The Agricultural Experiment Station
276 Altheimer Drive,
Fayetteville, AR 72704
Telephone: (501) 575-3955 Fax: 575-3975

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

Web Page: http://cavern.uark.edu/depts/napiap/newsletter/newslet.html

November, 1996

Table of Contents

Arkansas News......................................................... 1
     Arkansas Water Quality and Pesticide Perspectives................ 1
National News......................................................... 3
     EPA Proposes State ManagementPlans as a Condition for Use 
     of Pesticides That Pose a Threat to Ground Water Contamination... 3
     Congress Approves, Food Safety Bill
     Cancels DelaneClause............................................. 3
     The Food Quality Proctection Act Replaces the 
     Delaney Clause! Are We Happy?.................................... 3
     EPA Honors Winners of Green
     Chemistry Challenge.............................................. 5
     EPA Announces Charter Members of
     Program to Promote Safer Pesticide Use........................... 6
     Charter Supporters of EPA's Pesticide
     Environmental Stewardship Program................................ 6
Health and Safety Notes............................................... 7
     Laundering Pesticide Contaminated Clothing....................... 7
Registration and Usage News........................................... 9
Biotech / IPM / Advanced Technology News.............................. 10
     Biotechnology Patent Could Lead to Polyester Harvests............ 10
     IPM forWeeds in Rice Global Scheme Launched...................... 10
     Project Encourages IPM Adoption.................................. 11
     Pheromones Could Help Control Reptile Pests...................... 11
IPMporium............................................................. 11
     Weed Biocontrol Spotlight........................................ 12
     Weed Management Video............................................ 12
     New Pest Law Web Site............................................ 12
General Information................................................... 12
     Criminal Enforcement Efforts by EPA Continue to Grow Apace....... 12
     Be Prepared to Respond to Accidents.............................. 13
     Some Unpleasant Pest Facts....................................... 13

Arkansas News

ARKANSAS WATER QUALITY AND PESTICIDE PERSPECTIVES

For the past 10 years there have been growing concerns at the national level regarding the quality of our water supplies. Since the next article in this newsletter by EPA Administrator Carol M. Browner discusses groundwater contamination by pesticides, this appears to be an appropriate time to provide a brief update regarding some of the water quality findings of personnel at the Altheimer Pesticide Residue Laboratory at the University of Arkansas.

In 1985, 1986 and 1987 we monitored 119 wells, springs and municipal drinking water supplies in Arkansas for 18 pesticides. Our laboratory pesticide detection limits in water for these 18 compounds ranged from 0.1 to 0.5 ppb. The majority of the herbicides and several insecticides which were being used in the rice-soybean-cotton production areas were included. Alachlor, atrazine, cyanazine, and metolachlor were among the 18 compounds included in the analytical process. We were pleased to find that our analyses revealed only one well with even a trace of pesticide. Further evaluations of that site revealed the strong possibility that this well often served as the water source for filling spray tanks for field applications of herbicides. Our assessment of the findings of very limited pesticide contamination of groundwater in the state was that our very tight subsoils were probably instrumental in preventing or minimizing leaching downward to our groundwater reserves. These tight subsoils are instrumental in Arkansas being the number one rice producer in the U.S.

Studies completed in the past five years in which we have monitored water from wells at 16 mixer-loader sites tell a slightly different story. Fourteen pesticide identifications in over 1100 observations were found in this study. Concentrations ranged from 0.3 to 27 ppb. This survey revealed pesticides not previously detected or sparsely detected in other ground water surveys within the state. Most of these detections were low level (below 2 ppb) and most were not shown in subsequent re-testing of the same wells. It appears that the dominating factor controlling the temporary contaminants in the ground water is probably due to point source contamination from inadequate disposal of rinsates, inadequate storage, back-siphoning, and accidental spills rather than the chemical characteristics of the pesticide or the site specific characteristics of the well.

During the past 5-year period a surface water monitoring study has been completed. Fifty-nine sites were a part of a four-county monitoring study in which water samples were collected eight times over a three year period. Using a gas chromatograph-mass spectrometer we confirmed the presence of fourteen pesticides at trace levels. Of the 8024 determinations, we had 256 positive detections. It would be ideal if 100% of the applied pesticides would remain at the application site. Unfortunately, off site movement does occur with some of the materials that are presently used. Considerable progress is being made in improving formulations, means and timing of applications, lowering the rate of applications and improving the efficiency of these production aids. New cooperative research efforts among four University of Arkansas agronomists will focus on minimizing pesticide runoff as a part of a study on minimum-till cotton production.

In attempting to assess the meaning of our findings it is important to review some facts. Due to the sensitivity of our analytical equipment it would have been quite unusual not to find trace levels of pesticide in surface waters taken from a productive agricultural state. Spring and summer rains routinely result in muddy, rapidly moving streams and rivers. Much of this muddy appearance is caused by clay and other colloids. Due to the adsorptive nature of most pesticides, some portion of these field applied chemicals are attached to soil colloids and other materials which are physically moved or washed off during rainfall. It is good to realize that our drinking water does not routinely come from surface waters. Moreover, these surface waters often contain significant levels of organisms and other contaminants which also make them nonpotable.

