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

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

April, 1998

Arkansas News
1 On being "Safe" Statistically

National News
2 The Continuing Saga of FQPA
3 What FQPA Reviewers Need
4 EPA Must Decide
5 Endocrine Disruptor
6 The UN and Pesticide Trade
6 EPA Issues Draft Guidance
7 EPA and Canadian PMRA
7 Pesticide Use in Europe

Registration and Usage News 7 Expiration of Flutolanil
8 Biotech/IPM/Advanced Technology News

Health and Safety Notes 8 Cancer
9 Children's Diets and Pesticide Residues
10 Safer Use of Insect Repellent

Did You Know
11 Woman Pleads Guilty

On Being "Safe" Statistically .....I Guess

In this issue of the Arkansas Pest News there are several articles (again) about the FQPA and the continuing concerns about what changes it will bring to agricultural practices and the available chemical tools. Probably the biggest concern and controversy stems from the estimation of the allowable total exposure to various compounds. This allowable total exposure is termed the "risk cup" factor. Each separate source of exposure is added to the risk cup much like adding water to a container. When the full line is reached there is deemed to be too much (potential) aggregate and cumulative exposure. Ways to reduce exposure are then sought out in order to prevent the cup from overflowing. This usually translates to removing some of the labeled uses of the compounds in question. Since a majority of pesticide use is for agricultural production, these uses often become a target of FQPA risk limitations.

What is lacking is knowledge concerning exposure through actual dietary consumption. Consequently, assumptions and best estimates are made from the available data with safety factors thrown in for the various risk groups. The assumptions that are used often go to the maximum statistically significant extreme. As everyone is aware virtually nothing in life exhibits singular measurements that are consistently the same. An obvious example is the average height, weight and size of people. People come in all heights, shapes, and sizes. Statistically we can take an average of any measurement (let's use height) and call that the "mean". Statisticians can provide a range of values that extend both directions on the scale from this mean that will include a known percentage of the population: 68%, 95%, 99% to 99.99%. As one seeks to increase the percentage, this range of values has to increase to accommodate the greater variations in individual heights.

In comparison, when it comes to estimating the amount of a chemical(s) used on various crops or the potential residue levels after application AND one also assumes that all crops were subjected to the most intensive chemical treatment program allowable, numbers can get large quickly. Add to this the estimated exposure individuals may potentially receive from other possible sources and well .....the cup runneth over in a hurry. This is hardly good science at work, but is the best that can presently be done with the available information. Read the section "What FQPA Reviewers Need From The Regulated Community" to see what I am driving at here. This can result in some very skewed values and restrictions on the use of various chemicals for crop production. What is needed? The majority of our producers should make the attempt to keep good and accurate records of the actual use of chemicals on their farms. Since most producers are both good stewards and economically minded it is highly doubtful that all these materials are used at the maximum rates, maximum number of allowable applications, the shortest preharvest interval and on 100% of the crops! Surely just bad weather alone would interrupt such a plan! But can we prove that this is so? Records and documentation are needed not just verbal and mental recollections of what materials have been used. Ultimately, the EPA will be seeking this information, but maybe the producer groups will have to thrust it upon the EPA. Never-the-less solid documentation of agrochemical use will provide much better information on which the EPA decisions can be based. Without accurate and consistent chemical use records from which our research scientists and agricultural agents can collect and submit data, the EPA will continue using their best "guess" in order to establish pesticide tolerances, registrations and labeling. At the present time that "best" guess should be of concern for all producers.

THE CONTINUING SAGA OF THE FQPA

The Decisions on how EPA is going to implement the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) have not yet been made. One initial option among several being considered by EPA, according to an EPA internal briefing paper, is the revocation of all authorized uses of the organophosphate insecticides. After proposing to revoke the tolerances for this family of chemicals, the Agency would solicit information from the chemical industry and growers on the use and safety of the chemicals in the food supply. Under such a scenario, the revocations would start as early as May of this year, and the final decision to keep or revoke food uses would occur in July of 1999. This proposal, if made final, would be equivalent to a blanket prohibition on some of the most commonly used insecticides in agriculture, on golf courses, and around homes and yards. This action has been called "an extreme exercise of regulatory authority," since organophosphates on crops alone are used on more than 60 million acres.

The Agency has said that they would like for organophosphate users to tell them which uses they depend on most. In the absence of new data, however, EPA believes there is sufficient data upon which to evaluate these chemicals and where data are missing, worst case default values could be used.

On Protecting Infants And Children -

From inception, FQPA has had an emphasis on protecting the health of infants and children. In establishing any tolerance, EPA takes the No Observed Effect Level (NOEL) for a chemical and divides by a 1,000-fold safety factor. That number can be changed based on available data. EPA asserts that FQPA requires them to begin with the assumption that the extra 10 fold safety factor should be retained. Consequently, the extra degree of protection for children will initially be applied automatically, or by "default," in the EPA's decisions on allowing pesticide uses. The Agency may, however, make exceptions if it has complete and reliable data showing that a less restrictive safety factor sufficiently protects infants and children. The safety factor would be retained in risk assessments of a pesticide if there is exposure to infants and children correlated with significant issues of uncertainty and/or susceptibility in the assessment. Where sufficient data are available, EPA would use a weight-of-evidence approach to characterize a pesticide's hazard.
The lack of good dietary consumption data for infants and children has emerged as a key concern in implementing FQPA. Because children are the target of most evaluations under the Act, characteristics of age-specific dietary activity patterns have become an important new area of research, and few dietary exposure surveys are available that include children. Besides child-specific food consumption data, there is keen interest in quantifying the residues at the point of food consumption, after food has been cleaned and cooked, to provide a more accurate assessment of exposure than measurements of residues in the field.

