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

August, 1998

In This Issue

Arkansas News
1 Pesticides: Risk Verses Benfits

National News
1 FQPA Testimony
2 All This DespiteThe Fact
2 Food With Residues To Be "Named...."

Health and Safety
3 MD School Pesticide Law
3 Idaho Employer Indicted
3 Louisiana Man Indicted
3 Clothes Encounters
4 It comes Down to Junior

Registration News
4 Rhone-Poulenc
4 Captan Task Force
5 EPA

Biotech/IPM/Advanced Technology News
5 News Nozzles Prevent Drift

Did You Know?
5 Town Grass and Counrtry Water
6 The Do-It-Yourselfer
6 About Some Common Pests
7 New York City Restaurants
7 More......

Pesticides: Risk Verses Benefits or Risk Verses Risk?

In this issue of the Arkansas Pesticide News there are articles that address the concern about the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA). As you are probably aware the FQPA requires that the EPA re-register most of the presently used pesticides, with in some cases significantly lower tolerances due to the "risk cup" method of ascertaining the aggregate exposure of the general population.

One major difficulty with the risk cup method has been the conservative assessment of risk from the different sources of exposure, with a particular concern for exposure of our children to residues from their food and environment. With that in mind, you will see several articles that mention the concern for potential exposure at the workplace, schools, home and even the well maintained lawn! Couple this concern with news about individuals who knowingly violate the rules and regulations for pesticide use or proper handling/disposal of hazardous materials, and it is no surprise why segments of the general public are very proactive against pesticides! It is hard for many of us to remember or be cognizant of the fact that the use of pesticides has resulted in a much better quality of life, one we would not have without chemical tools. Through the discovery and use of pesticides the world has seen a drastic reduction of insect borne diseases and a safe and bountiful food supply. Diseases such as plague, yellow fever, ergotism, and malaria are very uncommon in developed countries like ours. So uncommon are these diseases that most of us really have no experience with them and, consequently, little fear of them. What would be the risk if we didn't have the appropriate or most effective chemical tools available anymore? Similarly, an abundant and safe food supply has always been available to most of us. Have any of us experienced a shortage of food in our lifetime? Not me! Our grandparents or great grandparents are the ones who may remember the days when these diseases and food shortages were prevalent and of major concern. I would suspect that they would strongly believe that the very small risk associated with pesticide use would more than be justified by the benefits. Yet, today many people seem to think that any risk is unacceptable no matter the benefit. Maybe rather than assessing pesticides with a risk verses benefit "ruler" it should be a risk verses risk assessment, the risk of the generally very small exposures to pesticide residues verses the risks of contracting a disease or even an epidemic. As the FQPA is implemented let's remember some of the history of why pesticides have come into being. They aren't just for the convenience and esthetics of having pretty flowers in the garden or a well manicured lawn. Let's not have to relearn history by repeating it.

FQPA Testimony

The following excerpts are from testimony presented to the EPA Pesticide Dialogue Committee in April of this year by Dr. Carl Winter. Dr. Winter is the Director of the Foodsafe Program in the Department of Food Science and Technology at the University of California, Davis.

"My name is Carl Winter. I am an Associate Extension Food Toxicologist on the faculty of the Department of Food Science and Technology at the University of California at Davis and I direct the University's FoodSafe Program. I hold a Ph.D. in Agricultural and Environmental Chemistry and a B.S. in Environmental Toxicology, both from Davis. In ten years on the faculty of the University of California, my program has focused on pesticide residues, natural food toxins, and risk assessment. During that period, I have not received any funding support from the agricultural, food, or chemical industries.

I also represent the Institute of Food Technologists, a scientific society composed of 28,000 members working in food science, technology, and related professions in industry, academia, and government. I serve the Institute as a designated Food Science Communicator as well as the Chair-Elect of the Toxicology and Safety Evaluation Division. I recently coauthored an Institute Scientific Status Summary on assessing, managing, and communicating chemical food risks that has been distributed to PPDC members as a primer discussing many of the risk assessment issues being considered by this committee such as uncertainty factors, threshold levels, and high-to-low dose extrapolation.

I am here today to address two issues:
1) The extremely low risks posed by pesticide residues in food; and
2) My concerns with the overly conservative risk assessment methods that may be used by the EPA in its interpretation of the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) that may lead to scientifically unjustified decisions that could significant and adversely impact agriculture of California and the nation.