As stated in this and other newsletters, the significance of trace levels of pesticides in water, soil, air, plants and animal is difficult to impossible to determine. Ideally we would like to think that none are present in our environment. However, with the presence of today's highly sensitive instrumentation we know this is not the case. Regarding our perceptions of the potential health effects of pesticides in the environment I would like to leave you with a positive thought. In our laboratory we have completed several studies on human exposure to pesticides. It may be comforting to realize that for the large majority of herbicides, insecticides and fungicides being used in agriculture today, if any of these materials were to enter your body it would most likely be rapidly excreted in urine or feces. We do not advocate being careless in the handling of pesticides, however if pesticides were to enter the body via direct deposition during application, or through our food, water or air, we now have some assurance that water soluble polar pesticides are rapidly excreted from our bodies.

National News

EPA PROPOSES STATE MANAGEMENT PLANS AS A CONDITION FOR USE OF PESTICIDES THAT POSE A THREAT TO GROUND WATER CONTAMINATION

To protect public health and the environment from possible ground water contamination, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is proposing that the sale and use of five widely used pesticides be governed by management plans developed and tailored by each state to prevent contamination under conditions of use in the state. The five pesticides, all potential human carcinogens, are alachlor, atrazine, cyanazine, metolachlor and simazine. "EPA believes that every effort must be made to protect ground water, the source of over half of the drinking water in the United States," said EPA Administrator Carol M. Browner. "This proposed program is a major step forward in protecting our drinking water supplies from pesticide contamination."
EPA Press Release June 24, 1996

CONGRESS APPROVES, FOOD SAFETY BILL, CANCELS DELANEY CLAUSE
Congress moved unbelievably fast last week in giving its stamp of approval to a bipartisan food safety bill that repeals the Delaney clause as it relates to pesticide residues in processed foods. The House passed its compromise version of the legislation (C&EN, July 22, page 10) on Tuesday last week by unanimous consent. The Senate cleared its version, bv voice vote, just hours after the Senate Committee on Agriculturee Nutrition & Forestry approveded it last Wednesday.

The bill amends the 1958 Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act by removing the zero-risk provision of the Delaney clause, replacing it with a new standard of "a reasonable certainty of no harm." The new standard applies to pesticide residues both on raw foods and in processed foods. It would allow the presence of some residues of pesticide products that have been shown to cause cancer in humans or animals, a presence prohibited by the Delaney clause. Most industry and environmental groups have accepted the compromise measure, especially since it has provisions for the special protections for infants and children. President Clinton said he was "Pleased" with Congress' action and that he looks forward to signing the bill.
Chem & Eng. News July 29, 1996, p 33

THE FOOD QUALITY PROTECTION ACT REPLACES THE DELANEY CLAUSE! ARE WE HAPPY?

An article from: The Georgia Pest Management Newsletter, August, 1996. V 18, No. 6, p 1-5.

My career as a political prognosticator is over as it begins. A couple of issues ago, I predicted that nothing would be done about the Delaney Clause until the Presidential election was over. I was in good company, however, since other sources (including the Washington Post) felt the same way.

My friends in EPA were also surprised. Their first order of business is to decide what the new law means. Someone told me that there is only one way to understand the new law, at this point. Keep a copy of FIFRA in one hand. Keep a copy of FQPA in the other hand. Have an attorney sit on either side of you to explain each part.

Don't jump for joy yet because the Delaney Clause is gone. Like any major law, everyone is a winner, and everyone is a loser. Read on.

The Food Quality Protection Act will probably be remembered as one of the most significnant acts of pesticide regulation. It changes the focus of regulation from protecting healthy adults to the protection of infants, children, and the unborn. Pesticide tolerances will be reduced to assure the health of the most vulnerable segment of the population. Many tolerances may be reduced ten-fold or more.

Much of the FQPA comes from recommendations of the National Academy of Science/National Research Council, based on their review of pesticide regulations. Although they did not find that current regulation put children in danger, the Academy did say that we could not be certain that the current system adequately protected children. Additionally, the reviews made it clear that the double standard created by the Delaney Clause was illogical and should be revised.

Here are some of the highlights of the Food Quality Protection Act. 

Raw commodities and processed foods will be subject to the same health standard. This component replaces the double standard of the Delaney Clause. The general safety standard is reasonable certainty of no harm.

This section does not mean that people will stop worrying about pesticides that were caught by Delaney. All pesticide tolerances will be re-evaluated, according to a more stringent health standard. Most of the pesticides that were going off the market because of Delaney will remain off the market. 

Tolerances must consider all non-occupational sources of pesticide exposure (e.g., drinking water), and there must be an explicit determination that tolerances are safe for children. Exposure to pesticides with a similar mode of action (e.g., inhibition of acetyl cholinesterase) will be evaluated together. The potential cumulative or additive effects of all OP insecticides must be evaluated together.

