Arkansas Is Our Campus
The Arkansas Agricultural Experiment Station and the Arkansas
Cooperative Extension Service offer their programs to eligible persons
regardless of race, color, national origin, sex, age or disability, and
are Equal Opportunity Employers
E.P.A. Says It Pressed 3m for Action on Scotchgard Chemical
By DAVID BARBOZA ,
May 19, 2000
CHICAGO -- The Environmental Protection Agency said that it had
pressed Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing to come up with a solution
after the company's own tests had shown that a chemical compound used in
Scotchgard and an array of household products could pose a risk to human
health and the environment. While
the EPA said it did not see an immediate safety risk for consumers using
products now on the market, agency officials said they grew concerned
about potential long-term health risks to humans after a 3M study showed
that the chemical, perfluorooctanyl sulfonate, lingered for years in human
blood and animal tissue and that high doses were known to kill laboratory
rats. "The
results raised a number of concerns," said Stephen Johnson, who works in
the office of prevention, pesticides and toxic substances at the EPA.
"What it suggests to us is that there are potentially long-term
consequences. But we don't have evidence it is unsafe now." Officials of 3M, however, say they are absolutely confident that
their products are safe, and that there are no long-term consequences to
human health. "This
isn't a health issue now, and it won't be a health issue," said Larry
Zobel, the medical director at 3M., which is based in St. Paul. "To the
question of whether this builds up in humans, it would have to be a long
time, like hundreds of thousands of years to be a threat," he
said. Many
scientists have praised 3M's decision to stop production of
perfluorooctanyl and related chemicals. "The
real issue is this stuff accumulates, and if it accumulates in the
ecosystem, you have to be worried about that because it could be trouble,"
said John Doull, a retired professor of clinical toxicology at the
University of Kansas Medical Center in Kansas City. "No chemical is
totally innocuous, and it seems inconceivable that anything that
accumulates would not eventually become toxic." In
addition to Scotchgard products, the chemical is used as stain repellant
and protective coating on textiles, carpets and leather, and in paper
packing, snack-food bags, pet-food bags, firefighting foam and
pesticides. The
EPA said its decision to press 3M rested on four concerns: the compound is
persistent in the environment; it appears in wildlife and human tissue
around the world; it appears in human blood samples taken from around the
world; and, based on the study of laboratory rats, it has the potential to
harm humans. The
EPA said it was first alerted to the study of laboratory rats shortly
after it was conducted in 1998. In that study, male and female rats were
given doses of the chemical and then mated. When a pregnant rat continued
to get regular doses of about 3.2 milligrams per kilogram of body weight,
most of the offspring died within four days. "With
all that information, we finally talked to 3M and said that raises a
number of concerns. What are you going to do?" said Johnson at the
EPA. There
is still a difference of interpretation, however. Officials of 3M said the
doses given to the rats were extremely high, but EPA officials said that
few other chemicals would have as severe an effect. "This
is fairly toxic stuff in rats," one EPA official said. "There's clear
evidence it presents a problem in rats." But
3M said it had not yet determined the cause of death in the rats nor how
humans or animals ingested the chemicals so that it appeared in tissue or
blood samples. "That's a very interesting question," Zobel said. "We can't say how
it gets into anybody's blood." As a
result of that uncertainty, and the persistence of the compound in the
environment, 3M said it would do away with the chemistry by the end of the
year. The company said it negotiated with the EPA but its decision was
voluntary and there was never a discussion of a recall of the products.
The
EPA confirmed that the agency had not issued an ultimatum to
3M. 3M,
which is the only company known to make perfluorooctanyl, has been
searching for alternatives. But in recent weeks, after the EPA asked 3M to
come up with a solution, the company decided to discontinue using the
chemistry behind most of its Scotchgard products, which account for about
$300 million in sales, or less than 2 percent of the company's $16 billion
in annual revenue. Since
the announcement on Monday, the company's shares have gained $1.125,
closing at $87.0625 Thursday. 3M, which also produces Post-it notes and
Scotch tape, will stop supplying the chemical to other companies that use
it for their products. Group Wants Tests of
Chemicals by CAREN BENJAMIN Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON (AP) -- A pregnant woman who spends a few hours on a
home-improvement project may unwittingly be putting her child at risk for
problems ranging from hyperactivity to autism, a group of Boston-area
doctors said . The reason is chemicals in common household products like
solvents and pesticides. No one knows how dangerous they are to human
brain development because the government doesn't require companies to
perform such tests before bringing products to market, the Greater Boston
Physicians for Social Responsibility said in a report. Tests
on animals show there is cause for concern about products ranging from
glue to flea collars to nail polish, said the report by the group, an
affiliate of the Nobel Peace Prize-winning national Physicians for Social
Responsibility. The Boston organization said the federal government should
start requiring tests to ensure chemicals do not harm human brain
development. ''Clearly the solution is not simply educating the public to walk
through a minefield,'' said Dr. Jill Stein, an instructor in adolescent
medicine at Harvard Medical School and one of the report's
authors. Chemical makers say they already are working with the Environmental
Protection Agency to develop a testing program focused on children.
''These research and testing initiatives, costing hundreds of millions of
dollars, represent a comprehensive and focused effort to provide
government, industry and parents and other caregivers information to
determine what actions may be necessary to further ensure the health and
safety of children we are all responsible for protecting,'' said Frank
Rathbun, spokesman for the Chemical Manufacturers Association.
Rathbun also faulted the report's findings.
''They have made a series of assertions about the health effects of
various compounds, but have provided no data on the levels of exposure
that would produce such effects,'' he said. The physicians stressed such
data is not available for most chemicals, so it would be better to hold
off on distribution until the products are proven to be safe.
Currently, chemicals must be tested for their affects on the physical
structure of the brain of laboratory animals before they can be sold, said
Dr. Ted Schettler, one of the report's authors. The tests do not, however,
measure how the brain works after being exposed to the chemical, he said.
''What we think of as safe in our early studies of these chemicals often
turns out to be wrong,'' Schettler said. Of
the approximately 15,000 commonly sold chemicals on the market, only 12
have been tested specifically for their effects on brain development,
according to report co-author David Wallinga, senior scientist with the
Natural Resources Defense Council. The
EPA currently is considering restricting use or dosage of the pesticides
Dursban and Lorsban because of concerns about the products' effects on
children. Both are used in a range of products from lawn insecticides to
flea collars for pets.
ARSENAL ASSEMBLED IN MOSQUITO WARFARE AGENCIES PLANNING
DIVERSE BIOLOGICAL ATTACK By Denise Linke Special to the Tribune May 23, 2000 Government agencies are plotting a biological warfare campaign that
will result in millions of "deaths" over the next six months, while
keeping an eye on a new menace flying in from the East Coast. "Soldiers" are spreading crushed corncobs infected with deadly
bacteria in parks, over fields and in back yards, where pets and children
play. Carnivorous predators will be released into ponds and lakes.
Periodically, spray trucks roaming the streets will fill the air with
poisonous vapors. But
many residents won't even notice the battle against mosquitoes raging
around them this summer or be aware that researchers expect to be looking
for a new mosquito-borne menace in the near future.
The EPA account differs from that of 3M, which said on Monday that it had
voluntarily decided to stop making the chemical used in Scotchgard and
many other products by the end of the year because the tests showed that
the chemical compounds failed to decompose in the environment. Officials
of 3M say they have no evidence that the chemicals pose a long-term threat
to human health.
