o
o
November, 2002; Volume 30
United States Department of Agriculture, University of Arkansas; and County Governments Cooperating
National News
Biotech/IPM/Advanced Technology News
Health and Safety
Registration News
Editors: Briggs Skulman, Department of Crop,
Soil,
and Environmental Sciences, Fayetteville
and Ples Spradley, Coop.
Extension Service, Little Rock.
Over the last 5 years or so, the topics that relate to pesticides has shifted from concern about chemicals to genetics. More properly, the concern that some people and groups have about genetically modified organisms (GMO). Never-the-less concern about agrochemicals still comes up, some that goes back to the "Silent Spring" era of environmental issues concerning chemicals used in agriculture. As most of us know the chemicals in use then, as apposed to currently used, tended to be environmentally persistent, could bio-accumulate and might have potential carcinogenic or other deleterious side effects.
It has been 30 years since DDT was banned from use, yet there
are still detections of this compound in the fish population of
severely contaminated lakes near areas where it was extensively used in the past. Other persistent organic pollutants (POPs) still show
up in the food supply, however DDT, its metabolites and dieldrin tend to be the most prevalent. Organochlorine (OC) insecticides are
the other group of concern. What do these detections mean? The answers to that can be equally murky and tend to fall along "pro"
verses "anti" pesticide viewpoints. The science suggests that the trace levels we encounter in our food (unless we eat an all
contaminated trout diet) are below levels of concern and are not a health threat. Others point to the lack of scientific research that
examines the effect of trace levels of POPs in our food. Many worry that chronic exposure to these trace levels can have unforeseen
health consequences.
With all the concern about POPs and their continued detection in the environment, the positive aspects tend to be ignored. First, POPs are not as frequently detected and at lower levels than in years past. Second, most of the POPs have been discontinued. Finally, all new chemistry has undergone strenuous testing to assure that the problems of the past are not repeated. Besides the POP issues we also have people concerned about GMO genes and how they may affect the food supply, affect non-target organisms or "escape" and spread through the environment.
One article this month has both chemical and GMO concerns being expressed by one group wanting to prevent the approval of a GMO roundup resistant lawn grass. They believe that this GMO lawn will promote more spraying of the herbicide and consequent environmental contamination, plus has the potential for escape of the resistance gene into other plants. Of course nothing was mentioned about studies that have found roundup ready "crops" tend to require fewer overall pesticides, hence leading to a net reduction of the chemical load on the environment.
Well maybe organic farming is something to consider. It has experienced significant growth in the last few years and, if a farmer finds the right niche commodity, can certainly provide a good profit margin. On the consumer angle, organic foods though usually lower in residues, are not necessarily pesticide free and there are more that 40 synthetic substances approved for use in organic crop production. Along these lines vinegar, more appropriately acetic acid, might be an answer for some organic weed control needs. It's "natural", produced by bacterial fermentation, and in dilute form used in food for flavor, preservation and other useful properties. Ahhh.... but try to use it for weed control and it is now considered a non-approved chemical and to even suggest its' use might get a county agent in hot water. It certainly is strange how rules and regulations seem to work counter intuitively.
Did you know that the insect repellent you have been using to ward off the West Nile virus carrying mosquitoes is considered a pesticide? So unlike spraying a crop, we actually are purposely applying these chemicals to our clothing and skin! Read about proper application of repellent and ways to avoid or reduce exposure. Maybe in the future we will have clothing re-entry intervals after an application of your favorite repellent?
One of the great offerings by GMO crops is the potential for generating less expensive pharmaceuticals. Crop plants can be
manipulated to churn out various useful compounds from chemicals to antibodies. Again this technology has its' detractors and
progress may be significantly slowed until "safety" measures are put in place that address GMO concerns. Imagine the potential new
alternative crops and markets that would become available to the farmer. Farmers rather than talking about their yields in terms of
bushels per acre, might instead talk about how many kilograms of antibodies, antibiotics or pharmaceutical feed stock they get per
acre! Future farmers may have a diversity of common to high tech crops they may choose to farm. With that will come new challenges
of farming techniques, equipment, record keeping, and crop segregation that farmers will have to learn about. Farmers may have to
practice GFP (Good Farming Practices) to assure the quality and safety of their new high tech crops. The next green revolution might
be more about crops as high value pharmaceutical feed stock, rather than as food or fiber. Future farming might get very interesting
and high tech.
International action on toxic chemicals in food has been much too slow, argue a series of experts in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health. Much more stringent measures are required.
Around 150 countries signed up to the Stockholm Convention on persistent organic pollutants (POPs). This is an international
treaty drawn up in May 2001, to phase out the use of a class of chemical agents used in food production and manufacturing. But as of
October only 22 countries had ratified it (http://www.pops.int/documents/signature/signstatus.htm). Fifty are needed to implement it.
Schafer and Kegley of the Pesticide Action Network of North America argue that POP residues are found in approximately 20 per cent
of the US food supply, with five or more in one foodstuff not uncommon. POPs persist in the environment for many years, travel long
distances, and accumulate in fatty tissues. Even extremely small levels of exposure pose serious health risks, they say.
The most common POPS are DDT, its metabolites, and dieldrin. Estimated daily doses of dieldrin alone exceed US Environmental Protection Agency and the US Agency for Toxic Substances Control risk thresholds for children, they say.
Eating a full day's diet of items contaminated with DDT, including eggs, milk, fish, fruit, vegetables, toast and potatoes, at levels permitted by the US Food and Drugs Administration would bring an adult's level of exposure to 90 times the safe limit.
Organochlorine (OC) insecticides pose an enormous problem to organic food producers, says Charles Benbrook of Benbrook Consulting Services, Idaho.
Sixty per cent of US sample organic vegetables tested contained pesticides contaminated with OCs, he says. Some are still in use, including endosulfan. Lindane also continues to be widely used to treat head lice.
Tim Meredith of the International Programme on Chemical Safety at the World Health Organisation, argues that more research is needed to determine the actual risks of extremely low levels of POPs to human health, especially in infants and children. There is no scientific consensus, he says, that such levels are directly implicated in breast cancer or declining sperm count.
But Solomon and Huddle of the US Natural Resources Defense Council, contend that "Instead of expending our efforts debating the exact risk from banned chemicals in the US food supply today, we should direct our efforts toward eliminating all [such] chemicals."
Schafer and Kegley conclude: "Prevention of further food contamination must be a national health policy priority in every
country. Early ratification and rapid implementation of this treaty should
be an urgent priority for all governments."
JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY AND COMMUNITY HEALTH [Debate: 2002; 56: 813-
30]
Agricultural retailers and distributors say chemical security legislation
before the House and Senate will cripple their business and raise
production costs for the farmers they serve. For these businesses, often comprised of no more than four or five employees, the
high-profile Chemical Security Act of 2002 (S.1602) brings the threat of burdensome regulations, costly equipment requirements and,
most ominously, the elimination of affordable, effective products. The bill, introduced by Sen. Jon Corzine (D-N.J.), would require
facilities that house chemicals at risk of sabotage to conduct vulnerability assessments and to consider inherently safer technology
where feasible. Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) has introduced similar legislation (H.R. 5300) in the House.
