Arkansas Pesticide News

October, 2001; Volume 28

United States Department of Agriculture, University of Arkansas; and County Governments Cooperating


Arkansas Is Our Campus
The Arkansas Agricultural Experiment Station and the Arkansas Cooperative Extension Service offer their programs to all eligible persons regardless of race, color, national origin, sex, age or disability and are Equal Opportunity Employers.

Editors: Briggs Skulman, Department of Crop, Soil, and Environmental Sciences, Fayetteville
and Ples Spradley, Coop. Extension Service, Little Rock.




FARMING TOOLS AS WEAPONS?

Like many Americans I found that my mind tended to wander from the tasks at hand for some time after September 11 this year. As a number of weeks have now past, many of the articles of interest that I pull together for this newsletter take on new meanings and concerns as apposed to those pre-World Trade Center attack. I don't want to dwell on my shock, dismay and disgust for the misfits of this planet that perpetrate such heinous acts of barbarism on U.S. citizens for whatever their pseudo-religious or political goals may be.

I am also struck by the ironic fact that this is a pesticide newsletter that deals with the control of the more familiar sorts of pests, those that can reek damage on our crops, livestock, health and comfort. A certain knee jerk reactionary part of me would rather be reporting on the "pest control" of the sub-human vermin that now terrorize the citizens of the modern, civilized and freethinking world. CNN and all the other news services will be covering that form of "pest control" as time goes on, I am sure. Never the less, there are some potential connections between farming our tools and terrorist activity that we need to be cognizant of and on guard for to prevent their unintended and unexpected use.

In the days after WTC the authorities have uncovered many startling facts about the individuals and organization(s) involved. Some of these bits of information relate to the tools of the farmer and pesticide applicator. Crop dusting planes were considered by some of the terrorists for use as potential weapons. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that applicator's planes could potentially be used to spray some form of biological or chemical agent on an unsuspecting populous. It could still happen!

I would encourage all applicators to examine their security arrangements. The rural parts of our country just make it easier for such activity as there usually are fewer people around to notice suspicious activities. Make sure it would be very difficult for someone to steal a "delivery vehicle" by locking and tethering it to the ground when not in use.

Similarly, the agricultural chemicals that are kept on site need to be securely guarded. It doesn't matter if, in their particular form, they are considered safe or not. After all, the Oklahoma City bomb was constructed from ammonium nitrate fertilizer, add some fuel oil and a form of ignition and ......ka-boom! Agricultural chemicals could become feed stocks for something more sinister, like poisonous gas. It would be a good time to reevaluate one's security arrangements to at least make unauthorized use of our crop production tools, if not impossible, much more difficult. Security works best if it occurs in layers or has redundancy. An example might be that chemicals are stored in a secured room inside a locked building with access to the property restricted by a fence and gate.

I certainly don't expect there to be a terrorist in every skunk hole in the country (and I do apologize for maligning skunks but all it takes are a couple of lax situations that these creatures might take advantage of for their goals of spreading fear in our country. Let's channel that potential fear into dogged determination to deter any possible use of our agricultural system against our citizens and country.

As a side note: With the now emerging possibility of bio-terrorism it will be interesting to see if the concerns and government actions towards GMO crops continue in the coming months or if these issues will pale in comparison to the current events and become a (at least temporarily) moot issue.




ARKANSAS, MISSISSIPPI NARROWLY ESCAPE DISASTER FROM IMPROPER PESTICIDE APPLICATION

Improper applications of the pesticide Fury nearly led to disaster for wheat growers in Arkansas and Mississippi.
While the insecticide was applied to only a small portion of the states' wheat, had it gone to grain elevators, FDA could have designated the entire commingled crop as adulterated. Although the Fury residues are rapidly dissipating, FDA still regards the treated wheat as unfit for human consumption because Fury, a synthetic pyrethroid produced by FMC Corp., is not registered for use on wheat.

FMC has offered to purchase all of the mistreated wheat. In an agreement reached last month, FMC will pay farmers for the 25,000 acres of the crop to which Fury was applied. Once residues of the insecticide decline to non-detectable levels, the wheat will be resold. Meanwhile, Arkansas and Mississippi officials are warning storage-facility operators to watch out for the contaminated grain. The Mississippi Department of Agriculture and Commerce said in a notice that wheat buyers and handlers should protect the wheat that was not sprayed with Fury. Wheat growers in Arkansas and Mississippi used Fury to fight a potentially ruinous invasion of armyworms. State investigators have not determined who told the growers to use Fury, which is registered for use on lettuce, pecans, and cotton, or why the aerial applicators agreed to spray a product not registered for wheat.

Mississippi officials were aware of the misuse by the end of April and, on May 4, advised the Arkansas State Plant Board that they might also have a Fury problem. Both states tried to identify the wheat growers who had used Fury. They lab-tested field samples to confirm misuse.

By the end of May, tests and surveys had determined that Arkansas growers had applied Fury to 6,048 acres - or 0.5% of the state's 1.2 million acres of wheat plantings. In Mississippi, Fury had been applied to 18,200 acres of wheat, which is 8.8% of the state's 205,000-acre total.

Mike Thompson, director of the Arkansas State Plant Board's Pesticide Division, acknowledged that the growers had faced a serious situation. "We don't usually see armyworms until about the end of June, but they were already infesting [Arkansas wheat] fields in early May. There were enormous numbers of them, and there was a lot of panic."

