February 1999 Volume 22
Arkansas
Pesticide News
Arkansas News
Pesticide Applicator Training
National News
EPA Will Miss Deadline
The Methyl Bromide Shakeup
An FQPA "Side Effect"
New EPA Brochure
EPA/USDA to Update Advisory Committee on Pesticidde Residues On
Food
General Information
Stressing the Green
Message
Health and Safety
Research On Chemical Safety
Pesticide Applicators' Eposure of Family Members
Registration News
EPA Registers New
Corn Hericide
Biotech/IPM/Advanced Technology
In this issue there are a number of
interesting articles concerning the chemical tools used in agriculture.
As has been the case
over the last year the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) seems
to be in the forefront of the news. Apparently, the deadline for
meeting the FQPA's mandate for review of the organophosphates
and carbamates will not be met by the EPA. At the same time
research into exposure and how pesticides affect the health are
being investigated to answer some of the nagging questions that
have
been around for decades.
These meetings have nothing to do with recertification. These
training sessions are for persons who have never been tested
by the Arkansas State Plant Board and have never had a license
for using or purchasing restricted-use pesticides. Persons planning
to attend these meetings should call Mrs. Jean Page after 1:00
pm at 501-671-2226 and indicate which meeting they plan to attend.
* A panel was
convened by the National Cancer Institute of Canada and the Canadian
Cancer Society: After reviewing countless studies on the
general population's exposure to pesticides, the panel found that
pesticides are not a cancer risk and that a diet rich in fruits
and
vegetables is important in the reduction of cancer risk. (Journal
of Cancer, November 1997). NEW EPA BROCHURE AND
WEBSITE EXPAND PUBLIC'S RIGHT-TO-KNOW ABOUT PESTICIDE USE ON FOOD The U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency today released a new right- to-know pesticide brochure
and website informing
consumers and their families on practical steps to reduce their
exposure to pesticides used on food. These information products
are
being issued as part of an EPA program to help consumers reduce
dietary exposure to pesticide residues and maintain a healthy
diet.
The brochure and website mark an important first step in the EPA
program to inform the public about the risks and benefits of
pesticide use. The website provides more specific information
on how EPA regulates pesticides, organic farming practices, what
the pesticide residue limits are on food and the health problems
pesticides may pose. Copies of the brochure are being distributed
to more than 40,000 grocery stores nationwide and also are available
to consumers by calling 1-800-490-9198. The new website
can be accessed at: www.epa.gov/pesticides/food.
STRESSING THE GREEN MESSAGE
BIG DOLLARS COMMITTED
FOR RESEARCH ON CHEMICAL SAFETY
A National Research Council study on Carcinogens and Anti-Carcinogens
in the Human Diet: Found that any risk that may result
from increased pesticide residue exposure "would be greatly
outweighed by the potential benefits of consuming fruits and
vegetables." Their report also states that the "recommendation
to consume liberal amounts of fruits and vegetables is appropriate
and poses no undue competing risk."
EPA REGISTERS NEW REDUCED
RISK HERBICIDE FOR FIELD CORN USE
The Agency is now seeking public comment on FQPA-mandated preliminary
risk assessments for 12 organophosphates. The
risk assessments that the EPA is making available may be refined
in the future if additional health and environmental effects data,
use data, or other information on the pesticides becomes available.
Human health and ecological preliminary risk assessments are
available for acephate (Orthene), disulfoton (Di-Syston), methamidophos
(Monitor), oxydemeton-methyl (Metasystox-R),
pirimiphos-methyl (Actellic 5EC/Tomahawk Ear Tags), azinphos-methyl
(Guthion), chlorethoxyfos (Fortress), ethyl parathion
(Parathion 8EC), methidathion (Supracide), phosmet (Imidan), propetamphos
(Safrotin), and tetrachlorvinphos (Rabon/Ravap/Hartz
Flea and Tick Collar). Comments are requested by March 16. This
brings the total number of organophosphate risk assessments
available for public comment up to 28, and more are scheduled
for release through this spring.