"We think the Corzine bill will change the fertilizer and pesticide inventory that is carried by farm dealers and that is available to growers," said Seaver Sowers, director of legislative affairs of the Agricultural Retailer Association. "[Corzine] is trying to get big manufactures next to big cities. We think it will have an unintended impact on rural America.
One important product at risk, said Sowers, is anhydrous ammonia, a high-quality, lowcost fertilizer used in U.S. crop production.
Under Clean Air Act provisions, farm dealers who sell or store anhydrous ammonia are already required to submit risk management
plans containing a hazard assessment, a prevention plan and an emergency response plan. According to Sowers, the Corzine bill would
require dealers to initiate additional assessments that would be expensive and redundant. Corzine's provisions related to inherently
safer technology are most worrisome to dealers, said Sowers, because most small retail businesses lack the resources to hire process
engineers.
(Pesticide & Toxic Chemical News, Vol. 30, No 42, August 12, 2002), Pesticide Reports Sept 2002
Violating agricultural regulations has recently become much more serious and the penalties reflect this change. USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service is reminding brokers, shippers, importers, and other businesses of increased civil penalties for violations of U.S. agricultural regulations. With the passage of the Plant Protection Act in 2000 and the 2002 Farm Bill that contained the Animal Health Protection Act, APHIS can now impose tougher civil penalties for agricultural smuggling and violations of other agricultural regulations.
Any business or organization that violates these laws can now be fined
up to $250,000 per violation and more than $500,000 per adjudication.
Smugglers face fines of up to $250,000 per violation or twice the gross
financial loss or gain caused by the violation. Prior to passage of these
two laws, the maximum penalty was $1,000 per violation. The administrator
of APHIS stated that "USDA does not tolerate smuggling or any activities
that put American agriculture at risk. These authorities strengthen our
regulations, and smugglers will now pay harsh penalties."
APHIS also inspects imported agricultural cargo shipments for pests and
diseases and quarantines any shipments that may be infested with a pest or
that require further inspection or a form of treatment. Shipments cannot
be moved without APHIS permission. Failure to comply with quarantine holds
and inspection requirements will result in fines of up to $250,000.
Domestic quarantines, such as those in place to stop the spread of pests
like imported fire ant, plum pox and karnal bunt, restrict the movement of
certain products that could carry pests to other areas of the United
States. Violations of any domestic quarantines could result in fines of up
to $250,000. In the past, domestic quarantine violators could be fined
only $1,000 per violation.
(www.meatingplace.com, 9/5/02). September
2002
Each October, when the mountain wind begins to carry a hint of winter chill, Lyle Johnston of Rocky Ford, CO, loads hundreds of wooden boxes containing a special cargo onto flatbed trucks. He wants those trucks and their valuable cargo - 30 million honeybees per truck - to be well down the road and on their way to California before the season's wintry blasts sweep through the Rockies. The bees are destined to be put to work pollinating the almond fields of California, the source of more than half of the world's almonds. Johnston relies on the almond industry, and the almond industry relies on him and his fellow beekeepers. "Without the bees, the growers get only 300 to 400 pounds of almonds per acre," says Johnston. "With good hives, they get 2,200 to 2,800 pounds per acre." American farmers rent honeybees to pollinate almonds, apples, melons, and more than a dozen other crops, raising the value of agricultural production by more than $14 billion per year, say entomologists at Cornell University.
However, the honeybee industry is dwindling. "It's a tough game right now," says Johnston, a third-generation beekeeper whose grandfather started the business in 1908. Bees are declining in number, largely because of the destructive efficiency of parasitic mites and American foulbrood, a bacterial disease that infects the young bee larvae and is killing off bee colonies across the nation. Currently, there are no drugs approved by the Food and Drug Administration to treat the blood-sucking varroa mites or the suffocating tracheal mites, and the one FDA-approved drug to treat American foulbrood is more than 40 years old. "Consequently, the bacteria have become resistant to treatment across large parts of the United States," says Mark Feldlaufer, Ph.D., research leader at the USDA’s Bee Research Laboratory. But through the efforts of the Beltsville Bee Research Laboratory, the FDA, and a national research program called the USDA Minor Use Animal Drug Program, two more antibiotics to treat foulbrood may soon be available, and studies of a drug to treat varroa mites will soon begin.
Despite their importance to agriculture, bees are considered a "minor
species," and drugs to treat them are included in a category known as
"minor use" drugs. There are few FDA-approved drugs available for minor
use, but efforts to increase their number are being pursued on two fronts:
through new legislation and through research partnerships. These
partnerships among government agencies, minor species animal interest
groups, universities, public hatcheries, and pharmaceutical companies are
producing the data needed to support drug approvals. A minor species is
any animal species other than cattle, horse, swine, chicken, turkey, dog,
and cat, which are classified as major species. Minor species include a
wide variety of land animals such as sheep, goat, game birds, deer, elk,
bison, emu, ostrich, rabbit, free-ranging wildlife, and zoo animals. They
also include birds, ferret, guinea pig, and reptiles that are kept as
pets. Aquatic animals, such as finfish, turtle, crustaceans, and mollusks,
also qualify as minor species. In addition to treating minor species,
minor use drugs can also refer to those used in a major species to control
a disease that occurs infrequently or in limited geographic areas.
(FDA Consumer, Sept./Oct. 2002).
In May 2002, U.S. Department of Agriculture's Agricultural Research
Service (USDA-ARS) issued a press release describing their research on
weed control using vinegar. The research was prompted by the organic
farming community's need for an inexpensive and environmentally benign
weed killer. Greenhouse and field studies indicated that while 5% vinegar
solutions did not produce reliable weed control, solutions of 10, 15, and
20% provided 80-100% control of certain annual weeds (foxtail,
lambsquarters, pigweed, and velvetleaf). Perennial weeds (Canada thistle)
treated with 5% vinegar showed 100% shoot burndown but roots were not
affected, therefore shoots always re-grew. Study details can be found at
http://www.barc.usda.gov/anri/sasl/vinegar.html. The press release
noted the potential use of vinegar as an ideal sidewalk crack and crevice treatment. Homeowners around the Pacific Northwest had
already heard about purported vinegar uses for killing blackberries in a June 6, 2001, Seattle Post Intelligencer article and had deluged
Cooperative Extension offices and Master Gardeners for more information. (See also "Acetic Acid: Miracle Herbicide? Sour Product
Promises Sweet Results," AENews Issue No. 185, September 2001). There is something appealing about the idea of a commonly
available, inexpensive material such as household vinegar being effective against weeds. It does not harm people, in fact people
consume it every day, yet it is deadly to our mortal enemies: lawn weeds. Why, such is the stuff of dreams in the pesticide issues
arena!
From Dreams to Reality
Well, I hate to be one who breaks the bad news, but we're not talking about household vinegar here. The typical strength of the stuff we toss with olive oil or run through the cleaning cycle on our coffee makers is 5% acetic acid, a concentration shown to be less-than-reliable by the ARS study. Beyond that sad fact, responsible stewardship requires that those of us in the business of making pesticide recommendations ask certain questions before embracing a pest control technology. The first of those questions should be, "What products containing this ingredient are registered for use?"
