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
May, 1997
Arkansas News.......................................................... 1
Our Agrochemical Tools - Care With Concentrates................... 1
Water Water Everywhere!
Yeah But Can You Use It?...........................................2
National News.......................................................... 2
Odor Agents Added to Methyl Parathion..............................2
Top Ten Pesticide Infractions......................................3
Highlights of the Food Quality Protection Act..................... 4
Maximum Civil Penalties Increased to 10 Percent................... 4
General News............................................................5
The Importance of 2,4-D............................................5
Starting Up FQPA...................................................5
Pesticides and Their Proper Storage................................6
Pesticides And Our Environment..........................................7
Watershed Protection: Keeping Pesticides
on the Field and Out of the Water.................................7
Pesticide Carrier (Water) Declared
Responsiblefor Disease Outbreak....................................8
1996 A Record Year For Environmental Enforcement...................8
Pesticide Residues In the U.S. Food Supply.........................8
Health and Safety
Notes...................................................................9
How Does Pesticide Toxicology Affect Your Business?................9
CleaningPPE.......................................................11
Pesticide Poisonings..............................................12
Registration and Usage News............................................12
Pesticide Registrations and Actions...............................12
Action Against Methyl Parathion Due to Non-Labeled Indoor
Applications......................................................13
Biotech / IPM / Advanced Technology
News.................................................................. 14
Pesticides and Schools............................................14
Squash - A Trap Crop for Cucumber
Beetle and Bugs..................................................16
Beneficial Nematodes Fight Mole Crickets..........................16
PESP Participants Receive IPM
Innovators Award..................................................16
New Biological Pesticides Registered..............................16
Did You Know?..........................................................17
OUR AGROCHEMICAL TOOLS - CARE WITH CONCENTRATES
We are
shocked and saddened at the news
that a fire at a pesticide plant in Helena has
taken the lives of several brave firemen. Our
condolences go out to the relatives of these
individuals who gave the ultimate in the
performance of their jobs. It is in the aftermath
of incidents like this that we all should take a
few minutes to reflect and review our own
safety procedures when dealing with our
chemical agricultural tools. Questions one
should ask: Are the chemical supplies
appropriately stored? This includes a secured
and lockable area with the materials
segregated from different pesticides classes
(insecticides, herbicides and fungicides) and
definitely separated from feeds. There should
be no leaks or spills and a shovel and
absorbent materials should be readily available.
What is the potential for a fire where chemicals
are stored? Keep them separate from
flammable materials (preferably in a separate
building or site). Burning pesticides can be
major environmental and human health hazard.
In the aftermaths of Oklahoma City and the
World Trade Center bombings, probably
everyone knows that fuel and certain fertilizers
can make for an explosive combination.
Please be certain that the two are not stored
near each other for safety's sake! The
chemical tools that we use on the farm usually
come in very concentrated forms for ease and
efficiency in transportation and use. However,
as users of these materials in is important that
we respect the fact that these concentrated
materials pose hazards that are beyond the
patently obvious (e.g. that insecticides pose a
health hazard due to their toxic nature) and
consider as many other contingencies as
possible in our safety planning, such as the
potential corrosive, reactive or explosive
nature of some of these materials alone or
possibly in combination. We have obtained a
brief article and check list from the Purdue
Cooperative Extension Service that is helpful
in addressing this safety issue. It can be found
in the general News section of this newsletter.
For those of you who have access to the
World Wide Web the Purdue Web Site has a
number of pesticide handling and safety
articles that can be found at the following
URL:
http://www.btny.purdue.edu/PPP/default.html
We will also put a link to this site on our own web page (our URL is list above just below the title). Again, have a safe and productive season.
WATER, WATER EVERYWHERE! YEAH, BUT CAN YOU180E IT?
Seems as if water is in the news a lot as of late. The floods in the northern planes states that have been reported on the news daily for the last several weeks keeps one aware of the power that is contained within this "element" of nature. All living beings need the stuff to survive. Too much or too little and they might die. Though I am sure others will argue for other forms of liquid refreshment, nothing slakes the thirst better than a glass of cold water! Our farmers curse the stuff when there is too wet to get the fields prepared in the spring and then pray for it during the summer drought. We all use it everyday for cooking, washing, recreation and in industry and businesses. Never- the- less we also tend to take the availability and potability of water for granted in this country.
In this issue of the Arkansas Pesticide News there are a couple of articles concerning the contamination of water. One article talks about bacterially contaminated water used to make pesticide solutions which were applied to food crops. A disease outbreak among individuals who later ate the treated commodity was traced to bacteria in the water used in preparing the spray solution. The other article is concerned with the contamination of water supplies and watersheds from agricultural pesticides leaving the site of application. An article from Purdue indicates that "significant" concentrations of pesticides are increasingly appearing in public drinking water supplies. The word significant has different meanings to different people. We do not want to find any pesticides in our drinking water supplies and we should continue to search for means of protecting our water supplies. Unfortunately, many water treatment facilities are designed to treat water for bacteriological aspect and are not able to effectively remove the plethora of other chemicals that might be entering the water sources without special treatments and equipment.
Research conducted here in Arkansas has
found some low level contamination of our
surface waters as might be expected
considering the extent of farming operations
occurring in the state. Fortunately, our ground
or well water supplies appear to remain
relatively uncontaminated at this time. The
operative word here is "relatively". What is
considered acceptable quality today can
change virtually overnight due to new
scientific information concerning chemical
safety or through better more sensitive
methods of chemical detection. Dispose of left
over materials, solutions and rinsates in an
approved manner. Ask yourself if you want
that waste solution you are dumping to go into
your own drinking water.
ODOR AGENTS ADDED TO METHYL PARATHION
In the wake of methyl parathion spraying of homes, nurseries and other dwellings in Mississippi, Louisiana and Alabama, EPA has negotiated an agreement with the sole U.S. manufacturer and major registrant, Cheminova Agro of Denmark.
Illegal spraying has led to the relocation of
more than 1,100 people in the three states,
EPA said. Under the agreement, the company
is recalling all unopened containers of
emulsifiable concentrate from distributors,
retailers and users throughout the nation. EPA
noted that the recall is expected to be
completed by the end of February, adding:
"Before the recalled products can be resold,
an odor agent must be added to make any
indoor use extremely disagreeable. This will
help consumers ascertain whether the pesticide
has been illegally sprayed in their home.
* "Tamper-resistant and bar-coded
containers also will be required to prevent
unapproved use and to allow tracking of all
containers down to the user level.
* "Finally, Cheminova has agreed to
undertake a major education program,
including public service announcements,
to inform distributors, retailers, growers and
consumers on proper use of the pesticide.
Mixtures and microencapsulated formulations
of methyl parathion are not included in this
recall agreement."
EPA Administrator Carol Brower said in a press release that Cheminova's recall effort was commendable. She said, also, that the agreement would "ensure protection for the American people against the severe dangers posed by the illegal use of this pesticide," noting also, "EPA and Mississippi have already taken major action to clean up the contamination in Jackson County."
The agency said it has drafted a "nationwide enforcement strategy for working with state agencies to detect illegal use of agricultural pesticides, including methyl parathion, in urban and residential settings."
All existing registrations of methyl parathion emulsifiable concentrate are to be canceled, with new registrations to Cheminova and others who formulate emulsifiable concentrate products granted to conform with all elements of the Cheminova agreement.
New products are expected to be available for the coming growing season, EPA said.
The agency said it is continuing to review methyl parathion as part of the reregistration process for older pesticides and may impose additional restrictions in the future, although, "At this time, EPA does not believe approved uses of the pesticide pose unreasonable risks because it degrades and dissipates when properly applied outdoors to agricultural crops." The agency emphasized: "There are no legal indoor uses of methyl parathion, and it may only be legally purchased and used by or under the supervision of especially trained and certified applicators."
Approximately 95% of an estimated 4.5 million pounds are used annually in the U.S. on cotton, soybeans, field corn, peaches, wheat, barley and rice. Most of the use is in Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska and Texas. Trade names were listed as Nitrox, Dithon 63, Ketokil 52, Seis-Tres 6-3, Metaspray 5E and Paraspray 6-3.
EPA reminded of a similar
contamination incident in Lorain County,
Ohio, in 1994, which led to a $20 million
relocation of 859 people and decontamination
of 232 homes. In 1995, residences in Detroit
also were sprayed illegally with methyl
parathion at clean-up and relocation costs for
20 people of $2 million.
(From: Kansas Pest.