What does that mean in real life? Consider that chlorpyrifos (Lorsban/Dursban) is registered on hundreds of crops AND it is the most widely used structural pest control agent AND it is the active ingredient in dozens of homeowner products. It seems inevitable that the tolerances on food crops will be lowered significantly. The registrant will have to consider which tolerances can they afford to retain. 

Special consideration must be given to children's sensitivity and exposure to pesticides. An additional safety factor of up to ten may be added to account for uncertainty in data concerning children.

Because tolerances will be reduced substantially, international trade will also be affected. Many tolerances will be reduced below international Codex/WHO levels; some countries will claim the lower tolerances to be a barrier to free trade. 

Benefits cannot be used to override the health-based standard for children.

Benefits and risks can be considered several ways, acceptable risks in one year, lifetime risks (pesticide tolerances may be phased out over time), and risks to children. Tolerances that exceeded the new general safety standard could remain in effect if removing the tolerance creates greater risk or disrupts the domestic production of the food supply (the entire food supply, not individual crops). 

All tolerances will be reviewed within ten years to be sure they meet the requirements of the new law. In the meantime, reregistration continues. 

Chemical companies must submit data concerning potential endocrine effects of pesticides. This section is a high priority for EPA, which must report a screening program to Congress in four years. An ambitious goal, considering how little is known about the mechanisms of endocrine disruption. 

The enforcement powers of FDA are enhanced, including civil penalties for tolerance violations. The FDA will receive $12 million to increase monitoring in 1997-99. The civil penalties will (be) substantial for introducing foods with illegal residues into interstate commerce. The penalties DO NOT apply to farmers. I am not sure if this section is really necessary; the food supply seems quite safe. Violations are infrequent. Additional monitoring may convince the public about the safety of food; that would be a good thing. 

The EPA will produce brochures to be distibuted in grocery stores that 1) explain the health effects of pesticides, 2) inform consumers how to avoid risks, 3) recommend ways to reduce pesticide exposure while maintaining a healthy diet, 4) identify the foods with tolerances based on consideration of benefits, and 5) suggest other foods that can substitute for foods with tolerances based on benefits.

The market implications of this section could be enormous. The basic idea is analogous to requiring nutrition information on all foods, but I am afraid that this information may imply that something is wrong with our food supply. Additionally, expect watchdog groups and the press to carefully monitor and report on foods with tolerances based on consideration of benefits. 

States must petition EPA if they want to set a tolerance that is different from the national standard, unless the tolerance considers benefits. 

Reregistration fee authority extended and increased. Otherwise, the money for reregistration would have run out in 1997. Reregistration is not expected to be finished until 2001. 

Reregistration must be done every 15 years on all pesticides. The big question is: "Can one cycle be completed before the next begins?" 

Reviews of safer pesticides are expedited so they will reach the market more quickly to replace older, more risky chemicals. I am all for this action, in principle. I have heard, however, that safer' chemicals are arriving on the market without the necessary efficacy data; no one knows how well they work. Suppose a few safer' chemicals get to market, but they do not control the pests. Are growers going to continue to buy safer' pesticides, or continue to rely on more risky' chemicals that they know will work? 

The EPA will be able to emergency suspend a pesticide registration immediately. Under the old law, EPA could not suspend until a notice of intent to cancel was issued. 

Minor use program (IR-4) within EPA and USDA will coordinate minor use regulations and policy and provide funds to develop data for minor use pesticides.

Minor use registrations will be encouraged through extensions for data submission and exclusive use of data, as well as data waivers (in some cases) and expedited reviews.

The minor use provisions are especially important since other parts of the bill will undoubtedly cause registrants to withdraw minor crop registrations due to increased costs. 

Liquid chemical sterilants (e.g., antimicrobial products used to kill germs in hospitals) will no longer be defined as pesticides', and they will be under the sole jurisdiction of FDA. This section should make things easier and better for all of us. The old method was confusing and inefficient, and some products that did not work were able to reach the hospital/doctor market.

EPA HONORS WINNERS OF GREEN CHEMISTRY CHALLENGE

EPA has honored five organizations for their accomplishments in green chemistry.' The Green Chemistry Challenge was announced in March 1995 by President Clinton and Vice President Gore as part of the Administration's Reinventing Environmental Regulations initiative to promote pollution prevention and industrial ecology. EPA, working with partners from industry, the states and other federal agencies solicited nominations for the Challenge in October 1995. More than 70 entries were reviewed by a technical panel selected by the American Chemical Society. The winners are: 

Monsanto Corp., for creating a new process to manufacture the widely used consumer pesticide "Round-Up." Monsanto switched from a well-established process using extremely hazardous substances including formaldehyde, ammonia and cyanide-based chemicals to a new highly innovative process that eliminates these hazardous substances from the pesticide, replacing them with more benign chemicals. (Category: Reducing waste from manufacturing and reducing toxicity of materials used in manufacturing) 