I'll start with the second issue first. When the bill was passed in the summer of 1996, I was initially pleased. The spirit of the bill, in my opinion, was to provide greater scientific flexibility in assessing the risks posed by pesticides in food to aid in improved regulatory practices. The bill replaced the rigid and anachronistic zero-risk Delaney Clause with a framework that allowed input of the best possible science into the risk assessment process. After following FQPA developments over the past twenty months, I have become very concerned with the direction of EPA's efforts to implement it. My concerns are that the conservative nature of the assumptions used to calculate risks may result in the development of phantom risks that exist only on paper as a result of stacking or multiplying layers of conservatism; such exaggerations of risk may ultimately lead to unsound regulatory decisions.

Obviously, risk assessment is a complicated process that requires a multitude of assumptions to be made. Most of us are aware of the 100-fold uncertainty factor that is typically used in the assessment of threshold risks from chemicals such as pesticides which assumes that
1) humans are ten times more sensitive to chemicals than the most sensitive laboratory animals tested; and that
2) some humans are ten times more sensitive than the average human.

What fewer people are aware of, I believe, is that a variety of lesser-known assumptions are also inherent in the risk assessment process that also may dramatically exaggerate risks. The determination of pesticide use, residue levels, and food consumption estimates typically use conservative assumptions and it is likely that aggregate exposure estimates considering water and residential exposure will also be exaggerated. It is critical to realize that even the No Observed Effect Level (NOEL), from which the reference doses are derived, also tend to be conservative. As an example, if a chronic animal toxicology study yielded a NOEL of 10 mg/kg/day and a Lowest Observed Effect Level of 200 mg/kg/day, the "true" NOEL could be anywhere between 10 and 200 mg/kg/day and certainly much higher than 10.

Such exaggerations of risk become even greater when considering cumulative risks from toxicologically-related pesticides such as the organophosphates; in practice, this results in stacking all of the conservatism of the individual pesticide risk assessments, leading to a "super-exaggerated" risk. And, on top of all of this, there is consideration given to applying an additional 10-fold safety factor to the risk assessment of sensitive population subgroups such as infants and children.

In my opinion, the compounding of the various conservative assumptions leads to the generation of phantom risks that exist only on paper but not in reality. What this means is that the proposed "risk cup" is more likely taking on the shape of a medicine dropper. With all of the focus on the treatment of the uncertainties inherent in the risk assessment process, it is convenient to overlook what is known about pesticide residues in foods. Results from hundreds of thousands of food residue analyses conducted by state and federal agencies and the food industry consistently indicate that the levels of residues, when indeed detected, remain extremely low. The risks posed by residues are perhaps reflected best by the results of the Food and Drug Administration's Total Diet Study, a comprehensive market basket survey performed annually that analyzes food for residues at the time of consumption. As an example, consider this scenario:
1) Take the typical human daily exposure to a pesticide obtained from the Total Diet Study.
2) Now feed laboratory animals 10,000 times the typical human daily exposure (on the basis of body weight) every day throughout their lifetimes.
3) What happens to the animals?
In general, nothing happens. For any noticeable effects to be observed, animals generally need to be exposed to doses greater than 10,000 times our typical daily dose. Does this prove the safety of pesticide residues? Certainly not. But it does explain why there is strong skepticism among many members of the health community, myself included, over whether pesticide residue controls need to be tightened.

So to summarize, I am concerned that the paths EPA may take in assessing risks according to its interpretation of FQPA may create theoretical phantom risks that exist only on paper. Basing regulatory actions on such exaggerated estimates of risk may have immense consequences. By unnecessarily restricting the uses of many pest control products, there may be risk tradeoffs through substitution of less effective chemicals that could increase worker safety, environmental, and resistance management concerns. Food production and quality may also be affected, leading to lower availability and higher consumer cost for fruits and vegetables. Effects could be dramatic in states such as California, where I live, which is by far the leading agricultural producer in the nation. Almost all of California fruit and vegetable production centers on its 250 "minor" crops which may be most affected by unnecessary pesticide restrictions.