News.Vol. 20, No. 2)
TOP TEN PESTICIDE INFRACTIONS
Listed below are ten common
infractions of pesticide laws as found by
inspectors in one EPA region. The list
provides some good points and serves as a
reminder of some of the simple things that can
be overlooked. The points are valid for both
private and commercial applicators.
1. Invalid business or applicator license
Do you know where your card is? If so,
check the expiration date, If not, well...
2. Label violation
This includes the use of a product on
plants (or sites) no longer supported by the
label or not following label instructions. For
example, the labels for many pesticides have
been changed over the past 4 to 5 years as a
result of the EPA's reregistration program.
Consequently, many uses for products, such as
diazinon and malathion, have been eliminated.
Some applicators may continue to buy and use
products on plants (sites) that are no longer on
the label. Reading the label before purchase
and use is imperative.
3. Improper Mixing
Read compatibility statements and other
directions carefully. Problems here can be
due to prohibited tank mixes that cause
interactions. There can be plant reactions
from combinations of certain classes of
pesticides that are applied days, or even
weeks, apart.
4. Failure to survey the site before
applying a pesticide
This can range from overlooking or
forgetting a sinkhole in a field to accidental
spraying of the pet's water bowl or
children's toys by a lawn care applicator.
5. Poor preparation for spills or other
emergencies
How many application rigs carry some
soap, water, disposable towels and an
eyewash kit? Worker protection standards
now are very specific about providing
decontamination materials. Applicators
should be familiar with how to handle spills
of the pesticides they are transporting or
applying.
6. Drift complaints
Particle and/or vapor drift can result in
off-target movement of a pesticide.
Knowledge of product characteristics and
attention to environmental conditions such as
wind speeds or inversions will reduce the
potential for problems. Be aware of
sensitive nearby crops or plants.
7. Incomplete or missing records
Private and commercial applicators must
keep appropriate records of pesticide
applications. Dealers who sell restricted
use pesticides also must maintain records
that contain specific information about
products and purchasers.
8. Spray tank not properly cleaned;
applicator not familiar with tank's
history
This can lead to crop damage or illegal
residues. Purchase of used spray equipment
should include determining the types
of products that have been applied by the
previous owner. Solvents in some EC
formulations can serve as tank cleaners.
This can result in inadvertent crop injury by
the new owner.
9. Applicator makes erroneous
product safety claims
While there could be cases of
overselling a product, lack of familiarity with
the label may be a major reason for
unrealistic claims. Read beyond just the crop
and rate information. Look critically for
cautions or warnings, such as crop or variety
sensitivity or effects of specific weather
conditions on applications or product
efficacy.
10. Failure to use required personal
protective equipment
Requirements are spelled out now
and may even require specific types of gloves
or spray suits. Use quality equipment and
keep it clean and functional. Replace it as
needed. Attaining familiarity with product
labels, technical bulletins, state and federal
laws, and material safety data sheets, along
with attention to details are keys to avoiding
common pitfalls associated with pesticide
applications.
KYCES, No.762,11/26/96
HIGHLIGHTS OF THE FOOD QUALITY PROTECTION ACT
The Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) alters both the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. Some changes are cosmetic, in that FQPA puts into law policies that federal agencies were already using to regulate pesticides. Other changes are more substantive, in that FQPA attempts to address contemporary issues dealing with pesticides and food safety.
Safety Standard for Raw and Processed Foods. Raw commodities and processed foods will be similarly regulated: "...a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information."
Infants and Children. EPA will be required to evaluate the susceptibility of infants and children before establishing a food tolerance for a pesticide and, in its risk assessment of a pesticide, may include an additional tenfold safety margin. FQPA also instructs USDA to conduct surveys targeting food consumption by infants and children.
The Risk Cup. In some cases, EPA will calculate risk based on an aggregate exposure to a pesticide; pesticide residues from the diet, drinking water, and residential use (both indoors and in the lawn and garden) might be included in the aggregate exposure.
Screening for Estrogenic Effects. EPA must develop a screening program within four years to identify estrogen-mimicking pesticides.
Product Registration. Pesticides should be reregistered every 15 years. Reduced Risk Pesticides. Pesticides classified as 'reduced risk' will obtain an expedient review.
THE POWER OF WORDS TOO CHANGE PERCEPTION INTO REALITY
OLD CONCEPT NEW CONCEPT Agriculture is farming Agriculture is the food production and distribution system. Family farming and a small business Industrialized/corporate agriculture Domestic markets are prime markets Foreign and industrialized markets are critical markets Raising commodities Manufacturing food products Consumers fear high food costs Food costs are a decreasing part of the consumer's budget Significant political influence Limited political influence Conservation of resources to Environmentally sound use of maintain/increase productivity resources to reduce pollution Efficiency Ecology Farming is a healthy/safe lifestyle Farming is a hazardous occupation
NATIONAL UNIFORMITY FOR TOLERANCES
States will have to petition and receive permission from EPA before they can issue a tolerance which differs from the corresponding federal tolerance.
Review of Existing Tolerances. EPA is to review all existing tolerances--estimated at 9000--within ten years.
Consumer Right-to-Know. EPA is to
produce and distribute to grocery stores a
pesticide pamphlet that describes what steps
consumers can take to lessen their dietary
risks.
Minor Use Pesticides.
Minor use of a
pesticide is defined as
*use on less than 300,000 agricultural acres, or
*the point at which the projected economic return to the
manufacturer does not justify the cost of data
acquisition required for registration.
FQPA provides many incentives to entice
pesticide manufacturers to seek registration
of pesticides for minor use crops: exclusive
use of data, time extensions for development
of registration data, and quicker registration
decisions.
Integrated Pest Management. USDA
and EPA must make information on
Integrated Pest Management (IPM) more
readily available, and regulatory agencies
must consider how their decisions impact
IPM.
Suspension. EPA has been given
authority to immediately suspend a pesticide.
MAXIMUM CIVIL PENALTIES INCREASED 10 PERCENT
Maximum civil and administrative fines for violations of most environmental laws, including those for pesticides and community right-to-know, have increased 10 percent effective January 31, 1997. This EPA action, mandated by Congress, marks the first time maximum penalties have increased since the laws were enacted.
Increases and new maximum civil
penalties under FIFRA are as follows:
FIFRA general penalties for commercial applicators, etc. - $500 increase to $5,500;
FIFRA penalties for private applicators - $50 increase to $550 for first violations and $100 increase to $1,100 for subsequent violations.
The penalty increases are supposed
to help maintain the deterrent effect
Congress intended when it originally
specified penalties for environmental
violations. For more information, call (703)
308-8507.
Chemical Regulation Reporter; Jan. 3, 1997
THE IMPORTANCE OF 2,4-D
The National Agricultural Pesticide Impact Assessment Program recently completed an analysis of the biological and economic importance of 2,4-D. The assessment discusses the use of phenoxy herbicides (the family to which 2,4-D belongs) on more than 65 crops and numerous non-cropland uses. Usage of all phenoxy herbicides in the U.S. was estimated at 55 million pounds of acid equivalent (47 million pounds were 2,4-D) with a retail sales value of $171 million during 1992.
The estimated net societal loss from banning 2,4-D in the U.S. would be $1.683 billion; whereas, banning all phenoxy herbicides would result in a loss of $2.559 billion annually. Approximately 37% of this net societal loss represents increased weed management costs from the use of more expensive alternative herbicides or non-chemical weed control methods. Decreased crop yields make up 35% of the aggregate loss. Higher retail commodity prices, a net loss to consumers, make up the remaining 27%. Decreased crop yields would occur more often with minor acreage crops, where alternative herbicide choices are more limited than with major acreage crops.
Presently, 2,4-D is one of the least expensive herbicides for broadleaf weed control in the U.S.; it helps keep the retail price of substitute herbicides competitive. In Minnesota, for example, the median price of 2,4-D amine for broadleaf weed control in spring wheat is $1.59/A, non-phenoxy herbicides for broadleaf weed control average $5.05/ A, and herbicides for grass control average $15.58/A.
For some minor crops such as almond, blueberry, cranberry, grape, nectarine, pear and strawberry, 2,4-D is the only broadleaf herbicide registered. Its loss would adversely affect the production of these crops.
Other reasons for using 2,4-D and other phenoxy herbicides include the following:
The management of more than 100 noxious weeds would be much more difficult without phenoxy herbicides; annual net societal loss resulting from the management of these weeds would total $180 million.
Without 2,4-D, the general public would face increased costs for many foods. Increased lawn and turfgrass management costs would total $691 million annually.