West
Nile encephalitis, first isolated in Uganda more than 60 years ago, made
its first appearance in the U.S. last summer in New York. Health
officials identified 61 human victims of the disease, seven of whom died.
It is carried by two types of mosquitoes--culex pipiens and aedes
vexans--both of which thrive in the Midwest.
Birds infected with the West Nile virus were found as far west as Pennsylvania and as far south as Baltimore, said George Balis, an entomologist with Clarke Environmental Mosquito Management of Roselle, which handles mosquito abatement for DuPage County, the Fox Valley and most of northeast Illinois. Experts at the Centers for Disease Control estimate that it should reach the Chicago area in two or three years, he said. "Mosquito abatement is something like a war," said Balis. "The trick is to come up with friendly weapons that kill mosquitoes without affecting anything else."
Mosquito hunters depend on intelligence reports to learn where the enemy is proliferating and where it isn't. Clarke employees began setting mosquito traps in early April. The traps emit carbon dioxide to attract mosquitoes, then suck them in with a fan-created vacuum. Researchers examine trapped mosquitoes to determine species and how fast their numbers are growing. They also catch and examine birds for mosquito-borne diseases, such as encephalitis. Since certain species of mosquito are more likely to transmit certain viruses, the results of avian blood tests can also tell researchers which types of mosquitoes are breeding fastest.
The most common mosquito-borne diseases in the Chicago area include St. Louis encephalitis, eastern equine encephalitis and LaCrosse encephalitis. Last summer the DuPage County Health Department reported one case of a bird found in the county with eastern equine encephalitis and no cases of humans contracting encephalitis from a mosquito.
When the traps show mosquitoes are on the rise, Clarke deploys biological weapons against them. The first line of defense is a bacterium, bacillus thuringiensis, which can be spread in ponds, drainage ditches and other breeding grounds. Once ingested by mosquito larvae, the bacterium eats holes in their guts, causing death in about a day. New larvae eat the carcasses, infecting themselves with the bacterium. It has no effect on mammals, fish or most other insects because their stomachs contain enough acid to destroy it, Balis said.
Rather than constantly reapplying germs on decorative ponds and lakes, Clarke sends in the mosquito fish. These minnows feed exclusively on mosquito larvae, gobbling hundreds of them in a day, Balis said. The minnows die every winter after the mosquito season, leaving ponds free for indigenous species. "Because they die each winter, the mosquito fish don't overwhelm the local ecosystems. That makes them very biologically friendly," he added.
Chrysanthemums, a favorite flower in fall weddings, lead the fight against adult mosquitoes. They contain pyrethrin, a chemical that kills the blood-sucking bugs but has no effect on other animals, Balis said. Clarke sprays pyrethrin and sumethrin, a synthesized version of the same chemical, in parks and neighborhoods when conditions are ripe for an outbreak of mosquitoes.
"We're moving away from the phosphates that people started using in the '60s because pyrethrin is friendlier to the environment and doesn't bother most people," Balis said.
Each spray truck comes equipped with a regulator that increases the chemical flow when the truck speeds up and decreases it when the truck slows down, ensuring the even distribution of pyrethrin mist. But residents can call and request that the truck drivers shut off the spray when they drive past a particular house, or that Clarke notify them by phone when a spraying run is scheduled in their neighborhood. "Even though the mist is completely harmless to humans, it can bother some people with asthma who can't handle any particulates in the air," Balis said. Researchers around the world are investigating new biological weapons against mosquitoes, including dragonflies, genetically engineered bacteria and even a species of mosquito that eats insect larvae but won't touch mammals. But the goal is not to eradicate mosquitoes, but control them, Balis asserted.
U.S. Rejects Pesticide Tests on Humans
By Joby Warrick
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, June 7, 2000
The Clinton administration has decided to sidestep a major political and ethical quagmire by rejecting the use of human experiments in setting regulatory limits for pesticides. Worried about a resurgence in human experiments by pesticide companies--some of which have been testing products on students and other volunteers for decades--the Environmental Protection Agency will adopt a policy of officially ignoring such studies in establishing legal limits for pesticides in food and water, agency officials said yesterday.
The decision essentially preempts a long-awaited report by an EPA scientific panel that had been deadlocked for months over the morality of administering pesticides to people to test their safety. A draft of the report released to panel members this week concludes that certain kinds of human experiments may be acceptable, and even desirable. The prospect of even a limited EPA endorsement of human experiments had deeply troubled several scientists on the panel and outraged environmentalists and some medical ethicists.
"Studies that dose people intentionally with pesticides are scientifically and morally bankrupt," said David Wallinga, a physician and senior scientist with the Natural Resources Defense Council, which has been lobbying against the use of humans in pesticide tests. "This is a rerun of government tests in the 1950s, when we lined up soldiers in front of nuclear blasts to see what would happen."
The EPA panel's draft report, obtained by The Washington Post, supports limited, carefully controlled experiments to determine how pesticides are processed by the human body. But both the panel and top agency officials rejected the use of human subjects merely to establish a pesticide's toxic threshold--the legally crucial level where harmful effects are first observed.
"There is nothing in the report that will change our policy," said Steven Galson, director of science and policy in EPA's pesticides division.
While the EPA does not directly regulate scientific research by private companies, it traditionally relies on industry studies in establishing safe limits for pesticides. In most cases the regulations are derived from experiments on laboratory animals or on people inadvertently exposed to chemicals, such as farm workers. Several industry groups have advocated more human studies, arguing that regulations based on animal research are often excessively strict.
"The lab animal data could overstate human risk or it might understate it," said Roger McClellan, president emeritus of the Chemical Industry Institute of Toxicology. "It all speaks to using data from humans if at all possible--but only under ethical circumstances."
Since the 1960s, chemical companies have quietly submitted to the EPA scores of studies in which humans were knowingly exposed to pesticides. In one typical experiment in 1973, volunteers at a New York state prison were fed small amounts of the potent insecticide chlorpyrifos and monitored for weeks. In a more extreme example, pregnant women and newborns were exposed to the compound DDVP in fly strips at a hospital in Italy.
Questions over the ethics of such tests returned to the spotlight two years ago when the Environmental Working Group, a Washington-based advocacy organization, reported a surge in human experiments in Britain in the 1990s. The researchers, working mainly for U.S. companies, paid youthful volunteers about $600 each to ingest small amounts of pesticides over several weeks, according to documents obtained by the environmental group. Last April, a similar study was conducted on student volunteers in Lincoln, Neb., by pesticide manufacturer Dow Agrosciences Ltd.
Public outcry over such experiments led to the creation of the special EPA advisory committee on human experiments in July 1998. But instead of offering ethical guidance on the issue, the panel quickly bogged down into bitter and sometimes public disagreement over whether human tests could ever be ethically acceptable. The draft released this week by the panel's leaders was described as a compromise, though several members continued to disagree sharply yesterday over its central conclusions. The report states that the use of humans in pesticide experiments "is acceptable, subject to limitations ranging from 'rigorous' to 'severe.' "
While volunteers in such experiments are not likely to see direct benefits, the knowledge gleaned from human studies benefits society as a whole, the draft concludes. Ideally, administering very small amounts of pesticides to humans could yield important medical insights--for example, by helping scientists understand how the chemicals are processed and stored within the human body.
But the draft also urges "active and aggressive scrutiny" of all human tests by the EPA, and it cautions against giving pesticides to young children under any circumstances. Human tests should never substitute for animal experiments in answering basic questions about a pesticide's toxicity, it said.