Dow Chemical Co., for finding a replacement for chlorofluorocarbons and other volatile organic compounds used in the manufacture of foam products. The Dow process now uses carbon dioxide, a completely harmless substance-to humans, in the manufacture of high-volume commercial foam products. (Category: Using alternative solvents and reaction conditions associated with chemical manufacturing) 

Rohm and Haas Corp., for designing its product "Sea-Nine," a marine anti-foulant used in coating boats and ship hulls to prevent the accumulation of marine life, as a safer chemical. Sea-Nine is significantly less toxic to humans than existing products, thus reducing hazards to workers who manufacture it, but also does not persist in or harrn aquatic environments. (Category: Designing safer chemical products) 

Donlar Corp., for developing polyaspartates, a new class of polymer products that can be used in products including fertilizer and personal hygiene products. Polyaspartates are very effective substitutes for some toxic chemicals used in these products and, because they are derived from naturally occurring aspartic acid, are biodegradable. (Category: Small business) 

Texas A&M University, for research in using agricultural wastes (biomass) for use in animal feed, fuels and high value chemicals. Through these innovative processes, waste materials are being converted to useful products and replacing toxic chemicals. (Category: Academia) For more information call Paul Anastas at 202-260-2659. EPA Press Release July 12, 1996

EPA ANNOUNCES CHARTER MEMBERS OF PROGRAM TO PROMOTE SAFER PESTICIDE USE

Ten companies and associations have formally joined as Charter Supporters of the Pesticide Environmental Stewardship Program (PESP), an EPA initiative to reduce the health and environmental risks of pesticide use.

The purpose of the Stewardship Program, created in December 1994, is to encourage pesticide users in both agricultural and nonagricultural settings to join in public/private partnerships and develop approaches to pest control that are safer than traditional chemical methods. The role of the PESP "supporter" was created in response to the high level of interest expressed by groups with significant influence over pest management practices, but not directly engaged in using pesticides.

"I commend the organizations that have stepped up and made the comniitment to reduce the potential risks of pesticides", said Administrator Carol M. Browner. "Ensuring food safety - especially through safer pesticides and pesticide use -- is vital to protecting the health and envirorunent of all Americans."

Organizations can join the PESP as a supporter or partner. Partners are organizations that use pesticides or represent pesticide users and agree to develop and implement formal strategies to reduce the risk of pesticides. Forty-two private organizations and the Department of Defense are partners with EPA in the PESP.

The PESP is an outgrowth of the 1993 Pesticide Risk Reduction Initiative jointly adopted by EPA, the U. S. Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

The two major goals of the initiative are to: 1) develop specific use/risk reduction strategies that include reliance on biological pesticides and other approaches considered to be safer than traditional chemical methods; and 2) have 75 percent of U.S. agricultural acreage adopt integrated pest management programs (the practice of using a variety of methods -- cultural pesticidal, biological, etc.-- to control pests) by the year 2000. The PESP focuses on risk reduction, while the U.S. Department of Agriculture is focusing on integrated pest management programs.

The list of supporter initiatives is attached. For more information, call the Pesticide Environmental Stewardship Program Hotline at 1-800-972-7717.
EPA Press Release July 12, 1996

CHARTER SUPPORTERS OF EPA'S PESTICIDE ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM

Aquniix, Inc. has developed a returnable-refillable pesticide container management program for utility right-of-way markets. The goal is to eliminate pesticide container disposal problems and encourage use of closed handling systems that will reduce exposure to workers who mix and load pesticides.

Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association is a consortium of seven San Francisco Bay Area municipal stormwater programs, representing 89 agencies and including 78 cities and 5 counties. Its focus is on regional challenges and opportunities for preventing contamination of the San Francisco Bay and Delta by stormwater runoff containing pesticide residues.

Campbell Soup Company adopted an innovative pesticide control program in dealing with its growers beginning in 1989. The program has involved development and implementation of integrated pest management (IPM) strategies that reduce the need for synthetic pesticides, taking advantage of such innovative agricultural techniques as control with beneficial insects, insect mating confusion, computer forecasting and planting disease resistant varieties. As a result, use of synthetic pesticides by Campbell's growers has fallen by about 60 percent, and the potential for pesticide residues in finished products has been greatly reduced.

Del Monte Foods is a major producer of processed and fresh foods. In recognition of the need to address concerns about the safety and environmental effects of agricultural chemicals, the company is involved in developing disease resistant vegetable crops, encouraging research on alternative pest control methods, and educating cooperating growers on the use and benefits of safer, integrated pest management methods.

Gempler's, Inc. is a farm safety equipment supplier serving professionals in agriculture, horticulture, grounds maintenance and related public agencies. Their goal as a PESP supporter is to improve workplace efficiency and safety through the provision of tools, supplies, and information on pesticide safety and integrated pest management,

General Mills has committed to working closely with all partners in the food supply chain to achieve safe, healthful, environmentally sound and sustainable results. They will be measuring success in terms of economic viability and consumer confidence.

Gerber Products Company, a major processor of infant foods, has adopted the goal "to eliminate pesticide residues in our food products." The company is working actively with its growers and suppliers to achieve this goal.