* EPA issued notice in the January 13 Federal Register that the
Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) document for bromoxynil
(Buctril Herbicide) is now available. This notice started
the 60-day window to provide comments. EPA proposed
product labeling changes associated with this new RED include:
Monsanto has estimated that 27 million acres of Roundup Ready
soybeans were planted in the U.S. last year. This is 37 percent
of the total crop.
Abbot has added control of mosquito larvae in citrus, rice and
irrigated crops to their Clinch (avermectin) label.
Thiacloprid is an analog of Bayer's insecticide imidacloprid.
Thiacloprid is being developed for use on fruit trees, rice, and
other crops.
Dutch farmers whose slow-growing cucumbers
have been causing them headaches may have found what they believe
to be a
solution - Aspirin, and not aspirin for the farmers, but aspirin
for the cucumbers. Scientists with the Dutch research institute
TNO
have discovered that feeding Aspirin to young cucumber plants
helps prevent thickening of the root walls. Plants with thick
root
walls absorb water, pesticides and minerals less easily than those
with thin root walls, leading to slower growth and related
problems. It was reported that aspirin contains an acid also made
naturally by plants to protect themselves. Further research is
also
planned on eggplants, tomatoes and peppers. The Globe and Mail;
November 11, 1998
Locusts may become an endangered species following the development
of the world's first bioinsecticide active against the insect.
Trade named Green Muscle, this fungal pesticide spray contains
spores of Metarhizium anisopliae, a fungus that invades and kills
locusts and grasshoppers but is harmless to beneficial insects.
It reportedly kills nine out of every ten locusts within 21 days.
Scientists at the University of Florida have found what seems
to be a sure-fire way to outsmart cockroaches and get rid of them
for good. It was reported in this month's New Scientist magazine
that the insects follow filthy trails laid down by other roaches,
and
that the chemicals they follow could be used to lead them to traps.
In some badly infested homes the long-lasting brown trails are
visible on sinks, counter tops and other areas frequented by the
insects. The pests use their antennae to sense chemicals in the
fecal
trails, so researchers thought they could use the chemical as
bait for traps. The material, however, was very foul smelling,
and they
decided to dissolve the feces and isolate the chemicals instead.
They transferred the chemicals to a water solution and found that
the cockroaches still followed the odorless path directly to the
traps. Until scientists specifically identify and synthesize the
chemicals involved, they suggest people with a cockroach problem
place their traps along the well-trodden roach trails.
London-based 3M is investing $1.5 million in equipment so they
can produce a complete line of microencapsulated products that
can be dispensed by sprayers, including insect pheromones. The
pheromones, which mimic a female insect's scent produced to
attract a mate, have long been used by farmers and foresters in
"fixed point dispensers" to monitor and/or foil the
male insect's
search and disrupt breeding behavior. While the fixed point dispensers
can be effective, they are labor-intensive. By encasing the
pheromones in a polymer coating, the company has created a mechanism
for controlled release of the chemical come-on. As the
capsules break open, they release a steady stream of pheromones
that mask any plume sent up by a female insect. The female
discovers her chemical voice cannot be detected over that of the
popping capsules.
Researchers are utilizing foraging honeybees to deliver biocontrol
pesticide products to fruit, vegetable and field crops by placing
an applicator containing a fungicide or narrow-spectrum insecticide,
like B.t., at bee hive entrances. The bees pick up the material,
which is harmless to them, on their bodies as they exit the hive
and then rub it on the host plant when they visit the flowers.
This
technique was first used experimentally in Canada to control gray
mold in strawberries and later expanded to raspberries. Since
then,
scientists in Oregon and Washington have used this technique to
fight fireblight in apple orchards, while European researchers
use
bees to infect beetle pests of canola with a lethal fungus.
Pesticides applied in the 1980s to wood in buildings where wine
was stored has been identified as being responsible for the poor
taste of some wines produced in France's Bordeaux region over
the past decade. Up to this point, the bottle corks were believed
to
be at fault. Trace quantities of pentachlorophenol, a wood preservative
used on new wood to prevent decay and infestation by
termites and other wood-destroying insects, somehow seeped into
wines from Bordeaux, Burgundy, Beaujolais, and even
champagnes. The chemical apparently worked its way into the wines
in trace quantities, giving them a faint taste of damp cardboard
or mold that is often associated with a wine cork that has gone
bad. The amount of chemical in the wines is not enough to threaten
health. When the cause was identified by wine chemists in 1993,
several vineyards, including some of the Bordeaux region's most
prestigious names, decided to tear down treated storage buildings
and replace them with more expensive buildings made of solid
oak, which do not require treatment, to eliminate the problem.