It is hard to argue against the safety of infants and children. As the father of four- and six-year-old boys, I strive to do everything I can to ensure their health and safety. But if we are really concerned about what they eat, we should encourage their consumption of healthy fruits and vegetables rather than possibly restrict their access due to lower availability and increased cost which may result from regulatory decisions that emanate from exaggerated estimates of risk. It is critical that regulations are based on the best estimates of risk and not the worst."

The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) panel that inspired FQPA said they did NOT believe a new law was needed to protect infantsand children from potential adverse effects of pesticide residues in food, according to an EPA official who served on the panel that wrote the report. Congress, nevertheless, passed FQPA unanimously, based on the NAS report Pesticides in the Diets of Infants and Children. Similarly, the NAS panel did not necessarily intend for an additional safety factor to become law. (In the absence of "sufficient" data concerning infants and children, FQPA requires EPA to apply an additional safety factor of up to 10 when calculating pesticide tolerances.)

The head staff person for the NAS panel said he was not given the opportunity to review or provide input into the version of FQPA that eventually became law. Many legislators did not understand the full implications of what they were requiring EPA to do, but the law seemed to them like something no one could vote against since "kids were in" politically.

While questioning how the NAS recommendations are being carried out, the scientists do not dispute the need to more accurately estimate pesticide risks to infants and children.
Food Chemical News; April 20, 1998; Chemical Regulation Reporter; March 27, April 24, May 1 and 15, 1998; Federal Register; May 13, 1998

FOOD WITH RESIDUES TO BE "NAMED AND SHAMED" IN THE UK

U.K.'s food safety minister has said in a written reply to lawmaker's question in the House of Commons that food brands found to contain excessive pesticide residues will be "named and shamed" as the government publishes the results of annual pesticide tests for the first time. Full details of the test results and all brands involved, including those that breach safety thresholds, will be made public. Food safety officials believe the new arrangements will allow consumers to make a more informed choice about the food that they buy. These tests will help to expose those who break the rules by using the wrong types of pesticides or too much pesticide. In the U.K., some 4,000 foodstuffs ranging from milk and potatoes to fruit and cereals are subjected to up to 80,000 separate tests for pesticide residues each year. Last year, excessive residues were found in about 40 samples, or 1 percent of the total. Under the new system, names of individual brands that exceed the limit will published immediately. AP/Electronic Telegraphs; April 28, 1998 via Agnet; April 28, 1998

Public elementary schools throughout Maryland will be required to inform parents in writing at least a day before they apply pesticides inside school buildings under a law adopted in the final hours of this year's General Assembly session. No other state has to date passed such a law forcing schools to notify parents of its pesticide use, although San Francisco recently adopted a similar law and banned several pesticides from school buildings.

Many hope this new law will encourage school officials to limit their use of pesticides. In a strongly worded letter of support, Maryland's Governor called the bill "a small price to pay to help protect the health of children." However, the bill was opposed by others including the Maryland Association of Boards of Education, which argued that the bill amounted to an unfunded mandate that would complicate efforts to protect children from the potentially harmful effects of pests such as roaches and rats. They argued that pesticides are used because they DO care about children's health. To notify every parent of a safe and prudent use of a pesticide is probably an unnecessary cost. A report submitted to the Maryland Governor's Pesticide Council said that costs involved in a notification program operated in one county school district prior to this legislation amounted to $8,000-$10,000 annually, not including personnel or labor.

Most Maryland schools already give parents advance notification when they specifically request it, for instance if they have a child who is clearly allergic to certain chemicals. Moreover, most schools are already seeking to limit their use of pesticides by undercutting the conditions that breed pests, cleaning kitchens and eliminating litter, for example.

Those arguments have set the tone for the last three legislative sessions and, each year, the bill died in the House Environmental Matters Committee. Yet this year, a compromise was struck. Environmentalists agreed to limit to elementary schools the requirement that all parents be notified about planned pesticide use. In middle and high schools, parents and staff have the option of asking to be notified, in which case school officials are obligated to do so. Proponents also agreed to limit the law to cases where pesticides are applied inside school buildings, striking language that included outdoor applications as well.
Washington Post; April 16, 1998 Communication w/Maryland PIAP; March 24, 1998