Glades Crop Care, Inc. is a crop consulting firm specializing in innovative, integrated pest management programs for fresh market vegetables and citrus fruits. Their goal is to optimize production profits and food safety while protecting the environment and promoting safe working conditions.

Farm*A*Syst/Home*A*Syst Programs supports locally-based programs in nearly every state to help farmers, ranchers, rural landowners and homeowners prevent pollution on private land. These voluntary programs are aimed at building awareness of pollution sources like pesticides among landowners, providing management tools to reduce pollution risks and supplying technical assistance to support environmentally-responsible action.

The United States Golf Association is incorporating PESP principles in its work on turfgrass research and management, focusing particularly on the development of grasses that are more tolerant of drought and diseases and therefore require less pesticide use. All ten charter supporters have comitted to making the PESP goals of reducing pesticide use and risk an integral part of their activities. EPA encourages other organizations to follow their example and join as PESP partners or supporters, working to achieve our shared goals of enhanced health and environmental protection for all Americans.
EPA Press Release July 12, 1996

Health and Safety Notes

LAUNDERING PESTICIDE CONTAMINATED CLOTHING

by

Carol Bryan Easley, Joan Laughlin, and Roger Gold University of Nebraska - Lincoln

The problem of how to launder pesticide contaminated clothing has puzzled many as pesticide use has become widespread. What is the best method? What water temperature should be used? Is there a difference in detergent performance? Must you be careful about washing contaminated clothes with other clothing? Use the pesticide label as a guide for knowing which chemicals are more toxic. Key words on all pesticides labels identify the toxicity of the product (Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Key Word                     Toxicity               Examples*

Danger                     Highly toxic/            Counter
Poison                     concentrated             Disyston
                                                    Parathion
                                                    Furadan
                                                    Dyfonate

Warning                    Moderately toxic         Diazinon
                                                    Treflan
                                                    Chlorodane

Caution                    Slightly toxic           2,4-D
                                                    Sevin
                                                    Altrazine
                                                    Malathion

*Toxicity of the pesticide may vary depending upon the formulated product. Use the key word as an indication of the toxicity level.

Clothing contaminated with highly toxic and concentrated pesticides must be handled most carefully as these pesticides are easily absorbed through the skin. If the clothes have been completely saturated with concentrated pesticides, discard them. Clothing contaminated by moderately toxic pesticides do not warrant such drastic measures. Hazards are less pronounced in handling clothing exposed to low toxicity pesticides. But ... the ease of pesticide removal through laundering does not depend on toxicity level--it depends on the formulation of the pesticide. For example, 2,4-D aniine is easily removed through laundering because it is soluble in water, 2,4-D ester is much more difficult to remove through laundering.

Disposable clothing helps limit contamination of clothes because the disposable garments add an extra layer of protection. This is especially important when you are in direct contact with pesticides, such as when mixing and loading pesticides for application.

Laundering Recommendations

Wash contaminated clothing separately from the family wash. Research has shown that pesticide residues are transferred from contaminated clothing to other clothing when they are laundered together. Know when pesticides have been used so all clothing can be properly laundered!

Pre-rinsing contaminated clothing before washing will help remove pesticide particles from the fabric. Pre-rinsing can be done by:

1. pre-soaking in a suitable container prior to washing

2. pre-rinsing with agitation in an automatic washing machine

3. spraying/hosing garment(s) outdoors

Pre-rinsing is especially effective in dislodging the particles from clothing when a wettable powder pesticide formulation has been used.

Clothing worn while using slightly toxic pesticides may be effectively laundered in one machine washing. It is strongly recommended that multiple washings be used on clothing contaminated with concentrated pesticides to draw out excess residues. Always wear rubber gloves when handling highly contaminated clothing to prevent pesticide absorption into the body.

Washing in hot water removes more pesticide from the clothing than washing in other water temperatures. Remember ... the hotter, the better. Avoid cold water washing! Although cold water washing might save energy, cold water temperatures are relatively ineffective in removing pesticides from clothing.

Laundry detergents, whether phosphate, carbonate, or heavy duty liquids, are similarly effective in removing pesticides from fabric. However, research has shown that heavy duty liquid detergents are more effective than other detergents in removing emulsifiable concentrate pesticide formulations. Emulsifiable concentrate formulations are oil-based and heavy duty liquid detergents are known for oil-removing ability.

Laundry additives, such as bleach or ammonia, do not contribute to removing pesticide residues. Either of these additives may be used, if desired, but caution must be used. Bleach should never be added to or mixed with ammonia, because they react together to form a fatal chlorine gas. Be careful--don't mix ammonia and bleach!

If several garments have been contaminated, wash only one or two garments in a single load. Wash garments contaminated by the same pesticide(s) together. Launder, using a full water level to allow the water to thoroughly flush the fabric.

During seasons when pesticides are being used daily, clothing exposed to pesticides should be laundered daily. This is especially true with highly toxic or concentrated pesticides. It is much easier to remove pesticides from clothing by daily laundering than attempting to remove residues that have accumulated over a period of time.