Bordeaux wines were the hardest hit because they are always stored
in wooden buildings after bottling. In most other regions, bottled
wines are stored in underground cellars made of stone. This
problem should never resurface, however, because that use of the
pesticide in question was banned in the European Union in 1991.
During analysis of 1,344 wines tested in the past two years, 44
had a bad corky taste, and only 11 (0.82%) of those were due to
pentachlorophenol contamination.
According to a brief in the December 5 National Post, the EPA
claims that foods grown organically are a safe alternative to
those
grown using pesticides and synthetic fertilizers. Others, however,
say that evidence suggests consuming organic foods can be more
dangerous than eating food treated with pesticides. The U.S. Centers
for Disease Control (CDC) confirmed 2,471 cases of people
infected with the potentially deadly O157:H7 E. coli strain in
1996, but the CDC says this was only a small fraction of the total
poisonings that occurred, and estimates there were at least 250
deaths. Organic foods made up barely 1 percent of the U.S. food
supply, but were implicated in at least 85 of the confirmed cases.
Crops grown organically also have higher rates of infestation
by natural toxins from fungi, says the FDA, including aflatoxin,
one of the most virulent cancer agents known to man. The story
also
says that organic food producers can compound risk by not using
chemical washes, disinfectants, or even chlorinated water to
prepare their products for market. Researchers say composting
manure may not kill the bacteria, since the compost must be heated
to at least 160 degrees Fahrenheit.
The U.S. Congress has approved $23 million for further research
into what are known as "mycoherbicides." Mycoherbicides
are
soil-borne fungi capable of eradicating plants that provide the
raw material for cocaine, heroin and marijuana. Skeptics are cited
as saying more testing must be done to prove the effectiveness
and safety of the technology, and winning the support of governments
of drug-producing South American countries, Colombia, Peru and
Bolivia, will not be easy. Experiments conducted by Agriculture
Department scientists focus on isolating the mycoherbicides that
narcotics plants produce naturally. If, for example, a coca plant
is doused with the fungi, it wilts, and decades must pass before
the area is again suitable for growing coca. In addition, beans,
corn
or other crops grown nearby are unaffected. EPA scientists are
cited as saying they believe no harm will come to humans or animals
either.
The pesticide industry currently is reportedly losing $200 million
per year in sales, primarily because new crop varieties have
lowered input costs. Additionally, next year the loss is estimated
to be $300 million or more, and in two to three years it will
be $700
million a year. Roundup-Ready beans, for example, have lowered
herbicide costs from about $20 to about $10 to $12 an acre. This
reduced pesticide sales across North America from $8.7 billion
last year to about $8.5 billion this year, and next year it will
be down
to about $8.4 billion and then will decline to about $8 billion.
The big companies that have invested heavily in biotechnology
will
be hard pressed to capture enough sales revenue from the new crop
varieties to cover their costs and they are losing revenues on
pesticide sales. The companies that have stuck to chemicals and
stayed out of biotechnology and seeds are also losing revenues,
so they have less to spend on research and development for the
next generation of pesticides.
Mountains in the temperate zones that get high levels of snow
are reportedly "particularly susceptible" to accumulation
of some
organochlorine-type pesticides (chlordane, dieldrin, heptachlor),
according to a report in the October 8 issue of Science. The report
says that accumulation of organochlorine compounds in snow on
mountains in temperate areas increases with altitude. The
chemicals are said to become airborne in warmer areas, then are
carried by air currents toward the poles, then condense and fall
out
of the atmosphere in colder climates. Analysis shows that concentrations
of organochlorines increased 10 to 100 times between
altitudes of about 2,500 feet to 10,200 feet. It was also noted
that there is 10 times as much snow at 10,200 feet than at 2,500
feet.