Arthur Kaplan, a panel member and one of the nation's most prominent medical ethicists, described the debate as "one of the toughest ethical dilemmas I've ever faced." Unlike most drug trials, human experiments with pesticides offer no direct benefit to the participant, and typically attract subjects only through coercion or cash. "It seems from the public's point of view that testing is absolutely essential; from the point of view of protecting the individual it looks absolutely abhorrent," said Kaplan, director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania.
But another panel member said the report failed to reflect the views of several members who are disturbed by both structural flaws and moral issues raised by previous human tests.
"The questions were: Should these tests be done, are they scientifically defendable and are they ethical," said the scientist, who asked not to be identified. "The answer to all three is no."
Ban urged on lawn chemicals Commons committee to propose act for reducing health threat of pesticides
ANNE McILROY
Parliamentary Bureau Chief
Toronto Globe and Mail
Tuesday, May 16, 2000
Ottawa -- Lawn chemicals and other pesticides intended for "cosmetic" purposes would be banned under a proposal to be unveiled by the House of Commons environment committee today.
The committee, dominated by Liberals, is calling for urgent action to reduce or phase out pesticides because of their potential threat to human health. It recommends creating a new pest-control act that would prohibit the registration and reregistration of pesticides intended for cosmetic uses, sources say. This would apply to pesticides used to beautify lawns and gardens.
Health Minister Allan Rock has already testified before the committee and indicated that he is prepared to bring in new legislation. It is not clear if the government will go as far as the report recommends. Sources on the committee say they want many lawn and garden pesticides banned or halted under a moratorium. But some concede it may be technically difficult for the government to do so in legislation that would withstand a legal challenge from pesticide manufacturers.
"We have got to stop using this stuff where we don't have to. I mean, they are spraying these chemicals around playgrounds and schools," one source said. Pesticides automatically must be reregistered with the federal government every five years, said Julia Langer, an expert on pesticides with the World Wildlife Fund. If Ottawa follows the recommendation of the committee, it could mean that the pesticides Canadians now use to make lawns green would not be available in the future, and that new ones would not be approved for sale.
At their party's convention in March, Liberal delegates voted in favour of banning the cosmetic uses of pesticides. The lengthy report contains dozens of recommendations. The recommendations are designed to get Canadians to start viewing pesticides in the same light as lead, tobacco or other substances that can damage health. But Canadian Alliance MPs who sat on the committee are already characterizing its sweeping recommendations as hysterical and say they will release their own report.
"The report we will be releasing will hopefully provide some balance to the committee report, which in my view is unbalanced and based more on hysteria than on sound science," said Rahim Jaffer, the party's environment critic.
The Alliance's dissenting report is expected to argue that pesticides provide important benefits for farmers and home owners. The party will argue that pest-control products increase the esthetic value of lands, whether on private property or on golf courses, and are necessary in a modern world. The committee report is expected to focus more on pesticides used in the urban areas rather than for agricultural purposes.
The issue is controversial. The city of Halifax has been criticized for its program to become the first Canadian city to ban lawn and garden chemicals. The move has delighted people who say exposure to herbicides make them ill. But some landscapers and lawn-care companies bitterly oppose the proposed bylaw, saying the products are safe when used correctly.
A report on pesticides done for regional council in March said about 5 per cent of the 300,000 people in the huge municipality around Halifax experience allergic reactions or flu-like symptoms when exposed to common lawn and garden chemicals.
Polluter fined for dumping chemicals on field
By Michael Raine
Saskatoon newsroom
For the first time in Saskatchewan, a corporate official has been convicted of polluting.
Martin Kravetsky, formerly the operations manager of Fort Storage, pleaded guilty in a Saskatoon provincial court to illegal dumping of farm pesticides and giving false information to provincial environment investigators.
The Winnipeg man was fined $6,000. Late in 1997, pesticide rinsate from bulk agricultural chemical containers was dumped onto a field north of Saskatoon. Nearly 100,000 litres of concentrated Monsanto herbicide was poured onto a 1.18 acre alfalfa field near Harris, Sask., by a Winnipeg-based warehouse company.
Judge Ron Bell said "polluting is a crime, not a breech of regulatory standards." He said he saw the crime in the same light as a theft and suggested the fine must serve as a deterrent to others. He said because Kravetsky pleaded guilty early in the proceedings, because money was not the sole motivation for the crime and because a $150,000 clean-up of the farm site was under way, Kravetsky was spared a higher penalty.
Kravetsky admitted he was in charge of the day-to-day operations of the company and that he should pay a penalty. "I wasn't fully aware of everything that went on. I made some mistakes but was a puppet of my boss. Hey, it was my job and somebody has to pay when something like this happens," he said outside the courthouse after the sentencing.
Saskatchewan's environment department, acting on a tip from a neighbor, first looked into the case in 1997. Environment department spokesperson Ralph Bock said the landowner was not charged because he thought he was getting a free application of herbicide and was unaware that chemicals were dumped at levels beyond the recommended rates.
In a statement of facts presented to the court, Kravetsky admitted to providing false information to the environment officer when they firstinvestigated. Fort Storage stated in writing that the rinsate from herbicide containers that were being emptied was between two and 200 times below the level recommended by the manufacturer.
Strong odors the following spring sparked renewed complaints from the neighbor. A conservation officer then found herbicide concentrations from 10,000 to 15,000 times the recommended levels. He found no microbial activity in the soil.
Since then, the herbicides trifluralin, dicamba, triallate, bromoxynil and glyphosate have shown up in ground water monitoring wells around the site.
In December 1999, Saskatchewan provincial court judge Albert Lavoie fined Fort Storage $4,250. The company was also ordered to pay $750 in court costs and place $150,000 in trust for cleaning up the land. Kravetsky was charged with interfering with a public official's investigation and four provincial environmental act charges.
"This should send a message. You can't lie to Sask Environment and just get away with it," said Bock.
U.S. Report Warns of Poisons on Native Artifacts
CHICAGO (Reuters)
Native American artifacts being returned to tribal ownership from U.S. museums under a 1990 federal law may be contaminated with arsenic and other pesticides used to preserve them, researchers warned on Tuesday.
"Arsenic on these objects poses a potential health threat," said the report from the University of Arizona, published in this week's Journal of the American Medical Association.
Experts said they examined three objects made of leather, grass, corn husks and other material that had been returned to a tribe under the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act. All three objects showed traces of arsenic or other pesticides, though records provided by the museums involved indicated that only one of the three had been treated, the report said. "Thus, museum documents cannot be relied on to identify contaminated specimens," the report said.
"The greatest acute danger would be to a young child who chewed on a significantly contaminated object," the report said. "Long-term exposure may occur via dust in storage and usage areas, from food stored with ceremonial objects or during ceremonial use in which objects are handled or worn." It said the tribe involved had received more than 400 objects similar to those tested, and nationwide thousands have been returned. In addition to arsenic museums used mercury, DDT and other substances to preserve objects. "Our preliminary results suggest that all museum objects subject to repatriation should be tested for pesticide residues," it concluded.
Pesticides found at Mabel Davis Park - Southeast Austin facility closed for more testing
Andrea Ball
06/06/2000
Austin American-Statesman
Mabel Davis Park was closed indefinitely Monday after officials discovered high levels of pesticides on a baseball field and a hiking trail. Recent soil tests showed the presence of DDT and three other pesticides, likely related to the site's former life as a municipal dump. No visitors will be allowed into the Southeast Austin park until the extent of pollution can be determined. The city expects to spend $80,000 to $100,000 on additional water and soil tests, which could take three months. Developing a cleanup plan could take another six to nine months.