Now, however, the Plant Board and the Mississippi Agriculture Department want to find out who advised the use of Fury. "When we learned about the problem, we sent folks out to interview the pesticide dealers to find out who was buying Fury and possibly using it for wheat," Rickey Gray, executive counsel to the department, said. "From there, we've kept tracking back, but we still don't know who recommended it. (Pesticide & Toxic Chemical News, Vol. 29, No. 34, June 18, 2001)

YEAR 2000 PESTICIDE USAGE INFORMATION RELEASED

The USDA's National Agricultural Statistics Service has released its report on the use of pesticides in United States agriculture for the 2000 crop year. The survey gives estimates of on-farm use of commercial pesticides on rice, corn, upland cotton, soybean, sugarbeet, winter wheat, durum wheat, and other spring wheat. Seed treatment, spot treatment, and post-harvest treatments are not included in the survey.

An analysis by the National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy revealed that the 2000 data were quite similar to the 1999 data, indicating similar use patterns in general. Some growers used sulfosate rather than glyphosate for Roundup« Ready soybeans. Roundup« use on cotton increased 50 percent in one year, and that was due to the fact that more varieties of cotton received the resistance gene and that this herbicide is increasingly used in place of tillage practices, leading to a reduction in overall erosion. (Pesticide & Toxic Chemical News, Vol. 29, No. 31).

CHANGES IN COTTON PRODUCTION CORRELATE WITH INCREASED BIRD POPULATIONS

Boll weevil eradication, IPM programs, and Bt cotton have resulted in a dramatic decrease in the amount and toxicity of pesticides used on cotton In the old days, cotton was sprayed with some heavy-duty pesticides almost every week to control boll weevil and the secondary pests. The use of insecticides labeled as extremely toxic to birds has fallen by 68 percent since 1993. Use of less toxic insecticides is correlated with increased bird populations.

The analysis is based on bird counts from the North American Bird Breeding Survey, Puxtent Wildlife Research Center, USGS and bird species found in cotton fields in Arizona, Texas, Georgia and Mississippi. A study of the birds in cotton fields was submitted in 1995 by American Cyanamid. Comparing the 5 years prior to the introduction of Btcotton (1991 to 1995) with the 5 years after (1996 to 2000) shows that bird counts have increased, and more so for the states that have the higher adoption rates.

Arizona had the highest increase in bird counts (38% on average) and highest adoption of Bt cotton (75%). Increases in bird counts for Mississippi (31%) and Alabama (27%) also follow adoption rankings. And Texas had the least change in bird counts (-6%) the lowest adoption rate, and the least decline in insecticide use. Although correlation does not mean that the pesticide reduction caused the increased bird populations, we are doing things better. (As IPM coordinator, I will probably claim that my program has been largely responsible for the bird increase and the pesticide reduction.) (The Newest News from OPMP, 7-12-01)

AN EPIDEMIC MAY HAVE GONE UNNOTICED
- DDT USE IN U.S. LINKED TO PREMATURE BIRTHS IN THE 1960'S

Heavy U.S. use of DDT before 1966 may have produced a previously undetected epidemic of premature births, a new study shows.

The study, which appears in the current issue of the international medical journal Lancet, was carried out by scientists at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The scientists said they found elevated levels of DDT's breakdown product, DDE, in the stored blood of mothers recorded as giving birth to premature or low birth weight infants. Pre-term births are a major contributor to infant mortality.

"DDT levels in the U.S. are now low and likely not causing any harm,"said Matthew Longnecker, M.D., Sc.D., NIEHS, lead author on the study. "But we have to be concerned about what might be happening in those 25 countries where DDT is still used. Also, looking back on earlier decades in the U.S., we may have had an epidemic of pre-term births that we are just now discovering."

The U.S. Collaborative Perinatal Project, a program of the National Institutes of Health and 12 universities, still has stored blood serum from the mothers of thousands of children born between 1959 and 1966. A sample group of 2,380 was studied. Of these women's births, 361 were born pre-term, and 221 were small for gestational age; that is, they weighed less than most infants their age. Mothers of the affected infants had higher levels of DDE in their blood, indicating higher exposure to DDT in the environment. Average levels were about five times higher than at present. DDT has long been suspected of reproductive toxicity. It was identified by Rachel Carson as being a potent reproductive toxin in birds in her pioneering environmental book Silent Spring published in 1962.

Studies since then on human reproductive effects have been suggestive of the human reproductive toxicity of DDT, a pesticide still widely used and highly effective areas where mosquito-borne malaria is a major public health problem. Previous studies have drawn data from smaller samples and were not statistically powerful. "The findings of our study strongly suggest that DDT use increases pre-term births, which is a major contributor to infant mortality," Dr. Longnecker said. "If this association is causal, it should be included in any assessment of the cost and benefits of insect control using DDT."

Dr. Longnecker points out that other agents that are less toxic and less persistent, but more expensive, can be used to control malaria. He is now working with epidemiologists in Mexico to see if women from malaria areas, highly exposed to DDT, are affected like the U.S. women were. (Food Industry Environmental Network, July, 13, 2001; Pest. Reports August, 2001)

A GRASS-ROOTS DRIVE FOR PURITY;
PESTICIDE BAN SPARKS TURF WAR IN CANADA

HALIFAX, Nova Scotia - The impulse to nurture a lawn probably dates to the mists of prehistory. Some bright-eyed progenitor of Homo sapiens, squatting at the mouth of a cave, beheld that the weeds growing thick and rank outside provided a hiding place for scorpions, snakes, rats, and other vermin. And were unsightly, to boot. So he hacked back the unruly brush, green grass did flourish, and it was good.