The value of all phenoxy herbicides (2,4-D, MCPA, MCPB) to dry peas is $600,000.
The value of all phenoxy herbicides to green
pea production is $8 million.
CROP ACRES TREATED POUNDS APPLIED ECONOMIC IMPACT ($) Apples 154,000 188,000 83,000,000 Cherry 13,800 15,000 1,100,000 Cranberry 2,700 7,000 1,200,000 Grape 27,000 16,700 7,900,000 Pear 17,000 19,000 1,790,000
Biologic and economic assessments of
phenoxy use in the United States; Orvin
Burnside. Dept. Of Agronomy and Plant
Genetics, University of Minnesota. 1995
Agrichemical and Environmental News; Dec.
1996
STARTING UP FQPA
Assessing risks from aggregate and cumulative exposures to pesticides and estimating the endocrine-disrupting potential for active and inert ingredients, along with having to develop a multidimensional risk assessment process, means that EPA will have to work very hard to complete its reevaluation process mandated by the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA). The Act requires that all 9,300 existing tolerances and exemptions from tolerances be reassessed by August 3, 2006 with 33 percent due by August 1999, another 33 percent due by August 2002, and the remainder by 2006. This means that numerically, the Agency would have to approve two to three tolerances every single day of the year until that time in order to meet the deadlines.
In the meantime, EPA's Office of
Pesticide Programs (OPP) has issued an
interim guidance on how the Agency will
carry out provisions of the FQPA. The
Agency released a Pesticide Regulation
Notice (PR Notice 97-1) describing
measures that will guide their work on
regulatory decisions like pending
applications for pesticide product
applications.
The PR Notice applies to those with future or pending registration applications, tolerance or tolerance exemption petitions, experimental use permit applications, and scheduled reregistration eligibility decisions (RED). The notice identifies what information EPA needs in order to address provisions of the FQPA and how the information should be submitted. The Agency will begin making regulatory decisions on pending actions using the interim measures outlined in this PR Notice.
The highest priorities for review are given to Section 18 emergency exemptions, time-limited tolerances and registrations, reduced-risk pesticides, biological pesticides, and planned priority system actions. The Agency is considering several policy changes for Section 18's that are not required by the FQPA. Those possible policy changes include delegation of Section 18 authority to states, the appropriate role of considering resistance management as grounds for issuance of a Section 18 exemption, defining significant economic loss, and considering Section 18 approvals for safer pesticides when there already is a registered pesticide in place for the pest problem. Currently, EPA has a total of 80 applications for Section 18 exemptions pending, compared with 60 such applications at this time last year. There are also some 3,000-4,000 registration amendments pending at OPP.
Pesticide registrants seeking a registration, reregistration, or other tolerance action may need to provide additional information and/or materials to address several factors required by the new safety standard established by FQPA. While submission of this additional information is not currently required by regulations, if such information is not submitted, EPA must rely on previously submitted data or on broad or default assumptions when considering these factors. As a result, favorable action on various petitions may be significantly delayed or precluded altogether.
Based on the new safety standard, EPA will need the following additional information
in order to make appropriate decisions:
- Special Sensitivities (infants and children), including chronic, acute, and carcinogenic endpoints.
- Aggregate Exposure, including potential for transfer of the chemical or its breakdown products
to drinking water.
Discuss the potential for significant exposure of the pesticide to children other
than dietary. Are there nonoccupational uses?
Discuss chronic and/or acute risk of exposure by
multiple pathways.
- Cumulative Effects, including mode of action, possible endocrine effects of the pesticide by itself
or in combination with another chemical(s), and residue chemistry.
- Benefits information for reregistrations.
Another PR Notice will be issued soon to update information about the Agency's priorities, and
request the next group of registrants' priorities.
ENDOCRINE-DISRUPTORS
For endocrine-disrupting pesticides, OPP must develop a screening and testing program that examines ecological health effects as well as human health effects within two years, implement the program within three years, and report progress to Congress within four years. Endocrine disruptors include estrogen mimics and antagonists, androgen mimics and antagonists, and thyroid hormones.
Many scientists believe there is a need for better epidemiological data to detect substances that may be endocrine disruptors. Better data are needed because most clinical studies only include men, usually those who were first exposed as adults. One problem encountered with endocrine disruptors is that generally their latency period can be long and exposure effects subtle. There is a need for more data about endocrine exposures to children and exposures to infants still in the womb.
Conducting tests according to proper protocols is important because of the often subtle
effects of endocrine disruptors. The multi generation reproduction study is most likely to show
the presence of an endocrine disrupter. These studies are commonly used in testing hazards of
pesticides, but rarely used in testing hazards of things such as pharmaceuticals. Endocrine
disruptors are often linked to reproductive problems such as testicular cancer in males.
Food Chemical News; Jan. 27, 1997
Chemical Regulation Reporter; Feb. 7, 1997
Pesticide & Toxic Chemical News; Jan. 29 and Feb.10, 1997
PESTICIDES AND THEIR PROPER STORAGE
Fred Whitford, Coordinator, Purdue Pesticide Programs Andrew Martin, Program Specialist, Purdue
Pesticide Programs
Jeff Boyer, Extension Educator-Agriculture & Natural Resources
Edited by Arlene Blessing, Purdue Pesticide Programs
Introduction:
A major component of overall good management practices is the safe storage of pesticides. Whether maintaining small amounts of pesticides in a locked cabinet or large inventories at highly sophisticated sites dedicated solely to chemical storage, the key is to limit the probability of accidental human or environmental exposure. Careful attention to your pesticide storage area will decrease the potential for accidental spills, environmental contamination, and economic loss.
The cabinet, area, or building designated for pesticide storage should be well-planned and maintained. It should remain locked to all persons, especially children. Only those individuals who perform an active role in the pesticide application process should have access to the storage site, and they should make a conscious effort to re-lock the facility upon departure.
A well-planned storage unit should contain barriers to prevent accidental leaks or spills from becoming a source of contamination to ground and surface water, soil, or wildlife habitats. From a different perspective, the pesticide storage facility is protection against economic loss a safeguard for your chemical and property investment! Astute inventory awareness may prevent over-purchase, prolonged storage of old or out-of-date pesticides, or the need to dispose of canceled materials. And, finally, a properly maintained storage site can be implemental in assuring the smooth transfer of property titles.
Protect yourself, your family, your home, your property-and the environment.
Store pesticides wisely.
Pesticide Storage Checklist
Safety is the key element in proper pesticide storage. If you answer no to any
of the statements below, you should correct your storage facility immediately.
Enter date of each inspection: __________ ________ _________
Yes No Yes No Yes No
General Information
Clean, neat pesticide storage site ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___
Current, on-site pesticide inventory ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___
Posted emergency phone numbers ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___
Labels and MSDS on file ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___
Accurate storage inspection log
maintained ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___
Pesticide Containers
Containers marked with purchase date ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___
(old pesticide inventory
to be used first)
Insecticides, herbicides, and
fungicides segregated ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___
Pesticides stored in original
containers ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___
Labels legible and attached to
containers ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___
Container caps tightly closed ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___
No reused pesticide
containers present ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___
Pesticides stored off floor and
low to ground ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___
Dry formulations stored on pallets ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___
Feeds stored separately from
pesticides ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___
Used containers rinsed
and punctured ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___
Rinsed and unrinsed
containers separated ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___
Spills and Disposal
Storage area free of spills
or leaks ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___
Shovel and absorbent materials ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___
Floor drains sealed (if present) ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___
Safety Information
No smoking signs posted ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___
Safety equipment separated
from pesticides ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___
Fire extinguisher in good
working order ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___
Storage room locked ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___
Storage room posted:
Pesticides. Keep Out ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___
Storage site well lit
and ventilated ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___
WATERSHED PROTECTION: KEEPING PESTICIDES ON THE FIELD AND OUT OF THE WATER
A growing number of studies are finding significant concentrations of pesticides in Indiana rivers and streams. This is of particular concern because there are more than 50 public water supplies that use surface water to provide drinking water to about 40 percent of Indiana citizens.
The watershed (the land area that drains into a river or stream) in which pesticides are applied can be the source of pesticide detections in drinking water. Ideally, applied pesticides remain in the target area long enough to control the specific pest and then degrade into harmless compounds. Unfortunately, a small percentage of applied pesticides usually is lost to ditches, tile drains, streams, and rivers as runoff. While pesticides provide many benefits, pesticides that are lost from the site of application no longer provide any pest control benefits and often have a detrimental effect on the environment.