FQPA and Public Health Pest Control

EPA has said that a draft list of public health pests ultimately could be used in Agency decisions on whether to maintain some pesticide uses. FQPA's reassessment of tolerances could result in cancellation of certain pesticides used in public health pest control. The list, which will not be made final until sometime in April, will be based on Agency knowledge of public health pests derived from its regulation of pesticides. Public health pesticides include:
antimicrobials, used against microbial pests that are outside the human body, such as bacteria found on preparation surfaces;
insecticides, usedagainst insects such as mosquitoes, which can transmit diseases; and,
vertebrate control pesticides, used against rodents and other vertebrates.

EPA eventually wants to use the pest list to determine benefits of pesticides used to protect public health. This is because according to Section 2(bb) of FIFRA, under certain cases EPA must weigh any risks of a public health pesticide against health risks such as the diseases transmitted by the organism to be controlled by the pesticide. As EPA reassesses the organophosphates, they must consider their benefits under this section of the law.

Congress Again Getting Involved

Following the lead of the House Agricultural Committee, the House Commerce Committee sent a memo to EPA warning the Agency to follow congressional intent in key upcoming decisions on implementing FQPA by using realistic exposure data, and avoiding unnecessary disruption of food production and distribution. Lawmakers said in their March 10 letter that using unrealistic exposure data in implementing FQPA may result in the unnecessary loss of uses of important pesticides. The Committee also said that EPA should follow several principles so that it is publicly accountable for its actions under FQPA. Lawmakers again emphasized Congress' intent in passing FQPA that the Agency implement the law on the basis of sound science.

The memo also expressed concern that there are some who will measure EPA's success in implementing FQPA by the number of products or uses it removes from the market, and that the Committee did not agree with this. The law in no way was intended to begin an Agency race to remove products from the market, but to continue enhancement of responsible, reasoned, scientific decision-making, that balances public health goals with real needs for production. The Committee recommended that EPA seek actual data on pesticide residues, because the use of unrealistic, inappropriate assumptions, such as computer models that estimate drinking water exposures based on farm ponds, was never intended.

EPA Reevaluating Decisions

Even before receiving the House Commerce Committee memo, EPA ordered a review of what information will be considered by the Agency in decisions it makes under FQPA, and an evaluation of decisions made so far under the law. The evaluations are to be done as expeditiously as possible, and EPA offices need to work together when conducting the evaluations.

EPA has called the implementation of FQPA "an uphill struggle. It's like motherhood and apple pie, very logical, but Congress gave nobody a phase-in period." They also reiterated that certain organophosphates will likely be lost as combined risk is assessed and new tolerances are set, and that it is their job to make sure they do not wreak havoc in the process.
Chemical Regulation Reporter; Feb. 20, March 6, 13 and 20, 1998 House Commerce Committee Letter to EPA; March 10, 1998 EPA Letter to Rep. Waxman; March 17, 1998 Pesticide and Toxic Chemical News; March 12, 1998 Food Chemical News; March 16, 1998 Chemically Speaking ; April 1998

What FQPA Reviewers Need From The Regulated Community

The Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) requires EPA to estimate aggregate and cumulative exposures to pesticides from food, water, and non-food (home, lawn, garden, etc.) uses when doing risk assessments. Where current acute data is lacking, the Agency has been picking "default values" in the 99.9th percentile of available consumption data. This method of evaluation raises controversy among many. For example, according to USDA consumption data, the average person will drink an 8-oz. cup of coffee in a day; coffee drinkers consume 2.6 cups. When coffee consumption numbers are plotted on a curve, the 95th percentile shows people drink 4.6 cups daily. When calculating dietary exposure, EPA has been choosing the 99.9th percentile, or 18.7 cups of coffee daily. Where crop residues are concerned, in the absence of better data, the Agency assumes in their risk assessments that the actual use of a pesticide is the same as the maximum amounts allowed on its label, and that 100 percent of the nation's crops are treated at the maximum rate the maximum number of times, with the shortest allowed preharvest interval.

What is needed right now are accurate records from pesticide users documenting actual levels of the pesticides being applied, to avoid development of such overly conservative risk assessment models. At a minimum, additional data are needed on:

What, when, how and where products are used;
How many times and at what rate is it applied;
What is the preharvest interval;
Why is the compound important;
What are the target pests the product is used to control;
Estimates on yield loss with the loss of a particular chemical or group of chemicals;
What alternatives are available;
What are limitations/benefits of alternatives;
Why are alternatives not used currently;
What residues remain;
Who eats what, how, when, where, etc.; and,
What is the safe dose of the chemical.

EPA has said that because this field is undergoing tremendous change, they will do their best with what data is available. As a result, the Agency's method of evaluating aggregate exposure is likely to change frequently, with revisions every couple of years.

Although many are concerned that "the Agency is relying on inadequate data and overly conservative risk assumptions in making its findings," EPA currently is not planning to conduct a large-scale request for exposure data (data call-in). They are, however, looking at ways procedurally to allow more generation of data. The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, Insecticide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) gives EPA the authority to use a data call-in when data gaps exist.