Five herbicide products are currently registered in Washington State that contain acetic acid. Two of them come as 25% concentrates with instructions to dilute down to 6.25% and use on rights-of-ways, non-crop, and industrial lands (St. Gabriel Labs Burn Out Weed and Grass Killer Concentrate, Nature's Glory Weed and Grass Killer Concentrate). While these may be useful to commercial applicators, they are not labeled for home uses. Three products are labeled for homeowner use (St. Gabriel Labs Fast Acting Burn Out RTU, Nature's Glory Weed and Grass Killer RTU, Greenergy's Blackberry and Brush Block). Their acetic acid concentrations are 6.25%, 6.25%, and 7% respectively. Curiously, Greenergy's product label lists acetic acid as an inert ingredient; citric acid is listed as the active ingredient. By listing the ingredients this way, Greenergy is able to take advantage of EPA's "Minimum Risk Pesticide" definition. Products falling under this category are also known as "25(b) products" after the FIFRA rule describing criteria for minimum risk pesticides. Such products need not be registered at the Federal level and do not carry an EPA registration number. However, Washington law requires that 25(b) products go through the Washington State Department of Agriculture's (WSDA) registration process regardless. Oregon law allows the Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA) to follow EPA's lead on 25(b)s, so Greenergy does not have to register Blackberry and Brush Block in Oregon. Fast Acting Burn Out RTU is not registered in Oregon, leaving Nature's Glory Weed and Grass Killer RTU and Blackberry and Brush Block legal for use in Oregon.
Down to Earth With a Thump
Another question we must pose if we are to make responsible pesticide recommendations is whether the active ingredient in question works under environmental conditions found in our region. Preliminary field tests in Washington State using 7% vinegar solutions showed results similar to the ARS study at 5%, namely lack of reliable weed control. While extension personnel in Washington and Oregon are able to legally recommend any of the homeowner-registered products listed above (three in Washington, two in Oregon), the data demonstrates erratic weed control. In other words, people should be told that if they want to use vinegar at the registered concentrations it might not work in their situation.
Turning Up the Juice
A few weeks ago a product called Bradfield Horticultural Vinegar (20% acetic acid), sold by Bradfield Industries, was found in a Washington home and garden center. At first glance it seemed the answer consumers had been clamoring for. Upon closer examination however, the product is not registered with EPA and does not qualify under the Minimum Risk Pesticide category for non-registration. The Colorado Department of Agriculture went so far as to issue a media release, warning consumers about the unregistered product (http://www.ag.state.co.us/commissioner/press/2002/Vinegar.html.) Apparently the company is trying to take advantage of a gray area of the legal system. There is a part of federal law which states that if a product clearly has uses other than as a pesticide AND the company makes no claims about that product having pesticidal uses, it does not have to be registered as a pesticide. This law makes sense for things like citric acid, culinary herbs and their oils, and other products that are used in a wide range of applications besides pesticides. Acetic acid has numerous other uses so it, too, falls under this category.
Bradfield Industries tried to market their product in Oregon with herbicide uses listed on the label. Oregon Department of Agriculture inspectors contacted Bradfield and told them that if they made pesticide claims on their label, it would have to be registered as a pesticide in Oregon. The company subsequently changed their label. The Bradfield jugs found at the Washington home and garden center bore a plain label stating the product's name and acetic acid percentage only. But here’s the kicker: attached to the jug handles by a twist-tie were information sheets discussing some of the common uses for acetic acid: cleaning farm equipment, lowering pH in fertigation and other foliar sprays, AND AS A HERBICIDE! These attached sheets also state that "since vinegar is on the EPA Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS) List, registration is unnecessary." That statement is misleading and only partially true. Acetic acid is on the list of GRAS inerts, but it is not on the GRAS active ingredient list (remember our earlier explanation of the Greenergy product?)
When we put a call into the Colorado Department of Agriculture to ask them about their concerns, we were referred to Judith Sturgess, EPA Region VII, who is handling an EPA action against Bradfield Industries. This action involves a stop sale order as well as a civil complaint with a financial penalty. EPA's position, according to Ms. Sturgess, is that the vinegar product is illegal as it is not registered as a pesticide, is not in the registration queue, and is not eligible for Minimum Risk status, yet is being distributed with information describing a pesticide use. EPA bases their position on information sheets found with the product and also on information from the Bradfield Web site at http://www.bradfieldind.com/, which continues to describe the product as a herbicide.
In A Pickle
Let's see where this series of events has brought us. USDA-ARS has done
research to show that 20% concentrations of acetic acid work to control
weeds. Many people are clamoring for access to products with these high
concentrations, yet no company seems willing to go through the EPA
registration process with a 20% product. Adding to the problem, it seems
that some USDA personnel are locating sources of 20% product (distributors
who sell 20% vinegar to food outlets) and recommending them to the public
as sources of herbicide. We have received e-mails to this effect and have
followed Web threads evidencing such recommendations.
Can those of us in extension take the same short cut and recommend the higher (unregistered) concentrations, or in fact give people lists of distributors? The answer, at least in Washington State, is NO. There is a legal fine point buried in here. If any material claims to kill pests (weeds) it becomes a pesticide, no matter who does the "claiming" We cannot make a recommendation for an unregistered pesticide. Okay, so what if the material does not claim to be a "pesticide", it is simply a "food grade 20% solution" (normally) sold to those who make pickles? Can we recommend it then? The answer is again, NO. As Ms. Sturgess pointed out, making lists of 20% vinegar outlets is tantamount to directing people to use an unregistered pesticide.
Some may ask what is the big deal over such picky paperwork details when people are clamoring to use the product? After all, isn't the catchphrase of the marketplace "Let the buyer beware"? Besides being legally culpable in recommending unregistered pesticides, we have practical safety concerns for homeowners. Homeowners are not trained in safe handling and storage of concentrated chemicals. Acetic acid concentrations over 11% can cause burns upon skin contact. Eye contact can result in severe burns and permanent corneal injury. The 25% acetic acid concentrations registered through EPA and the states for commercial use all have restricted entry intervals of 48 hours and list personal protection equipment to be used by the applicator. None of this safety information is included on the twist-tie information on the jug of Bradfield Horticultural Vinegar. Because the public is used to thinking of vinegar as something you can safely splash on your salad and eat they are generally unaware of potential dangers of a higher concentration.
Concentrating on Solutions
The simple solution seems to be for a company to step forward and
register the 20% concentration as a herbicide. Judging from the reactions
on Web threads and from our own experience after publication of newspaper
articles, there is certainly enough demand out there to make it
profitable. Research, courtesy of USDA, has already been done. Extension
stands ready to recommend registered products. So who will step up to the
plate?
Dr. Catherine H. Daniels, Pesticide Coordinator, WSU Agrichem.
and Environ. News Oct. 2002
Dr. Catherine Daniels is Pesticide Coordinator for WSU and the Director
of the Washington State Pest Management Resource Service,
http://wsprs.wsu.edu. Information presented in this article is condensed
into a two-page fact sheet targeted at county agents available at
http://wsprs.wsu.edu/VinegarFactSheet.pdf.
A recent independent study by the George Morris Centre, a Canadian independent think-tank for the agri-food sector, has documented what farmers have known for some time - that crops enhanced by biotechnology are beneficial for the environment. The study showed that by using glyphosate tolerant (GT) soybeans, farmers can reduce fossil fuel use, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, reduce applications of pesticides, and reduce levels of soil erosion.