Research shows that one percent of applied pesticides is typically lost to water. This may see like very little, but a one percent loss from a 100-acre field where atrazine is applied at 2 lb/acre can contaminate nearly eighty million gallons of water, at a drinking water standard set at 3 parts per billion.
At Purdue University, we are initializing a program to help communities in Indiana develop community-based watershed protection strategies. Whether their water supply comes from ground water (wells) or surface water (rivers or reservoirs), communities are learning that protecting source water is an essential part of providing safe water. Water partnerships formed between communities who need safe drinking water and people who use pesticides in the watershed can benefit both and may be a key to improving water quality.
Providing pesticide applicators with research-based information that can help minimize pesticide loss is an important part of Purdue University's mission. Many management practices which reduce the risk of pesticide contamination of surface water are encouraged in watershed protection efforts. Best Management Practices--including choice of pesticide as well as tillage and application methods--often are used to minimize pesticide loss.
Pesticides that are less persistent and more strongly adsorbed can reduce losses to runoff. In most cases, conservation tillage increases infiltration and therefore decreases pesticide runoff. Soil incorporation usually reduces pesticide loss and, when not in conflict with soil conservation objectives, is very beneficial. Reduced application rates and good timing (avoiding application before heavy rainstorms) also can minimize pesticide loss.
Some pesticides have special label requirements directly affecting application in proximity to
water bodies and wells. Applicators should make sure to always follow label directions.
PESTICIDE CARRIER (Water) DECLARED RESPONSIBLE FOR DISEASE
OUTBREAK
The water used as a carrier to dilute pesticide spray has been implicated as the most likely source of a parasite that caused a multi-state outbreak of food borne illness from Cyclospora cayetanensis. Based on epidemiological investigations and trace backs, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention has concluded that contaminated water used in a pesticide mixture sprayed on Guatemalan raspberries caused the outbreak that sickened thousands in the U.S. and Canada last summer. As few as two farms in Guatemala could account for as much as 84 percent of Cyclospora infection, and as few as five farms could account for all sources.
The Guatemalan berry industry exports 98 percent of its harvest to the U.S. The water
used for mixing and applying pesticides to the berries includes water from wells, reservoirs, and
water from rivers or springs. Most of the implicated farms stored water in reservoirs, some of
which were open and could easily become contaminated. Although water was filtered, the filters
used were not small enough to filter out Cyclospora. Officials now contend that any water used
to mix pesticides for application to food sources should meet the standards for potable water as
defined by the World Health Organization guidelines.
Food Chemical News; Feb. 10, 1997
1996 A RECORD YEAR FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL ENFORCEMENT
EPA has just released statistics showing a record number of public health and environment criminal enforcement actions and fines assessed in 1996. A record 262 criminal cases were referred by EPA to the Department of Justice last year, and $76.7 million in criminal fines were imposed. The combined level of criminal, civil, and administrative fines and penalties was also the highest in EPA history last year, totaling $173 million. This despite the fact that EPA's enforcement efforts were severely hampered in the first part of 1996 due to the governmental shutdown.
EPA encouraged compliance with environmental laws among large industries and small business alike by providing incentives to voluntarily detect, disclose, and correct violations. During 1996, 43 companies voluntarily revealed violations at 243 facilities.
In order to settle Superfund reforms in a faster, fairer, and more efficient fashion, the
Agency settled more than 1,800 small volume contributors at 24 Superfund sites under its "De
Minimis" policy.
EPA Press Release; Feb. 25, 1997
PESTICIDE RESIDUES IN THE U.S. FOOD SUPPLY
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has released a report entitled Pesticide Program Residue Monitoring 1995 that shows that there were no violative pesticide residues found in nearly 99 percent of all domestic surveillance samples, and that levels of pesticide residues in the U.S. food supply remain well below established standards. This report includes findings for fiscal year 1995 of analyses of raw agricultural products as well as processed products.
In all, 10,615 samples were analyzed, 5,198 were domestic in origin and 5,417 were imports. Fruits and vegetables accounted for the largest proportion of the commodities analyzed, comprising 59 percent of the total domestic surveillance samples. Domestic surveillance samples were collected from all 50 states and Puerto Rico, with the largest numbers of samples collected from states where agriculture is a major industry. For imports, food shipment samples from 94 different countries were collected, with Mexico being the source of the largest number of samples.
By category, the domestic sample results were: vegetables (1,585 samples, 63 percent with no residues found, 35 percent with residues found at nonviolative levels, and 2 percent found at violative levels); fruits (1,437 samples, 40 percent with no residues found, 59 percent with residues found at nonviolative levels, and less than 2 percent found at violative levels); milk/dairy products/eggs (1,086 samples, 92.5 percent with no residues found, 7.5 percent with residues found at nonviolative levels, and none at violative levels); fish/shellfish (423 samples, 64 percent with no residues found, 36 percent with residues found at nonviolative levels); grains/grain products (389 samples, 59 percent with no residues found, 40 percent with residues found at nonviolative levels, and less than 1 percent found at violative levels); and, "others" (181 samples, 94 percent with no residues found, 5.6 percent with residues found at nonviolative levels, and less than 0.5 percent found at violative levels). The "others" category included 61 samples of babyfoods/formula, none of which has violative pesticide residues.
Violative residues were found in only 3 percent of the import samples collected and analyzed. Fruits and vegetables accounted for 85 percent of the foreign samples.
Check the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition's portion of the FDA Homepage
on the World Wide Web for further information at:
http://www.fda.gov/
Similarly, FDA has released the latest results of tests on the sampling of domestic and imported animal feeds for the third quarter of 1996. Pesticide levels in four of the 165 feed samples analyzed in the latest tests exceeded regulatory limits. Three of the four samples contained one or more pesticides on a commodity in which no tolerance had been established.
However, authorities believe animal feed produced by Purina Mills from animal fat
obtained from a Wisconsin renderer, may have been contaminated with chlordane, a banned
pesticide. They believe someone deliberately sabotaged the rendering plant. Officials say the
trace amounts of the chemical detected in recalled feed was insufficient to harm animals or
humans and they do not expect it to show up in dairy products. Authorities are seeking the
individual who wrote a letter warning about the contamination.
Food Chemical News; Dec. 16, and Nov. 18, 1996
Washington Post; Jan. 5, 1997
HOW DOES PESTICIDE TOXICOLOGY AFFECT YOUR BUSINESS?
Growers face the dilemma of needing to protect crop yield and quality while having fewer pesticides available in an environment of increasing regulation. Many pesticides once registered for use on minor crops are gone from the market because of manufacturer refusal to support costs associated with the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) mandate for pesticide reregistration. Pest resistance limits the effectiveness of some currently registered pesticides.
Growers know well the advantages of using pesticides. Pesticides control a wide spectrum of crop pests, and because they act quickly, they offer immediate relief against crop damage in emergency pest control situations. Furthermore, integrated pest management (IPM) theory has historically considered use of nonpersistent pesticides a tool to complement biological methods of control.
Despite the advantages growers realize from using pesticides, governmental policy has reflected a public desire for reduced pesticide use. Pesticides have a poor public reputation perhaps due to past use of DDT and the downfall of that chemical's use precipitated by Rachel Carson's Silent Spring. Bad publicity for pesticides contin- ues, despite modern pesticides being biodegradable, generally safe for beneficial insects, and reflecting greater selectivity for pests than older suspended pesticides.
Perhaps the public views all pesticides through blinders constructed from past experiences with DDT. Another hypothesis may be that the public misunderstands data generated from toxicological studies. If toxicological studies, required by law before and after a pesticide is registered, contribute to current public perception of pesticide hazards, then one might consider that toxicology directly affects growers.
In addition to creating certain perceptions of pesticide hazards, toxicological studies affect policy, possibly causing increased restrictions in pesticide use. The Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA), for example, now requires consideration of other modes of exposure in addition to dietary intake when setting food tolerances. This requirement affects all growers, not just those producing food commodities. Food tolerances appear to have little relevance to regulation of pesticides used on nonedible ornamental crops, for example, but nearly all pesticides are used on edible commodities. Establishment of food tolerances, therefore, indirectly affects the ornamental industry. One FQPA provision, requiring testing of pesticides for endocrine system disrupting effects, has as yet unknown consequences for growers. However, numerous frequently used pesticides have been identified as possible hormone mimics. Further toxicological scrutiny will likely identify even more. Such identification likely will influence US EPA decisions about pesticide registrations.