Increased organochlorine concentrations were gradual at first,
but increased sharply above 6,600 feet.
A Washington State University Extension Specialist and Environmental
Toxicologist, Dr. Alan Felsot, contends that the
Environmental Working Group (EWG) and other advocacy groups have
a recurrent theme: There is a health crisis in America today
because of pesticides. EWG wants the public to accept the notion
that "pesticide use is rising, pesticide residues in food
are
increasing, and drinking water is even more polluted than a few
years ago." Dr. Felsot writes that "(a) pesticide use
has risen only
as more acres are farmed; (b) 90 percent of pesticides used on
corn and soybeans are herbicides with residues rarely found in
foods,
and 29 percent of insecticides are used on cotton, which is not
eaten; (c) lumping all pesticide residues together to assess risk
is
absurd; and (d) the level of pesticide residues in our waterways
is not increasing, but, rather, how our ability to detect more
minute
amounts increases detection numbers."
Dutch Farmers, Locust Control and more....
Did You Know

Some of this research is actually using
human volunteers for testing, something that we haven't heard
about for quite sometime. Soon to hit the grocery stores will
be the EPA Right-To-Know pesticide brochure that is intended to
help
consumers reduce their "risk" of pesticide exposure
from food.
Those of us that apply pesticides should read "Pesticide
Applicators' Opportunities to Expose Family Members". Though
the
title sounds like it's a recipe for how to expose you family,
it really points out those avenues that lead to unwanted or potential
exposure of our loved ones and ways to reduce potential exposure.
There is also a schedule of training dates for those individuals
who need to become certified as pesticide applicators. These
sessions are for individuals who have not been previously certified.
Finally, read the article "Stressing the Green Message"
to hear
a view about how our present systems of farming are actually helping
to conserve wildlife habitat. The suggestion being that losing
the various yield enhancing tools and technology we presently
have could lead to expansion of farming into presently untouched
wildlife habitats.
ARKANSAS COMMERCIAL /
NON-COMMERCIAL PESTICIDE APPICATOR TRAINING SESSIONS
ANNOUNCED
Attached you will find the 1999 schedule for Commercial/Non-Commercial
Pesticide Applicator Training sessions. These
meetings are for persons who have never been tested by the State
Plant Board and have never had a license for purchasing and/or
applying restricted-use pesticides in Arkansas.
Please make the appropriate people in your organization aware
of these training dates. Preregistration for these meetings is
required. See the schedule below for details. There will be a
$5.00 charge for each person attending a training session. The
payment must be made by check and made out to the "Agri.
Development Council". The checks will be collected on the
day of the
training at the training location.
These training sessions are for initial certification and serve
the Commercial and Non-Commercial categories for Agricultural
Plants (includes aerial applicators), Agricultural Animals, Forest
Pest Control. Wood Treatment, Right-of-Way, Aquatic Pest
Control, Demonstration and Research, Public Health, Seed Treatment,
and Regulatory.
These meetings are not for people needing recertification. If
you need to be recertified, call me at 501-671-2234.
If you know of someone who needs a license for ornamental plants
or turf spraying, they need to contact Tim Ellison at the Plant
Board (501-225-1598).
Ples Spradley
Extension Pesticide
Assessment Specialist
Please call or e-mail me if you have questions.
email to: pspradley@uaex.edu)
Phone: 501-671-2234
1999 SCHEDULE FOR COMMERCIAL
/NON-COMMERCIAL PESTICIDE APPLICATOR TRAINING
(For Individuals Who Have Never
Taken the Exams)
There will be a five dollar ($5.00) charge for each person attending
a training session. The payment must be by check and made
out to the "Agri. Development Council". Checks will
be collected on the day of the training at the training location.