In Canada, adoption of GT soybean has been slower than in the United States, as the GT soybeans did not receive government
approval for commercial production until three years after the U.S. Major Canadian processing plants were also reluctant to accept the
soybeans in the first year of planting, due to perceived market constraints. However, Ontario soybean producers have quickly adopted
these herbicide tolerant soybeans. Thirty percent of the Ontario crop (Ontario produces 80% of Canada's soybeans) was planted with
GT soybeans in 2002, and each year the usage has increased. Canadian producers now have proof that genetically modified crops are
just one more tool to be used in environmentally-friendly agricultural
practices.
(www.georgemorris.org via Agnet, 9/16/02)
Consumers have largely come to terms with the thought of eating corn engineered with Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) genes for pest
resistance, but corn containing antibodies for genital herpes is something else again, Iowa State agronomist Walter Fehr told
a"biopharming" conference last month sponsored by the Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology.
"Yuck!" was his wife's response to Des Moines Register news story about a patent to grow corn designed to produce the herpes
antibody, Fehr reported. His sons and daughter, all highly-educated professionals, had similar reactions, he added. "You've got to be
kidding," said one.
Fehr acknowledged the U.S. regulatory agencies and the food industry had succeeded in calming fears about biotech products in the 1990s. "Should the agencies worry about consumer reaction to biopharming?" he asked. "They said they should only worry about safety and efficacy. But what will it take to convince my family that biopharming is safe?" Fehr said third-party evaluation of biopharm safety would help, arguing that industry data alone would not be enough to convince consumers. Creating tolerances for adventitious presence of biopharm genes in the food supply is a possibility, he said, but there are no good models at present. "The public sector needs to be involved on the containment side," he said, quoting his daughter's comment that "any tolerance above zero is too much."
One solution would be to avoid use of food crops for pharmaceutical production altogether, the Iowa State agronomist continued. Any genetic contamination of corn used for food or feed "is a big deal in Iowa," he said. "We're a huge corn producer, and spatial separation [of biopharm from food crops] has problems."
Fehr suggested that federal agencies handle regulation of biopharming like the U.S. Agriculture Department handled its rules for the National Organic Program. "Give us time to review the proposals," he said, noting that USDA officials held field hearings on the organic rule and made major changes after receiving more than 200,000 comments.
Jeffrey Barach, vice president for special projects at the National Food Processors Association, said that "in a perfect world" biopharm producers would "use only non-food plants grown in containment in isolated locations. We want as many degrees of separation as possible." He described a nightmare news headline to be avoided at all costs: "Medical Carrots Containing Vaccine Found in Baby Food."
USDA and the Food and Drug Administration have not yet published draft guidance for production of plant-based biologics, which conference organizers had hoped would be unveiled before or during the July 17-18 meeting. Agency officials said the draft guidance would be released "soon."
Former FDA Commissioner Jane Henney, who is now scholar-in-residence at the Association of Academic Health Centers, acknowledged difficulties in developing a coordinated regulatory approach between two agencies. "It's still a 'coming attraction,' but I would hope the content will be reflected when it becomes public," she said.
Listing the advantages of biopharming, Henney said monoclonal antibodies developed from plant sources have "inherent safety features" that are preferable to biologics from blood cells or mammalian cultures. She cited lower cost production without expensive facilities and the prospect of lower drug prices to consumers.
Acknowledging that many scientific issues remain, Henney asked, "How do we assure the public that products will be rigorously developed and safety used?" She called for open dialogue between scientists and the public. "Never assume the issue is too sophisticated for public discussion," she said, calling for a balance between "faith and fear."
Citing as a model FDA's review of biotech food labeling during her tenure as commissioner, Henney said the exercise "wasn't perfect,
but it let the agency translate its work into a more open process. The public wants assurance that government bodies are working in
their best interest and are open to change when further evidence demands
it."
(Food Traceability Report, Vol. 2, No. 8, August
2002), Pesticide Reports Sept 2002
The International Center for Technology Assessment (CTA), a non-profit public interest group, filed a formal legal petition asking the
Secretary of the U.S. Department of Agriculture to block the release of the first-ever genetically engineered (GE) plant intended for use
by homeowners and property managers. Biotechnology giant Monsanto Co. and Scotts Co., the leading lawn and garden product
marketer, are seeking Federal approval to commercialize a GE creeping bentgrass, the turfgrass preferred for golf course greens and
used in countless lawns across the country. The GE grass variety is resistant to the top-selling weedkiller Roundup, a brand owned by
Monsanto for which it has licensed exclusive marketing rights to Scotts. Currently, use of the Roundup weedkiller is limited to spot
spraying of weeds in that the herbicide kills any grass it comes in contact with. The new GE grass has been altered to be resistant to the
weedkiller so that users will be able to spray without fear of hurting the grass. Large scale planting of the GE grass would therefore
massively increase the amounts of herbicide used in home lawns, sport fields, schools, and golf courses around the country.
"Monsanto and Scotts are asking for government approval to massively increase the chemical contamination of our neighborhoods, playing fields, and other recreational areas," said CTA Executive Director Andrew Kimbrell. "Their pursuit of biotech profits is putting our children and our communities at risk, and we will use any legal means to prevent this," Kimbrell concluded.
Beyond the increase in chemical pollution, CTA also describes the major "biological pollution" threat presented by the GE grass. Creeping bentgrass itself is broadly recognized as a difficult to control weed. It is a wind-pollinated species whose pollen blows easily for hundreds of yards and it readily hybridizes with other grasses. The fact that the leading weedkiller Roundup cannot kill the proposed GE variety will significantly increase the effort, cost and environmental damage necessary to get rid of it where it is unwanted. In many natural areas and parks, where non-native creeping bentgrass is already a serious invader, the herbicide resistant grass could become an almost impossible to eradicate "superweed." The herbicide resistance genes could also "jump" from the bentgrass to other weeds thereby making them dangerous "superweeds." This potential environmental disaster could lead to financial liability problems for Monsanto, Scotts and the retailers and end users of the GE product. Peter T. Jenkins, CTA's attorney and policy analyst on the petition, stated: "What Monsanto and Scotts are doing to creeping bentgrass will make a more threatening invasive species for those who don't want it in their lawn or park. Their proposal amounts to genetic assault and battery, recklessness and trespassing."
Citing legal precedents and an array of scientific evidence, CTA's petition argues that USDA officials must not approve release of the GE variety and instead must list it as a noxious weed under the Federal Plant Protection Act. Should the CTA petition be rejected, the organization will file suit in Federal court to halt any approval.
Prior to CTA's formal legal petition a number of groups including the American Society of Landscape Architects (more than 14,000
members nationally); The Nature Conservancy (the largest holder of private land preserves in the world); and the public interest group,
the Foundation on Economic Trends wrote letters to USDA requesting a
moratorium on the approval and release of the GE grass.
Pesticide Reports Sept 2002
Cornell University entomologists have unlocked an evolutionary secret to how insects evolve into new species. The discovery has major implications for the control of insect populations through disruption of mating, suggesting that over time current eradication methods could become ineffective, similar to the way insects develop pesticide resistance.