Allan Elias, the owner and operator of Evergreen Resources, a fertilizer manufacturing company in Soda Springs, Idaho, was indicted on June 26, by a grand jury in U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho in Pocatello. Elias is accused of three counts of illegally disposing of hazardous waste in violation of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, one count of endangering the health and safety of his employees and one count of making a false statement to federal officials by falsifying a safety plan. Elias is charged with directing his employees to enter a 25,000 gallon storage tank to dispose of hazardous cyanide waste, however Elias allegedly did not implement basic safety precautions that had been discussed with him by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). According to the indictment, Scott Dominguez, a 20 year-old employee, was overcome by cyanide fumes in the tank and suffered permanent brain damage. If convicted on all counts, Elias faces a maximum of up to 35 years imprisonment and/or up to $1.25 million in fines. The case was investigated by EPA's Criminal Investigation Division, the Criminal Investigation Division of the IRS, OSHA, the Idaho State Police and the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality with the assistance of EPA's National Enforcement Investigations Center.
EPA Press Release JULY 2, 1998

Oscar Miller, Sr., of Independence, La., was indicted on June 22, in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana in New Orleans on five counts of violating the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act. Miller, who is a certified pesticide applicator, is alleged to have sold the pesticide methyl parathion to individuals to kill household insects on five occasions between January 1995 and March 1997. Methyl parathion is a powerful pesticide which is not authorized for use in homes, because when it is applied indoors, the chemical can remain active for up to two years. Human exposure to methyl parathion can produce convulsions, coma and death. If convicted, Miller faces a maximum sentence of up to five years imprisonment and/or fines of up to $500,000. The case was investigated by EPA's Criminal Investigation Division, the FBI and the Louisiana Department of Agriculture.EPA Press Release JULY 2, 1998

The full weight of scientific inquiry is focusing on an important question: Does pesticide use around the home pose a level of risk not accounted for by the Environmental Protection Agency's risk assessment process? The traditional consensus, governmental and otherwise, has long been that safety margins in place to protect commercial pesticide applicators exposed to pesticides routinely do, by default, safeguard those who may be exposed occasionally at home.

But some scientists have began to speak out on the need to conduct risk assessments using residential information rather than relying on default assumptions carried over from the analysis of occupational exposures. They contend that measures to protect pesticide applicators a work force comprised primarily of young, healthy males may not be adequate to protect children, pregnant women, and the elderly. Predicting exposures for the pesticide applicator work force is easier since their jobs are repetitive. Exposures in the home are more unpredictable. There are many exposure scenarios from pesticides applied to floors, carpets, and lawns: for instance, babies crawling on treated floors, people exercising on treated carpeting, or teenagers playing tackle football on a treated lawn.

Residential risk assessment is here to stay, but there is need to develop new approaches to measure exposure, interpret data, and characterize risk. It is this new wave of research from which residential-specific data will originate, replacing many of our default assump-tions. It is this new information that will equip public health officials to answer questions such as those that follow; preliminary data indicate answers, as stated.

Do all pesticides act the same around the home? Sweeping statements must give way to product-specific data.

Can turf pesticides be found indoors? It has been shown that pesticides can be tracked indoors on shoes. But, because much of the pesticide applied outdoors will not dislodge from turf, the amount brought indoors often is less than one percent of the total applied.

Can pesticides be introduced indoors by work clothing? One study of individuals from farming and nonfarming households found that farming households are more likely to exhibit detectable pesticide residues in house dust.

The culprits? Contaminated clothing and shoes. In comparison to farming households, homes where lawns are treated by professional lawn care applicators are shown to have 2 10 times less surface pesticide concentrations on floors, sills, and tables; it makes sense because commercial lawn care professionals generally do not enter their customers' homes.

Where are pesticides found indoors? Pesticide residues can be found throughout the house; likely spots including carpeting, dust, and home furnishings.

Do residential pesticide levels compare with occupational exposures? A study of farms in southern Minnesota found that respiratory and dermal exposures of farmers far exceeded residential exposure levels.

Can levels be reduced? Suggested precautions include not wearing work clothes indoors, limiting contact areas treated with pesticides, and using entry mats.

So, are kids in harm's way? The author of one study concluded that children didn't appear to be at risk because their level of exposure was very low. One government agency wrote to parents in homes with the highest pesticide detections, "We do not expect that the levels found in your home will cause health problems, but they are high enough that we recommend that steps be taken to reduce the levels."
The Label April 1998; Residential Exposure Research Colloquium. 1997. EPA; and others.