Dates, times and locations:
March 3, 1999, All Categories,
9 am - 5 pm, Jonesboro, County Extension Office, 221 W. Jackson,
Ph: 870-933-4565
March 15, 1999, All Categories,
9 am - 5 pm, Fayetteville, Plant Science Building Auditorium (PS009),
U of A Campus, Ph: 501-671-2234
March 18, 1999, All Categories,
9 am - 5pm, Monticello, County Extension Office in the Drew County
Courthouse, Ph: 870-460-6270
March 22, 1999, All Categories,
9 am - 5pm, Little Rock, Extension Service State Office, 2301
S. University (just north of the UALR campus) Ph: 501-671-2000

EPA WILL MISS FQPA
AUGUST DEADLINE
The EPA has acknowledged that they will not be able to meet the
Food Quality Protection Act's (FQPA) mandated August
deadline for completing tolerance reassessment of the organophosphate
and carbamate insecticides. FQPA charged EPA with
reviewing one-third of the 9,000+ pesticide tolerances by this
August, two-thirds by August 2002, and the remaining tolerances
by August 2006. EPA is confident, however that they will beat
the statutory, first-third deadline, it just will not include
all the
organophosphate and carbamate insecticides as was originally required.
Agency officials assured the public as recently as September
that the August 3 deadline for organophosphate/carbamate reassessments
would be met. Essentially, then, EPA will have the first
third of the tolerances finished by August 3, but not necessarily
the "riskiest" tolerances.
Food Chemical News; January 18, 1999
In somewhat surprising fashion, the House and Senate conferees
accepted an amendment to the USDA fiscal 1999 appropriations
bill that postpones the phaseout of methyl bromide in the U.S.
by four years. Buried in the bill was a rider extending the phaseout
for the fumigant from 2001 to 2005. The move harmonizes the U.S.
Clean Air Act with the United Nations Montreal Protocol, an
international treaty reached in 1987 and signed by 167 countries.
The original version of the House and Senate agriculture bills
did
not include the amendment, but legislators felt that complying
with the Clean Air Act's original deadline would be potentially
devastating to American agriculture.
Newly instilled methyl bromide production and importation regulation
levels will be reduced by 25 percent in 1999, 50 percent
in 2001, 70 percent in 2003, and by 100 percent in 2005, based
on 1991 consumption levels. Developing countries, including
Mexico, will still be allowed to use methyl bromide until the
year 2015. Further information on this development can be obtained
from the EPA Website at http://www.epa.gov/ozone/mbr Further information
can also be obtained y call the Ozone Protection
Hotline at (800) 296-1996.
In a related note, the ozone depleting potential for methyl bromide
has been lowered from 0.6 to 0.4 in a new scientific
assessment by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and
the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP). This
assessment will be used by governments worldwide in coming years
as they decide whether and how to further restrict production
and use of chemicals under the Montreal Protocol on Substances
that Deplete the Ozone Layer.
Under the Protocol, chemicals are assigned an ozone-depleting
potential, compared with the ability of chlorofluorocarbon-11
and
CFC-12, to break down ozone in the stratosphere. CFC-11 and CFC-12
are each assigned an ozone-depleting potential of 1.0. The
original WMO-UNEP scientific assessment assigned methyl bromide
an ozone-depleting potential of 0.6. Findings since 1994,
however, led scientists to reduce that number to 0.4. The reduction
was made because new research has shown that oceans and soils
take up more of the chemical from the lower atmosphere, which
keeps methyl bromide from reaching the stratosphere, than was
previously thought.
Food Chemical News; November 2, 1998
Chemical Regulation Reporter; September 25 and October 2, 1998
Rereg. Notification Network, Nov. 4, 1998
When the Food Quality Protection Act was passed, Congress' intent
was to protect children from dangerous pesticides. But the
legislation has produced one side effect that no one predicted.
Some organizations conducting pesticidal research have been testing
their products on humans to demonstrate their level of safety,
a practice that all but disappeared in the early 1980s. Manufacturers
are paying human volunteers in Britain and the U.S. to swallow
"small doses" of pesticides. This development disturbs
officials
at EPA, which does not require or encourage such studies. EPA
calls this an unanticipated consequence of the legislation. The
Agency has asked for an independent scientific panel to determine
whether these new human studies meet ethical and safety
standards. They will await the findings of the panel before using
any human test data in administering the new law. Using human
subjects to test the toxicity of pesticides is not illegal in
the U.S. or Europe, but doubts about the safety and ethics of
such studies
led most companies to discontinue this type of research in the
1980s. Dow Jones News; September 27, 1998
FOOD
The EPA and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) have scheduled
two informational meetings with the Tolerance
Reassessment Advisory Committee (TRAC), a federal advisory committee
chartered to provide the Clinton Administration with
advice on implementation of the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA).