Simultaneously, however, the user community should be analyzing alternative products and practices to prepare for the likelihood that some pesticides will be phased out as FQPA is implemented.

From the perspective of the food processor, they are going do whatever it takes to protect the reputations of the company and their products. If there is a lack of data concerning pesticide residues on processed foods, EPA uses pesticide residue data for raw agricultural commodities, which typically have much higher residues. Rather than running the risk of tainting their reputation by trying to protect a pesticide(s) from cancellation, the food processors will err on the side of caution and switch pesticides/management practices rather than fight FQPA.

Producers in countries such as Canada and in Europe may be blind-sided by new FQPA rules. Experts outside the U.S. are saying it is too early to say whether other countries will copy the American's cumulative approach to pesticide exposure, but they may have to because of trade pressures. Also on the international scene concerning FQPA, the International Life Science Institute is suggesting that there is no need to set a special daily intake level of pesticide residues in children or to incorporate a special safety factor (the additional 10X safety factor) for children. While the average daily intake levels of pesticide residues should consider susceptibilities of special populations, they believe separate ADIs should not be established, nor should special "uncertainty factors" be established for infants and children when ADIs are being developed. They contend that if the data show that children are not more susceptible than adults to disease from exposure to these substances, then EPA has the legal opportunity not to use an extra safety factor.
Chemical Regulation Reporter; Jan. 30 & Feb. 13, 1998
Food Chemical News; Feb. 2 & 9, 1998
Ontario Farmer; Feb. 17, 1998 via Agnet; Feb. 24, 1998
Chemical Regulation Reporter; Feb. 6, 1998
Pesticide and Toxic Chemical News; Jan. 28, 1998
Chemically Speaking ; March 1998

EPA Must Decide Whether Food Quality Act Protects Kids or Bugs
By Michael Fumento April 28, 1998
(Senior Fellow with the Environmental Regulatory Project and a Science Advisor to the Atlantic Legal Foundation )

Picture the robot from "Lost in Space" frantically waving its arms and crying, "Warning! Warning!" Whenever you hear of a unanimous vote in both the House and Senate on something other than a mere resolution, we should have that robot around. Such votes usually mean there was little or no debate, and a lot of people voted for something they didn't really understand.

So it was with the unanimous vote for the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA), mandating that the EPA set new standards for pesticide use, with special emphasis on children. It SEEMED to Congress like a good idea at the time; after all, who's against food quality and safe kids? But the actual wording presents a nightmare for American farmers, consumers, and especially consumers' children.

Among the problems of the FQPA: It doesn't weigh risks against benefits, be they health or cost. Such an approach would be disastrous if applied generally in our lives. Consider the recent report finding that over 100,000 Americans die each year from PROPER use of prescription and over-the-counter drugs. Yet nobody has called for eliminating drugs. Why? Because these same drugs are clearly saving far more lives than they take and also improving the quality of lives.

But FQPA allows no such rationality much to the delight of some environmentalist activist groups. One, the D.C.-based Environmental Working Group (EWG), has demanded an immediate ban on all household use of organophosphates. Yet organophosphates comprise one of the most common and useful classes of insecticide because while effective on a huge range of bugs, nothing short of massive (read: suicidal) ingestion can kill even a small child.

Currently with most pesticides, we determine allowable exposure on foods by taking the minimum amount that caused harm in lab animals and divide it by ten to allow for differences between animals and humans. (Although humans may as easily be more resistant to the chemical as less.) We divide this by another ten to allow for more susceptible humans. But the FQPA allows for ANOTHER division by ten ostensibly to protect children. Environmental activists want this broadly invoked.

But children are ALREADY accounted for in the first division by ten in that some of the testing involves infant and fetal animals, and in the second division by ten in that they fall into the "more susceptible human" category.

It allows evaluating combined or concurrent exposures of different pesticides. If the chemicals have similar effects, this makes sense. But this allows groups like the EWG to issue warnings and demand protection from nonsensical combined hypothetical exposures. If you're going to measure combinations, you've got to MEASURE them, not conceive possible worst-case scenarios.

The EPA will issue new regulations in the next few months, and may grant the environmental extremists their every wish. But first the Agency must consider the downside of any ban, any restriction, any decrease in the amount of exposure allowed. It must consider that: If there were better alternatives, farmers would be using them. Prevent them from using any one insecticide and you force them to switch to an inferior one that requires more chemical per acre, increasing the chance of run-off into water supplies. For some crops, there are currently NO replacements. We could also be replacing extremely well-studied insecticides (organophosphates have been used safely for 30 years) with those about which we know much less.

Some crops may no longer be price competitive. This means we will be bringing in food from other countries where regulations on insecticides and food handling are much less stringent.

Produce prices will rise in the store. Already too many American children seem to think fruits and vegetables are what our ancestors or dinosaurs ate. If two Big Macs can still be purchased for $1.99 and the cost of apples and broccoli go up, parents will buy even less produce and their children will eat even less.

Finally, asthma deaths have increased by an appalling six times in recent years mostly among inner-city blacks. The main cause? Cockroaches, or more specifically-as the EPA Office of Air Quality might call it-cockroach tailpipe emissions. Replacing the best household bug killers with inferior ones is breathtakingly cruel.