Want to start a heated discussion? Try explaining why pesticides are used in and around schools, or why someone sprayed in a room where children were practicing their ABC's. One thing's for sure: Parents demand that, regardless the risk high or low, real or perceived their kids be taught in classrooms free of roaches and pesticides. Local community "activists" in reality, just vocal, concerned parents set the stage, initially, for a larger debate that has embroiled school boards, state and federal agencies, pest control companies, politicians, parents, teachers, and communities in general. But never lose site of the fact that it is our elemen-tary school principals whom everyone is looking to for leadership on this subject. Ultimately, it is their responsibility to ensure that our schoolchildren are educated in a safe environment. Princi-pals must protect our kids against annoying cockroaches, stinging yellow jackets and bees, and biting spiders. But they are challenged, also, to guard our children against pesticide exposure. The public seems to be reaching consensus on the use of pesticides in schools. What began as an outcry by various advocates that no pesticides be used in schools has mellowed into discussions centering on the use of low-risk pesticides when other components of integrated pest management have failed. Pest control companies that once sprayed baseboards now use a more integrated approach. They conduct detailed inspections, file sanitation reports, monitor pest occurrence, and use strategic bait placement to minimize human contact with pesticides. The result? Active participation on both sides of the issue to reach a common goal: the protection of our kids. Statement: Sanitation and exclusion work in the battle against pests.
The Label April 1998

Rhone-Poulenc has issued new 2(ee) labeling for its Temik 15G Insecticide so that it can be applied as a side-dress at pinhead square for protection against nematodes. The 2(ee) labeling must be in the possession of the user at the time of application.

An Experimental Use Permit has been issued for American Cyanamid's Chlorfenapyr Termiticide/Insecticide, to evaluate the control of termites in structures.
Significant New Use Registrations include:
Labyrinth Termite Bait (diflubenzuron), from Ensystex, to manage and control subterranean termite colonies in the ground around and under any type of building structure.
Decis 1.5 EC Insecticide (deltamethrin), from AgrEvo, to control insect pests on cotton.
FDACS Communications; April 17, 28, May 5, 7, and 12, 1998

In a rare, strange, unique reversal of a controversial decision made by the EPA last December, the Agency has now approved the use of Buctril Herbicide (bromoxynil) on transgenic cotton and established permanent tolerances for the herbicide. Originally, EPA said that they could not extend the tolerances for bromoxynil on cotton because of concerns about developmental risks to infants and children. Meanwhile, the registrant, Rhone-Poulenc submitted new residue data and risk assessments using Monte Carlo methodology. Based on this new information, EPA concluded that the use of bromoxynil on cotton does meet Agency standards.
Federal Register; May 13, 1998 Pesticide and Toxic Chem. News; May 14, 1998

The Captan Task Force for 13 years has been conducting health and environmental tests on Captan to prove it does not deserve its B2 carcinogen classification assigned by EPA. Researchers have now found that captan is not a direct acting human carcinogen, isless acutely toxic than most pesticides, and poses no health threat to farm workers when used correctly. With these findings, the Task Force is pursuing reregistration of captan.
Fruit Grower; May 1998

EPA has granted permanent tolerances for the Dow AgroScience's Success (spinosad) in or on citrus fruits, cottonseed, cotton gin byproducts, the fruiting vegetables (except cucurbits) group, and the Brassicas (cole crops).
Federal Register; April 15, 1998

EPA has announced that Reregistration Eligibility Decision, or REDs, for 12 chemicals. This announcement, in the April 29 Federal Register, opens a 60-day comment period that provides an opportunity for public input and a mechanism for initiating any necessary amendments to the REDs. REDs constitute the Agency's formal regulatory assessments of the health and environmental databases of the subject chemicals, and its determination regarding which pesticide uses are eligible for registration. The chemicals with new REDs are:
bis sulfon
bromacil (Buctril)
diflubenzuron (Dimilin)
MBT
mepiquat chloride (Pix)
metribuzin (Sencor/Lexone)
paranitrophenol
paraquat dichloride (Gramoxone)
propoxur (Baygon)
terbacil (Sinbar)
IPBC, and
vanicude.
Federal Register; April 17, 1998

* Altosid XR-G is a new extended residual granule formulation of methoprene from Zoecon being introduced to control mosquitoes.