Surely growers must shudder at the plethora of toxicological studies, knowing that these studies will never proclaim pesticides absolutely safe. Ironically, the same efforts bringing the bad news also create the products in the first place. They help explain how the pesticides work and improve their efficacy, management, and safety. Furthermore, growers benefit directly from toxicological studies because hazards are better defined, allowing growers to use appropriate precautions during pesticide application. Because toxicology is fundamental to the development of pesticide technology, affecting every aspect from efficacy of chemicals to regulatory policy and public perceptions, growers should find it worthwhile to understand what it is, how it affects their business, and how it can benefit them.
Toxicology is the interdisciplinary study of the injurious effects of chemical and physical agents. Biologists and chemists study these effects in a variety of organisms, by examining adverse alterations in structure, function and response. Toxicology helps characterize the hazard of a substance, defined as the potential to cause harm under the specific conditions of use or exposure. Toxicologists recognize that risk is actually the probability of harm and that probability can never be zero.
Both during and after pesticide registration, scientists employ risk assessment to determine the potential of a substance to cause harm to human health or the environment and the probability it will do so under the conditions of its use. Risk assessment evolves from a scientific process of hypothesis testing, where well-- designed experiments generate required information without consideration of social and political factors. Risk assessment is distinctly different from risk management, which is a decision-making activity involving the evaluation of alternative risk control practices and the selection and implementation of alternatives. Risk management is influenced by consideration of economics, politics, and sociological factors, as well as science. For example, the EPA decision to allow or prevent emergency use of a non- registered product (one not registered on a specific commodity) depends not only on toxicological information developed in scientific experiments, but also on whether the product would replace other more hazardous substances and the economic consequences of not using the product. Chemical manufacturers also use risk management; assessment of product safety in toxicological studies is probably less important than potential survival in the marketplace.
The primary objectives of risk assessment are the determination of a compound's no observable effect level (NOEL) and characterization of exposure. Basic toxicological studies play their biggest role in determination of the NOEL or a threshold for response. Exposure assessment depends on environmental chemistry. Modern toxicology encompasses both toxicity assessment and environmental chemistry and is driven by the maxim that "dose makes the poison." A typical experiment for determining the NOEL involves feeding rats increasing amounts of chemical and determining the dose at which no effect is observed. From these data, a dose-response curve is drawn and the LC50, (the dose or concentration causing adverse effects or death in 50% of the test population) can be generated. While we tend to think of toxicological studies as generating information useful for predicting human hazards, the same procedures help determine effective doses for controlling insects, weeds, and pathogenic organisms.
An examination of the testing requirements for pesticide registration reveals how
toxicology in the broadest sense contributes to not only our knowledge of hazards, but
also to effective use and management. FIFRA requires many different kinds of tests in
eight testing areas. These are listed as follows:
Product chemistry
Residue chemistry
Environmental fate
Hazards to humans and domestic animals
Spray drift studies
Field re-entry protection studies
Hazards to nontarget organisms
Product performance
Data generated under product performance requirements and testing for hazards to nontarget organisms are particularly beneficial to growers. By requiring companies to submit efficacy data, for example, growers have available an authentic record documenting control potential that can serve as a basis for comparison when registered products lose efficacy or fail to work as expected. Nontarget plant toxicity characterization is required under the mandate for testing hazards to nontarget organisms. Growers can be assured that products used to control a pest will not adversely affect their crops.
During product development, toxicological studies serve a dual role. Studies of the hazards to humans and nontarget organisms define how a chemical is metabolized and excreted and also how it causes toxicity. Similar studies are conducted on the target pest. Defining how a particular chemical structure causes a biochemical reaction inevitably leads to synthesis of new products with similar but altered molecular structures that make them more selective for pests. This helps reduce the amount of chemical to be used and improves environmental safety over all. Indeed, the develop- ment of environmentally benign chemicals has been dubbed "green chemistry." Such developments will progress through increased understanding of how chemical structure relates to toxicological behavior.
Growers know better than anyone that pesticides can directly affect their health and that of their workers. Toxicologists agree that occupational exposure to pesticides represents the greatest hazard of pesticide use. High dose testing of rats helps provide understanding of hazards to farm workers. Such testing, scientists generally recognize, has much less relevance to consumer exposures through food and water.
Environmental chemistry studies help describe potential exposure of workers. For example, past studies have shown that about 5% to 20% of a pesticide applied in a greenhouse actually reaches the crop, while 25% to 50% escapes through the greenhouse ventilation system. Up to 50% of the applied residues could be considered potentially available to worker exposure, either by direct contact during application, through inhalation after spraying, or by touching sprayed plants.
A recently published study on potential worker exposure from fungicide use in a greenhouse operation shows how toxicological studies can protect pesticide users. Air and leaf residues of the fungicides vinclozolin (Ronilan) and triadimefon (Bayleton) were measured in a greenhouse after the chemicals were sprayed on cucumbers. Air residues of Bayleton were undetectable, and surface residues remained low within two hours after application; the study authors considered Bayleton of little concern to worker health. On the other hand, air residues of Ronilan were high for a few hours after application but declined to very low levels in about three days. Residues on leaf surfaces and the greenhouse floor also remained high for several days, suggesting potential for worker exposure after spraying. Wearing of protective clothing during harvesting operations three days after spraying reduced potential exposure to levels equivalent to the acceptable dietary intake. Perhaps most useful to greenhouse operators was data showing that low volume sprays created more residues (and more hazard) than high volume sprays.
In conclusion, toxicology encompasses many different kinds of biology and
chemistry studies. Because toxicology helps characterize hazards and estimate
probability of harm, it serves policy makers who propose regulations likely to further
restrict growers' use of pesticides. On the other hand, toxicology is a bona fide
scientific endeavor that serves to make more effective and safer products.
CLEANING PPE
In most pesticide handling situations, the skin is the part of the body that is most likely to receive exposure. Studies show that about 97 percent of all body exposure that occurs during pesticide spraying is by contact with the skin. The use of personal protective clothing and equipment (PPE) reduces skin exposure to pesticides. Protective clothing contaminated with pesticide residues can usually be laundered effectively if done correctly. Improper laundering of pesticide-contaminated protective clothing puts the pesticide applicator and the person washing
the clothes at
risk of exposure.
Skin exposure to pesticides may be reduced by proper laundering
to remove pesticide residues from washable protective apparel. Pesticides vary extensively in
chemical composition, acute toxicity, and water solubility, so reading the pesticide label for exact
protective equipment washing information is only practical. The following steps are general
procedures to help get pesticide-contaminated clothing clean and eliminate potentially serious
problems later on.
* Develop a communication system between the pesticide applicator and launderer, so the
launderer is aware of pesticide use and clothing worn, and has access to pesticide container labels
for information on cleanup and disposal.
* Keep contaminated clothing separate from other clothing, and use a separate washing machine
for contaminated protective clothing if possible.
* Wear waterproof gloves when handling pesticide-contaminated clothing.
* Wash clothing as soon as possible after the PPE has been worn. Residue removal is less
thorough as concentration of pesticide increases. The more concentrated the pesticide, the more
difficult it is to remove in laundering.
* Pre-rinse contaminated clothing by spraying/hosing-off the clothing outdoors, soaking in a pail
of water, or agitate in a prewash cycle. Adding soap in a prewash cycle improves residue
removal.
* Wash only a few garments at a time, and be sure PPE contaminated by different pesticides are
not washed together.
* Use the proper washing machine settings such as hot water (140 to 160 degrees), extra large or
large load, minimum 12 minute washing cycle, and double rinse.
* Use a heavy-duty liquid or a phosphate powdered detergent, as these are particularly effective in
removing pesticide residues. Do NOT use bleach and ammonia (fertilizers) because neither helps
to remove pesticide residues and when mixed together, they produce poisonous chlorine gas.
* Use fabric starch, because pesticide residues have been shown to cling to the starch and are
removed in the subsequent wash cycle when the starch is washed away. Starch also inhibits some
penetration of the pesticide into the cotton fiber of protective clothing, where dislodgement in
laundering becomes difficult.
* Re-wash the protective clothing two or three times if necessary. Multiple washings draw out
additional residues.
* Thoroughly rinse the washing machine when done laundering by running the machine through
a complete cycle, using hot water and detergent.
* Line dry the protective clothing as many pesticides break down in sunlight. Do NOT dry clean
protective clothing, and do NOT put it in the dryer. Toxic levels of pesticides can build up in the
dryer over time.
Clothing that is thoroughly saturated or contaminated with highly toxic pesticides should
be discarded. If all these steps sound a bit cumbersome, another approach is to use disposable
protective garments made of materials such as Tyvek.