Today, the North American lawn care industry is worth more than $25 billion; that's how much the Lawn Institute, an Illinois-based organization of landscapers and turf grass growers, calculates is spent annually planting, fertilizing, spraying, and grooming those expanses of green.

But now, in a challenge from the north that has sent a shiver through the industry, communities in Canada are taking aim at over-the-counter chemical products used to enhance lawns and gardens. And in a landmark ruling, Canada's Supreme Court recently declared that cities and towns are free to enact tough bans on pesticides based solely on the public perception that such products are bad, even when there is no scientific proof of a health risk.

Most prominent in the chemical crackdown is Halifax, which this year became the first North American city to order a flat-out ban on all insecticides, herbicides, and fungicides used for ''cosmetic'' reasons.

Translation: It is still OK to hire an exterminator to get rid of rats in the basement or a hornet's nest on the front porch. But no more dousing dandelions with poisonous spray, no more battling back lawn blight with high-tech powders, and no more applying chemical concoctions - even those deemed safe by the federal government - to kill the grubs, mites, beetles, slugs, and other bugs gobbling up your rose garden or pansy patch.

''No more using pesticide products to pretty up, period,'' said Stephen King, municipal manager for parks and natural regions, who will supervise the phasing in of the ban over the next two years.

''I like to think Halifax is among the most progressive cities in the world,'' he said. ''We are getting inquiries from communities all over the United States, Canada, Europe, even Japan. They want to know how to imitate our program.''

Proponents hail the Halifax bylaw, together with a recent Supreme Court ruling that upheld the right of Quebec communities to enforce even more stringent bans, as signal victories likely to resonate across the continent.

''This is one of the most important decisions in Canadian environmental history,'' said Lori Stahlbrand, a spokeswoman for World Wildlife Fund-Canada. ''A lot of people have children with unexplained cancers, or they had pets die, so pesticides are an issue that move people powerfully.''

Critics, however, see the bans as the bitter fruit of populist panic over useful products falsely accused of representing a danger to public health.

''In Halifax, it started as an emotional issue that quickly became a political issue too hot to discuss rationally; no one wanted to talk about science,'' said Tim Tregunno, president of Halifax Seed Co., a 135-year-old garden products firm with a reputation for promoting sound environmental practices.

''You ask people, `Where's the evidence?' and they'd wave old reports about Agent Orange or DDT,'' he said. ''But those have very little relevance to the modern chemical technology out there.''

Tregunno agreed that pesticides are dangerous when used incorrectly. He said it is appropriate to phase out certain pesticides when safer alternatives come on the market. But most products sold in Canada, he said, are safe when used properly and meet a worthwhile purpose, suppressing plant disease and infestations.

''These products are already regulated at the federal and provincial level,'' he said. ''What expertise does the municipality have to evaluate them? None.''

Meanwhile, the tiny Quebec town of Hudson, the first Canadian community to impose a total ban on pesticides, won a resounding victory in the Supreme Court this summer. Throwing out a challenge brought by landscaping and lawn care companies, the justices ruled that ''environmental values'' held by a majority are more important than the right to use a legal product.

In effect, they ruled that democracy trumps science and that towns or cities can ban pesticides if people ''feel'' a class of products may be dangerous, without having to prove that a specific insecticide or herbicide is causing actual harm.

Strong generic feelings against chemicals certainly appear to hold sway in Halifax, a city that last year gained wide attention by forbidding the use of perfumes, underarm deodorants, and other artificially-scented products inside public buildings.

''Environmental lobby groups have infiltrated and hijacked the process,'' said City Councilor Steve Streatch, one of the few politicians willing to criticize what he characterizes as a rush to ban anything that offends anyone.

The move to outlaw pesticides was led by activists who contend that spraying weeds with herbicide or sprinkling bug-killers on flowers is responsible for a supposed epidemic of ''environmental illness'' - a catchall concept, dismissed by many mainstream epidemiologists, for a clutch of symptoms whose cause cannot be readily diagnosed, including rashes, chronic fatigue, breathing difficulties, and even seizures.

''Most vulnerable to pesticides are children, fetuses, and women,'' said Maureen Reynolds, a music teacher and one of the most outspoken proponents of the Halifax ban. ''`Do we risk our precious children because people don't like dandelions or caterpillars?

''Better to err on the side of safety than suffer while awaiting some scientific proof, '' said Reynolds. She said pesticides are to blame for many cancers and even teenage violence. ''How do we know that the shootings in schools aren't caused by students exposed to pesticides? We've been getting calls of support from Texas, Boston, Seattle, Toronto.''

Indeed, Toronto, Canada's largest city, and an estimated 55 other communities across the nation are weighing similar bans, a prospect that has the lawn care industry aghast.

''Producers of pesticides make easy villains, but the industry is made up of family people committed to safety,'' said Kimberly Bates, director of the Urban Pest Management Council of Canada, which represents makers of lawn and garden care chemicals. ''Unfortunately, draconian measures like we've seen in Halifax and Quebec aren't going to make anyone healthier or safer. All they do is inconvenience people who enjoy making beautiful yards and gardens.'' Colin Nickerson, Globe Staff Boston Globe, p. A1, 9/3/2001




FACED WITH HIGH RISKS AND CONSUMER SKEPTICISM,
BIOTECH FIRMS PULL BACK FROM PLANS TO TRANSFORM FARMING.