The level of pesticides detected would pose a minimal threat to the park's longtime visitors, said Dr. Steve Harris of the Austin/ Travis County Health and Human Services Department. "We think the health risk here is very, very low, even for those who came here on a regular basis," Harris said.
The park at 3427 Parker Lane was closed during peak season as a precaution when preliminary tests could not specify the extent of the contamination, said Chuck Lesniak, environmental program coordinator for Austin's Watershed Protection Department. "There's no telling at this point," Lesniak said. "We just don't have enough information yet to say we're X times over the limit."
Officials hope to quickly reopen the park's Olympic-size swimming pool, which had 18,500 visits during the summer of 1998. If Monday's tests taken in and around the pool come back clean, swimmers could be back in business in two weeks. Until then, the park's swimming and playground programs have been transferred to the Dove Springs Park Pool and Recreation Center at 5801 Ainez Drive. Other portions of the park could reopen later this summer.
"We're certainly being overcautious," Lesniak said. "But when you have children involved, we certainly feel justified in closing the park until we know what we're up against." A public meeting about the contamination is planned next week. The time and place has not been determined.
Mabel Davis Park is above a landfill used in the 1940s and 1950s before being converted into a city recreation center in the 1970s. In 1979, while grading the park's softball field, workers unearthed several bags of pesticides. Heavy rains spread the pollutants, killing fish in the park pond. The city cleaned the contamination, meeting state cleanup standards at the time, Lesniak said. The recently detected chemicals are the same ones discovered more than 20 years ago. They were detected in March, when city officials discovered car battery fragments in a wooded part of the park. When soil tests showed lead contamination, park officials fenced off the area, then performed more tests. Those results came in two weeks ago, showing no additional lead contamination but finding the pesticides.
Pesticides found at Mabel Davis Park The four pesticides found at Mabel Davis Park are:* DDT -- Banned in 1972 as a cancer risk and an environmental hazard. Widely used on agricultural crops and in neighborhoods. * Dieldrin -- Banned in 1987 as a cancer risk. Once popular for crops such as corn and cotton. * Toxaphene -- Banned in 1990. Used to control pests on cotton and other crops. Can damage liver, kidneys, lungs and nervous system.* Heptachlor epoxide -- Phased out since 1978. Used extensively in homes and buildings and on food crops. Long-term exposure may damage the liver.
Honey has been contaminated by GM crops,
claims Friends of the Earth
By Michael McCarthy,
Environment Correspondent
17 May 2000
Britain's bee farmers are to seek an urgent meeting with the Government after Friends of the Earth (FoE) alleged that honey had been contaminated by genetically modified crops.
Traces of GM pollen had been found in honey bought in an area of England where GM crops in the Government's farm-scale trials programme had been grown last year, the green group said yesterday.
Two samples out of nine bought in the area, one of honey and the other of honeycomb, were found to contain "genetically modified components" by the Austrian Federal Environment Laboratory, to which they were submitted for analysis, FoE said.
"Friends of the Earth now has evidence that GM crops can contaminate honey," said Pete Riley, the group's senior food campaigner. "It is essential that the Government takes immediate action to protect this multi-million-pound industry from the GM threat."
The GM traces found were special genes for weedkiller tolerance developed for oilseed rape crops by the German agrochemical company Aventis. The area is understood to be in Oxfordshire. Brian Stenhouse, general secretary of the Bee Farmers Association of the UK, said members were being advised to move hives at least six miles from any GM crop site.
An Environment Department spokeswoman said: "The minute amounts of GM pollen found in honey pose no risk to human health."
Big protest against GM crops planned in Italy
By David Brough
ROME, May 17 (Reuters
Thousands of people are expected to join a protest against genetically modified crops at an international biotechnology conference in the north Italian city of Genova next week, environmentalists said on Wednesday.
The conference, organised by the Genova Trade Fair from May 24-26, is likely to draw speakers from leading life sciences companies and will discuss plant biotechnology, agricultural, health care and environmental issues.
"We expect thousands of people to join a sit-in in front of the conference building on May 25," Ivan Verga, spokesman of a prominent Italian environmentalist group "Green Environment and Society", told Reuters.
"We have been mobilising support for this protest in cities across Italy over the past three months. We want a transgenic moratorium and a five-year halt to experimentation and marketing of GM products," he added.
Greenpeace, which will have a stand at the conference, planned to join the protest with other environmental groups and expected thousands to attend, spokeswoman Monica Pepe said.
"It will be a big protest," she said. Greenpeace put up a giant condom-covered corn cob in front of the Rome Health Ministry in August last year to protest against GM foods it said were unwanted and
risky.
FEARS OF "MINI-SEATTLE"
Italian environmentalists said they hoped the protest would be peaceful. However, some press reports have referred to the planned demonstration as a "mini-Seattle", a reference to violent protests by anti-free trade demonstrators outside a meeting of the World Trade Organisation in the U.S. city in December. Environmental activists in Europe, particularly Britain, have expressed serious concerns over possible health and environmental risks from genetically altered plants. In Britain, they have torn up GM crops. U.S. transgenic soybeans are incorporated into foods sold worldwide.
Verga said Italy had some 280 experimental GM fields, growing crops including maize and soybeans. Agriculture Ministry figures were not available. Italy's Agriculture Minister Alfonso Pecoraro Scanio, a member of the Greens who took office last month in the center-left government of Prime Minister Giuliano Amato, has said he opposed GM foods and experimentation in open fields. He has said he hoped to join France, a leading critic of biotechnology, in lobbying the United States over concerns about GM organisms.
Three Italian regions ban GM crops
ROME, May 17 (Reuters) - Three Italian regions have banned cultivation of genetically modified (GM) crops, an Agriculture Ministry spokeswoman said on Wednesday.
"I can confirm that the regions of Marche, Tuscany and Lazio have decided to ban GM crops," the spokeswoman told Reuters. She had no further details.
Environmental activists in Europe, particularly Britain, have expressed serious concerns over possible health and environmental risks from genetically altered plants. Italy's Agriculture Minister Alfonso Pecoraro Scanio, a member of the Greens who took office last month in the centre-left government of Prime Minister Giuliano Amato, has said he opposed GM foods and experimentation in open fields.
Sweden says probing effects of GM rapeseed
By Tony Austin
STOCKHOLM, May 18 (Reuters)
Fourteen tonnes of rapeseed which was 0.4 percent genetically modified were imported to Sweden last year and sold to farmers, but the crops are not considered a health risk, the Board of Agriculture said on Thursday.
The board said it was investigating how the contaminated rapeseed entered the country, to protect the right of farmers and the general public to know what the crops contained. The seeds imported in 1999 from Canada contained 0.4 percent genetically-modified Roundup-resistant spring rapeseed, the board said in a statement. "It is a very low level of contamination and we do not see any danger for human health, animals or the environment," Carl Johan Liden, head of the board's crop section, told Reuters. "But we are looking seriously at this case, because it is important that farmers and the public know what the crops have in them," he added.
The Hyola 38 seeds contained the transforming element RT73, the department said in a statement. Roundup-resistant means the crops can be sprayed with Roundup weedkiller without affecting the rapeseed. The seeds were imported by Svalof Weibull AB and sold to seed companies in the Ostergotland region of central Sweden. Of the 14 tonnes imported in two consignments, 9.5 tonnes was sold and planted in the 1999 crop season and 4.5 tonnes was sold this year. The company said it estimated that 1,200 hectares had been planted with the seed in question.