The meetings have been scheduled to give TRAC members
an update on the progress that is being made to meet new food
safety standards required by the FQPA, including the reassessment
of residue limits for the organophosphate pesticides. Many of
the initiatives and pilot projects underway are the result of
recommendations from the TRAC on FQPA implementation. The first
informational meeting will be held Feb. 25, 1999 in
Washington, D.C. The second meeting is scheduled for March 2,
1999 in Phoenix, Ariz. Both meetings are open to the public, which
have been scheduled to encourage participation from both the eastern
and western regions of the country. These informational
meetings are being held to help prepare for a full TRAC dialogue
meeting, which will be held in April. That meeting will include
discussions on the risk assessments and proposed risk management
options for certain organophosphates, as well as the
development of a transition process for agriculture, as needed.
An agenda for the February and March meetings will be made
available on the EPA's website at: www.epa.gov/pesticides/trac.
Future announcements regarding the April meeting also will be
posted at this site.
The director of global food issues for the Hudson Institute told
the 45th World Food Production Conference that food producers
must counter opposition to advances in pesticides, fertilizers
and crop engineering by stressing the environmental benefits of
increased crop yields brought about by these advances. Further,
it was stressed that industries would gain more public support
if
they demonstrated how high yields help the environment rather
than if they show how they prevented starvation.
One reason this message is reportedly not getting out is because
conservation
groups, whose main fear is typically overpopulation, are not looking
realistically at the benefits of increased yields from improved
technology and products. "The very people who are pledged
to save
the environment are telling us to use low yield organic and traditional
farming systems, which will mean the destruction of the
wildland. The stakes now are not famine, the stakes now are defined
in wildlife habitat saved. Groups such as Greenpeace cannot
afford to recognize this because their campaigns against pesticides
and biotechnology have been the best fund raising techniques
they have ever come up with. We are already using 36 percent of
the earth's surface for food production, and that means if we
do
not radically raise the yields still further, there will be disappointed,
possibly malnourished consumers and no room for wildland."
It was estimated that modern agriculture is already saving at
least 15 million square miles of wildland, which is the greatest
conservation triumph in human history. AAP; October 13, 1998 
The chemical industry has now committed $1.2 billion for a six-year
program of independent research into how chemicals affect
health and safety. Project chairs have said that the results of
this research will be peer reviewed and made public, "even
if it hurts,"
promising to "let the chips fall where they may." The
wide-ranging program includes an ambitious project that earmarks
$100
million into general research into 10 priority areas. These include:
* Research into pathways through which humans are exposed to chemicals;
* Risk of disease from exposure;
* How health data from animals relates to humans; and,
* Obtaining a better understanding of the relationship between
chemical exposure and cancer.
The industry believes that these are fundamental questions that
must be better understood. The industry will spend $500 million
over six years to test the toxicity of the 3,000 most widely used
chemicals. An additional $600 million is expected to go toward
screening as many as 15,000 chemicals to learn whether they pose
a threat to human hormonal systems, leading to cancer or
infertility. EPA has called the industry initiative "a truly
very significant commitment of resources. Most important is the
fact
that the funding is not focused on 'firefighting' but at trying
to answer the long-term questions that have puzzled health experts
and
the industry about the relationship of chemicals and public health."
About two-thirds of the $100 million for general research is expected
to go to the Chemical Industry Institute of Toxicology.
Although formed in 1974 by the chemical industry, its work is
widely respected for independence. The remaining one-third will
be
awarded to independent research scientists. Industry officials
said that the research will be open to peer review and public
scrutiny,
stating that "the integrity of this research must be unquestioned."
AP; January 27, 1999
Unlike many other occupations, family farms are different in that
the workplace is often at the same location as the worker's home.
Therefore, families of farmers have unusual opportunities for
potential indirect exposure to occupational hazards, such as
pesticides, regardless of whether they themselves are engaged
in the daily operations. Additionally, family members may assist
in
farm duties and, thus, have the potential for direct pesticide
exposure.