In recent years, environmentalists have popularized the term "environmental racism," meaning minorities sometimes seem to get the short end of the pollution stick. Condemning them to ever-growing rates of asthma may well qualify.

The FQPA was a good idea gone bad. How bad now depends on how the EPA decides to implement it. The Agency could decide in favor of consumers, farmers, children who need fruits and vegetables and children who need to breathe. Or it can cast its lot with environmental activists who seize any opportunity to reduce the use of any pesticide.

We know which side the bugs are rooting for.

The Working Description of an Endocrine Disruptor

EPA's Endocrine Disruptor Screening and Testing Advisory Committee has now come to an agreement on a "description" of what an endocrine disruptor is. This action marks the resolution of what had become a highly controversial issue in the development of a screening and testing program for pesticides and industrial chemicals.

An endocrine disruptor is now described as "an exogenous chemical substance or mixture that alters the structure or function(s) of the endocrine system and causes adverse effects, either at the level of the organism, its progeny, and populations or subpopulations of organisms, based on scientific principles, data, weight-of-evidence, and the precautionary principle." The Committee considers endocrine disruption to reflect mechanisms of action that may lead to adverse outcomes including carcinogenic, reproductive, or developmental effects that need to be routinely considered in reaching regulatory decisions.

A key point in the panel's discussion was whether to categorize all endocrine effects as adverse or non-adverse. Underlying the debate was a recognition that hormone systems can fluctuate and recover, so changes therefore would not necessarily lead to adverse effects.

A description of endocrine disruption was developed because what started as a quest for a definition became long, complicated, and would involve more than one sentence, so the Committee decided to call it a description instead. This new description is important because at some point, pesticides and chemicals that are evaluated in the laboratory and animal testing scheme EPA establishes could be labeled as endocrine disruptors.
Chemical Regulation Reporter; March 6 and 20, 1998
Chemically Speaking ; April 1998

The UN and Pesticide Trade

A total of 95 countries contributed to and agreed on the text for a new global treaty regulating the import and export of pesticides and industrial chemicals. The United Nations agreement was reached in spite of disagreements among some industrialized countries over classification, labeling, and overall scope issues. This pact initially covers 17 pesticides that will be subject to a Prior Informed Consent (PIC) process. Under the new treaty, exporting countries will be legally bound to inform importing countries about exports of chemicals banned or severely restricted in the exporting country. Countries that plan to import certain PIC listed pesticides will be allowed to refuse the shipment. The PIC treaty is open for signature and ratification in September, and is expected to trigger changes in U.S. pesticide control laws. A review committee has been established that will soon add 100 or more pesticides and chemicals to the list.

One unique feature of the PIC treaty is that it allows developing countries to nominate a specific pesticide formulation to the list of substances for which prior notification is required. This notification provision allows countries where the substance may not/cannot be used safely to decide to prohibit certain imports. The provision was aimed at providing developing countries some control over older, less expensive, yet highly toxic pesticides.

The treaty initially covers pesticides including 2,4,5-T, aldrin, captafol (Difolatan), chlordane, chlordimeform (Galecron/Fundal), chlorobenzilate (Acaraben/Benzilan), DDT, dieldrin, dinoseb, 1,2-dibromoethane (ethylene dibromide, or EDB), fluoroacetamide, hexachlorocyclohexane, heptachlor, hexachlorobenzene (No Bunt), lindane, pentachlorophenol, and mercury compounds. Industrial chemicals included in the initial PIC list include such things as PCBs and PBBs.
Chemical Regulation Reporter; March 20, 1998
Reuters; March 9, 1998
Chemically Speaking ; April 1998

EPA ISSUES DRAFT GUIDANCE TO PREVENT MISLEADING PUBLIC HEALTH CLAIMS ON PRODUCTS TREATED WITH MATERIALS PRESERVATIVES

In an effort to prevent the public from being misled that certain products protect consumers from germs and bacteria, EPA has issued draft guidance to clarify the claims it permits under its treated articles policy. Under this policy, pesticides that are incorporated into a product for the purpose of protecting the product from the growth of bacteria and other microorganisms must be registered with EPA. When used to protect products in this way, these pesticides are known as materials preservatives. There is no evidence that the use of materials preservatives in a product protects consumers from germs and bacteria. In its draft guidance, EPA provides instruction on the claims that are acceptable on products when they've been treated with a materials preservative. These claims are restricted to stating that the material preservative will only protect the product. EPA is issuing this draft guidance in response to a growing number of public health claims that are being made for products, such as cutting boards, utensils and toys, that have been treated with chemical preservatives and other pesticides. Under EPA's treated articles policy, these public health claims are not legal. EPA is accepting comments on its draft guidance until May 11. Copies of the guidance may be obtained as follows: by fax, call 202-401-0527 and select item 6110; electronically at:
http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/.
For additional information, contact Walter Francis at 703-308-6419 or e-mail, francis.walter@epamail.epa.gov.
EPA Press Release 04/24/98
Washington, DC
.