The board said imports of the same seed from Canada this year had contained 2.6 percent of Roundup-resistant rapeseed but the mixture had been detected before it was sold to seed companies. The department said it had asked Svalof Weibull to give a full report by May 18 on how the seed had entered Sweden, and what steps it was taking to prevent a recurrence.
Liden said the board would decide by the middle of next week what steps it would take. Under a 1998 regulation, growing genetically modified crops in Sweden requires permission from the board, which also has the authority to order seeds and crops destroyed. Svalof Weibull has told the board that the affected rapeseed grown in 1999 was probably sold as cattle feed or for the manufacture of rapeseed oil.
Margarine industry confident amid GM furore
Britain's margarine industry is confident that no genetically modified material will find its way into its product despite news that farmers in Europe are unknowingly growing GM crops, industry sources said on Thursday.
"We've got the strongest IP (identity preserved) sourcing we believe can be acheived," said Duncan Bogie, spokesman for Unilever's Van den Bergh Foods. Seed company Advanta said that farmers in France, Germany, Sweden and the UK had unknowingly planted rapeseed contaminated with genetically modified material after a mix-up in seed production.
Van den Bergh's Bogie pointed out only a very small amount of rapeseed was involved and that rapeseed was only one of the potential ingredients of margarine. "There's more sunflower in Flora," he said, referring to one of Van den Bergh's brands.
Britain's Food Standards Agency has insisted that there is no risk involved in the contamination. "The oil from the GM variety, which is indistinguishable from oil obtained from non-modified oilseed rape, does not require labelling since neither DNA or protein will be present in the refined oil," Sir John Krebs, head of the FSA, said in a statement.
Juliet Howarth of the Margarine and Spreads Association said the industry was taking its lead from the FSA. "There is no DNA or protein in the final oil. It's exactly the same as conventional oil," she said.
Genetic modification has been an issue which the margarine industry has watched closely, industry sources said. In an interview with Reuters in September, John Kyle, managing director of Glasgow-based Cardowan Creameries which supplies bakers and food manufacturers, expressed his concerns for the supply chain. "We don't want them tinkering with rapeseed," he said. The focus at that point had been on soya, which British margarine makers had largely removed from margarine in the face of retailers' opposition to genetically modified products.
France has no plans to destroy GM rapeseed
France's farm ministry said on Thursday it had no plans to destroy about 600 hectares of rapeseed that were being grown from seeds contaminated by genetically modified (GM) material.
A ministry official said legally there was nothing the government could do because the level of contamination by GM material was less than one percent. The seeds, which were thought to have been GM-free, were imported from Canada by seed company Advanta . "We were informed at the end of April by the company that imported the seeds. It's good to be made aware, but legally there's nothing that would lead us to act," the official said. The British government said on Wednesday UK farmers were unknowingly growing rapeseed contaminated with GM material, and Advanta disclosed earlier on Thursday that farmers in France, Germany and Sweden were also affected.
Sweden AgriBoard wants to destroy GM rapeseed crop
STOCKHOLM, May 19 (Reuters)
Sweden's Agriculture Board said on Friday it wanted rapeseed crops which illegally contained genetically modified material to be destroyed, but was consulting other authorities before deciding next week.
Information from genetic engineering and environment agencies, universities and farmers will be collected and the board will make a final decision next week.The board has asked other authorities to give their views by Tuesday, May 23.
"Our proposal is to destroy the crop, but we always consult widely in such cases,'' Carl John Liden, head of the board's crop section, told Reuters. Some 15.66 tonnes of rapeseed which was 0.4 percent genetically modified were imported to Sweden from Canada last year and 14.73 tonnes were sold to farmers, according to Swedish agribusiness firm Svalof Weibull. Advanta (AZN.L), the supplier, told Weibulls that the seed contained 0.4 percent of rapeseed which had been genetically modified to withstand spraying by a weedkiller called Roundup.
The board said about 1,200 hectares had been sown with this seed in the 1999 crop season, and Weibulls said it estimated a further 500 hectares were seeded this year.
NO PERMISSION FOR THIS CROP
"The sowing of genetically modified seeds requires permission. There is no approval for the cultivation of this rapeseed mixed with genetically modified material, either in Sweden or Europe,'' the board said. Most of last year's harvest had been sold as cattle feed and about 20 percent for manufacturing rapeseed oil.
Ingbritt Irhammar, the Swedish board's general director, said it took a serious view of the matter."Not because there is at first hand any danger for human health, our animals or environment, but because we must be able to know for certain that what is sown and reaped as free of genetic modification actually is,'' she said in a statement.
Svalof Weibull's managing director Sten Moberg referred Reuters to its website www.swseeds.se for details. The company said it had imported a further 17,850 tonnes of the Hyola 38 brand of rapeseed from Advanta via a Finnish company in March 2000. Advanta advised that the seeds contained 2.6 percent of genetically modified material, and Weibulls had impounded the whole consignment intact. Arnulf Merker, professor at the Agriculture University at Svalov in Sweden's deep south, said the board had "completely overreacted.''
"They are giving people the signal that this is dangerous, which is untrue,'' Merker said, adding that a 0.4 percent mixture of GM material posed no risk to health and the environment.
Tougher laws needed after GM seed mishap- Advanta
PARIS, May 19 (Reuters)
The firm at the centre of a mishap involving genetically modified (GM) seeds accidentally sown on thousands of hectares in Europe said on Friday the affair pointed to the need for tougher laws governing seeds.
Seed company Advanta, part of a 50-50 venture between Anglo-Swedish group AstraZeneca Pls and Dutch cooperative Cosun, said the seeds with "traces" of GM material were sown on around 600 hectares in northern France. "The traces of GM material in traditional seeds highlight the crucial need for European measures to guarantee the purity of seeds," Advanta said in a statement issued from its French office.
The company confirmed that the level of GM material in the seeds, which were imported from Canada and also sown in Britain, Germany and Sweden, was less that one percent. It played down the risk to the environment. "GM plants produce very little pollen, which makes contamination of neighbouring fields or wild species improbable," the firm said.
Environmental activists and a French government minister have urged that affected fields be destroyed. But a farm ministry official said on Thursday there were no plans to destroy the crops and that legally there was nothing the government could do because the level of GM material in the seeds was less than one percent.
Brazil denies New York Times article on transgenics
By Reese Ewing
Brazilian agriculture officials denied on Thursday the New York Times newspaper's statement that 30 percent of Brazil's entire billion-dollar soybean crop could already be genetically modified.
The president of the Brazilian Association of Soybean Producers (Abrasoja) Jose de Barros Franca Neto said the paper or its source was not accurate about their assessment of the amount of genetically modified (GM) soybeans in Brazil. "Last year Abrasem (the Brazilian Seed Producers Association) estimated, before the crop was completely planted, that up to 30 percent of Rio Grande so Sul state could contain these illegal seeds, not the national crop," Franca Neto said. But Franca Neto said he knew of no Brazil-wide estimates about transgenic contamination of soy crops and added that last year's estimates on Rio Grande do Sul were unofficial.
Brazil, the world's second-largest soybean producer, is the last
major competitor to the top grower, the United States, and has not
followed the North American country down the transgenic trail. The denial
comes amid growing concern over "Frankenstein seeds" in Europe, one of
Brazil's major markets. Planting GM seeds is prohibited by federal law in
Brazil and has made its products appealing to discerning buyers in such
markets.