ST. LOUIS - The world has never tasted US Patent 6,072,105 - a genetically engineered eggplant - and probably never will. Scratch biotech potatoes from the menu. And hold the genetically modified sweet corn. Farming's biotechnology revolution is changing course.

After a decade of promises to transform agriculture and tens of millions of dollars in research and development, biotech firms and seed companies are scaling back their horizons. Instead of spreading their know-how to new farm products, they're narrowing their focus to a few major crops, such as corn and soybeans. The reason: Deepening consumer skepticism and tighter regulation worldwide are boosting costs and increasing the business risk of bringing bioengineered food to market. Unless something changes, biotech proponents say only mega-crops pushed forward by mega-corporations will move from the lab to farmers' fields.

Skeptics, meanwhile, are breathing sighs of relief. This much both sides can agree on: The once-vaunted biotech revolution is bypassing an increasing number of crops in a bold, perhaps risky, bid to survive. "You don't see a lot of biotech okra or pumpkins out there," says Debi Warnick of Syngenta Seeds Inc. in Nampa, Idaho. "We're going to have more and more orphaned crops," like the eggplant.

Critics say such delays will give science time to assess the environmental and health impacts of altering plants' genes. "It is a positive sign that there is less pressure to adopt these crops," argues Jane Rissler, senior staff scientist with the Union of Concerned Scientists in Washington.

Experiments get shelved

Consider the bioengineered eggplant. Developed in the 1990s by scientists at Rutgers University to resist a destructive beetle, the invention has gotten a cold shoulder from industry because it represents too minor a crop. For every acre US farmers devote to commercial eggplant, they raise more than 74,000 acres of wheat and 95,000 acres of corn.

Not surprisingly, the biotech industry prefers bigger crops that offer more potential profit. Six years ago, the nation's 1.4 million-acre potato crop looked viable for bioengineering. So biotech giant Monsanto introduced genetically engineered potato seed designed to resist a damaging virus. This spring, with commercial processors leery of genetically-modified organisms (GMOs), the company suspended sales of the product (although work continues in Mexico).

A sweet corn engineered by Syngenta could suffer a similar fate. Never mind that it reduces conventional pesticide spraying, which can be both costly and environmentally harmful. Processors don't want any trace of the corn's special gene, because it could kill their lucrative export markets to Europe, which demands GMO-free sweet corn, says Syngenta's Ms. Warnick.

More stringent regulation is forcing mid-sized companies to delay the introduction of new bioengineered crops. "It has definitely slowed down the introduction of new products," says Gary Koppenjan, spokesman for Seminis Inc., the world's largest fruit and vegetable seed company. The Oxnard, Calif., concern does sell one bioengineered squash. But the crop represents less than 1 percent of sales.

Although the company continues biotech research, its next bioengineered vegetable won't emerge for another four to five years. "There are products that won't have biotech (added in) because of the regulatory situation," adds John Nelson, marketing manger for the US arm of Sakata Seed Corp., based in Yokohama, Japan. Sakata has adopted a company policy not to offer GMOs in any of its product lines.

The dramatic slowdown isn't due to domestic regulators, such as the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), or the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), says Val Giddings of the Biotechnology Industry Organization, a trade group based in Washington. It's regulation in the European Union (EU) and elsewhere. What's especially daunting to companies is the prospect of having to meet widely varying standards from country to country. A rulebook for every country

"If (firms are) daunted by the cost of the technology, just wait until they face the rising cost of registrations," says Ronald Meeusen, vice president of research and development at Dow AgroSciences LLC, based in Indianapolis. "USDA, EPA, FDA, up to 15 member-state regulatory agencies in the EU ... as well as the Japanese and others: Every one of them wants a dossier of studies prepared their way and presented by local experts in their native language. Many want studies repeated on their own soil."

Understandably, each nation wants to safeguard its consumers, industry insiders concede. But the extra requirements and repeated testing can add 25 percent to an already hefty bill of $30 million or more to commercialize a GMO crop.

Cost isn't the only issue. "It's logistics," says Warnick of Syngenta. The company raises its melon seed in Asia. The melons are then grown in Central America and exported to the US for consumption. If the firm genetically engineered its melon seed, it would have to get regulatory approval in at least three countries.

But such delays will help scientists gain a much better understanding of genetic changes in plants, critics of the industry say. "It's hard to read the scientific record of what's going on without being impressed by how much we don't know," says Charles Benbrook, a consultant to consumer and environmental groups and former executive director of the National Academy of Sciences' board of agriculture.

Even major biotech corporations have had to adapt. Once pushing to sell a wide variety of genetically modified crops from potatoes to sugarbeets, Monsanto Co. in St. Louis has narrowed its focus. "We're focusing on four core crops - corn, oilseeds, cotton, wheat," says Mark Buckingham, a Monsanto spokesman. Not coincidentally, those are major crops in North America, with vast acreages and profit potential.

But this go-slow, narrow-focus strategy poses risks. Market skepticism and the growing thicket of international rules mean only the largest corporations will be able to afford to commercialize a bioengineered crop. "The future of agricultural biotech is somewhat uncertain," says Neil Harl, an agricultural economist at Iowa State University in Ames. When the fate of an industry rests in the hands of a few big players instead of many small ones, "a mistake made in decision-making is far more devastating." Christian Science Monitor Edition: ALL, Section: USA, Page: 3 Thursday, August 30, 2001

HOPE FOR SUSTAINABLE FARMING IN GENE-ALTERED CROPS

CHURCHVILLE, VA. - Genetically engineered crops are poised to give human society its biggest sustainability gain in almost 100 years. Research at the University of California at Davis has produced a new gene-altered tomato that not only grows in salt water - but also desalinates the soil in which it grows.