The discovery was made while examining ways to keep European corn borers from mating, multiplying and then chewing up farmers' fields. Scientists discovered the existence of a previously undetected gene, delta-14, that can regulate the attractant chemicals produced in sex-pheromone glands of female borers. The gene can be suddenly switched on, changing the pheromone components that females use to attract males for mating. The entomologists have demonstrated that insects evolve chemical systems in leaps rather than in minute stages, as had been previously assumed. The researchers also discovered that there are rare males in the corn borer population - about 1 in 200 - capable of responding to chemicals produced by the delta-14 gene.
The researchers hypothesize that this mechanism is one way that insects become new species, comparing the manner in which female insects attract males with pheromones to radio frequencies. At major events with thousands of people, for instance, police might communicate on channel one, emergency medical personnel on channel two, and administrators on channel three. But when a female has a mutated (switched on) delta-14 gene, it changes her from channel three to five. That means that out of 200 male borers, 199 cannot respond to her. It's the one male borer capable of responding to her very selective channel that gets to mate. Soon other females with the delta-14 gene mate with other rare respondent males. Eventually, over time, the males and females stabilize their pheromone communication system, essentially isolating this new population (species) from the parent species.
Manipulation of insect chemistry is an effective pest control strategy in that it can be used to disrupt mating behavior. For more than
20 years, Cornell's New York State Agricultural Experiment Station in Geneva has focused on chemical analysis of the pheromone
components. Agricultural researchers have identified pheromones in over 1,000 species of insect and use them to monitor pest
populations in 250 species and to disrupt mating in more than 20 species. The results demonstrate that the conditions required for
dramatic shifts in pheromone blends could well be present today and in the future. Insect populations could be capable of shifting
away from a pheromone blend being used for their control in the field,
making such control ineffective.
(Newswise via AgNet, 9/11/02).September 2002
A spot check by the Environmental Protection Agency has found lake trout from the crystalline waters of Lake Chelan containing high
concentrations of DDT, enough to concern state officials who say they need more tests to gauge the public-health risk. Of 143 lakes
randomly checked nationwide by the EPA, Lake Chelan's DDT levels were the highest. But diagnosing the extent of the problem, and
determining whether the public should be warned about eating fish, will be difficult.
Not only is the lake huge - more than 50 miles long and 1,500 feet deep - but public-health officials contend there's little concrete knowledge about the risks of adults eating fish laced with trace amounts of DDT, a pesticide banned in 1972, the same year Congress passed the Clean Water Act.
Further, the kind of water-quality tests done by state and federal biologists are not comprehensive enough to determine whether it is safe to regularly eat the fish over a lifetime. For that, biologists need extensive tissue samples, a costly, time-intensive job that often doesn't get funded.
"Right now we have little detailed data from around the state, either from water bodies or from fish," said Dave McBride, state Department of Health toxicologist. "People could be consuming fish that are unsafe that we just don't know about. But we don't want to scare people away from fish because it's a great source of protein."
Even so, the EPA survey, given to the Department of Health in late August, raised a red flag, McBride said. "We don't consider it a grave emergency, but it's definitely something we have to look at."
DDT's toxic legacy
The use of DDT was so widespread for so long, health officials presume traces are in much of our food. In high concentrations, it is a probable carcinogen, and can affect immune-, liver- and nervous-system function. But there's limited information about long-term exposure to the kind of low doses sometimes associated with fish.
DDT came into widespread use in the late 1940s, and was applied often to Washington orchards until the mid-1960s primarily to fight infestations of coddling moths. Though it was banned in the United States, it's still used elsewhere in the world. DDT rarely binds to water. Instead, it attaches to sediment and has leached into many Eastern Washington streambeds, from Mission Creek near the Wenatchee River to the Okanogan River. In the 1980s, DDT was one of the most commonly found pollutants in waterways nationwide.
A persistent poison that can remain toxic for decades, it gets sucked up by small organisms and passed to larger ones. It builds up and concentrates in fat tissue, particularly in bigger, older fish. DDT also has been found in Lake Chelan kokanee eggs, which led state officials to believe it can be passed to offspring. DDT gained national attention for thinning the eggshells of eagles that ate severely contaminated fish.
"You get this magnifying effect on up the food chain," said Randy Coots, a state Department of Ecology water-quality specialist. In the lower Yakima River, health officials conducted years of study, including fish-consumption surveys and sampling. They determined lactating women eating highly fatty fish could pass DDT on to infants through breast milk. Because some Native American and immigrant populations subsisted on Yakima River bottom fish, health officials urged limiting consumption to one bottom fish per week. Lake Chelan is another matter.
State water-quality regulators at Department of Ecology knew 15 years ago residue from the long-lasting insecticide had accumulated in a few bottom-feeders, such as sucker fish, as well as in rainbow trout and land-locked kokanee near some drainages. But state health officials said they were unaware of the years of DDT-laden fish samples taken from Lake Chelan until this summer, when the latest findings from EPA were obtained. Now, "we need to definitely address this," McBride said.
Limitations to the EPA study
In 2000, the EPA, as part of a four-year national snapshot of contaminated fish, took samples from Lake Chelan and four other randomly selected Washington lakes. It captured just five lake trout near the mouth of Stink Creek, near Wapato Point, blended the edible portions, and tested for toxins. The results: DDT registered 1,481 parts per billion — almost 50 times higher than the federal health criteria of 32 parts per billion, criteria based on assumptions about how much fish people eat over a lifetime. But EPA officials cautioned against reading too much into their limited findings.
EPA toxicologist Pat Cirone said the sample size was too small to infer anything about the rest of the lake. The fish also were taken near Stink Creek, which is known to have historically leached pesticides into the lake.
As for Chelan's No. 1 ranking in the survey, there are DDT-polluted waterways all over the country, including Eastern Washington, and some likely have higher concentrations — they simply weren't tested as part of the 2000 survey, said EPA's Lillian Herger, who coordinated the study in the Northwest. "It sounds dire, but it's of limited value."
Still, state regulators had hoped clean sediments by now would have done more to dilute and cap the DDT-contaminated lake bottom, and it would slowly be working out of the food chain. "It was alarming to me — I have no problem saying that," said the Department of Ecology's Dave Schneider, who works with the Lake Chelan Water Quality Committee. "We're very concerned. To find those numbers are still that high — that's significant."
It was also the first time he could recall DDT being found in lake trout, a popular sport fish people frequently catch and eat. Last year, angler John Hossack caught a state-record 35-pound lake trout there. Hossack estimated he's caught 250 or more fish in the lake over the past 10 years and, "except for my big one, I've eaten everything we've ever caught," he said.
But while anglers may take dozens of trout each year, health officials know little about who eats which fish — and how much. There's even less information about how — or whether — trace DDT at chronic low levels affects adults.
"For a lot of chemicals, studies looked only at the most sensitive populations," McBride said. "It might be that adults can tolerate it at those levels. We don't know."
More problematic: Until more sampling is done, it's not clear how far the DDT contamination extends beyond the Stink Creek drainage, or if runoff elsewhere may have carried the pesticide into the lake.