EPA AND CANADIAN PMRA COMPLETE JOINT REVIEW TO REGISTER NEW REDUCED RISK FUNGICIDE

A new reduced risk fungicide has been registered by EPA and the Canadian Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) that have been working together on their first joint review conducted under the North American Free Trade Agreement. EPA has approved the product for use in the U.S. on a broad range of fruit and nut crops, including almonds, grapes, apples, pears, peaches, cherries, nectarines, plums, prunes and other crops. The new product was developed by Novartis, Greensboro, N.C., and will be marketed by its trade name, Vangard. The active ingredient of Vangard is a chemical known as cyprodinil. The review of cyprodinil was expedited under NAFTA because it is a reduced risk product that is less toxic to humans than several fungicides currently used on fruit and nut crops. Under NAFTA, EPA and Canada are seeking to jointly review and register reduced risk pesticides on an expedited basis, and to provide regulatory consistency across borders. In addition, the 1996 Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) directs EPA to give priority to the registration of reduced risk pesticides and requires the development of new standards that are more protective of children. EPA and the Canadian PMRA accomplished their review and registered cyprodinil in less one year. More information on cyprodinil is available on EPA's website at:
http://www.epa.gov/oppfead1/international/naftaturgEPA
Press Release 04/17/98

TOTAL PESTICIDE USE IN EUROPE

According to the European Crop Protection Association's 1996/97 annual report, the European pesticide industry grew for the third straight year in 1996. The Association said that Western Europe's pesticide market value amounted to approximately $8.2 billion in 1996, up 8.3 percent since 1995. Volume sales of pesticide active ingredients climbed 6 percent, reversing the trend of declining sales since 1992. A combination of higher global grain prices, increased plantings and favorable rainfall contributed to higher demand for pesticides in the region. Europe represents approximately 29.5 percent of the $30.5 billion world pesticide market.

Sales within individual European nations varies widely. According to The Pesticides Trust (UK), Finland, Ireland, Luxembourg and Sweden all purchase relatively small quantities of pesticides, less than 5,000 tonnes per year. France and Italy, on the other hand, purchased approximately 88,000 and 79,000 tonnes respectively in 1997. In addition, some countries have been actively working to reduce pesticide reliance. Since the late 1980s, Sweden, Holland and Denmark have pursued national pesticide use reduction policies that have decreased the volume of pesticides applied in those countries (although they still use much more on a per acre basis than in the U.S.).
Pesticide News; March 1998
Chemically Speaking ; April 1998

A New Active Ingredient Registration, effective March 19, has been issued for Dow AgroScience's Firstrate Herbicide (cloransulam-methyl), for broadleaf weed control in soybeans. This registration is conditional, with an expiration date of October 19, 2001.
FDACS Communication; March 20, 1998

A new report entitled "Agriculture, Methyl Bromide and the Ozone Hole: Can We Fill the Gaps?" outlines the status of stimulated research into alternatives for the fumigant, and is now available to interested persons. The report is written by collaborators from EPA and North Carolina State University, and can be downloaded from the American Phytopathological Society's Web site at
http://www.scisoc.org, or call (612) 454-7250 to receive a paper copy.
Chemically Speaking ; April 1998

Expiration of Flutolanil Registration

The tolerance for flutolanil (Moncut) residues on rice will expire on April 30, 1998. EPA cannot at this time extend or convert the time-limited tolerances to permanent tolerances. AgrEvo, the company that manufactured flutolanil and held its registration, failed to submit the required residue chemistry data (six crop field trials and an independent validation of a revised analytical method) in a timely manner, and EPA cannot perform the risk assessment required by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Food Quality Protection Act before the tolerance expires. EPA is reviewing data in support of a Section 3 registration for flutolanil use on rice, but a decision is not expected to be made for this growing season.

This means that growers cannot legally distribute in commerce rice products containing residues of flutolanil that are the result of flutolanil applications after April 30, 1998. Under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, rice products used for food and/or animal feed containing residues of flutolanil, resulting from the use of flutolanil after the tolerance for this pesticide has expired, are deemed to be adulterated if any detectable residues are found and could be subject to enforcement action by the Food and Drug Administration. Crops that are treated with flutolanil before the expiration date are not affected. The Agency has asked AgrEvo to submit label amendments removing the use on rice from their product labels -Moncut (EPA reg. # 45639-195, 45639-203, 45639-206, and 45639-207).

Flutolanil is registered for use on rice to control sheath blight and sheath blast. Other fungicides which are registered on rice to control these diseases are basic copper sulfate, benomyl, iprodione, propiconazole, and thiabendazole. Emergency exemptions, under Section 18 of FIFRA, have been granted to Louisiana and Mississippi for azoxystrobin (product name Quadris) use on rice. EPA expects to grant similar emergency exemptions to Texas and Arkansas later this week. A decision on whether to grant a Section 3 registration for azoxystrobin (a reduced risk pesticide) will be made in July/August 1998.

Flutolanil is also used on peanuts, turf and ornamentals. The outstanding data requirements pertain to rice and do not affect the other tolerances. If you have any questions on this matter, please call Peter Caulkins, Deputy Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs at 703-305-5447.