This is just in time to counter what Science News magazine calls an "agricultural nightmare" - the worldwide salinization of irrigated croplands. Currently, irrigated lands grow 30 percent of the world's food, but we're losing millions of these scarce and irreplaceable acres annually to the buildup of salts. (There are salts in all water and soils. Until now, the only way to flush out the salts took lots of water and major investments in canals and drains.)

The salt buildup in irrigated croplands long has been the green movement's most realistic argument that modern farming was unsustainable. But that argument is now gone. Eduardo Blumwald and a colleague at UC Davis modified their tomato plants to produce more of a natural plant protein that causes the plant to filter out salts taken up by its roots, and store the salt in its leaves.

"In order to get that plant to be tolerant of salt, you have to make that plant over-express its own gene," he says. Many of nature's own salt-tolerant plants (such as marsh grasses) deal with salt this way. The new plants have successfully passed their salt-solving transformation on to their offspring in test plots.

They must still undergo safety tests, but this advance is a matter of turning up a natural gene that exists in most plants, not adding a potential new allergen or pesticide from another organism. "You can grow this plant at the same height and the same number of fruits and the same quality of the fruits as normal plants (even) when you water them with the equivalent of 40 percent seawater," Dr. Blumwald says. He believes we can activate genes that already exist in all major food crops, to make them as salt-tolerant and salt-removing as the tomatoes.

This breakthrough will make the world's irrigated lands permanently sustainable. It will also salt-proof the food production in such major irrigating countries as China, India, and Indonesia, as well as in such poverty-ridden countries as Iraq and Yemen.

Salinization is costing the world 10 Yellowstone National Parks' worth of wildlife habitat annually. Each year for decades, the world has been losing nearly 5 million to 7 million acres of these scarce and irreplaceable lands to salt buildup - and each acre of irrigated land produces three times as much food as the average nonirrigated acre.

For at least 100 years, plant breeders have tried to cross conventional crop plants with salt-tolerant ones, with virtually no success. But Dr. Blumwald says he's already got both tomatoes and canola plants flourishing in 40 percent seawater. Since the canola plants are tall, with lots of leaves, they remove 12 grams of salt per plant.

The desalinating-tomato breakthrough should be important proof for the world's consumers and governments that biotech is agriculture's most important 21st-century tool. It will help farmers grow the additional food crops the world wants and needs - through higher yields on the land they're already farming.

Biotech opponents claim that bioengineered crops help only big corporations. The UC Davis research on desalinating crops proves these critics massively wrong. It also proves that if we aren't comfortable with big corporations doing all the biotech crop research, we can productively increase funding for public research.

Instead, the green movement has been demanding no agricultural research at all. The activists prefer an organic retreat to the famines and worn-out farms of the 19th century. Back then, of course, we could cut down virgin forests and get enough additional cropland to cover traditional farming's shortcomings.

The last comparable step in human sustainability was the Haber-Bosch process, developed in 1909, which allows us to get nitrogen fertilizer from the air. (Both Fritz Haber and Carl Bosch worked for a private company, and won Nobel Prizes.) Without their fertilizer, we'd have long since cleared all of the world's existing forests, to pasture 10 million cattle instead of 1.3 million, so we'd have enough manure to fertilize current food production.

Biotechnology is already demonstrating such power in agriculture that by 2050 it may ensure fully sustainable grain and meat production for the world's projected peak population of 9 billion people - without taking any more land from nature. How many Nobel Prizes should that be worth?

Dennis T. Avery is director of Global Food Issues for the Hudson Institute in Indianapolis. Alex A. Avery, a biologist, is research director for the center.

Dennis T. Avery and Alex A. Avery Christian Science Monitor, Edition: ALL , Section: OPINION , Page: 9 Thursday, August 30, 2001

BIOTECHNOLOGY

The regulatory battle over genetically modified (GM) and contamination of non-GM crops is heating up. 'Zero tolerance' policies seem to be appearing everywhere in the United States. Now the 'zero tolerance' mantra is being heard in agriculture as well. In many cases, a policy that establishes an immutable 'zero' is difficult or impossible to implement in the real world.

Modified crops are grown over large areas of the United States. The country has a single shipping/handling/storage system for seed and grains. It is not possible to distinguish between GM and non-GM seed without chemical testing. Not surprisingly, it is impossible to guarantee that a shipment of seed or grain is completely free of GM seed/grain. Such a zero-tolerance guarantee would mean that not even one GM seed could be present in a shipload containing billions of seeds. However, Japanese and some European buyers will not buy GM products.

Envision this scenario. You are producing seed/grain for the Japanese market. You have guaranteed that no GM seed were used and that you have gone to extraordinary lengths to avoid contamination. Unfortunately, when your crop begins to bloom, pollen from a farm with GM grain blows into your field without your knowledge. At the end of the season, you harvest your crop and ship it to the buyers. The buyers sample the grain and discover GM contamination. The sale is rejected, and you are sued for breach of contract. Who is to blame? Who should be liable for this mistake?

A similar situation exists for organic producers, and a lack of knowledge exacerbates the situation. If you want to grow certified, organic corn, how large a buffer do you need between your crop and your neighbor who is growing GM corn? How can you be sure that the seed you plant is uncontaminated?

