The University of Georgia
College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences
July 1999/Volume 22, no. 7
FOOD QUALITY PROTECTION ACT
ALERT. The Reregistration Eligibility Document for chlorothalonil has been
The EPA wants public comments on a draft policy paper
The EPA also wants your comments on four policy papers
Under a new EPA proposal, first-time food registrations for pesticide active ingredients would increase from $65,000 to more than $500,000
The results of the first technical briefing on a pesticide tolerance
In case we have not made it clear, the EPA is combining occupational risks and environmental risks with the tolerance reassessment required by FQPA
The EPA is calling for public comments regarding the establishment of temporary tolerances for any pesticide use granted under an emergency exemption
If we eliminate the organophosphate and carbamate pesticides, there could be tremendous impacts on the U.S. economy
Seventeen co-sponsors (so far) have introduced a bill (Regulatory Fairness and Openness Act) to 'correct' FQPA
you want to know more about biopesticides and available products
The IPM in schools program is starting to roll
EPA has expanded Florida's emergency exemption (Section 18) for control of
small hive beetle
University of California scientists report that artificially stimulating the defense systems of tomato plants also increases the efficacy of wasp parasitoids
The EPA established an exemption from tolerance for hydrogen peroxide when applied to any food crop as an algaecide, fungicide, or bactericide at a 1% solution
Since 1995, corn gluten has been known to be active as a preemergent herbicide
If you still have trouble remembering the rules regarding pesticide recordkeeping
EPA is drafting new policies that would require pesticide registrants to
conduct tests measuring developmental neurotoxicity and other effects for
organophosphate and carbamate pesticides
The EPA is forming a workgroup to investigate greater disclosure of pesticide inert ingredients
If you ever wonder what is going on at EPA, here is a web site for you
HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT
Pennsylvania Pesticide Control Act requires that commercial and public
businesses notify people who are registered as hypersensitive to
When there is a chemical emergency, the MSDS may not provide all of the information that first-responders need
If you still do not wear your protective clothing when you use pesticides, be sure your healthcare professional has a copy of Recognition and Management of Pesticide Poisonings from EPA
France may tax pesticides based on their toxicity
The debate concerning multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS) continues
United States is ready to support an international team to investigate
safety and nutrition of genetically engineered foods
Because Bt crops have become much more popular than originally predicted, EPA is considering changes in the required resistance management programs
European concerns about the safety of genetically engineered crops may be spreading into the United States.
RED ALERT. The Reregistration Eligibility Document for chlorothalonil has been released. Comments are due by August 2. Visit http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/ Look under 'What's New.'
The EPA wants public comments on a draft policy paper entitled "Use of the Pesticide Data Program in Acute Dietary Assessment." The PDP is a USDA program that provides EPA data concerning pesticide residues that occur on food. It is a critical element of FQPA. You should read this notice and make comments where you can. Comments are due by July 26. See this web site for details.
The EPA also wants your comments on four policy papers entitled
These policies will determine much of the FQPA process. Take the time to read them and comment. Comments are due by September 7. This web site will carry all of the science policy documents related to FQPA.
Under a new EPA proposal, first-time food registrations for pesticide active ingredients would increase from $65,000 to more than $500,000. The American Crop Protection Association is concerned because they feel the proposal does not increase EPA responsibility to achieve measurable goals or performance standards. The reason for the increase is an FQPA provision that recommends that the Office of Pesticide Programs establish a self-supporting fee structure. The FPQA has greatly increased the cost of EPA's programs. (FR, 6-9-99 and Pestic. & Tox. Chem. News, 6-24-99)
The results of the first technical briefing on a pesticide tolerance (azinphos-methyl) can be found at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/You can get some idea of how FQPA is proceeding and what to expect for other pesticides.
In case we have not made it clear, the EPA is combining occupational risks and environmental risks with the tolerance reassessment required by FQPA. Reregistration requires EPA to examine occupational and environmental risks, so it would seem more efficient to combine the various programs.
On the other hand, the complexity of the situation increases astronomically. Because FQPA focused our attention on dietary risks, we have had time to review and revise the risk assessment process. Occupational and ecological risks were added to the process more recently. As a result, the risk estimates are much less refined in many cases. Unrefined assessments of risks are very scary because they are often based on conservative assumptions.
Occupational risks and environmental risks are not part of FQPA, and the distinction is important. Under FQPA, risks are not balanced against pesticide benefits. If the risks exceed the level of concern, action must be taken to mitigate those risks. If occupational and/or environmental risks exceed the level of concern, EPA must also consider the benefits of the pesticide when they make any regulatory decisions.
Environmental risk estimates can be extremely complicated. Suppose a pesticide is applied 1000 times per year. There are three reports of fish kills associated with this pesticide, but we can only prove the pesticide killed the fish in one case. Keep in mind there may be many more fish kills that were unnoticed or unreported or attributed to some other cause. Growers use this particular pesticide because they can apply it by air late in the season and save two dollars per acre. Additionally, the Friends of Fish are threatening to sue EPA for inaction, and Friends of Farmers have their favorite senator calling for more time to evaluate the situation. You are the decision-maker at EPA; what would you do?