To gauge how widespread the contamination might be, McBride said, health officials would need samples of some 500 fish at a cost of $1,000 per fish or more.
Coots, with the Department of Ecology, already is putting together a plan to sample more fish next summer. In the meantime, health officials have said anyone concerned could follow guidelines issued for the lower Yakima when eating fish caught near Stink Creek. Those guidelines urge people to avoid eating more than one bottom fish a week, to not eat the skin, and to barbecue or broil fish.
By Craig Welch
Seattle Times staff reporter
October 18, 2002
Americans are munching organic cherries, crunching organic kale and noshing on organic kiwis and other produce at a record pace. And Seattleites, living in one of the top markets in the country for organic food, are at the head of a worldwide boom in the popularity of organics.
But some underlying questions nettle at the ankles. Does anything more than intuition tell us that organic produce is really healthier for us? Is it actually grown without synthetic pesticides, as most organic growers advertise? Do the pesticide residues found on conventionally grown fruits and vegetables, and lodged in our bodies, pose a health risk? And what's fueling this 8 to 20 percent per year growth in organic-produce sales?
Like most subjects that involve food, money, and government regulation, this one is complicated, highly political and full of ambiguity. But with the aid of a handful of food experts, a couple of national consumer groups, and a sprig of common sense, you can wade through the rhetoric and choose a path best suited to your income, philosophy and affinity for risk.
Birth of a movement
After 1940, most American farmers replaced their "organic" methods crop rotation and cultivation to control weeds, and using animal manure as fertilizer with synthetic pesticides and fertilizers. The new products worked as promised, lowering production costs and increasing crop yields.
But as chemical agriculture grew, so did the opposition. The loudest early opponent was magazine publisher J.I. Rodale. In 1940 he bought a 60-acre experimental farm in Pennsylvania, where he applied what he called "organiculture" methods, which was then modified to organic agriculture. Inspired by critics of chemical agriculture in Germany and England, he wrote several books that railed against the use of synthetic pesticides and fertilizers, claiming they robbed the soil of organic material and the microbiological action that promote healthy plants. His detractors called him an "apostle of dung" and a "humus huckster."
But it wasn't until publication in 1962 of Rachel Carson's seminal book "Silent Spring," in which she warned of the danger of pesticides such as DDT, that the organic movement began to gain significant ground. Her book set the stage for the environmental movement and made consumers look at their food supply in a more critical light.
The organic-food business remained small but vital through the '70s and '80s. Even as late as 1990, it scratched out sales of just $1 billion (about 1 percent of total U.S. grocery sales). But a decade later, organic food had reached nearly $8 billion in sales and had become the fastest growing segment of the retail food industry. Last year, the industry nearly reached the $10 billion mark, of which produce makes up about half the sales.
To put things in perspective, though, it helps to look at the size of the organic agricultural movement within the context of the entire agricultural industry. Certified organic cropland represents just 0.3 percent of the total, and 1.5 to 2 percent of American farmers.
Who's driving this small but rapidly growing market? It appears that most of the buyers are baby boomers and people between 18 and 34 years old. Only about a quarter of organic consumers say they buy organic to help reduce agriculture's impact on the environment. The largest majority, nearly two-thirds of organic consumers, cite health and nutrition as their main reasons for buying organic food.
Is it more healthful?
And that's where things get a little sticky. Goldie Caughlan, the nutrition education manager for Puget Consumers Co-op Natural Markets and a consumer adviser to the U.S. Department of Agriculture's National Organic Standards Board, says it's illegal to make health claims for organic food. That provision was written into the legislation that created the federal organic program in order to secure votes from Congress members who represented big agricultural states. Caughlan said it's up to consumers to decide for themselves whether organic produce is healthier, at least until more studies are done.
"The jury is still out on whether organic produce is better from a vitamin or fiber viewpoint than conventionally grown produce," said John Reganold, a Washington State University soil scientist who has extensively studied organic-farming techniques. Recent studies have found a 30 percent higher vitamin C content in organic oranges, and significantly more amounts of iron, magnesium and phosphorus.
Gene Kahn is a Chicago native who 30 years ago founded Cascadian Farms, one of the first modern organic farms in Washington. Cascadian Farms is now part of Sedro Woolley's Small Planet Foods, one of the largest producers of organic food in the world and owned by General Mills. Kahn, the president of Small Planet Foods and a General Mills vice president, thinks "poor science" is behind most of the studies that have come out for or against the higher nutritional content of organic produce. He argues that most organic-industry claims about nutrition are "pure hype and propaganda, and self-serving." There's anecdotal evidence, he says, but nothing scientific.
As for health benefits, organics are preferred by many consumers because they have fewer chemical-pesticide residues. That's fewer, not none.
"Some people are surprised there are any residues in organic produce at all," said Edward Groth, a senior scientist with Consumer Union, the parent organization of Consumer Reports magazine.
Residual pesticide levels
Groth led a study published earlier this year that looked at the residual pesticide levels of a broad sample of American produce, both organically and conventionally grown. Nearly three-quarters of conventionally grown crops had residues, while about a quarter of organic produce samples harbored residues. Conventional produce was six times more likely than organics to have more than one pesticide present.
Groth was quick to add that residues on organic produce "are pretty well explained as leftover contamination from pesticide use from long ago, like DDT, and drift from other nearby conventional farms." By excluding these environmentally persistent chlorinated insecticides from the results, the number of organic samples with residues dropped from 23 to 13 percent. The reduction in conventional produce was much less, from 73 to 71 percent.
"While the risks to health associated with dietary pesticide residues are still uncertain and subject to debate, risk is relative, and lower exposure undoubtedly translates in lower risk," the report stated. "Consumers who wish to minimize their dietary pesticide exposure can do so with confidence by buying organically grown foods."
But to opponents of organic agriculture (and they are legion, led by chemical companies and conventional farmers), the report said something else. "Consumer Reports said, 'organics had fewer pesticides,' " said Kahn. "But the chemical industry turns it around and said, 'pesticides found in organic food.' "
Wash all produce
Consumer advocates like Groth and Caroline Smith De Waal, director of food safety for the Center for Science in the Public Interest and the co-author of a new book, "Is Our Food Safe?" say the best way to protect yourself from pesticide residue on any produce, organic or conventional, is to carefully wash and/or peel it. Bacteria from improperly composted manure used as organic fertilizer also can be removed by washing.
For those who can't afford a diet of organic produce, which can cost 25 to 100 percent more than conventional fare, because of higher production costs, there is a way to limit your exposure to pesticides. Certain conventionally grown fruits and vegetables, like strawberries, apples, pears, lettuce, spinach, and celery, have consistently more pesticide residues on them than others. Some, like apples, can harbor as many as 10 different residues, according to a 1999 Consumers Union study called "Do You Know what You're Eating?"
So consumer advocates say people can minimize their exposure to pesticides by buying organic versions of these foods. A thorough scrubbing and perhaps peeling of conventional produce should remove most of its residues.
Fudged facts on synthetic pesticides
First-time buyers of organic produce, and even some veterans, believe that organics aren't grown with synthetic pesticides. That's not hard to understand, because many organic farmers advertise their wares this way. It makes consumers feel good about buying organic. On the Cascadian Farm Web site, for instance, promotional copy states in several places that crops are grown without the use of synthetic pesticides. Yet this isn't entirely true.