* Bayer's Provado (imidacloprid) has added control of aphids, pecan spittlebug, and pecan phylloxera on pecans.

* Zeneca's Warrior 1EC Insecticide has added to their label use on leaf lettuce and Brassica cole crops (broccoli, cauliflower, cabbage, and Brussels sprouts).

* AgrEvo has added control of nine additional grass weeds, 22 additional broadleaf weeds, and 13 additional perennial weeds to their Liberty (glufosinate-ammonium) label.

* EPA has developed changes to the respirator provisions of pesticide labels following changes in respirator standards issued by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). The changes include an amendment to 40 CFR 156.212 to incorporate new designations for two types of respirators used by pesticide handlers and applicators. In the meantime, because respirators certified by NIOSH under 42 CFR 84 and 30 CFR 11 meet current protection requirements, pesticide handlers and applicators may use either to satisfy requirements. For more information, call (703) 305-5621.
Federal Register; May 7, 1998

New Spray Nozzles Can Help Prevent Drift

For pesticides to do their intended job, they must reach the target site, not be lost in the air where they can move and harm neighboring environments. The Spray Drift Task Force says that if a pesticide is applied correctly, only one-tenth of 1% of the chemical should drift. The key to reducing spray drift often is simply increasing the droplet size by using a nozzle that is specialized for that purpose. While coarser sprays can help minimize drift, the large drops sometimes do not stick and therefore are not as effective on certain plant or hard non-porous surfaces, which may be difficult to make wet. The large drops tend to bounce or roll off these surfaces, similar to how water acts on automobiles after a fresh coat of wax. But some new nozzles mix air with the spray liquid inside the nozzle, which results in large droplets containing air bubbles. These droplets shatter on impact with the plant or sprayed surface, and this spreads many smaller droplets over the area where they are more easily retained. These nozzles are venturi or air induction types, and are available from most nozzle manufacturers.

Spray applicators also want to ensure they spray when the atmosphere is unstable (yes, unstable). Under sunny daytime conditions, the atmosphere is considered unstable because the air near the ground is much warmer than the air above. Under these conditions, there is considerable turbulence in the atmosphere, and adjacent air layers mix readily with each other. So if the air does contain some drift, this drift is quickly dispersed upward and downward, which dilutes it with clean air and reduces its impact on the off-target plants. Most drift complaints involve spraying under stable or temperature-inversion conditions. Inversions occur at night when the earth cools off and the air near the ground is cooler than the air above it. Air layers do not mix, so any drift in the air remains concentrated and may hang over the treated area for a long time. If wind speed increases, a concentrated spray drift cloud is moved off the treated area and can cause considerable damage at its destination. Inversions are usually associated with dead-calm conditions, which may cause well-meaning applicators to spray in a misguided effort to avoid wind. The danger is that the initial wind after an inversion is often very slow and unpredictable in direction. This can cause the concentrated drift, which had been hanging over the field like a cloud of fog, to move to a sensitive area and cause damage.

Where practical, drift can be reduced by taking the following measures:
Spray under ideal environmental conditions.
Reduce travel speed.
Use higher carrier volumes.
Use low-drift nozzles or shrouds.
Take extra care on the outer spray boundaries.
Western Producer ; May 14, 1998 Soybean Digest; May/June 1997

A report in New Scientist Magazine was cited as saying that French doctors have determined that the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis (B.t.) could harm humans. This was after a soldier wounded in Bosnia developed a serious infection from a subtype of the bacterium. Scientists at the World Health Organization and the Pasteur Institute in Paris identified the harmful sample of the bacterium as H34. When a microbiologist at a military hospital injected the strain into mice with weakened immune systems, he found the bacteria became dangerous when exposed to blood. Most growers who spray their crops with B.t. use strains of the bacteria, but the scientists identified another strain used in commercial farm sprays that is also dangerous. One the companies that market B.t. insists B.t.'s are safe because the bacteria are not exposed to blood and not primed to infect wounds, adding that there is a long history of safe use since 1960s.
Reuters; May 27, 1998