Pesticide carry-over to subsequent laundry loads is possible because the washing machine is likely to retain residues which are then released in following laundry loads. It is important to rinse the washing machine with an empty load, using hot water and the same detergent, machine settings and cycles used for laundering the contaminated clothing.

Line Drying is recommended for these items. Although heat from an automatic dryer might create additional chemical breakdown of pesticide residues, many pesticides break down when exposed to sunlight. This also eliminates the possibility of residues collecting in the dryer.

When Laundering Pesticide Contaminated Clothing.....REMEMBER:
 READ the pesticide LABEL for information.
 DISPOSABLE PESTICIDE CLOTHING provides extra protection
 PRE-RINSE clothing by:
* presoaking in a suitable container
* agitating in an automatic washing machine
* spraying/hosing the garment(s) outdoors
 WASHING machine settings: * Hot water temperature (140 degrees F/ 60 degrees C)
* full water level
* normal (12 minutes) wash cycle.
 RE-WASH the contaminated clothing two or three times, if necessary
 WASH A FEW contaminated garments at a time, using lots of water
 WASH SEPARATELY from FAMILY laundry.
 DISCARD clothing if thoroughly saturated.
 LAUNDER CLOTHING DAILY when applying pesticide daily
 RINSE MACHINE thoroughly after laundering contaminated clothing
 LINE DRY to avoid contaminating the automatic dryer
 BE AWARE of when pesticides are being used so that clothing can be appropriately laundered.

Registration and Usage News

INSECTICIDES

ADEPT (diflubenzuron) -- Uniroyal -- A new formulation recently registered for usage on greenhouse ornamentals. Available in water-soluable bags.
PENNCAP-M (methyl parathion) -- Elf Atochem -- Received an EPA label to use on pecans to control stink bugs, leaf footed bugs, pecan weevil and the hickory shuckworm.

HERBICIDES

ACTION (fluthiacet-methyl) -- Ciba -- Registration on soybeans in the U.S. is expected next year while registration on corn is expected in 1998.
BUTOXONE 7500 (2,4-DB) -- Cedar -- A new formulation recently introduced for usage on alfalfa, soybeans and peanuts. It is available in 2.33 lb. water soluable bags.
EXPERT (oxasulfuron/ CGA-277476) -- Ciba -- A sulfonylurea compound being developed for usage on soybeans to control many broadleaf weeds. It has a short residual and is expected to be registered in the U.S. next year.
REFLEX (fomesafen-sodium salt) -- Zeneca -- As a result of the IR-4 Project they have proposed to EPA to establish time limited residue tolerances on snap beans at .05 ppm. Expires 12-31-98. Comments must be received by 7-19-96. (FR Vol. 61, 6-1996).
ROUNDUP ULTRA (glyphosate) -- Monsanto -- Received an EPA label to use withhooded sprayers between the rows of corn to control emerged weeds.
ALIETTE (fosetyl-Al) -- Rhone Poulenc -- As a result of the IR-4 Project, EPA established a time limited residue tolerance on blueberries at 40 ppm. Expires 12-31-98. (FR Vol. 61, 6-19-96).
FOLPET--- EPA has revoked residue tolerances on celery, leeks, green onions, shallots, caneberries, blueberries, crabapples, currants, dewberries, gooseberries, huckleberries, citrus, garlic, pumpkins and squash. Effective 9-16-96. (FR Vol. 61, 7-
ICIA-5504 (azoxystrobin) -- Zeneca -- Introduction of this new product is expected in the U.S. in the next 2 years. In the turf market it will be called Heritage, in grapes and fruit trees it will be called Abound, and in the vegetable, rice and small grain market it will be called Quadris. It will be formulated as a 50% wettable granule.
CYANAZINE -- DuPont/Griffith -- EPA has announced the voluntary cancellation of registration for this product to be phased out by 12-31-99. The amount of ai/acre will be limited to 6.5 lbs. in 1996, 5 lbs in 1997, 3 lbs. in 1998 and 1 lb. in 1999. The products may be sold in the channels of trade (except by registrant after 12-31-99) through 9-30-02 and used by growers until 12-31-02. It is currently registered on field corn and cotton.
MONCUT (flutolanil) -- AgrEvo -- EPA established time limited residue tolerances on rice grain at 2 ppm and rice straw at 8 ppm. Expries 4-30-98. (FR Vol. 61, 6-26-96). Also on rice bean at 3 ppm and on rice hulls at 7 ppm.