Gempler's Alert; December 1996
Univ. of Nebraska Guide G89-943-A
PESTICIDE POISONINGS
All persons familiar with pesticides agree that prevention of poisoning remains a much surer path to safety and health than reliance on treatment. Besides the inherent toxic hazards of pesticides, none of the procedures or drugs used in treating poisonings are riskfree. In fact, many antidotes may be toxic in their own right, and such apparently simple procedures such as gastric intubation provoke substantial risk.
One must weigh the hazards of various courses of action, including no treatment at all,
against the risks of various interventions such as stomach pumping or administering an antidote.
The complex circumstances of human poisonings rarely allow precise comparisons of alternative
managements.
A 4-year study conducted in South Carolina analyzed all primary care hospitals in that
state for cases of pesticide poisoning. Highlights from this study include:
- A total of 187 cases were confirmed;
- An average of 51.5 patients were hospitalized per year;
- No fatalities were observed among patients admitted to hospitals for pesticide poisoning;
- 45 percent of the cases involved children;
- Agricultural related poisonings accounted for 8 percent of the cases; and,
- Organophosphate insecticides accounted for the majority of hospitalizations (55 percent).
Organophosphate (OP) compounds are anticholinesterase chemicals that damage or destroy cholinesterase, the enzyme critical to normal control of nerve impulse transmission from nerve fibers to muscle, gland cells, and the brain. OP's are the largest group of pesticides used nowadays, with more than 100 individual compounds well known and used in many countries.
Examples of commonly used organophosphate pesticides include parathion, diazinon, chlorpyrifos, mevinphos, ethoprop, acephate, dimethoate, and malathion. OP's are efficiently absorbed by inhalation, ingestion, and skin penetration. The occurrence of poisoning depends on the rate at which the pesticide is absorbed. Unless exposure causes death, most neurological effects are reversible. Local and less severe effects do not usually last for more than one day.
Symptoms of acute OP poisoning develop during exposure, or within 12 hours of contact and usually within four hours. Chronic intoxications are rare, because OP's are not highly cumulative. Diagnosing an OP poisoning can be difficult in mild cases. The most commonly reported symptoms to acute OP poisoning are headache, nausea, weakness, giddiness, and dizziness. Anxiety and restlessness are often prominent. Worsening of the poisoned state is manifested by muscle twitching, weakness, tightness in the chest, wheezing, a productive cough, vomiting, cramps, sweating, salivation, tearing, and diarrhea. Blurred and/or dark vision may also be reported. Unconsciousness, convulsions, and depression of breathing signify a life-threatening severity of poisoning.
Exact first aid given to someone suspected of suffering from acute OP poisoning is highly
circumstance dictated. If ANY pesticide-related emergency occurs, try to determine what the
person was exposed to and what part of the body was affected before taking action, since taking
the right action is as important as taking immediate action. If the person is unconscious, having trouble breathing or having convulsions, give needed
first aid immediately. Call 911 or your local emergency service. If the person does not have these symptoms,
contact your local emergency service and follow their directions.
HAVE THE PRODUCT CONTAINER WITH YOU WHEN YOU CALL FOR ASSISTANCE. The purpose
of proper immediate first aid is to minimize the absorption (by removing contaminated clothing and washing the
skin of the victim while being careful not contaminating yourself), to support the vital functions of the body until
specific treatment can be administered.
Agromedicine Program Update; January 1997
EPA-540/9-88-001; March 1989
Human Toxicology of Pesticides; CRC Press; 1991
PESTICIDE REGISTRATIONS AND ACTIONS
* EPA has published a list of registrant requests to cancel certain pesticide registrations. Users who desire continued use of these products should contact the applicable registrant before March 11, 1997. Highlights from the pending requests for cancellation include: Bolstar 6 (sulprofos); Bayer Corp., including the Florida Bolster 6 24(c) registration for beet armyworm control on chrysanthemums.
Similarly, EPA has received requests to amend certain pesticide registrations under Section 6(l)(f) of
FIFRA. Registrants of these materials have requested the following uses be deleted from the label:
* D-Z-N Diazinon MG 87% (diazinon), deleting lawns, peanuts, pecans, rangegrass, pasture grasses,
soybeans, and sugarcane.
* Direx 4L and 80DF (diuron), deleting Bermudagrass.
* Nemacur 15% G (fenamiphos), deleting citrus uses.
* Weed Killer 4D (2,4-D), deleting sugarcane and drainage ditchbanks.
Federal Register; December 27, 1996
* The following Special Local Need [24(c)] Registrations have been canceled by their respective registrants.
* Baytex Liquid Concentrate (fenthion), SLN Number FL760013, used to control adult mosquitoes in Lee
County.
* Nemacur 3 (fenamiphos), SLN Number FL850012, used only at the Magic Kingdom of
EPCOT to control labeled pests on turf grasses and woody ornamentals.
* Cythion ULV (malathion), SLN Number FL910013, used to control grasshoppers in citrus.
FDACS Communications; Dec. 31, 1996
* The requirement of a tolerance for residues of the biochemical pesticides sodium bicarbonate and potassium
bicarbonate has been exempted by the EPA in or on all raw agricultural commodities when applied as
fungicides or post-harvest fungicides in accordance with good agricultural practices. This regulation became
effective December 23, 1996.
Federal Register, December 23, 1996
* Boss (permethrin) was recently introduced as a pour-on treatment for cattle to control flies, ticks, etc.
* Tolerances have been established for Brigade (bifenthrin) on strawberry.
* The use in greenhouses, and on tree fruits, nut crops, and grapes has been added to the JMS Stylet Oil label.
* M-Press is a new Bacillus thuringiensis variety japonensis strain buibui product
registered to control adults and larvae of soil dwelling beetles in turfgrass, landscapes, and ornamentals,
* Aerial application use on cotton has been added to the Cotton Pro (prometryn) label.
* EPA has announced a reduction in the personal protective equipment requirements for Gramoxone Extra
(paraquat). Applicators no longer have to wear protective eyeware or chemical resistant head gear.
* Control of needle cast on conifers grown for Christmas trees has been added to the
Bayleton 50% (triadimefon) label.
* Label changes for the growth regulator B-Nine (daminozide) include the addition of several new species of
ornamentals, the addition of usage on bedding plant plugs, and updated directions for use on pot mums and
poinsettias.
* The growth regulator Cycocel (chlormequat) has expanded its label so it can be used on all greenhouse crops
except vegetables.
Agricultural Chemical News; Dec. 1996
ACTION TAKEN AGAINST METHYL PARATHION DUE TO NON-LABELED INDOOR APPLICATIONS
In order to prevent the illegal indoor use of the pesticide methyl parathion, EPA has mandated the recall of certain formulations of the chemical, stepped up inspections to identify any further misuse, and prepared a nationwide enforcement strategy to prevent similar incidents from occurring. During the past few years, a number of illegal methyl parathion applications have been identified in hundreds of homes and other locations in Mississippi, Louisiana, Alabama, Michigan, and Ohio, resulting in significant relocation and cleanup costs. The only legal uses of methyl parathion are for agricultural crops under restricted conditions.
All unopened containers of the emulsifiable concentrate form of methyl parathion are being recalled from distributors, retailers, and users throughout the nation. Mixtures and microencapsulated formulations of methyl parathion are not included in this recall agreement. Before the recalled products can be resold, an odor agent must be added that will make any indoor use extremely disagreeable (the odor agent makes the spray smell like sour socks). The idea behind this is to help consumers find out whether the pesticide has been illegally sprayed in their home.
Steps taken by the Agency and the registrant (Cheminova) are neither designed nor intended to affect the availability of methyl parathion EC products for existing outdoor uses, provided those products are properly packaged and formulated in order to discourage illegal diversions to indoor uses. Cheminova has also agreed to undertake a major educational program to inform users and consumers on proper uses of the pesticide. The company will conduct a product stewardship program campaign designed to provide information about the addition of the stenching agent and the reasons for doing so. The campaign will advise the target audience that prevention of misuse of methyl parathion EC products is a priority, and that the target audience has an obligation to ensure that the product is not diverted for illegal uses. Watch for additional printed material on this product stewardship program to appear in publications such as Pest Control Technology, Pest Management, Farm Chemicals, and The Cotton Grower in the months to come.