Town Grass and Country Water

Soil cannot hold back or soak up pollutants in surface water that never contacts it. Whereas, in the past, rainwater was cleansed by the soil (nature's scrubber), it now runs unaltered over concrete or paved roads and driveways into storm drains, retention ponds, and rivers. With it goes everything in its path: grass clippings, oil, antifreeze, animal waste, fertilizers, pesticides, etc. And it's this unfiltered diversion of pollutants into waterways that has ignited new programs designed to protect watersheds. Protection of watersheds is not accomplished by federal and state governments passing down edicts to local communities; rather, it is being promoted through active education of the public on methods they can use around their homes to reduce their pollution of their waters. Check out the information below, taken from a Minnesota Department of Agriculture (MDA) report from a homeowner lawn survey conducted in distinct watersheds: urban, rural, and suburban. It is interesting to note major differences in attitudes and practices from watershed to watershed, even though we categorize all of the people as homeowners. From an educational perspective, can a one-size-fits-all approach to education stand any chance of working when the approaches to lawn maintenance are as different as MDA reports? The information seems to indicate that public education on how to "grow a yard" differs between urban/ rural and suburban watersheds. And it would follow that people in these watersheds represent a golden opportu-nity to teach since many readily admit that what they do on their lawns impacts their watershed; recognition of the problem translates into willingness to adopt solutions. The goals: award winning yards and clean water which, by the way, are not mutually exclusive.
The Label April 1998; Master Gardener Survey Results. October 9, 1997; Homeowner Lawn Care Survey Results. 1997. MDA Update.

EPA's Pesticides Industry Sales and Usage Report has become an important document describing the players (manufacturers, users, and products) in the United States pesticide market-place. It may be the only report that provides consistent data on pesticide use by the American public. Following are a few tidbits contained in this excellent document:
70 million out of 95 million house-holds use pesticides.
74 million pounds of active ingredients were applied by those households in 1995.
Each household applied an average of $20 worth of pesticides in 1995.
The yearly pesticide tab is $2 billion.
Herbicides such as glyphosate, dicamba, MCPP, and 2,4-D are the most popular pesticides.
The most used insecticides are diazinon, chlorpyrifos, carbaryl, and benefin, while the fungicide of choice is dacthal.
The Label April 1998; Pesticides Industry Sales and Usage: 1994 and 1995 Market Estimates. 1997. EPA.

Ants:
* More than 27 species invade homes in the U.S.
* Found throughout the country, they eat almost anything have few natural predators.
* Usually nest in soil and are found next to buildings, sidewalks, and near food sources.
* Are known to contaminate food, destroy plants, and damage structures.
* Once ants have established a colony in or near a household, they can be difficult to control.
* Some species may require special control technologies.

Mosquitoes:
* Usually found around water and animals and their habitats. Mosquitoes must have water during their immature stages.
* Females feed on the blood of vertebrate animals. Their bites may itch and burn.
* Some can transmit malaria or encephalitis.
* Foggers or insecticide sprays can be useful in keeping mosquitoes at bay for a short time.

Mosquitos are found essentially everywhere, even at the Arctic Circle and on mountain peaks. The only area they have not become established is Antarctica. There are more than 2,700 species of mosquitos in the world. The good news is that only females bite; they use the protein in blood to produce eggs, which they lay in stagnant water. Males dine on plant nectar. Internationally, mosquitoes are a menace, transmitting diseases that may kill an estimated 1 out of every 17 people. Sincemosquitos are attracted to body heat, perspiration and carbon dioxide, you may be able to keep from being bitten if you do not move, do not sweat, and do not breathe out.

Or, you can take these more realistic precautions:
* Mosquitos navigate partly by odor. They have a great ability to find you, so do not use perfume and other heavily scented products found in certain soaps and detergents that will attract them.
* Mosquitos can see your silhouette in dark clothing, so wear light-colored clothes. Loose clothing offers some barrier because it is difficult for them to penetrate. Wear and socks or boots when hiking.
* When you are outdoors, do not sit directly on the ground. At picnics, keep food covered.
* Reduce the amount of standing water on your property by emptying pails, old tires, clogged gutters, planters, or tree stump holes. Change the water in birdbaths often.
* Mosquito repellants containing 15-30 percent DEET can befairly effective, as mentioned earlier. Stronger preparations, however, are no more effective and can cause allergic reactions in a small percentage of the population.
* Carry anti-itch medication, such as ITCH-X, with you. Use it promptly, especially on children, who tend to scratch a bite until it bleeds. Be careful of products with benzocaine, hydrocortisone, or antihistamines, as dermatologists warn they may set up allergic skin reactions or produce other irritating side effects in some people.