Wisconsin officials are using a $600,000 ultraviolet oxidation system to break down various pesticides that contaminated groundwater following a fire at an agricultural warehouse.
Wisconsin State Journal; March 7, 1998
Chemically Speaking ; April 1998

Also from Monsanto: the company announced that their Roundup Ready corn seed is essentially sold out in its debut season, having marketed enough product to plant 750,000 acres.
Bridge; March 24, 1998
Chemically Speaking ; April 1998

According to a 1996-97 ARS study of 24 tobacco budworms and 43 cotton bollworm colonies in nine states, resistance to Bacillus thuringiensis (B.t.) has not increased in these two species.
Food Chemical News; Jan. 26, 1998

The Dekalb seed company is planning to market 1.4 million acres worth of B.t. corn seed in the U.S. for the 1998 season.
Agricultural Chemical News; Jan. 1998

Researchers at the University of California, Davis, have shown that plants realize a net benefit when their internal defense systems are "jump started" by leaf-munching insects, thus warding off major damage from later pests. These inducible immune-like responses are common throughout the plant kingdom and are being studied to demonstrate their adaptive nature and potential as an alternative to chemical pesticides in agricultural crops. The study confirms the benefit of these responses and raises the question of why such defensive mechanisms evolved so that they can be switched on and off, rather than remaining constantly active. Inducible responses have been observed in plants for more than 100 years, but have been experimentally confirmed only in the last two decades.
Health Notes; Feb. 20, 1998
Chemically Speaking ; March 1998

Monsanto has predicted that there will be 70 million acres of Roundup Ready soybeans planted in the U.S. this year, along with 600,000 acres of Roundup Ready corn, 12 million acres of Yield Gard corn, and 5.5 million acres of Roundup Ready BollGard cotton. There will be an $18/unit technical fee this year for Roundup Ready corn seed.
Agricultural Chemical News; April 1998
Chemically Speaking ; April 1998

CANCER

The National Center for Policy Analysis has issued a report that calls for the nation's priorities in fighting cancer to be reexamined. The report asserts that more energy should be focused on the largest causes of cancer such as diet, lack of exercise and smoking, rather than on expensive regulation of chemicals that pose a relatively small risk.

The report, written by Bruce Ames, the director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences Center, University of California at Berkeley, and Lois Swirsky-Gold, director of the center's Carcinogenic Potency Project, is entitled "Misconceptions About Environmental Pollution, Pesticides, and the Causes of Cancer." The authors say that poor diet accounts for about one-third of the cancer risk, while exposure to synthetic chemicals is much less risky. Human exposure to carcinogenic pesticides was listed as minuscule compared with the background of exposure to carcinogens produced by nature. In fact, more than 99.9 percent of all pesticides humans eat are naturally produced by plants to defend themselves against fungi, insects and other animal predators. Americans eat about 10,000 times more natural pesticides per person, per day (measured by weight) than they consume of synthetic pesticide residues. While the study found that more than half the natural chemicals in fruits and vegetables tested cause cancer in laboratory rats and mice at very high doses, people are far more likely to get cancer if they do not eat these foods. This is because fruits and vegetables contain chemicals that help fight cancer, while naturally occurring carcinogens are present in such small amounts they are not likely to be significant causes of cancer. There was no convincing evidence that synthetic chemical pollutants were important for human cancer.

The authors assert that prevention of cancer will come from knowledge obtained from biomedical research, education of the public, and lifestyle changes by individuals. If reducing synthetic pesticides makes fruits and vegetables more expensive, decreasing their consumption, then cancer will be increased, particularly for the poor.

The report also lists 10 common "misconceptions" about cancer and toxicology. One common misconception is that synthetic chemicals pose a greater risk of cancer than natural chemicals. Historically, the focus of regulatory policy has been on synthetic chemicals, although 99.9 percent of the chemicals humans ingest are natural. As an example, "more than 1,000 chemicals have been described in coffee: 28 have been tested and 19 are rodent carcinogens. Plants in the human diet contain thousands of natural pesticides that protect them from insects and other predators: 63 have been tested and 35 are rodent carcinogens." The report goes on to say that the high doses used in rodent carcinogenicity testing actually have little relationship to the low doses encountered in normal human exposure to chemicals.

Another misconception relates pesticides and hormone disruption. Pesticides and other synthetic chemicals are often wrongly blamed for disrupting these hormone systems. According to the report, the normal diet of humans "contains natural chemicals that have estrogenic activity millions of times higher than that due to traces of synthetic estrogenic chemicals. Many lifestyle factors, such as reproductive history, lack of exercise, obesity, and alcohol intake, influence hormone levels and therefore increase" cancer risks.

Although Ames developed the standard test for potential carcinogens (the Ames Test, used by scientists to detect whether a chemical causes mutations and is therefore likely to cause cancer in laboratory tests), he is now concerned that the animal cancer test results are misleading. In fact, he is not sure that it is the chemical itself that actually causes cancer in laboratory experiments. He has been quoted as saying "evidence suggests that it is the high doses themselves, not the chemicals tested, that cause cancer."

The EPA estimates that it costs society about $140 billion a year, more than $1,000 for every household, to pay for environmental regulations. Many of these regulations are designed to protect people from low-level exposure to synthetic chemicals that cause cancer in rodents. The study suggests that this may not be money well spent. Exposures to synthetic pollutants are "tiny and rarely seem toxicologically plausible as a causal factor, particularly when compared to the background of natural chemicals that are rodent carcinogens." Copies of the report are available for a fee by calling (800) 859-1154 or (972) 386-6272.
Daily Environment Report, April 10, 1998
Chemical Regulation Reporter; April 10, 1998
Chemically Speaking ; April 1998

Children's Diets and Pesticide Residues

A new study being conducted by USDA will involve visiting of approximately 5,000 children's households this year to compile information on pesticide residues in their diets. The survey was designed in response to provisions set in the Food Quality Protection Act.