The National Cancer Institute and the National Institute of Environmental
Health Sciences conducted an Agricultural Health
Study in which all people applying for private pesticide applicator
licenses in North Carolina and Iowa from 1994-96 participated.
The study included an extensive questionnaire assessment of exposures
and health. One questionnaire was administered at
enrollment. Applicators were then given a supplemental questionnaire
that queried many items relevant to indirect household
exposure to complete and return. Applicators were also given a
take-home questionnaire for their spouse to complete that included
additional items on indirect exposures as well as items relating
to farm work carried out by the spouse that might lead to direct
exposure. The final take-home questionnaire included information
about children. A total of nearly 26,800 applicators supplied
completed surveys, and this included information on more than
18,800 children.
Results suggest that members of households of licensed private
applicators have several types of potential opportunities for
indirect exposure. Many homes (21%) and wells were located within
50 yards of pesticide mixing areas, and 48 percent of homes
were within 100 yards of the nearest field or orchard where pesticides
were applied. Proximity of homes to areas of pesticide use
has been shown to be related to pesticide residue levels in household
dust and yard soil. In addition, there was the opportunity for
potential indirect exposure via pesticides inadvertently carried
into the home on the applicators themselves and on their clothing.
Another route of potential exposure was the fact that 79 percent
of applicators indicated that they usually washed up or showered
in an in-house bathroom after mixing pesticides, whereas 5 percent
used an outside shower and 16 percent used another area
outside the home. The laundry is yet another mechanism of possible
exposure. The most common practice, used by 81 percent
of respondents, was to wash clothes worn when mixing or applying
pesticides separately in the machine used for all laundry.
Another 2 percent always wore disposable clothing, and 4 percent
sent the work clothes out to be laundered or washed it in a
machine used only for this purpose. The remaining 13 percent mixed
clothes worn when mixing or applying pesticides in with the
other wash. Work boots were another route of bringing pesticides
into the house. Typical habits show that 38 percent of
respondents who had been working in the fields usually did NOT
take their boots off before entering the house. A total of 93
percent reported that there was a wipe mat by the door used by
family members working in the fields. The data showed that
spouses and children of licensed private applicators frequently
engage in farming activities, thus potentially directly exposing
themselves to pesticides. Approximately 50 percent of wives did
some work in the fields, and 40 percent reported having mixed
or applied pesticides (66 percent of these performed both duties,
3 percent only mixed, and 31 percent only applied). The vast
majority of older boys and more than half of the older girls also
participated in farm activities.
The consequences of families being exposed to pesticides in these
manners are uncertain but could be potentially serious. The
extent of these opportunities for family member exposure makes
additional studies of their health important. The Agricultural
Heath Study includes follow-up plans for continuing formal contact
the applicators and their families. Passive follow-up is also
planned through cancer registries and death certificates.
Somewhat conversely, however, was a study released in October
1998 suggesting that farmers have a lower standardized
mortality rate, are healthier, and have a lower rate of accessing
health care than other occupational groups and the general
population. The study assessed the health status of more than
1,200 male farmers matched against 1,100 nonfarmers from the
national population. Results of the physician-administered examinations
included:
* Farmers had significantly more lower back pain, hip pain, and
numbness of the hands;
* Farmers had significantly less fatigue, dizziness, chest discomfort,
and heartburn;
* Farmers had significantly less use of outpatient heath care
for psychiatric, neurologic, ear-nose-throat, ophthalmologic,
gastrointestinal, and dermatological diseases;
* Farmers had significantly more use of outpatient health care
of trauma; * Farmers had lower rates for all causes of admission
to the hospital;
* Farmers had a heavier workload, worked longer hours, had more
sleeping hours, and consumed less alcohol.
Interpretation of these data shows that the differences between
farmers and nonfarmers were independent of the urban-rural
factor and could not be explained by traditional determinants
of heath and health care utilization.