Fleas:
* Attracted to body heat, movement and the carbon dioxide humans and animals exhale. Can be found on animals yearround, but increase in number during the spring and summer months.
* Deliver a bite that can hurt, itch and sometimes becomes infected.
* Some can transmit bubonic plague, typhus, tularemia or tape worms.

Cockroaches:
* Prevalent year-round, living anywhere food, warmth, and moisture are available.
* Health concerns include causing asthma and triggering asthma attacks in children, transmitting food poisoning bacteria and spreading diseases such as cholera, dysentery and strep infections.
* Effective control can readily be achieved through sanitation and routine maintenance by a PCO.

Ticks:
* Most species are found in wooded margins. They attach themselves to a human or animal and feed on their blood.
* Can spread serious bacterial infections including Lyme disease, tick fever and Rocky Mountain spotted fever.
* For animals, flea and tick collars are the suggested method of prevention and control. For humans, thorough daily inspection, insect repellents, and clothing such as long shirts and pants offer the best protection.

More than half of the New York City restaurants inspected last year were found infested with insects or rodents. The Daily News reported that 5,000 restaurants were not even inspected last year, and two-thirds of all city eateries inspected have been cited for vermin at least once in the last five years. Experts say flies are the most dangerous kitchen pests because spread everything from malaria to dysentery. Rats and mice can carry food poisoning. Cockroaches generally are more disgusting than dangerous, but they do suggest unsanitary conditions.
UPI; June 2, 1998

Canada's Agriculture Minister has ordered a Prince Edward Island experimental field research farm to get out of the potato blight business due to pressure from local producers hit hard by a late blight outbreak last year. The farm will no longer be inoculating its test potato crops with late blight in order to test various anti-blight pesticides even though it was never proven that site was the source of the blight outbreak, although suspected it.
The Guardian (Charlottetown); June 5, 1998 via Agnet

Not trying to give anyone any ideas, but police detectives in suburban Toledo are questioning high school seniors to determine who carried out a class prank of breaking into the local school and releasing about 600 giant cockroaches. The roaches forced the closing of the school and exterminators had to be called in to counterattack the arranged invasion. Personnel arriving at the school the morning in question found hamburger, raw eggs, milk, and chocolate syrup smeared on the walls and floors of the school's main hallway. The hundreds of Madagascar hissing cockroaches were crawling in the food and into adjacent classrooms, lockers, and other areas where discovery lead to abundant surprises.

* A Lee County, Alabama, cotton farmer was arrested and then released on charges of failing to comply with Alabama's boll weevil eradication program. The farmer protested the use of any pesticides on his land.
AP; April 22, 1998

* The corn rootworm apparently is evolving in a way that makes the traditional control method, crop rotation, not work any more. Cases where the worms defeated crop rotation began showing up in Illinois in 1993, and have since been discovered in many fields in Illinois, Indiana, Ohio and Michigan. More use of control chemicals is anticipated, but some fear that if growers start applying more pesticides to combat the worms, the pests' resistance will develop more quickly.
AP; April 19, 1998

* Denmark's government plans to intensify efforts to reduce pesticide use by 50 percent as a means of protecting ground water. In 1994, Denmark banned all pesticides that they believed could endanger their ground water resources. National policy in that country bans purification or treatment of ground water resources. Nearly 200 pesticides now fall under the ban, and the country will continue banning all pesticides that pose any risk to ground water. They are also considering raising already high pesticide taxes as a further disincentive to their continued use.
World Food Regulation Review; May 1998

* When a common house fly gets zapped by an electronic bug zapper, millions of bacteria on the surface of the insects are scattered into the air, as far as six feet, when the zapper causes the insects to explode. Because the bacteria covering the legs and bodies of house flies are obtained from human or animal wastes, bug zappers may be spreading more disease than they prevent. Anyone who uses the electronic devices should keep themselves and food at least six feet from the devices, and keep the zappers where they won't be exposed to air currents from fans, vents, or open windows.
Reuters; May 25, via FSnet; May 26, 1998