Biotech / IPM / Advanced Technology News

BIOTECHNOLOGY PATENT COULD LEAD TO POLYESTER HARVESTS

Scientists at Massachusetts Institute of Technology have received a U.S. patent (5,534,432) that could lead to harvesting polyesters from plants. The patent covers insertion of genes for polyhydroxybutyrate polymerase into bacteria and crop plants. It is the sixth in a series of biotechnological patents for making biodegradable polyester resins to be obtained by biology professor Oliver P. Peoples and former MIT research fellow Anthony J. Sinskey. Sinskey is now vice president for research and development at Metabolix in Cambridge, Mass., which has licensed the patents. The patents cover insertion of thiolase genes, that mediate condensation of acetate to acetoacetate, and reductase genes for conversion of acetoacetate to B-hydroxybutyrate, as well as the polymerase genes. Harvesting polyhydroxvbutyrate from transgenic corn could lower production costs of the polyester, according to Metabolix. The transgenic bacteria and plants also can copolyesterify B-hydroxybutyrate with B-hydroxyalkanoates up to C12. Monsanto currently produces the Biopol brand of B-hydroxybutyrate/valerate copolyester by fermentation of Alcaliginese eutrophus, a process originally invented by Icl.
Chem & Eng. News July 29, 1996, p 33

IPM FOR WEEDS IN RICE GLOBAL SCHEME LAUNCHED

Representatives from a variety of international institutes and national agricultural research systems met at Bouake, Cote d'Ivoire, in April 1996, and launched the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) system-wide initiative on IPM for Weeds in Rice.

The meeting's objectives were to assess research and progress, foster collaboration and links between scientists at CGIAR centers and other institutions, determine the most pressing problems associated with implementing IPM for weeds in rice, and then formulate research proposals that could be submitted to potential funding sources.

Following the early portion of the session which was devoted to exchanging information about the major weed problems for rice in Asia, Africa, and Latin America, the assembled scientists listed weed IPM research topics and scored them on the basis of: potential impact, knowledge gaps, farmer demand, current activity, planned future work, and scope for collaboration within existing resources. Two main ecological foci were identified:
a) upland rice systems under short fallow rotations; and,
b) direct seeded lowland rice systems.

The key IPM research issues that emerged were:
 development of rice plant varieties that can effectively compete with weeds;
 fallow management;
 support for weed management decision-making; and,
 information development and sharing, utilizing construction of databases.

The group informally assigned lead status on each of these issues to various research centers, and developed a proposed list of action and approach for each case. A brochure describing the IPM for weeds in rice initiative is being prepared by the Management of Weeds in Rice Task Force for distribution at international Centers Week in October 1996.
EPA Press Release June 24, 1996

PROJECT ENCOURAGES IPM ADOPTION

An ambitious long-term project to encourage IPM adoption and reduce pesticide use in the (U.S.) state of California's extensive, highly sensitive processing tomato industry has started its fourth year while following a conservative, multi-stage strategy that relies on a suite of practices.

Reporting in the IPM PRACTITIONER, W. Olkowski and H. Olkowski note that California growers applied approximately 35 pounds of pesticides per acre (40 kg/ha) in 1993 to processing tomatoes, the state's second largest vegetable crop. One reason is that, since the processing industry demands zero pest damage, growers are reluctant to jeopardize their income by relinquishing current pest management methods.

Spearheaded by the Bio-Integral Resource Center (BIRC), the program's goal is "to achieve grower-driven innovation resulting in a biologically intensive IPM system maximizing prevention-oriented management practices."

The project's first stage encouraged growers to adopt a pest management decision-making process that based treatments on written field reports of pest incidence. Further steps involve developing pest-resistant cultivars, practicing cover cropping, augmenting/importing natural enemies, and using reduced dosage of least toxic pesticides only when needed.

In 1996, the project aims to increase the number of participating growers and fields, refine and apply field monitoring techniques, conduct more on-farm field tests of pest management alternatives, and conduct other activities.
--excerpted from: "IPM for California Processing Tomatoes", THE IPM PRACTITIONER, 28(4), 1-13, April 1996.

PHEROMONES COULD HELP CONTROL REPTILE PEST

The brown tree snake, or BTS (Boiga irregularis), a noxious reptile that threatens Pacific island ecosystems, has mated for the first time in captivity and thereby provided scientists at Oregon State Univ. (USA) with "a fighting chance to accurately identify the attractant or repellent pheromones that could help us control this snake," noted lead researcher R.T. Mason.

By altering the environmental conditions in the laboratory where the BTS collection is kept, Mason and colleagues were able to produce BTS courtship and competitive behaviors, all of which could help to isolate both attracting and repelling pheromones.

Additionally, Dr. Mason visited Australia and identified a range of natural parasites that afflict BTS there, but are absent on Guam (Island) where the pest, a voracious nocturnal predator, has literally killed every bird on the island. However, pheromone research appears to be the most promising tool for gaining control of BTS through a combination of repelling male snakes in one direction and attracting them in another, leading them to be trapped and eliminated.
--excerpted from: THE OREGON SCIENTIST, IX(6), 4, Summer 1996.