Environmentally conscious consumers and supermarkets in Europe are shunning GM products from domestic growers and from countries like the United States and Argentina where GM seeds are widely used. Brazil's southernmost state Rio Grande do Sul, which will account for less than 16 percent of the nations total crop, has been the recent battle ground over the use of the so called super seeds.
"The GM material were smuggled into the state from Argentina, right across the boarder. Farmers were interested in the seeds because they are well suited for the state's climate, which is similar to Argentina's" Franca Neto said. An Abarasem official confirmed last year's study and said the association had not conducted any broader transgenic surveys since.
Franca Neto added that the GM seeds from Argentina were not likely to be used in other states, such as the top producer Mato Grosso, where soil and climatic conditions varied considerably from the area for which the seeds were designed.
The Agriculture Minister of Rio Grande do Sul, Jose Herme to Hoffmann said the figure is nowhere near 30 percent even for the state of Rio Grande do Sul. The state embarked on a campaign to eradicate soy plants grown from the super seeds in June of 1999. "We launched a statewide program involving TV, radio, billboards and mailings warning farmers not to plant the illegal seeds or they would risk the government torching their fields," Hoffmann said.
The paper quoted an estimate of Dwain Ford, a chairman at the American Soybean Association who visited some soy farms in Brazil. "This number would represent about nine million tonnes, which is unfounded....the attitude of the American Soybean Association is merely speculative and aims to discredit Brazilian soy in Europe, which has rejected U.S. and Argentine soy," said Franca.
Nobel Laureate Hails GMO Technology
Tervil Okoko
PANA Correspondent
June 7, 2000
NAIROBI, Kenya (PANA) - A Nobel Prize laureate, Dr Norman E. Borlaugh, has defended the utilisation of Genetically Modified Organisms or GMOs to boost food production in the world. He told a forum organised in his honour at the Nairobi International Centre for Research in Agriculture and Forestry Monday that such organisms could play a key role in bringing about food security.
"There is no evidence to indicate that biotechnology is dangerous. After all, mother-nature has been doing this kind of thing for God knows how long," he said to a packed hall consisting of researchers and food scientists in the Kenyan capital.
He dismissed the critics of GMOs as people who had not produced even a kg of food and yet were yelping about bio-safety and the dangers involved in the technology. Borlaugh, who received a Nobel Peace in 1970 for his efforts to feed a hungry world, said genetic engineering (a term he prefers to GMOs) was the only technology that must be embraced by countries whose food supply is threatened by the inequalities of the world. Citing the examples of China and Brazil where cereal production has gone up more than two-fold making the former the current world's leading cereal producer, he said biotechnology was the surest existing way to ensure food security in Africa and other developing countries. Maize, if given the right push, he noted, will sufficiently feed Sub-Saharan Africa.
"We need sophisticated scientific technology to boost our production," he said without batting an eye-lid to the danger supposed to be posed by such ventures.
Responding to questions on why he was advocating for an open adventure into genetically engineering at a time when most countries are preaching zero risk in respect to bio-safety, Borlaugh dismissed the zero-risk idea, saying it was a non issue where only plant genes are concerned, and not chemicals. He said zero-risk is something that does not exist and not tenable in a biological world where things kept on changing.
Asked who is going to be concerned with the bio-safety once a floodgate has been opened for genetic engineering, he described people who have been championing a GMO-free world as "utopian thinkers" who do not understand the complexities of food production.
"Dosage makes the poison. But vitamins, which are vital, are taken in smaller quantities. If we could get a gene from rice - because rice does not suffer from rust - and then use it to protect other crops that suffer from rust like wheat, that would be a big revolution, and that will not be dangerous to human health in any way," he added. He said Africa is undergoing political instability because there is not enough food to feed the people. "We need more investments in agriculture and we must stop looking at agriculture as a donkey's profession," he said.
Borlaug challenged African leaders to embark on productive technology that would ensure predictable food supply to their masses. "The so called GMOs can play a very vital role in peoples' lives. However, this must be accompanied by political goodwill because technology alone cannot survive without decisive support," he said. He, however, called for the establishment of responsible government agencies to police the GMO imports.
Borlaug is the president of Sasakawa Africa Association, a body that runs various food technology projects across Africa including Ghana, Nigeria, Mali, Burkina Faso, Benin, Ethiopia, Guinea, Tanzania, Mozambique Malawi and Uganda. He is the father of the famous "Green Revolution" that enabled India and Pakistan to increase cereal production from 12 million to 68 million tonnes within 35 years. He has dedicated more than five decades to fight for the end of world hunger and the acceleration of agricultural productivity in developing nations.
Canada Calms Britain Over Errant GMO Canola Seeds
By Irene Marushko
WINNIPEG (Reuters)
Canada's government and canola growers Thursday cautioned Europe against getting its knickers in a twist after Canadian rapeseed, containing genetically modified seed, was planted by mistake in Britain.
``It's an overreaction from the standpoint that most of what Europe has done with GMOs is an overreaction,'' said Dale Adolphe, president of the Canola Council of Canada. ``It's a paranoia that Europe has over GMOs,'' Adolphe said.
The Canadian seeds, imported by accident into Britain last month, spurred debate in the British Parliament and Agriculture Minister Nick Brown rushed to reassure the public that neither its health nor the environment were threatened.
Views on GMOs between the Europe and North American continents are about as wide as the Atlantic Ocean that lies between them, with Americans and Canadians mostly ho-hum about GMO products which they consume without thought or worry. Canola is a Canadian variant of rapeseed, and most of Canada's canola is GMO variety -- genetically altered to resist pests or weeds.
``From our perspective there is no government responsibility in the sale of these approved seeds,'' Vern Greenshields, spokesman for Agriculture Minister Lyle Vanclief, told Reuters, adding the seed was approved for human consumption in Canada. ``It's a seed that's eaten in Canada,'' Greenshields said.
Canada annually produces 6-7 million tonnes of canola, chiefly exported to the United States, China, Mexico and Japan.
``GMO canola is approved in every part of the world except Europe,'' Adolphe said. The seeds in question were imported into Britain by Advanta Seeds UK, a 50-50 venture between Anglo-Swedish group AstraZeneca Plc and Dutch cooperative Cosun, and the company informed the government about the mistake a month ago.
Adolphe said Europe stopped importing Canadian canola in 1997 when Canada commercialized the oilseed on a non-segregated basis, and Europe responded by imposing a moratorium on GM products shortly thereafter.
Environmentalists in Britain called for an immediate ''search and destroy'' operation to ensure that thousands of acres of genetically modified crops planted unknowingly in Britain were traced and pulled up.
Brown said Britain's government would press for new international legal standards of seed purity.
Adolphe said the 100 percent purity sought by such groups did not exist. ``There's no such thing as absolute zero,'' he said.
Greenshields said the European import policy, which allowed a one percent GM tolerance in food but none in seeds, contradicted itself.
Polluted pollen's 'limited impact'
BCC News
Thursday, 18 May, 2000
The concentration of pollen lessens as it travels further, and it also gradually loses its potency over time. But in any case, the chances of the GM pollen establishing a foothold in British plants seem vanishingly small.
Dr Brian Johnson, of English Nature, the government's wildlife advisers, told BBC News Online: "The GM pollen will certainly escape into the surrounding countryside. "It may land on the stigmas of native plants like wild mustard or wild radish, and it may pollinate them. "But the chance is very low, and the chance of a viable hybrid developing is lower still. "If one or two per cent of the rapeseed crop contains GM material, then you're talking of something orders of magnitude less than that when it comes to the chance of the modified gene getting into another species.