EPA will use data from this new survey to estimate pesticide exposure. This survey has been designed to cover the diets of children between birth and 10 years of age. The information will then be combined with food intake data collected during a larger survey from about 5,700 children up to the age of 18.

Interviewers will collect food intake data covering two days for each child, from children in more than 60 areas of the country. They will interview the parents or other care givers to obtain information on foods eaten by children younger than six years old during the previous 24 hours. For children six through nine years of age, the interviews will be with the children themselves, with additional details coming from their adult care givers. Interviewers will visit each household again to gather the second day's data for each child.
Food Chemical News; Dec. 29, 1997
Chemically Speaking ; March 1998

According to speakers from Iowa State University and The University of Guelph at a recent IPM Symposium in Canada, more pesticides are dumped into swimming pools than are sprayed on all farm fields and orchards. Most of the pesticides applied to swimming pools are to control algae.
Ontario Farmer; March 17, 1998 via Agnet; March 20, 1998

European researchers, who were looking for pesticide residues in lakes, streams and rivers, have discovered that pharmaceuticals used to treat heart disease, infections, and other human ills are passing through patients and making it into water systems, including drinking water. It is believed that these pharmaco-pollutants are being carried into water in the urine and feces of people who have taken the drugs. Traces of the compounds are then surviving waste water treatments. The drugs will likely be found in U.S. drinking water once scientists begin to look.
UPI; March 20, 1998

Results of a study conducted by the National Cancer Institute on lawn care pesticide applicators says that applicators do not face extra risks from using pesticides. The study examined the records of 32,600 employees of TruGreen-Chemlawn hired before December 31, 1990. Employees working as lawn, tree, and shrub pest control applicators were found to exhibit mortality rates and disease patterns similar to those found in the general population. The employees will need to be evaluated long-term in order to draw conclusions about diseases that may take many years to develop. Conversely, the use of pesticides in French vineyards is being suspected as a contributing factor to the abnormal level of brain tumor deaths seen among producers and agricultural workers there. A report published in the Archives of Environmental Health found that 258 French farmers or agricultural workers died of brain tumors in the 1984-86 period, compared with the 201 brain tumor deaths statistically expected for a similar sized sampling of the genera population. A particularly high level of brain tumor deaths were in southern France, where wine-making activities are the most concentrated.
Journal of Occupational and Env. Medicine, 39: 1055-1087 via the Label; Jan. 1998
Chemical Regulation Reporter; Feb. 20, 1998
Chemically Speaking ; March 1998

EPA's proposed brochure, "Pesticides on Food: Consumer Information," has been called "alarmist" by the grocery industry and "Milquetoast" by environmental and consumer groups. The produce industry says the brochure, which is mandated by the Food Quality Protection Act, would frighten consumers instead of encouraging them to eat fruit and vegetables. They also feel the brochure goes overboard on organic food. Consumer groups feel the brochure fails to inform people of the risks of pesticides.
Washington Post; March 11, 1998
Chemically Speaking ; March 1998

EPA PROMOTES SAFER USE OF INSECT REPELLENT DEET

New labeling requirements to ensure the safe use of insect repellents containing DEET (N,N-diethyl-meta-toluamide) have been issued by EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs. EPA is issuing the new labeling requirements as a result of a comprehensive review of the most recent health and safety data available on DEET, the active ingredient in the most widely used insect repellents (used by approximately one-third of the U.S. population each year). Based on its review EPA has determined that DEET, if used as directed, will not pose significant health risks to consumers. However, EPA is requiring changes to current labels to ensure that DEET is applied safely, particularly on children. Specifically, companies that make and distribute DEET products will no longer be able to claim that their products are Achild safe,@ and new labels will direct parents to not allow children to handle this product. Currently, Achild safe@ claims are allowed on products containing 15% or less of the active ingredient DEET. New directions for use will also include, for example, the following statements: do not use on hands or near eyes and mouth of young children; do not use under clothing; avoid over application of this product; after returning indoors, wash treated skin with soap and water and wash treated clothing.

DEET is registered by EPA for both human and veterinary uses to help prevent bites from mosquitos, ticks, and other biting insects that may transmit disease, including Lyme disease, malaria, encephalitis and others. Manufacturers and distributors will be required to incorporate labeling changes within two years. More information on DEET and the use of other insect repellents is available on EPA's website at:
http://www.epa.pesticides
or call EPA's Communication Services Branch at 703-305-5017.

The thought of pesticide residues on food raises a red flag in the minds of many consumers. However, not all pesticide residues are unhealthy, and in some cases pesticides actually increase the safety of foods, according to toxicologists with expertise in the area of food safety at the University of California, Davis. In specific cases, pesticides may effectively reduce the levels of naturally occurring toxins produced by the plants in response to insect stress or by fungi that live on the plants. There are risks associated with naturally occurring toxins, including aflatoxins in corn and a newly discovered class of toxins known as fumonisins found on corn and tomatoes. These scientists suggest that the EPA's pesticide residue regulations need to be fine-tuned to better reflect the relative benefits and risks presented by a pesticide when used on a specific crop. Specifically, they believe that health-based limits for pesticide residues need to be identified, because current pesticide 'tolerance levels' only indicate whether the grower used chemicals on the crop.
Univ. of California, Davis News Service; March 31, 1998
Chemically Speaking ; April 1998