Many grower groups and public action groups are calling for USDA and other government agencies to establish regulations that would help define responsibility and liability for both GM and non-GM producers.

The USDA cautions that many GM testing companies are unreliable. The USDA Grain Inspection, Packers, and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) published a list of GM testing companies that meet GIPSA validation procedures at www.usda.gov/gipsa/biotech/evalaccredit.htm (Pestic. & Tox. Chem. News, 4-30-01)

COURT ORDERS LIMITED USE OF PESTICIDE NEAR SCHOOLS

The judge's decision requires that officials take steps to ensure that levels of methyl bromide used on strawberry near a pair of schools don't exceed state standards.

Amid warnings from agricultural officials that his ruling could drive some strawberry growers out of business, a Monterey County judge Friday issued an apparently unprecedented order limiting the amount of spraying of the pesticide methyl bromide near two schools.

Judge Robert O'Farrell, the presiding judge of Monterey County Superior Court, said he issued the temporary restraining order to protect children at Pajaro Middle School and La Joya School in Salinas from potentially harmful exposure to the toxic chemical.

"Effectively you would put strawberry growers out of business," county Agricultural Commissioner Eric Lauritzen told the judge at a hearing Thursday. "They would not plant." The judge conceded his actions could hurt some growers in an industry that last year grossed $227 million in Monterey County, but added: "Before we had methyl bromide, we had strawberries."

He scheduled an Oct.3 hearing to consider whether to issue a preliminary injunction in the case. If that injunction is granted, California Rural Legal Assistance will seek a permanent order restricting the spraying near schools.

O'Farrell issued Friday's order in response to an Aug. 23 brief filed by attorneys for California Rural Legal Assistance on behalf of Sergio Carrillo, a man who lives near the Pajaro school. The suit was filed against the state Department of Pesticide Regulation and the county Agricultural Commissioner's Office.

The judge's order requires the department and the commissioner's office to "take immediate proactive measures to assure that the atmospheric concentrations" of the fumigant at the schools do not exceed state guidelines of 1 part per billion. In addition, within 1,000 feet of both schools, the plastic used to cover the fields after the pesticide application must remain securely in place for 10 days rather than five.

"This is a very positive step to protect the health of young, developing children," said an elated Mike Meuter, the lead attorney in the case.

Both he and Lauritzen said it was the first case they knew of in which a judge had placed such strict limits on the use of methyl bromide around specific sites.

Lauritzen said Friday he had significant concerns about how the monitoring will be conducted, particularly because state regulations call for measuring methyl bromide levels over an eight-week period -- not at one point in time.

"I really don't know what we'll do," said Lauritzen, expressing concern that local growers will be put at a competitive disadvantage.

The suit argued that state and county officials had failed in their statutory duty to protect people living near the schools after air quality tests near both schools picked up concentrations of the fumigant that exceeded state guidelines.

"A public health train wreck is imminent again this year," attorneys Meuter and Cynthia Rice wrote in their brief.

At Thursday's hearing in Monterey, lawyers representing pesticide companies, growers, Monterey County and the state Attorney's General's Office argued that the levels of methyl bromide being used were safe even though they exceeded state guidelines.

Methyl bromide is an odorless gas injected into the soil to sterilize it and kill weeds, fungus and insects. Used widely in the strawberry-rich Salinas and Pajaro valleys, the pesticide has been linked to birth defects and neurological damage. The substance has caused the deaths of more than a dozen burglars and transients who entered houses sprayed with methyl bromide to kill termites.

Starting in 2006, the federal government will ban the use of the substance because it has been shown to break down the Earth's ozone layer. Farmers have been scurrying for alternative fumigants and continue to argue that it could devastate agribusiness. During September, October and November of 2000, the state Department of Pesticide Regulation carried out air quality tests at six schools in Monterey and Santa Cruz counties. They found the highest concentrations of the chemical -- 7.7 parts per billion -- near the Pajaro school. Levels of 3.8 parts per billion were measured near La Joya School.

The state's "target" threshold is an average of 1 part per billion exposure for children over an eight-week period, and 2 parts per billion for adults. But attorneys for the state argued that the threshold includes a 100-fold safety margin, so that the levels of the fumigant measured at the two schools didn't represent an imminent health threat.

But O'Farrell said: "Right now school is in session and we have high readings. We're talking about children."
Ken Mclaughlin San Jose Mercury News, Saturday, Septenber 1, 2001

PADRES AND PESTICIDES

The group, Pastors for Peace (PfP), has brought annual aid to Cuba for over a decade and they now want to reverse the challenge by importing rat poison (Biorat) and solar panels from that country. The rat poison, a Salmonella-based rodenticide made by the firm Labiofam, could easily cause food borne diseases in people as stated in a letter from the Centers for Disease Control published in The Lancet on June 15, 1996.

After delivering aid to Cuba, PfP left Havana bound for Tampico, Mexico. Once in Mexico, they crossed the U.S. border at Hidalgo, Texas successfully, although agents there were equipped with a declaration by the CDC that the product is a public health hazard, it is not registered by the EPA, and that U.S. trade sanctions against Cuba prohibit import. The Rev. Lucius Walker, founder of PfP, told reporters in June that the poison would be sent to parts of the U.S. where rats are creating a health problem. Rev. Walker was quoted as saying "There is a rat problem in the United States in addition to the one in the White House." However, the Rev. Walker was not that loquacious at the border. When the agents asked if they had anything to declare, they "clearly stated they had nothing to declare" said a Customs spokesman.

