolerances under FFDCA until necessary processed food tolerances have been obtained and vice versa.

As a consequence of the coordination policy, if the Delaney clause requires revocation of a processed food or animal feed tolerance, the Agency generally will revoke the corresponding raw food tolerance and also cancel the pesticide registration for that use. The 1992 Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision (Les vs. Reilly) held EPA to a strict interpretation of the Delaney clause, which requires that EPA revoke all processed tolerances which violate the Delaney clause, no matter how small the risk. The coordination policy announced today will be applied in the near future when EPA is required to decide whether a number of pesticide tolerances should be prohibited under the Delaney clause. The Delaney clause only applies to a minority of pesticide residues in processed food.

Although the coordination policy has no immediate economic impacts, it affects what pesticide residues are governed by the Delaney clause and may be subject to revocation of tolerances on Delaney clause grounds. The Agency actions under the coordination policy potentially could result in significant local or regional impacts due to the loss of pesticides for specific local pest problems. Overall, however, the impacts of the Agency's actions under the Delaney clause are not expected to result in significant impacts upon American agriculture. Moreover, where the loss of a pesticide may occur, EPA expects that in most cases economic impacts can be mitigated by the availability of alternative means of pest control, and the fact that the actions will be taken over an extended period.

EPA Email Press Release, January 19, 1996.

EPA Reaffirms Application of Term "Raw Agricultural Commodity" as Applied to Dried Agricultural Commodities in Wake of Delaney Clause-Related Decisions

EPA has also issued a notice to explain and reaffirm its application of the term "raw agricultural commodity" as applied to dried agricultural commodities under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). The Agency's action on the "raw agricultural commodities" policy is prompted indirectly by the Delaney clause which prohibits the establishment or maintenance of tolerances for a cancer causing pesticide in processed food, but does not prohibit such tolerances in raw food. In the wake of the decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals that EPA must apply the Delaney clause strictly, the distinction between raw and processed foods is important.

The Agency's interpretation of "raw agricultural commodity" as applied to dried commodities, is consistent with current Agency practices and is based primarily on the purpose of drying rather than the means or degree of drying. EPA has cited legislative history which states that commodities which routinely are dried for the purpose of storage or transportation are to be considered raw agricultural commodities and those dried to create a new product are to be considered processed, thus, hay, grain, and nuts would be treated as raw food, whereas dried fruits such as raisins would be treated as processed food. This interpretation will not change the current classification of any dried commodities.

EPA Email Press Release, January 19, 1996.

Miscellaneous

USDA's IPM Coordinator, Dr. Barry Jacobsen, believes that IPM is the long-term strategy to address pest resistance. He estimates that 50 percent of all crop acres are now under IPM, and for crops such as cotton, that figure is as high as 90 percent. Pesticide and Toxic Chemical News, November 8, 1995.

The FDA considers chocolate acceptable for public consumption, as long as there are less than 30 microscopic insect fragments per 2 ounces of candy bar. UF Entomology - Nematology, October Newsletter via Buzz Words, November, 1995.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has issued a report entitled: "1994 Report to Congress: Endangered and Threatened Species Recovery Program." This report concludes that America's effort to save endangered species has prevented the extinction of more than 99 percent of the animals and plants on the Endangered Species List, and the population of nearly 60 percent of species listed the longest are stable or increasing. FIEN's Environmental Weekly, November 3, 1995.

Two USDA scientists and some cotton farmers are blaming the boll weevil eradication program for also killing beneficial insects, which in turn led to an infestation of beet army worms that ate up the part of the cotton plant where fibers develop. USDA disputes its own scientists' report and is planning a new study to determine the cause of the cotton disaster. South Texas farmers claim they lost almost their entire crop to the insects, and USDA has paid more than $50 million in crop insurance claims. Supporters of the eradication program point out that other factors contributed to the army worm infestation. New York Times, October 9, 1995.