IPMporium

For potato growing areas, one way to reduce the number of fungicide applications for control of late blight (Phytophtora infestans) is to remove all volunteer potato plants from fallowed fields.
By the year 2000, biopesticides are projected to account for only 16 percent of the agricultural biotechnology market which will be composed of growth hormones at 45 percent, transgenics at 28 percent, and tissue cultures at 10%, according to a recent forecast study.
Methyl iodide, according to a scientist at the Univ. of California, can be used in all of the same ways (and for the same purposes) as the widely used fumigant methyl bromide, but has a much lower potential for ozone depletion.
A noted researcher recently observed that most available evidence for Bacillus thuringiensis resistance management is anecdotal and no substitute for developing substantive field data.
An extensive survey in the U.S. state of Iowa found that those growers who used crop consultants increased the efficiency of their pest management practices compared to those growers who did not use a consultant.
EPA Press Release June 24, 1996

WEED BIOCONTROL SPOTLIGHTED

It's big, beautiful, and bursting with weed biocontrol information. The title, BIOLOGICAL CONTROL OF WEEDS IN THE WEST is modest as the information presented in this extensively illustrated, looseleaf compilation has wider application than the western U.S., the subject area. A collaborative effort by authors N.E. Rees et al., produced an expandable volume with full color plates of the reviewed weed species and the identified biocontrol agents, printed on heavy, coated paperstock. In addition to the main section, the late 1995 work contains an extensive background discussion including topics such as: "Integrating Weed Management Methods," "Managing Insect Biological Control Agents," and "Making Biological Control Work in the Field." Each copy comes with a registration card so recipients can receive notification of additional material when printed. The title was published by the Western Society of Weed Science in cooperation with the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture's Agric. Research Service, the Montana Dept. of Agric., and Montana State Univ.

WEED MANAGEMENT VIDEO

A new 75-minute video highlights mechanical/physical weed control strategies and (mostly powered) equipment used by vegetable farmers in the New England region of the U.S., but is said to also be applicable to smaller-scale vegetable farms elsewhere. The tape features close-ups of various machines used on a variety of vegetable crops. FMI: UVM Center for Sustainable Agriculture, 590 Main Street, Burlington, VT 05405-0059, USA. NEW PEST LAW WEB SITE A new free web site called Wright's PestLaw(sm) contains up-to-date, fulltext regulatory information and other resources intended to be of interest to crop protection and antimicrobial companies, pesticide users, and other individuals, according to its sponsor, J.C. Wright, an attorney in Washington, DC, USA, who represents pesticide producers, formulators and distributors in a wide range of issues. The address is: http://www.pestlaw.com FMI: J.C. Wright, e-mail: wright@pestlaw.com

General Information

CRIMINAL ENFORCEMENT EFFORTS BY EPA CONTINUE TO GROW APACE

EPA reported last week that it had referred a record number of criminal enforcement actions to
the Department of justice in fiscal 1995, but that the number of referrals slowed in the first half of fiscal 1996. "These actions are highly significant because criminal cases typically involve the greatest risks to public health and the environment," said EPA Administrator Carol M. Browner upon release of the data. For 1995, EPA reports 256 cases referred to justice and 562 criminal investigations started. Penalties assessed in 1995 totaled $23 million. EPA savs civil enforcement actions totaled more than 3,200 last year and secured almost $1.65 billion in penalties that will be spent by companies on pollution control equipment and other environmental projects. The agency also reports that $851 million was collected in 1995 for Superfund private-party cleanups. Fiscal 1996 data show only 600 civil actions in the first half, due in great part to two shutdowns of the federal government.
Chem & Eng. News July 29, 1996, p 33.

BE PREPARED TO RESPOND TO ACCIDENTS

Seven percent of all agricultural retailers have reported a chemical spill within the last two years. The average cleanup cost was approximately $6,900. In the mid-West recently. there was an incident in which a mini-bulk container turned over and leaked into the back of a pickup. The driver stopped and observed the spill, but instead of correcting the problem immediately, the driver got back into the truck and returned to the office. Subsequently, the owner of the business was asked how he was going to clean up the miles of roadway. Simply put, training pays off. The best training programs are those that simulate a mock spill. Know what to do and who to call BEFORE it happens.
The Label, Purdue Univ.; July 1996 Chemically Speaking, September 1996; Page 7

SOME UNPLEASANT PEST FACTS:

More human deaths have been attributed to fleas than all the wars ever fought As carriers of bubonic plague, fleas were responsible for killing one-third of the population of Europe in the 14th Century.

The common housefly can harbor more than 100 kinds of pathogenic organisms and may transmit more than 65 human and animal diseases.

Rats contaminate and destroy enough food world-wide to feed 200 million people. In the U.S. alone, rats cause between $500 million and $1 billion a year in property and health loss.

Cockroaches may transmit food poisoning, cholera, dysentery, and typhoid.

A German cockroach can survive a month or more without food (but less than two weeks without water).

Never squash a yellowjacket wasp near the nest. A dying yellowjacket releases an alarm pheromone that alerts its comrades. In less than 15 seconds, yellowjackets within a 15-foot radius will rally to the victim's aid.

Nobel Prize winner Norman Borlaug estimated that, without modern pest control technology, crop losses worldwide would escalate to about 50 percent of current production. In the U.S., it is estimated that we experience food losses of the only about 3 percent because of modern pest control.
Acces-Pesticides, Univ. of AZ,, Sept. 1996