Lingering survivors
"And even if it does it won't matter, because the herbicide-tolerant gene confers no advantage on that species, so it will die out very quickly." Dr Johnson said there could be a problem with "volunteer" rapeseed growing the following year, plants originating from seed which went astray at the time of sowing. "Rape seeds are like small greasy ball bearings, and they escape quite easily. So they could perpetuate the gene flow. "The answer is to spray the volunteers with another herbicide next spring, and then there should be no problem."
Insects harmed
But other concerns will persist. Organic farmers whose land abuts GM crops, or bee-keepers whose hives are within flying distance of them, probably cannot avoid GM material getting into their produce. And there may be effects on non-plant species as well. US researchers found that pollen from a GM crop could, in certain circumstances, harm caterpillars of the monarch butterfly. It was a different crop, incorporating a different gene. But it is not yet possible to be certain that the GM rapeseed will not produce similar effects in other animal species. The government says that only through larger trials can the true impact of GM on the countryside be tested.
EPA Releases Diazinon Preliminary Risk Assessment for Public Comment
II. Summary:
On May 19, EPA published a Federal Register notice announcing the availability of the preliminary risk assessment for the organophosphate insecticide, diazinon, for public comment. Public comment will be accepted until July 18th.
The preliminary human health risk assessment did not identify risk concerns related to:
Carcinogenicity--diazinon is classified as a "not likely human carcinogen" based on lack of evidence of carcinogenicity in mice and rats. Dietary exposure (acute and chronic) (not of concern for any population subgroup). Exposure via drinking water (not of concern for groundwater or ambient surface water based on monitoring data). However, model estimates for concentrations of diazinon in drinking water from surface water sources show a potential concern for infants and children (1 to 6 years old), and reassessment of potential exposure based on future monitoring data on drinking water from surface water sources is recommended.
The preliminary human health risk assessment identified the following risk concerns:
Residential handler exposures are of concern for nearly all scenarios. Postapplication dermal exposures from residential indoor and outdoor uses are of concern for all but granular turf scenarios. Occupational risk is of concern for several scenarios. In addition, the report highlights several issues introducing uncertainty into the risk estimates, such as unrefined residue values in certain commodities, lack of percent-crop-treated information for imported commodities, lack of drinking water monitoring data from surface water sources.
The assessment also notes that diazinon is one of the leading causes of acute reactions to insecticide use reported as poisoning incidents in the United States...based on ...Poison Control Center reports. The frequency of reported incidents for diazinon is accounted for by the widespread use of this chemical inside and outside the home.
The ecological risk assessment includes the following information:
The primary environmental concerns associated with the use of diazinon are bird kills, contamination of surface water, and impacts on aquatic species. The impacts of diazinon use on surface water are a particular concern because a significant portion of diazinon is used on lawns in urban and suburban areas where runoff is occurring. Available water monitoring data clearly demonstrate that the use of diazinon is resulting in widespread contamination of surface water. Diazinon is also one of the most frequently detected pesticides in air, rain, and fog.
The Federal Register notice (Vol 65, No. 98, pages 31902-31904) is available on EPA?s web site at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr. The risk assessment documents are available on EPA?s web site at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/op.
NEW BIOCHEMICAL PESTICIDE REGISTERED AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO METHYL BROMIDE
EPA registered a new biochemical pesticide, the Harpin protein (Trade Name MESSENGERTM ) on April 19, as an alternative to conventional, synthetic pesticides such as methyl bromide. This biochemical pesticide is registered for use on field crops, trees, turf, and ornamentals to control a wide variety of fungal, bacteria, and viral pathogens as well as several insect pests.
Unlike most pesticides, the Harpin protein does not act directly on the target pest. Instead, it activates a natural defense mechanism in the host plant, called systematic acquired resistance, that makes the plant resistant to a wide range of fungal, bacterial and viral diseases. The Harpin protein also protects against certain nematodes and fungal diseases that have few effective controls except methyl bromide, a broad-spectrum pesticide that is believed to contribute to stratospheric ozone depletion and have adverse effects on human health.
The Harpin protein is non-toxic and not expected to pose risks to human health or the environment. Because the product is applied at low rates and degrades rapidly in the field, no residues are expected on treated crops. In addition, studies demonstrate no toxicity to humans and no adverse effects on many species of wildlife (e.g., birds, fish, honeybees, aquatic invertebrates, non-target plants and algae). During its experimental use stage, the Harpin protein was used on tomatoes as a component of Integrated Pest Management programs, thereby decreasing the use of conventional pesticides by 70 percent while outperforming them in effectiveness. EDEN Biosciences Corp. of Bothell, Wash., was granted registrations for both the Harpin protein and MESSENGERTM (the only product containing this protein as an active ingredient). For more information, see: www.epa.gov/pesticides/biopesticides.
IR-4
Shepherds Development of Low-Risk Fruit Spheres, Alternatives to
Broadcast
Insecticide Sprays for Control of Late Season Pests.
Fruit producers indicate that there is a critical need for insecticides that can be used late season to control apple maggot, blueberry maggot, cherry fruitfly and plum curculio. Thereis zero tolerance for these insects in commodities intended for processing. A single detection of an insect in a truckload of fruit results in rejection of the entire truckload for processing.
Fresh market producers also have problems acquiring and maintaining markets if these insects are present in their produce. We are steering producers away from pesticide uses which leave residues on fruit and typically the late- season uses are the most likely to result in residues. IR-4 is encouraging development of bait and kill fruit spheres for control of these pests which will not leave pesticide residues in fruits.
The technology was initially developed by Dr. Ron Precipe, IPM entomologist, University of Massachusetts and has been transferred to a potential registrant. The sphere is apple-sized and composed of a rock-hard cornstarch and sugar mixture which is coated with a low rate of imidacloprid and painted black to deter birds from pecking at the Aimitation@ fruit. A fruit scent (FDA approved food additive) is used to attract the pests.
In apples, about 15 of these spheres are used per acre, only on field peripheries, and efficacy results have been encouraging. National Public Radio did a piece about these IPM spheres which resulted in increased interest by growers and potential financial support for development of a commercially acceptable product.
EPA PROPOSES REVOKING METHYL PARATHION TOLERANCES
(Press Advisory 6/1/00)
EPA is proposing to revoke or amend the maximum pesticide residue limits (called tolerances) for the organophosphate insecticide methyl parathion on many fruits and vegetables children frequently eat, including apples, broccoli, brussels sprouts, carrots, celery, cherries, grapes, nectarines, peaches, pears and plums. EPA will announce this in a Federal Register notice on Fri., June 2. This proposal follows up on the cancellations by the registrant of the use of methyl parathion on these and other commodities that EPA announced on Aug. 2, 1999. This decision was based on EPA's determination that showed acute dietary risks from methyl parathion in food did not meet current requirements for an extra margin of safety to protect children under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act as amended by the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA). EPA made that determination after completing a comprehensive review of methyl parathion's uses. EPA proposes to make these revocations and amendments effective upon publication of the final rule. EPA is working with the Food and Drug Administration, who also on June 2 issued guidance on how it will handle situations involving methyl parathion residues in foods that were legally treated with methyl parathion before January. The Federal Register is available at: http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-PEST. For more information on EPA's reassessment of methyl parathion, visit http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/op.