The United States Department of Agriculture has developed a list of more than 40 synthetic substances approved for use in organic crop production. Although they are not known to have adverse effects on the environment or to human health, they are used by a number of organic farmers.
One such synthetic is a petroleum-based horticultural oil that in late winter and spring is applied to the bare wood of fruit trees to suffocate insects and their eggs. Miles McEvoy, manager of the Organic Food Program at the Washington State Department of Agriculture, said that this kind of pesticide, along with things like insect mating disruption devices (also a synthetic), allows farmers not to use broad-based organophosphate pesticides that end up forming residues on produce.
Kahn admits that the claim on Cascadian Farm's Web site about not using synthetic pesticides is "not literally true. But it is largely true. In terms of anything significant that would affect the environment or consumer health, it's fully true."
He said the Web site is "five years obsolete" and needs updating. Now that he works for General Mills, the $13 billion-a-year company that bought Small Planet Foods in 2000, he said he hopes to use his influence to steer the organic industry into more "fact-based marketing."
Gut feelings vs. science
Facts are, in some ways, a scarce commodity in the marketing of organic foods. Instead, marketers seem to rely more on their customer's belief that organic food "doesn't necessarily deliver a measurable health improvement or benefit, but it simply makes them feel better," according to the Hartman Group's Organic Consumer Profile.
Yet one fact stands out: Study after study has proved that eating lots of fruit and vegetables, organic or not, fresh, canned, or frozen, can improve your health.
Smith De Waal wrote in "Is Our Food Safe?": "It would be worse for your overall health to stop eating fruits and vegetables to avoid pesticide residues than to keep eating them, pesticides and all."
In the meantime, science has a ways to go before it can add factual heft to the gut-level feeling many organic buyers have that organic food is good for the body and good for the planet.
By Scott McCredie
Northwest Life: Wednesday, July 31, 2002
Seattle Times staff reporter
Mosquitoes, biting flies, and ticks can be annoying and sometimes pose a serious risk to public health. In certain areas of the
United States, mosquitoes can transmit diseases like equine and St. Louis encephalitis. Biting flies can inflict a painful bite that
can persist for days, swell, and become infected. Ticks can transmit serious diseases like Lyme disease and Rocky Mountain
spotted fever. When properly used, insect repellents can discourage biting insects from landing on treated skin or clothing.
* Choosing Insect Repellents
* Using Insect Repellents Safely
* Avoiding Ticks and Lyme Disease
* In Case of Emergency
* Where to Get More Information
* Other Helpful EPA Publications
Choosing Insect Repellents
Insect repellents are available in various forms and concentrations. Aerosol and pump-spray products are intended for skin applications as well as for treating clothing. Liquid, cream, lotion, spray, and stick products enable direct skin application. Products with a low concentration of active ingredient may be appropriate for situations where exposure to insects is minimal. Higher concentration of active ingredient may be useful in highly infested areas or with insect species which are more difficult to repel. And where appropriate, consider nonchemical ways to deter biting insects - screens, netting, long sleeves, and slacks.
Using Insect Repellents Safely
EPA recommends the following precautions when using insect repellents:
* Apply repellents only to exposed skin and/or clothing (as directed on the product label). Do not use under clothing.
* Never use repellents over cuts, wounds, or irritated skin.
* Do not apply to eyes and mouth, and apply sparingly around ears. When using sprays do not spray directly onto face; spray on
hands first and then apply to face.
* Do not allow children to handle the products, and do not apply to children's hands. When using on children, apply to your own
hands and then put it on the child.
* Do not spray in enclosed areas. Avoid breathing a repellent spray, and do not use it near food.
* Use just enough repellent to cover exposed skin and/or clothing. Heavy application and saturation is generally unnecessary
for effectiveness; if biting insects do not respond to a thin film of repellent, then apply a bit more.
* After returning indoors, wash treated skin with soap and water or bathe. This is particularly important when repellents are
used repeatedly in a day or on consecutive days. Also, wash treated clothing before wearing it again. If you suspect that you or
your child are reacting to an insect repellent, discontinue use, wash treated skin, and then call your local poison control center.
If/when you go to a doctor, take the repellent with you.
* Get specific medical information about the active ingredients in repellents and other pesticides by calling the National
Pesticide Information Center (NPIC) at 1-800-858-7378. NPIC operates from 6:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. (Pacific Time),9:30 a.m. to
7:30 p.m. (Eastern Time), 7 days a week. The NPIC Web site is: http://npic.orst.edu/
Important Information on Using Pesticides
EPA recommends the following precautions when using an insect repellent or pesticide:
* Check the container to ensure that the product bears an EPA-approved label and registration number. Never use a product
that has not been approved for use by EPA!
* Read the entire label before using a pesticide. Even if you have used it before, read the label again - don't trust your
memory.
* Follow use directions carefully, use only the amount directed, at the time and under the conditions specified, and for the
purpose listed. For example, if you need a tick repellent, make sure that the product label lists this use. If ticks are not listed, the
product may not be formulated for that use.
* Store pesticides away from children's reach, in a locked utility cabinet or garden shed.
Avoiding Ticks and Lyme Disease
Lyme disease has become the leading tick-borne illness in the United States. In 1999, 16,273 cases of Lyme disease were
reported to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The deer tick, also known as the black-legged tick, is the
species that most often transmits Lyme disease. With proper precautions, Lyme disease is preventable.
* Ticks are most active from April through October, so exercise additional caution when venturing into tick country during that
time period.
* When in a tick-infested area, an insect repellent is good prevention is, however, consider using a product designed to be
applied to clothing rather than skin.
* Tuck pants cuffs into boots or socks, and wear long sleeves and light-colored clothing to make it easier to spot ticks. * Stay to
the center of hiking paths, and avoid grassy and marshy woodland areas.
* Inspect yourself and your children for clinging ticks after leaving an infested area. Ticks are hard to see - nymphs are dot
sized; adults, smaller than a sesame seed.
* If you discover a tick feeding, do not panic. Studies indicate that an infected tick does not usually transmit the Lyme
organism during the first 24 hours.
* If you suspect Lyme disease or its symptoms, contact your doctor immediately.
IN CASE OF AN EMERGENCY, first determine what the person was exposed to and what part of the body was affected before you take action, since taking the right action is as important as taking immediate action. If the person is unconscious, having trouble breathing, or having convulsions, give the indicated first aid immediately. Call 911 or your local emergency service. If these symptoms are not evident, contact your local Poison Control Center, physician, 911, or your local emergency service and follow its directions. The following are general first aid guidelines:
* Poison in eye. Eye membranes absorb pesticides faster than any other external part of the body. Eye damage can occur in a few minutes with some types of pesticides. If poison splashes into an eye, hold the eyelid open and wash quickly and gently with clean running water from the tap or a gentle stream from a hose for at least 15 minutes. If possible, have someone contact a Poison Control Center while the victim is being treated. Do not use eye drops, chemicals, or drugs in the wash water.
* Poison on skin. If pesticide splashes on the skin, drench area with water and remove contaminated clothing. Wash skin and hair thoroughly with soap and water. Later, discard contaminated clothing or thoroughly wash it separately from other laundry.