EPA has announced that the pilot Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division has been given permanent status. Begun in the Agency's Office of Pesticide Programs on a trial basis in November 1994, the division was given a number of key responsibilities including: promoting pollution prevention; reducing pesticide use; increasing adaption of IPM techniques; encouraging the development and use of safer pesticides; accelerating the registration of new biological pesticides; and, managing the reregistration actions for all biological pesticides. Nineteen biological pesticides were registered by the division in the first year including:
Several biochemical pesticides that have a non-toxic mode of action;
A number of pheromones that can reduce the use of chemical insecticides; and,
Some microbial pesticides to replace fungicides used in postharvest treatment of fruit to prevent spoilage in storage.

The first genetically engineered plant pesticides were registered this year by the division. These include:
The Bacillus thuringensis (Bt) toxin produced in potatoes to control the Colorado potato beetle;
Bt in corn to control the European corn borer; and,
Bt in cotton to control the cotton bollworm.

The new division is working closely with the USDA to explore alternatives to traditional pesticides in controlling pests and to promote a new Pesticide Environmental Stewardship Partnership program among pesticide users.

EPA Press Release, October 13, 1995.

Worldwide Spread of Pesticides Studies

Researchers at the University of Indiana are reporting in Science magazine that degradation products, metabolites and even active ingredients of chlorine-containing insecticides can be found around the world, with some getting carried to remote areas by global wind currents. Detections of these materials were found in areas where organochlorine pesticides have never been used. Some twenty-two products were detected including DDT and its breakdown products DDE and DDD, aldrin, chlordane, dieldrin, endosulfan, and hexachlorobenzene. None of these compounds, with the exception of endosulfan, are registered for use in the U.S. any longer.

The researchers concluded that relatively volatile organochlorines are carried from where they are used in warmer zones of the world to colder areas nearer to the poles. These chemicals evaporate in the warmer climates and are carried by global atmospheric currents to cooler areas where they condense onto plants, soil, and bodies of water. The researchers call this process global distillation.

Less volatile chemicals do not undergo this refinement. Less volatile compounds such as DDT and endosulfan seem to be persistent in industrialized nations that used large amounts of these insecticides in the past, and in developing countries where they are still used. The less volatile chemicals generally are not found in countries such as Ghana, where it is not affordable to manufacture or import these insecticides.

From: Chemical Regulation Reporter; October 6, 1995 via Chemically Speaking, University of Florida and Kansas Pesticide Newsletter, December 5, 1995, Vol. 18, No. 12.

Pesticide Potpourri

Texas cotton farmers will vote on a proposal to discontinue the boll weevil eradication program. Many cotton growers blame the pesticide spraying program for contributing to one of the worst cotton seasons ever. They say it killed beneficial insects that eat boll weevils and other pests. Delegates at a Texas Farm Bureau conference voted to support the boll weevil eradication program even though some state cotton growers have criticized it. Other farmers say the weevil problem was getting worse and eliminating the program would put Texas out of the cotton business in the next four to five years. Some point out the problem in Texas is unique because many farms border Mexico where spraying for the pest does not occur.

Meanwhile, Arkansas cotton farmers will vote in March on whether to be part of a boll weevil eradication program. The program would not start collecting or spending money until surrounding states join or until there is a hard winter. The five-year Agriculture Department program would cost about $120 million for Arkansas. Farmers would bear about 70% of the cost. Driving the weevil out of Arkansas could be a losing battle if surrounding states do not take part. Louisiana's participation is critical because many of the pests migrate from that state. Western Louisiana farmers will vote on an eradication program early this year. A statewide Louisiana referendum was stopped in court by a group of eastern Louisiana farmers.

Chemically Speaking, January 1996.

Now available at all EPA Regional Offices and soon to be available at all State Department of Agriculture Offices, is a new pocket booklet entitled "Steps to Protect Yourself from Pesticides" (EPA #735-002, dated October, 1995). The booklet is a miniaturized and abbreviated version of the WPS worker handbook, and addresses the points of safety required to be conveyed to untrained workers.

Chemically Speaking, January, 1996.

Roundup Pro is a glyphosate formulation that contains all the required surfactants and adjuvants in the formulation. Compadre is a new glyphosate formulation developed for cut stump treatment on trees to prevent regrowth.

Chemically Speaking, January, 1996.