Cheminova is also responsible for developing and distributing both a video public service announcement and an audio public service announcement that provide information to the public concerning avoiding indoor use of agricultural pesticides in general, and about methyl parathion in particular. The video and audio public service announcements will be distributed to recipients such as major television and radio stations throughout U.S. cotton growing states, state agencies, and local or national organizations that are appropriate for disseminating the announcements. The misuse component focuses on the importance of keeping restricted use materials out of the hands of uncertified applicators and will specifically mention preventing illegal diversion of agricultural pesticides for household use . The program will outline potential civil and criminal penalties involved with sale to uncertified applicators, the risks to human health, and the stake that distributors, retailers, and growers have in ensuring that the availability of valuable crop protection tools are not jeopardized by misuse.
Approximately 95 percent of an estimated 4.5 million pounds of methyl parathion are used annually in the U.S.
on cotton, soybeans, field corn, peaches, wheat, barley, and rice. EPA Press Release; Jan.15,1997
MOA Between EPA and Cheminova; Jan. 14, 1997
PESTICIDES AND SCHOOLS
The public's concerns about health and environmental risks associated with chemicals are increasing, particularly when children are involved. One site where exposure to pesticides might be possible is our public/private education buildings. It is a common place to find a variety of pests living among the cracks and unseen crevices within buildings such as schools. Pests seek any type of habitat that provides their basic needs to sustain life such as air, moisture, food, and shelter. Florida's mild winters, hot summers, humidity, ample rainfall, and lush flora create a pest paradise. Pests commonly invading schools and school grounds include cockroaches, ants, flies, mosquitoes, fleas, ticks, bees and wasps, scorpions, spiders, birds, rats, mice, bats, booklice, silverfish, crickets, beetles, springtails, centipedes, millipedes, earwigs, and many others. Generally, school administrators and other persons who have pest control decision-making capabilities for school buildings and grounds continue to be made aware of the pest control options available to them. Obviously, it is in everyone's best interest to reduce exposure to potentially harmful chemicals, and exposure in schools is no exception.
As in other situations, practicing Integrated Pest Management (IPM) in schools is a pest control method that may be an alternative to the scheduled spraying of pesticides. IPM in schools can manage pests, be cost-effective, and reduce the use of chemicals. IPM is used in schools to manage pest damage by the most economical, effective means, and it provides the least possible hazard to people, property, and the environment. Pest populations can be prevented or controlled by creating inhospitable environments, by removing some of the basic elements pests need to survive, and by simply blocking their access into buildings. Understanding the needs of each pest is essential to implement an IPM program effectively. IPM programs in schools take advantage of all pest management options possible including, but not limited to, the judicious use of pesticides.
An efficient IPM program can be integrated into a school's existing pest management plan and other school
management activities. School management activities such as preventive maintenance, janitorial practices,
landscaping, occupant education, and staff training are all part of an IPM program. There are seven basic steps
required in developing an IPM decision network for schools:
Step #1: Develop an official IPM policy statement. This step eases the transition from a conventional
pesticide program to an IPM program. The policy acts as a guide to use in developing a specific IPM program.
A policy statement for school pest management should state the intent of the school administration to implement
an IPM program. It should also provide guidance on what specifically is expected, the incorporation of existing
services into an IPM program, and the education and involvement of students, staff, and pest managers.
Step #2: Designate pest management personnel and key decision makers, assure good communications
among them, and educate the people involved in their particular roles. The interactions of the people
involved in a school pest management system are the key to the success or failure of the program. When the
roles of all the people in the pest management system are identified and agreed upon, and when these people
communicate well with each other, effective and less expensive protection of the people and the site can be
achieved with fewer risks. Students and staff too are concerned about the safety of the pest control methods
used, about their effectiveness, and about possible adverse effects. School staff, students, and their parents
should receive information addressing these concerns and their roles in the school's pest management system.
Generally, the most important responsibility of the students and staff is sanitation. Other actions, however, may
be required of students and staff, such as reporting any evidence of pest activity, depending on their interest in
the site and the pest management system. The more students and staff "buy in"to this, the better the pest
management system will work.Parents too can participate by acting as their children's natural advocates and bring the need to reduce
dependence on pesticides to the attention of school personnel, and they can assist in the transition to an IPM
program. Parents' first school pest management responsibility is to learn about IPM practices and follow them at
home so that pests are not carried to school in books, lunches, clothing, or the children's hair.
Step #3: Set pest management objectives for the sites. For every site, pest management objectives will differ,
and these differences must be considered before setting action threshold levels.
Step #4: Inspect sites and identify and monitor pest populations for potential problems. A successful IPM
program consists of a cycle of inspecting, identifying, monitoring, evaluating, and choosing the appropriate
method of control. Once the pest has been identified and the source of its activity pinpointed, habitat modifications including exclusion, repair, and sanitation efforts, may greatly reduce the prevalence of the pest.
Monitoring efforts include inspecting areas for pest evidence, entry points, food, water, and harborage sites, and
estimating pest population levels.
Step #5: Set action thresholds. Action thresholds are the levels at which action is initiated. Thresholds are
determined by deciding how many pests can be tolerated based on the sensitivities of the school occupants. The
presence of some pests does not, in itself, necessarily require action. When pest populations do exceed pre-set
action threshold levels, action must be taken. Precise recommendations or actions to achieve specific results are
an essential part of an IPM program. Specific recommendations, including an explanation of the benefits, should
be based on the evaluation of all available data obtained through inspecting, identifying, and monitoring.
Step #6: Apply IPM strategies to control pests. These strategies include redesigning and repairing structures,
improving sanitation, employing pest resistant plant varieties, establishing watering and mowing practices, and
applying pesticides judiciously. Pest prevention measures reduce the need for pesticide applications. Specific
IPM strategies differ for various specific school sites. Different IPM strategies need to be developed for areas
such as doorways, windows, openings around pipes, electrical fixtures and ducts, classrooms and offices, food
preparation and serving areas, rooms and areas with extensive plumbing, maintenance areas, playgrounds,
parking lots, athletic fields, loading docks, areas near refuse dumpsters, turf, and ornamental shrubs and trees.
Step #7: Evaluate results of the IPM program to determine if pest management objectives are reached,
and keep written records of all aspects of the program. Successful practice of IPM relies on accurate record
keeping. Keeping accurate records also leads to better decision making. Accurate records of inspections,
identification, and monitoring activities show changes in the site environment, physical changes, pest population
changes, and changes in the amount of damage or loss. Pesticide use records should also be kept. The log book
should contain items such as a copy of the Pest Management Plan and service schedule, copies of labels and
MSDS's for each pesticide used or stored on school property, pest surveillance data sheets that include
information on the type and number of pests revealed by the monitoring program, and a diagram noting the
location of pest activity, including the location of all traps and bait stations in or around the site. IPM in the
school environment means to prevent or suppress pests without causing damage to health, environment, or
nontarget organisms. Chemical pesticides are applied in an IPM system only as a last resort, only when and
where necessary, using the least toxic chemicals available the will do the job.
EPA Publication 735
General Household Pest Control; Univ. of Florida publication SM-47
Squash - A Trap Crop For Cucumber, Beetle and Bugs
Agricultural Research Service scientists
may have discovered an innovative way to reduce insecticide sprays on
commercial melon crops--lure bugs with squash. In recent experiments, squash plants have attracted up to 66%
of destructive cucumber beetles and squash bugs away from more valuable neighboring watermelon and
cantaloupe crops. Of those pests taking the bait, 99 % were killed by insecticide applied only to the perimeter of
the squash plot. Currently, growers in Texas, Oklahoma, and the Midwest are testing the "trap crop" method.
(Ag. Consultant Feb. 97).
Beneficial Nematodes Fight Mole Crickets
Steinernema Scapterisci, called the mole cricket nematode, is a native of South America, where it is instrumental in keeping populations of the mole cricket in the genus Scapteriscus under control. There are three major forms in the life cycle of Steinernema scapterisci: egg, juvenile (four stages), and adult (male and female).
Because of the other forms and stages occur inside a mole cricket, only the third-stage juvenile is normally found inhabiting the soil.
Third-stage juvenile nematodes get into a mole cricket through the mouth or through the spiracles. Once in the digestive system or the respiratory system of the mole cricket, they then have to break through into the body cavity.
Once inside the body cavity of the host mole cricket, these nematodes release specialized bacteria from their own digestive systems. These bacteria multiply in the host, killing it. The nematodes then feed on the large numbers of bacteria now within the host.
Third-stage nematode juveniles move about very little in soil. Basically, they depend upon a potential host mole cricket moving very close to them so it can be infected. The host mole crickets disperse the juveniles over an area before the hosts become so sick that they cannot move.
Third-stage juvenile nematodes that are newly released into the soil do not succeed in finding and getting inside
a host eventually will die. However, they will not all die at once, but spread out in time.