American Journal of Industrial
Medicine; December 1998 Agromedicine Program Update; Nov. 1998

The EPA has registered a new reduced risk herbicide for use on
field corn. The new herbicide controls a wide range of broadleaf
weeds and suppresses some grasses. It is of low acute toxicity
to humans, mammals, birds, aquatic organisms, and honeybees. The
active ingredient in the herbicide is a chemical called diflufenzopyr
and will be manufactured by BASF Corp., Research Triangle
Park, N. C., under the trade name, Distinct. Health and safety
data submitted to the EPA indicate that in addition to its low
acute
toxicity, diflufenzopyr is not a carcinogen, and does not cause
developmental o r reproductive effects. Based on its chemical
and
physical characteristics, diflufenzopyr is not expected to contaminate
groundwater. As a result of these findings, the EPA was able
to register this product in 13 months. The Food Quality Protection
Act of 1996 directs the EPA to give priority to the registration
of reduced risk pesticides. In addition, the EPA conducted its
review of diflufenzopyr jointly with the Canadian Pest Management
Regulatory Agency (PMRA), under the North American Free Trade
Agreement. Canada also has registered the product for use on
field corn. Under NAFTA, U.S. and Canada are coordinating their
review of pesticides to reduce trade barriers and bring safer
pesticide products to both markets faster. The EPA and PMRA have
requested the development of field data on the use of
diflufenzopyr, including rotational crop studies, and certain
ecological studies. As a condition of registration, these studies
will be
reviewed on an ongoing basis by the EPA and PMRA. More information
on diflufenzopyr is available on the EPA website at:
www.epa.gov/oppfead1/international/naftatwg.
Tolerance reassessment decisions for chlorpyrifos (Lorsban/Dursban),
one of the most widely applied insecticides, will not be
completed by the August 1999 deadline. This delay is due primarily
to all the necessary periods of comment required as a part of
the reassessment process.
Pesticide and Toxic Chemical News;
January 21, 1999
EPA Press Release; January
20,
1999 Federal Register; January 8 and 15, 1999
* Plantback intervals. Labels must restrict rotation of treated
fields, treated with more than 0.5 pounds of active ingredient
per
acre per season, to transgenic cotton (BXN cotton).
* The following language must be placed on registered labels:
"The restricted-entry interval (REI) for cotton is 4 days
and this
includes scouts and crop advisors. The exemption in the Worker
Protection Standard for certified crop advisors does not apply
to
bromoxynil. Scouts and crop advisors are prohibited from entering
the treated area during the entire 4-day REI for bromoxynil.
Applicators and other users must inform crop advisors and scouts
of this requirement."
* In addition to the 4-day REI for bromoxynil on cotton, EPA is
establishing a 26-day REI for uses of bromoxynil on turf grown
for transplanting (ex., on sod farms).
* EPA has required mixers and loaders to wear a chemical-resistant
apron. Although EPA has no data to assess the exposure
reduction to mixers/loaders afforded by a chemical-resistant apron
specifically, the Agency was persuaded that the exposure
reduction would be significant.
For more information, call EPA at (703) 305-5805, or copies of
this RED and RED Fact Sheets can be downloaded form the EPA
Website at http://www.epa.gov/REDs
Federal Register; January 13, 1999
Bromoxynil RED Fact Sheet
Agricultural Chemical News; January 1999

New
Scientist, via Agnet; November 28, 1998
Reuters;
November 16, 1998
The London Free Press; September 26, 1998
Ontario
Farmer; September 22, 1998
A pest control operator in Green Bay, Wisconsin has been accused
by that state's Consumer Protection Department of using
nicotine smoke bombs to kill roaches in a home. The smoke bombs
reportedly exposed a mother and her four children to the
equivalent of 37,000 cigarettes. They were treated at a hospital
emergency room for tightness in the chest and continuous coughing.
The pesticide applicator is accused of using a pesticide in a
manner not consistent with the directions on its label, and could
face
four years in prison and a heavy fine. (To make matters worse,
nicotine does not control roaches!)
Wisconsin State News Service; January 6, 1999
AP, Reuters; December 28 and 29, 1998
FSNet; December 8, 1998
AP; October 23, 1998
Ontario Farmer; September 29, 1998 via Agnet
Chemical Regulation Reporter; October 9, 1998
ACPA Action Line;
October
26, 1998