After crossing the border, the Customs Service received a call from a reporter who said he had just received a cell-phone call from Rev. Walker who claimed the group had brought in Biorat under the watchful eyes of Customs agents. The convoy was subsequently stopped at a U.S. Border Patrol highway checkpoint. A "stand-off" ensued until a federal search warrant was procured. Three containers which were believed to contain Biorat were seized under a detention order and turned over to the EPA for analysis. (Pesticide & Toxic Chemical News, 7/9/01 & 7/16/01).

ANALYSIS FINDS CONNECTION BETWEEN PESTICIDES AND LYMPHOMA

Describing its analysis as the first of its kind, the Lymphoma Foundation of America has issued a report showing that "people develop lymphoma most often in states and locations with the highest pesticide use." The foundation, which evaluated the results of 117 scientific studies, is a non-profit charity based in Bethesda, Md. Lymphoma is a type of cancer that kills an estimated 27,500 people a year.

"According to the National Cancer Institute (NCI)," says the Group, "while most other cancers in the United States are decreasing, the rate of lymphoma has been increasing. It is now the fifth most common cancer in men and women." Although the report offers summaries of every study on lymphoma and pesticides, the foundation says it was circumspect in its evaluation of the research. Its peer-review panel looked for accurate diagnoses, valid exposure-assessment methodologies, sufficiently large study-populations, and appropriate analyses of the findings, according to the foundation.

In addition, the panelists looked for such confounding factors as exposures to other chemicals and adequate latency periods for lymphoma onset. They also were aware that the study authors might have had hidden agendas. "Though some scientific and medical journals do show sources of research funding," says the foundation, "this practice is not universal. In addition, there may be indirect sources of financial support, which are not disclosed in such listings." "In our Research Report," the group continues, "we have listed the authors, stated institutional/organizational affiliations and, when shown, funding sources. Since our information comes solely from the journal articles, we have no way of knowing all the affiliations nor funding sources of the authors, not whether some have financial ties to the industries whose chemicals they are studying." Based on the results of the research evaluated by the panelists, the foundation has concluded that the compounds most frequently associated with increased lymphoma incidence and/or deaths in the studies are herbicides 2,4-D and the triazine herbicides-especially atrazine.

"Also associated with increased lymphoma incidence and/or mortality," adds the group, "are: 1,3-dichloropropene phosphine; 2,4,5-T; glyphosate-containing weed-killers; lindane; carbaryl stannates; chlordane arsenates; diazinon; dichlorovos; malathion; nicotine; combinations of herbicides, insecticides, fumigants or fungicides; PCBs; various solvents such as benzene; and various occupations (farming, fencing, military, construction, and others) which involve chemical exposures." In response to the conclusions drawn from the analysis evaluations, the foundation recommends: "further study of the relationship between lymphoma and pesticides; more studies of farmers; the development of safer pesticides; and cancer warnings on pesticide labels."

For the immediate future, the foundation "is establishing a National Registry for lymphoma patients (survivors or deceased) who believe or whose families believe, that pesticides may have caused cancer." The group is also urging "individuals to consider signing up for their state's consumer 'pesticide notification programs' so that they can be alerted when pesticides are applied near their homes." (Pesticide & Toxic Chemical News, Vol .29, No. 35, June 25, 2001.; Pest. Reports August, 2001

HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT

Produce washes that claim to remove bacteria and pesticides are becoming more popular, but do they work? According to scientists at the University of Georgia, the answer is 'Yes and No.' Some products are no better than water, and some are as effective as high levels of chlorine for removing bacteria. A Proctor & Gamble product, 'Fit,' was named as an effective product if consumers are concerned about bacterial loads on produce. The scientists report that consumers should not be concerned with pesticide residues. "In the U.S., there very little produce with pesticide residues anywhere near the allowed tolerance levels." (Georgia Magazine, 6-01)

WEST NILE VIRUS CONCERNS

If you are concerned about West Nile virus, here is a web site for you. West Nile virus has not been detected in Georgia yet, but the virus has been found in some states just to the north. It has aroused considerable public concern, both about the disease and the pesticides applied to control vector mosquito populations. The National Pesticide Telecommunications Network has created a new web site with a wealth of information about West Nile virus.

http://ace.orst.edu/info/nptn/wnv/


EPA ANNOUNCES REGISTRATION TIME TABLE

The EPA has posted the chemicals for which eligibility documents will be procured by the end of fiscal 2001. Reregistration Eligibility Decisions (REDs) will be produced for cacodylic acid, endosulfan, ethion, methanearsonic acid/salts, molinate, propargite, thiabendazole, and thiram. REDs are used to present the risk assessment of chemicals initially registered prior to 1984.

Chemicals for which Interim Reregistration Eligibility Decisions (IREDs) will be produced are formetanate HCl, acephate, azinphos-methyl, chlorpyrifos, DDVP, diazinon, dicrotophos, dimethoate, disulfoton, ethoprop, fenamiphos, malathion, methamidophos, methidathion, methyl parathion, naled, oxydemeton-methyl, phosmet, pirimiphos-methyl, and terbufos. IREDs are issued when a compound is undergoing a RED and needs to have a cumulative risk assessment conducted. It is a working document that both registrants and users will have opportunity to comment upon before the final RED is issued.