PESP PARTICIPANTS RECEIVE IPM INNOVATORS AWARD
The Campbell Soup Company, Del Monte Foods and Sun-Maid Growers, along with two other groups, received the California Department of Pesticide Regulation's covered "IPM Innovators" award.
Each of the organizations is proactive in leading the way for adopting IPM techniques and reducing the risk from pesticides. The awardees either effectively reduced the usage of pesticides, expanded application of pest monitoring, reduced worker exposure to pesticides, or, took other actions that earned recognition, according to the IPM Innovators Program.
To learn more about the IPM Innovators Program, visit their web site at:
html://cdpr.ca.gov
NEW BIOLOGICAL PESTICIDES REGISTERED
In the first quarter of this fiscal year, EPA granted federal registrations to six new biological pesticides (Florida
registrations are still forthcoming). The new pesticides are aimed at controlling pests including cockroaches,
plant diseases, borers, nematodes, aphids, and other insects. The following is a brief review of each of the new
products:
- German Cockroach Pheromone; to control German Cockroaches. It is used in boric acid bait stations as a
cockroach attractant. The boric acid that gets deposited on the roaches when they visit the bait station causes
dehydration and death. It has been approved for use in indoor non-food areas of homes, restaurants, health care
facilities, educational institutions, factories, garages, transportation and recreational vehicles, zoos, kennels,
utilities, and sewers.
- DAZA (dihydroazadirachtin); is a hydrogenated form of the naturally occurring azadirachtin obtained from the
seeds of the neem tree. It has been approved for use indoors against many insect pests and nematodes. Outdoors
DAZA has been approved for use on bedding plants, flowers, potted plants, foliage plants, plants grown
hydroponically, ornamentals, trees, shrubs, turfgrass, fiber crops, forage, and fodder crops.
- Blue Circle; is a new fungicide containing a Burkholderia cepacia isolate for controlling damping-off disease on
plant roots and seedling roots of vegetables, turfgrass, flowers, bulbs, and field crops. It may be applied through
the irrigation system, by drenching roots of seedlings, or incorporating into seedbeds at planting.
- YieldGard; is a new Bacillus thuringiensis plant pesticide in corn plants for controlling or suppressing the
European corn borer, the Southwestern corn borer, and the corn earworm. Annual use has been limited to
100,000 acres of corn in Southern states. There have also been additional use limitations imposed to mitigate the
risk of corn and cotton pests from developing resistance.
- Able; is another Bacillus thuringiensis product registered for controlling caterpillar pests in tree fruits,
terrestrial small fruits and vegetables, tree nuts, alfalfa, corn, cotton, soybeans, peanuts, herbs and spices, and
cranberries. It may be applied aerially or by ground equipment.
- A final Bacillus thuringiensis product, Lepinox, has been registered for controlling caterpillar pests of many
terrestrial food crops, ornamental plants, turf, nursery stock, shade trees, and forests. It too may be applied
aerially or by ground equipment.
EPA Press Release; Jan. 17, 1997
* A USDA researcher in Gainesville, FL., is preparing to unleash a South American Phorid fly that eats the heads
of fire ants in the latest attempt to control the ever-increasing population of these pests. The Phorid flies will not
attack anything but South American red fire ants. This proposed action must pass stringent federal standards
before the flies are released into the environment. The Texas Fire Ant Research and Management Advisory
Committee is asking their state legislature to provide $2.7 million a year for six years to combat fire ants. The
program would combine research with community control efforts and public education.
AP; Feb. 12, 1997
* The Washington State Attorney General's Office is very close to a settlement with at least two pesticide
companies regarding their overcharging of pesticide users.
Agrichemical and Environmental News, Dec. 1996
* Based on a large scale illegal use of methyl parathion for insect control INSIDE of houses in Mississippi, EPA
internally considered canceling all registrations of the EC formulation. How-
ever, following an intense series of negotiations, the base manufacturer, Cheminova, has agreed to
add valeric acid (a stenching agent that smells like old socks or a locker room), use a bar coding system to track
the product, conduct an education program, package all products in returnable, refillable closed system
containers, and recall all existing products. The only sticky point in the agreement is the schedule for phasing in
returnable/refillable containers. Several individuals have been arrested for the illegal application of methyl
parathion in Mississippi.
Agrichemical and Environmental News, Dec. 1996
* I was told recently by a USDA official in Washington, D.C. to start assessing the impact of the complete loss
of organophosphate and carbamate insecticides. There is some discussion in Washington, D.C. about a potential
total or near total loss of these compounds as a result of the Food Quality Protection Act.
Agrichemical and Environmental News, Dec. 1996
* I have reviewed EPA's draft Section 18 guidelines and, while the draft holds no surprises, it is obvious that it
will take more time and much more effort to obtain an emergency exemption than before the FQPA was passed.
Washington and other states will be unable to obtain some of the exemptions they have received in the past.
Agrichemical and Environmental News, Dec. 1996
* Zeneca has stopped making fonofos (Dyfonate). All existing supplies have been allocated to dealers, and the
company has no plans to make the product in the future. Zeneca is willing to sell rights to the product to another
company, but that company would have to come up with a manufacturing plant that can make the technical
material.
Agrichemical and Environmental News, Dec. 1996
* The Federal Trade Commission has given its approval to the proposed merger of Ciba and Sandoz. In order
for the merger to go forward, Sandoz has agreed to sell dicamba (Banvel) and dimethenamid (Frontier)
herbicides to BASF. Sandoz is also selling additional animal/vet and pharmaceutical products. The new
company will be named Novartis AG. It will be the second largest pharmaceutical and the second largest
agricultural chemical company in the world, with annual sales of $26.5 billion. The merger will result in the loss
of l2,000 jobs, 1,400 in the U.S.
Agrichemical and Environmental News, Dec. 1996
* Hasbro Company's Playskool division is launching a new line of children's products and toys with antibacterial
protection built into them. The antibacterial process, called Microban, is supposed to stop the growth of E. coli,
staph, strep, salmonella, and other bacteria. It is similar to antibacterial agents used in soaps and disinfectants,
but it is actually built into the plastic during manufacturing.
Providence Journal-Bulletin; Jan. 28, 1997
* American Cyanamid has agreed to pay $7.3 million to settle charges that it fixed prices for herbicides and
insecticides. In 1995 American Cyanamid sold more than $1 billion of the products involved in the settlement
(soybean broadleaf herbicides, soybean grass herbicides, corn soil insecticides, and cotton grass insecticides).
The $7.3 million will be split among the 50 states and the District of Columbia. The prosecutors said the
company set artificial floor prices, causing many farmers to pay higher prices for chemicals. The company,
saying that it thought its promotion programs were legal, agreed to settle to avoid a costly lawsuit.
Reuter, AP, Jan. 30, & St. Louis Post Dispatch, Jan.31,1997
Diversity Dwindles on the Farm
African Americans owned nearly 25 percent of the farms in America just a century ago. Today, they own under
four percent.
Source: Future Earth
When Others View Your Advertisement Claims as Deceptive and Misleading...
If your advertisement contains these words and phrases----environmentally safe; nontoxic; harmless; contains all
natural ingredients; organic; biodegradable; nontoxic to humans and pets; or EPA-approved----beware! EPA,
the Federal Trade Commission, the State Attorney General's Office, and state pesticide regulatory agencies may
consider your ads deceptive and misleading.
Source: University of Delaware Pesticide Briefs
More Weed Control, More Bushels
Corn yields are increased by six percent for every ten percent increase in weed control. However, a 94 percent
improvement in weed control may not be economical for field corn; i.e., corn yields do not continue to increase
as weed control increases to 94 percent and beyond. Soybean yields, however, do continue to increase as
control approaches 100 percent; each additional 10 percent of weed control increases soybean yields by 7
percent.
Source: University of Illinois
A Burden Hour Is a Wasted Hour
President Clinton asked all agencies to identify those regulations
that were outdated, overly prescriptive, or no
longer made sense. EPA's review identified 1,457 pages out of 12,766 that could he removed from the Code of
Federal Regulations. Thus far, EPA estimates that eliminating these regulations will save the regulated
community $4.2 billion and reduce the time required to fill out reports by 250,000 hours.
Source: EPA Summary Report to the President
GERMAN COCKROACH ALLERGEN FACTOR was said by scientists of the Agricultural Research
Service to have been identified, making possible the development of improved diagnostic test kits for people with
cockroach allergies. These allergies were said to rank second only to household dust mites in their importance to
asthmatics.
(P&TCN Jan. 1, 97)