* Inhaled poison. Get the victim to fresh air immediately. Open doors and windows to prevent fumes from poisoning others. Call the fire department.
* Swallowed poison. Induce vomiting ONLY if the emergency personnel on the phone tell you to do so. It will depend on what the victim has swallowed; some petroleum products, or caustic poisons, can cause serious damage if vomited. Always keep Syrup of Ipecac on hand (one bottle per household). Be sure the date is current and keep it out of children's reach.
Where to Get More Information:
Region 6 South Central: Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, 800-887-6063 (Region 6 states and Texas & 66 Tribes only) 214-665-6444 www.epa.gov/region6
United States Environmental Protection Agency - Office of Pesticide Programs
Updated: April 17, 2002
EPA will phase out and cancel certain additional crop uses and formulations of the organophosphate insecticide diazinon to reduce risks to birds and other wildlife, agricultural workers, and the environment. These actions are part of a second agreement between EPA and diazinon technical registrants, reflected in the Diazinon Interim Reregistration Eligibility Decision (IRED) signed by the Agency on July 31, 2002. Diazinon is eligible for reregistration, provided that risk mitigation measures specified in the IRED are adopted. Through a notice to be published soon in the Federal Register, EPA will release the Diazinon IRED and invite public comment for 60 days on diazinon's benefits, usage, risks to workers and the environment, and related issues. Diazinon has been one of the most widely used insecticides in the U.S. for household lawn and garden pest control. To reduce risks to children and others, a December 2000 agreement is phasing out and canceling all residential uses all indoor use product registrations must be canceled and retail sale must end by December 31, 2002. In addition, all outdoor residential product registrations must be canceled and retail sale must end by December 31, 2004. A buy-back program will help remove these outdoor residential use products from the market and prevent further sale after that date. In completing its assessment of diazinon, EPA has taken steps to assure that workers who mix, load and apply diazinon to agricultural sites are protected from risks of concern. Diazinon is highly toxic to birds, and very toxic to aquatic species including freshwater fish and invertebrates. To mitigate worker and ecological risks, the Diazinon IRED requires a number of measures to be phased in over the next 2 to 5 years, including:
Cancel nearly all granular uses
Discontinue all aerial application
Discontinue foliar application to nearly all vegetable crops.
Reduce the number of applications per growing season for most uses.
Require engineering controls for mixers
and loaders, and closed cabs for applicators.
Set re-entry intervals (REIs) at 2 to 18 days.
Cancel certain crop uses
The Diazinon IRED concludes EPA's review of this pesticide. The review was conducted with extensive input from USDA,
stakeholders, and the public through the OP pilot public participation process. Once the Agency considers OP cumulative risks, further
risk mitigation measures may be required for diazinon and other OPs. The Diazinon risk assessments and a summary of this decision
are available on the Agency's website at: http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/op/diazinon.htm. The IRED will be posted there soon. The
Federal Register notice announcing the availability of the Diazinon IRED for comment will be available at
http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr.
(EPA Pesticide Program Update, August 5, 2002),
Pesticide Reports Sept 2002
On September 26, The Industry Task Force II on 2,4-D Research Data released the most recent review of current scientific evidence pertaining to the human health effects of the herbicide 2,4-D. The Task Force commissioned the University of Michigan School of Public Health to examine the current evidence on human toxicity and cancer risks related to the exposure of 2,4-D. After reviewing more than 160 recent toxicologic and epidemiologic studies, the report concluded: "Despite several thorough in vitro and in vivo animal studies, no experimental evidence exists supporting the theory that 2,4-D or any of its salts and esters damages DNA under physiologic conditions. Studies in rodents demonstrate a lack of oncogenic or carcinogenic effects following lifetime dietary administration of 2,4-D. Epidemiologic studies provide scant evidence that exposure to 2,4-D is associated with soft tissue sarcoma, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, Hodgkin's disease, or any other cancer. Overall, the available evidence from epidemiologic studies is not adequate to conclude that any form of cancer is causally associated with 2,4-D exposure." The review is published in the current edition of Critical Reviews in Toxicology.
Since 1986, more than a dozen government and independent expert panels have concluded that 2,4-D does not pose an
unreasonable risk vto human health or the environment when used according
to label instructions. "The decisions of regulatory
agencies and several expert panel reviews simply do not support the allegations that 2,4-D causes cancer or poses an
unreasonable risk to human health", stated the Executive Director of the Task Force. "It is unfortunate that those who wish to
ban the use of pesticides continue to trade on fear and half truths to advance their interests and confuse the public."
(Agnet, 9/26/02). October
The Pesticide Product Label System is a collection of images, in multi-page TIFF format, of pesticide labels which have been approved by the Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) under Section 3 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. The collection contains the initially approved label for pesticide products registered under FIFRA Section 3 as well as subsequent versions of labels which have changed via amendment or notification.
In addition to the stamped approved labels this collection contains any associated correspondence about the terms of registration, specifying any changes which the registrant was required to make in the final printed label. Because some label amendments address only portions of the label, you may have to review several labels for a single product to determine the complete terms of registration.
The collection does not identify those products which have been subsequently canceled or transferred, but rather identifies each pesticide label as it appeared at the time that it was approved. In additon, please review Limitations of the Pesticide Product Label System.
The label images are indexed by EPA registration number and the date on which the label was initially registered or amended. If you do not know the registration number, you can search all federally registered products by active ingredient, product name, or company name, in EPA's Pesticide Product Information System, which you can access on the California Department of Pesticide Regulation website at California Department of Pesticide Regulation (CDPR)
NEW! We are making available, with each label updates posting, a database which contains a dump of the PPLS index. The database
(pestlabl.dbf) has the following record format: COMPANY_NR (N6), PRODUCT_NR (N5), LABEL_DT (N8 - formatted as
YYYYMMDD) and IMAGE_ID (N6). The IMAGE_ID for each label image is assigned at the time of posting (ascending numerical
sequence).
(USEPA OPP ) www.epa.gov/pesticides/pestlabels/index.htm
updated October 2, 2002
On September 19, EPA Region IV imposed a civil fine of over a million dollars on Micro Flo. It was the second largest fine ever levied by the Agency, but less than the $3.6 million that was initially assessed. Micro Flo, a subsidiary of BASF, was charged with having imported unapproved pesticides. The active ingredients specifically involved include permethrin and acephate. The lawyers for United Phosphorous are still seeking $56 million in damages from Micro Flo in a trial set to begin in spring. (Pesticide & Toxic Chemical News, 9/30/02).
A study released in early August has established that there is no
connection between breast cancer and pesticides that were historically
used on Long Island, NY. This congressionally-mandated project, funded by
the National Cancer Institute and the National Institute of Environmental
Health Sciences, examined the possible links between breast cancer and
pesticides such as DDT, chlordane, and dieldrin. The University of North
Carolina researchers found no evidence supporting an association between
organochlorine pesticides and heightened risk of breast cancer. A second
study examining the link between breast cancer and polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons, which are found in fuel exhaust and cigarette smoke, found a
“modest elevation” in breast cancer risk for exposed women. The 3,000
participant study is considered the largest of its kind. (Chemical
Regulation Reporter, Vol. 26, No. 32).