Chemicals for which Tolerance Reregistration Eligibility Decisions (TREDs) will be produced are chlorpyrifos-methyl, phosalone, tetrachlorvinphos, trichlorfon, butylate, citric acid, limonene, sodium diacetate, sodium hypochlorite, sulfur, and tridiphane. TREDs are issued for compounds registered after November 1984, or if a RED was completed before passage of the Food Quality Protection Act. These decisions are also needed for compounds which are not registered in the United States but have tolerances for commodities imported into the country. Additional information can be found at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/reregistration/status.htm. (The Georgia Pest Management Newsletter, Vol. 24, no.5).

FOOD QUALITY PROTECTION ACT
- REREGISTRATION
This list identifies pesticides that are likely to face reregistration activity in fiscal year 2002 (Oct. 1, 2001 - Sept. 30, 2002). These decisions may take the form of REDs, IREDs, or TREDs. Due to the dynamic nature of the review process, the Agency may identify needs for additional data, or new issues may surface, resulting in changed priorities during the year. Also, any uncompleted FY 2001 candidate pesticides will automatically become FY 2002. You can find a list of the 2001 RED/IRED/TRED candidates in previous editions of GPMN.

If you see a chemical listed that is important to your industry, get involved as soon as possible. Do not wait. Collect information about how the pesticide is used, including amounts, timing, key pests controlled, etc. Relay this information to EPA and to the pesticide registrant.

REDs (Reregistration Eligibility Decisions) When EPA completes the review and risk management decision for a pesticide that is subject to reregistration (that is, one initially registered before November 1984), the Agency generally issues a Reregistration Eligibility Decision or RED document. The RED summarizes the risk assessment conclusions and outlines any risk reduction measures necessary for the pesticide to continue to be registered in the United States.

* Benomyl (voluntary cancellation)
* Diuron
* Imazalil
* Lindane
* Nicotine
* Oxadiazon
* Oxyfluorfen
* Propanil
* Sodium acifluorfen
* Thiophanate-methyl

In addition to the RED candidates above, about 25 organophosphate pesticide Interim REDs may become final REDs in FY 2002, after the cumulative risks of the OPs have been considered.

IREDs (Interim Reregistration Eligibility Decisions) EPA issues an IRED for a pesticide that is undergoing reregistration, requires a reregistration eligibility decision, and also must be included in a cumulative assessment under FQPA. The IRED, issued after completing the individual pesticide's risk assessment, may include taking risk reduction measures- for example, reducing risks to workers or eliminating uses that the registrant no longer wishes to maintain to gain the benefits of these changes before the final RED can be issued following the cumulative assessment.

Carbamates

* Aldicarb
* Carbaryl
* Carbofuran

Other pesticides

* Atrazine

TREDs (Reports on FQPA Tolerance Reassessment Progress and Interim Risk Management Decisions)
EPA issues a TRED for a pesticide that requires tolerance reassessment decisions but does not require a reregistration eligibility decision at present because:

1. The pesticide was initially registered after November 1, 1984, and by law is not included within the scope of the reregistration program;
2. EPA completed a RED for the pesticide before FQPA was enacted on August 3, 1996;
3. The pesticide is not registered for use in the United States, but tolerances are established that allow crops treated with the pesticide to be imported from other countries.

Like IREDs, some TREDs will not become final until EPA considers the cumulative risks of all the pesticides in the cumulative group.

Carbamates

* Asulam
* Chlorpropham
* Desmedpham

Others Pesticides

* Difenzoquat
* Diquat dibromide
* Fenarmol
* Fenbutatin oxide
* Hexazinone
* Inorganic bromides, from fumigation with Methyl Bromide
* Inorganic bromides, from soil treatment with Methyl Bromide
* Lactofen
* Linuron
* Metolachlor
* Oxadyl (voluntary cancellation)
* Proponic acid
* Propyzamide
* Tebuthiuron
* Urea
* Ziram

You can find more information at www.epa.gov/pesticides

Cheminova, Universal Cooperatives, Wilbur-Ellis, Amvac, Helena, Agriliance, and Micro-Flo have all requested voluntary cancellation of their end-use products containing ethyl-parathion as of December 31, 2002. All sales/distributions are to cease on August 31, 2003 and all use is to be stopped on October 31, 2003. (Federal Register, May 2, 2001).

Valent U.S.A. Corporation has announced the availability of Select« 2EC (clethodim) herbicide for the vegetable crops beet, carrot, celery, cantaloupe, cucumber, pumpkin, squash, eggplant, potato, sweet potato, pepper and radish. The material controls annual and perennial grasses. For more information call 800 682-5368 or www.valent.com. (Citrus and Vegetable Magazine, May, 2001).

The EPA has launched a new web page to give the status of the Agency's reassessment of pesticide tolerances. In addition the site provides links to topics such as reregistration and setting tolerances. The web site is available at: www.epa.gov/pesticides/tolerance/index.htm. The EPA released final guidance for pesticide registrants on pesticide resistance management labeling. This is an effort to enlighten users about the mode-of-action of a pesticide. The notice includes guidance concerning schemes of classification according to mode/target site of action, a recommended standard presentation and format for showing group identification symbols on end-use product labels, and examples of resistance management labeling statements. More information can be found at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides, and select "PR Notices" (Federal Register, 7/20/01).

Aventis CropScience has obtained a time-limited tolerance for the safener isoxadifen-ethyl and related metabolites in or on rice grain, straw, hulls, and bran at 0.1, 0.25, 0.5, and 0.8 ppm, respectively. The tolerance will expire on June 21, 2004. (Federal Register, June 21, 2001).