Freed from the restraints of his government role, former FDA commissioner David Kessler spoke forcefully in favor of a single federal food safety agency at a recent forum on food irradiation. Kessler is now the dean of the School of Medicine at Yale University. "We lurch from one outbreak to the next in a haphazard, sometimes inconsistent fashion," he said. "Sooner or later, the public will insist that the federal government speak with one voice" on food safety, he added.
Food Regulation Weekly; April 13, 1998
Chemically Speaking ; April 1998

Researchers at Louisiana State University in Baton Rouge reported in Nature (vol. 392, page 558) that they found trace amounts of the mothball chemical naphthalene in the nests of the Formosan subterranean termite. They found that the termites are more tolerant of naphthalene than their natural enemies, such as fire ants. However, the researchers did not know whether the nests contain sufficient naphthalene to repel the invaders. Further experiments should reveal whether the fumigant comes from the termites themselves, or from microorganisms sharing the nest.
Chemically Speaking ; April 1998

Mice and ants reportedly eat up to 95 percent of the weed seeds deposited in no-till agricultural plots. The province of Ontario, Canada is trying to reduce total pesticide use by 50 percent by the year 2002. Scientists estimate that there are 30,000 times as many beneficial organisms on the earth as there are harmful ones. A new herbicide is being examined that is extracted from the roots of the tree-of-heaven, a weed tree. The discoverers are hoping the herbicide's use might someday be as widespread as Roundup. The extract, however, will not kill tree-of-heaven seedlings because the plant is immune to its own toxin.

85% of consumers would like to have odorless pesticides.
77% of consumers are concerned about their exposure to pesticides in their homes or at work.
66% of consumers believe that pesticides cause cancer.
83% of consumers are willing to pay more for a pest control operator who uses less pesticide to control pests.
The Gainesville Sun; Dec. 27, 1997
Pest Control Tech.; Jan. 1998 via the Agromedicine Program Update; Feb. 1998
Chemically Speaking ; March 1998

Agriculture is one of the most dangerous occupations in the country, with 673 deaths on farms in 1992 and almost 65,000 other injuries that caused people to miss at least one day of work.
AP; Jan. 31, 1998
Chemically Speaking ; March 1998

The largest documented cause of injuries and fatalities to farm workers in California is . . . . . motor vehicle crashes as workers commute from field to field and farm to farm.
California Agriculture; Jan./Feb. 1998
Chemically Speaking ; March 1998

Scientists at USDA's Agricultural Research Service Laboratory have determined that strawberries exposed to methyl jasmonate vapor for 24 hours at 68 degrees resisted gray mold (Botrytis cinerea), for 14 days with no change in fruit firmness. The sweet-smelling methyl jasmonate is a natural compound found in certain plants that protects produce from pathogens and doubles shelf life. It is thought that methyl jasmonate rouses proteins in living plants and harvested produce that make them more resistant to temperature changes and attack by insects, bacteria, and fungi. The proteins lead to production of antifungal or antibacterial compounds. Treatment of fresh-cut celery and green peppers eliminated browning and decreased bacterial growth a thousandfold for up to two weeks at 50 degrees. The treatment also controlled soft rot on the peppers. Methyl jasmonate is available commercially and is inexpensive. Truckloads of produce can be treated with 25 milliliters (less than one ounce), which costs about $30. It acts within a couple of hours and leaves no residue. More details on methyl jasmonate are available on the World Wide Web at:
http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/AR/archive/feb98/fres0298.htm,
or contact USDA-ARS Horticultural Crops Quality Laboratory, Beltsville, MD 20705, phone (301) 504-6128; fax (301) 504-5107.
USDA ARS News Service; Feb. 10, 1998
Chemically Speaking ; March 1998

In a recent study of pesticides detected in water, there was a much greater rate of detection, and higher pesticide levels, in urban and suburban areas than in row-crop agricultural areas, although all detections were low. Diazinon was detected in every urban and suburban sample. Since commercial lawn services and golf courses do not use diazinon, the most likely source of diazinon is use by homeowners.
U.S. Geological Survey, 97-48 via the GA Pest Mgt. Newsletter; Nov./Dec. 1997

EPA has issued a final list of contaminants that it will consider in setting priorities under the Safe Water Act. The list will be used in the next few years to determine research, health advisory and regulatory priorities. The Agency currently regulates 83 contaminants in drinking water. The list will soon be published in the Federal Register, or, interested persons can receive the list from EPA's Safe Drinking Water Hotline at (800) 426-4791, and via the Internet at
http://www.epa.gov/ogwdw.
EPA Press Release; Feb. 20, 1998

MISSISSIPPI WOMAN PLEADS GUILTY TO PESTICIDE CHARGES

On April 8, Margaret Stewart of Clarksdale, Miss., pleaded guilty in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi in Oxford to one count of violating the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act by illegally selling the pesticide Endosulfan in a container that was not properly marked. Endosulfan is an organophosphate pesticide which is highly toxic to the nervous system. Exposure to it can cause headache, nausea, vomiting, dizziness, tremors, convulsions, coma and death from respiratory arrest. When Endosulfan is mixed with water it turns a milky white color. Minnie Lou Rudd of Batesville, Miss., died after she mistakenly drank a mixture of endosulfan and water that was purchased from Stewart in a milk container. When sentenced, the defendant faces a maximum sentence of up to one year in prison and a fine of up to $100,000. The case was investigated by EPA's Criminal Investigation Division, the FBI and the Mississippi Department of Agriculture and Commerce.