FIFRA
SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY MEETING (SAP) ON GUIDELINES
FOR MAMMALIAN TOXICITY
ASSESSMENTS FOR PROTEIN PLANT-PESTICIDES,
JUNE 7, 2000
The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP) will meet on June 7, 2000, to review EPA's methods for assessing the mammalian toxicity risks associated with plants genetically- modified to express protein plant-pesticides. The proteins expressed in these plants are intended to control certain target pests. Because EPA must determine with a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from exposure to these proteins, the Agency is developing guidance for companies applying to register these proteins for use as pesticides. While the guidance follows the rationale for assessing mammalian toxicity used for other biopesticides, the Agency is using the scientific expertise of the SAP to formalize its approach for determining the mammalian safety of protein plant-pesticides. As such, EPA is seeking advice from the SAP to help determine: if plant-pesticide proteins differ from other proteins in the human diet; what the data requirements for plant-pesticide should be; and how to assure that the approach taken by the Agency to register protein plant-pesticides does not create any unique problems. The meeting is open to the public, and will take place on June 7, 2000, at 8:30 a.m., at the Sheraton Crystal City Hotel, 1800 Jefferson Davis Highway. For an agenda and
background documents, please access EPA's website at: www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap/#june. For further information, please contact Larry Dorsey or Paul Lewis, via telephone:
(703) 305-5369; fax: (703) 605-0656; or email: dorsey.larry@epa.gov, lewis.paul@epa.gov.
Chlorpyrifos Revised Risk Assessment and Agreement with Registrants
Action and RationaleEPA has released its revised risk assessment and announced an agreement with registrants to eliminate and phase out certain uses of the organophosphate pesticide chlorpyrifos. Also known as Dursban, Lorsban, and other trade names, chlorpyrifos is one of the most widely-used insecticides in the U.S., both in agriculture and in and around the home. The Food Quality Protection Act, enacted in 1996, sets a more stringent safety standard for most pesticides and offers special protection for children. In meeting the tough safety standard, EPA believes it can do a better job of protecting children and others by further reducing exposure to chlorpyrifos, and providing the increased margins of safety now mandated by Federal law. These use modifications also will improve safety for workers who apply chlorpyrifos and for the environment.
Risk Mitigation
EPA and the registrants have agreed to the following modifications:
Reducing Food Risks... The agreement will expeditiously address food uses posing the greatest risks to children. It decreases the use of chlorpyrifos on apples, terminating or canceling all post-bloom applications, and cancels the use on tomatoes. EPA will also propose to 1) lower the tolerance or maximum residue limit on apples to reflect this change in use, 2) revoke the tolerance on tomatoes, and 3) lower the tolerance on grapes to a level that will allow for dormant applications (the only use allowed domestically), but not foliar applications typically made in foreign countries on grapes that are imported into the U.S. These actions will reduce acute dietary risk by 75 percent, effectively eliminating dietary risk concerns for children and others.
Reducing Residential Risks... About 50 percent of chlorpyrifos is used in and around the home. The agreement will cancel and phase out nearly all indoor and outdoor residential uses. It effectively eliminates the use of chlorpyrifos by homeowners, limiting use to certified, professional, or agricultural applicators. Those uses that pose the most immediate risks to children, including home lawn, indoor crack and crevice treatments, and whole house "post-construction" termiticide treatments, will be canceled first. Spot and local post-construction and pre-construction termiticide uses will be phased out over the next several years.
Reducing Drinking Water Risks... The actions on residential uses also will reduce exposure to chlorpyrifos through drinking water, since residential applications are potentially a major source of drinking water contamination.
Reducing Non-Residential Risks...
Chlorpyrifos use in schools, parks, and other settings where children may be exposed will be canceled. Only use in some limited commercial settings, like warehouses, ship holds and railroad boxcars, may continue.
Reducing Worker Risks... Risks to workers who apply chlorpyrifos also are of concern. The agreement will help mitigate worker risks by implementing Restricted Entry Intervals (REIs) for agricultural uses. By August 1, 2000, chlorpyrifos registrants also will be proposing lower application rates, lower frequencies of treatment, and longer time periods between applications and harvest (pre-harvest intervals) for some agricultural uses. These and other measures to reduce both worker and ecological risks will be discussed further in consultation with stakeholders as EPA develops an interim reregistration eligibility decision for chlorpyrifos.
Protecting Public Health Uses... Under the agreement, public health uses including applications to fire ant mounds and ultra low volume applications for mosquito control will be allowed to continue. These applications do not pose risks of concern and provide important public health benefits.
Supporting Low-Risk Uses... The agreement allows several other non-agricultural uses to continue, with appropriate risk mitigation. Golf course applications, for example, may continue with application rates reduced by 75 percent. Low risk uses like containerized baits in child resistant packaging, and non-structural wood treatments such as treatments of utility poles and fenceposts, will not be affected by the agreement.
Phased In Approach
The agreement phases in the various restrictions and cancellations to address higher risk uses of chlorpyrifos first. Because much of the risk reduction involves increasing margins of safety, it is reasonable to focus first on the uses that achieve the greatest risk reduction for children. Allowing other uses to continue for a specific period of time will help ensure that appropriate alternatives are available for a reasonable and orderly transition.
For more information go to the following web sites:
http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/op/chlorpyrifos.htm
To go straight to the fact sheets:
http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/announcement6800.htm
United States Environmental Protection Agency
June 2000
EPA distributes its Pesticide Program Updates to external stakeholders and citizens who have expressed an interest in OPP activities and decisions. We have established an electronic listserve for people who want to keep abreast of pesticide issues and decisions. This update service is part of EPA's continuing effort to improve public access to Federal pesticide information. To subscribe or unsubscribe to our automatic mailing list, visit:
http://www.epa.gov/oppfead1/cb/csb_page/form/form.html
Or call or write us directly at:
Communication Services Branch
Office of Pesticide Programs (7506C)
US Environmental Protection Agency
Ariel Rios Building
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20460
703-305-5017
From the EPA OPP web page
What are Biopesticides?
Biopesticides (also known as biological pesticides) are certain types of pesticides derived from such natural materials as animals, plants, bacteria, and certain minerals. For example, canola oil and baking soda have pesticidal applications and are considered biopesticides. At the end of 1998, there were approximately 175 registered biopesticide active ingredients and 700 products.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PREVENTING ACCIDENTAL POISONING
Always store pesticides away from children's reach, in a locked cabinet or garden shed. Child-proof safety latches may also be installed on cabinets and can be purchased at your local hardware stores;
Read the label first and follow the directions to the letter, including all precautions and restrictions;
Before applying pesticides (indoors or outdoors), remove children and their toys as well as pets from the area and keep them away until the pesticide has dried or as long as is recommended by the label;
If your use of a pesticide is interrupted (perhaps by a phone call), properly reclose the package and be sure to leave the container out of the reach of children while you are gone;
Never transfer pesticides to other containers that children may associate with food or drink;
Never place rodent or insect baits where small children can get to them;
Use child-resistant packaging properly by closing the container tightly after use;
Alert others to the potential hazard of pesticides, especially caregivers and grandparents;
Teach children that "pesticides are poisons" -- something they should not touch;
Keep the telephone number of your area Poison Control Center near your telephone.
Briggs Skulman
The Agricultural Experiment
Station Ples
Spradley,
Cooperative Extension
Service
Department of Crop, Soil and Environmental Sciences
University of Arkansas, Fayetteville
1366 Altheimer Drive
Fayetteville, AR 72704
Phone: (501) 575-7569
Fax: (501) 575-3975
Cooperative Extension Service
University of Arkansas, Little Rock
P.O. Box Box 391
Little Rock, AR 72203
Phone: (501) 671-2000
Fax: (501) 671-2251