The EPA is calling for public comments regarding the establishment of temporary tolerances for any pesticide use granted under an emergency exemption (Section 18). Before FQPA, a Section 18 was essentially an exemption from tolerance that allowed pest managers to use unregistered pesticides under emergency conditions. If you ever need emergency exemptions, you should review the proposed policy and offer your comments. After all, you repeatedly tell your friends how you know more than those yahoos in Washington do. Comment by August 2. Review the proposal at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-PEST/or call 703-305-5805 for a copy. (EPA 6-4-99)
If we eliminate the organophosphate and carbamate pesticides, there could be tremendous impacts on the U.S. economy. According to a study by R. Knutson, E. Smith, and R. Taylor (released in the American Farm Bureau News Release, 5-11-99), apple imports would increase nearly 17%; juices 4.3%; potatoes 3.9%. Imports of tomatoes, fresh grapes, and fresh peaches would increase by more than 3%. Additionally, foreign competitors would be able to continue use the pesticides in many cases because the residues would be undetectable by the time the produce reached us. Does it seem strange that we are expending so much time and money to possibly ban pesticides that we cannot even detect on food in many cases?
If the increased imports do not trouble you, these numbers will. The overall impact on the U.S. economy would be $17 billion, with an associated loss of 209,000 jobs. Food prices would increase and cause reduced consumption of fruits and vegetables (Has anyone considered the associated health risks?). Families with moderate to high incomes may feel little impact, but what about children near or below the poverty line? Exports of peanuts would decrease more than 14%; grain sorghum 12.5%; soybeans 11.1%; cotton lint 10.6%.
Many people will view this report as another 'sky is falling' cry that will turn out to be untrue. Often things do not live up (or down) to predictions because farmers are innovators. Additionally, there is no EPA plot to ban all organophosphates and carbamates; we only expect some use patterns to be canceled. However, this report does not include potential impacts of the third group in the FQPA bull's-eye, the pesticides classified as B2 carcinogens. This group includes many of our critical fungicides for which there are no alternatives. There are many crops that cannot be produced commercially without fungicides. I am even more concerned about B2s than I am about the insecticides.
For more details, visit http://afpc1.tamu.edu/pesticides.htm
Thanks to Pesticide Broadcast, 6-11-99.
Seventeen co-sponsors (so far) have introduced a bill (Regulatory Fairness and Openness Act) to 'correct' FQPA. Were some of these seventeen co-sponsors among those legislators that unanimously voted for FQPA in the first place? The new bill would require EPA to:
I do not know if a new law would help or simply make things more complicated. For everything you could possibly want to know about this bill, see this URL.
Go to http://thomas.loc.gov/ and search for Regulatory Fairness and Openness Act or H.R.1592
If you want to know more about biopesticides and available products, visit www.epa.gov/pesticides/biopesticides/
The IPM in schools program is starting to roll. Get on board! The University of Georgia is working closely with the Georgia Pest Control Association and others to reduce the risks of pesticides applied in schools. Here is the latest. Gretchen Van De Mark in my office is developing a 'How-to' book for IPM in schools along with a 'Quick-start' guide. We hope to deliver information to the Georgia school superintendents in their July and October meetings. The GPCA, the Legal Environmental Assistance Foundation, and we are planning training sessions beginning this fall.
Reducing the risks of pesticides in schools is not complex, and there are some things your school can implement now.
A pest control company in Sylvester used to spray every school building once per month, according to their contract. Now, they monitor sticky traps every week, and only treat those rooms that show evidence of an important pest problem. The school system decides which rooms they want treated based on the monitoring data. Only the food preparation area is treated on a schedule. The amount of pesticide applied was reduced from about 48 gallons per year to a few quarts.
Gwinnett County schools do not spray for roaches. Their roach control program is based upon the use of roach baits. The new roach baits are very effective and have very low risks to humans.
Many schools have reduced or eliminated roach problems in classrooms by changing their food policies. If all foods are in sealed containers, roaches have no food.
Most schools now realize that it is unnecessary (and ineffective) to spray classrooms, busses, and other areas for head lice. The lice are not controlled, and children/staff are exposed to unnecessary pesticide risks. The school is exposed to unwanted liability.
If your pesticide company is not ready to offer IPM to your school accounts, ask for some training. The University, GPCA, and LEAF plan to introduce IPM techniques to every school system in Georgia, and other states are doing the same thing.
The EPA has expanded Florida's emergency exemption (Section 18) for control of small hive beetle, increasing the number of coumaphos strips that can be sold (700,000) and the number of days the strips may be used (up to 45). The beetle is also being reported in a number of other states. Visit this University of Florida web site for details about the exemption.
(APIS, June 99)
University of California scientists report that artificially stimulating the defense systems of tomato plants also increases the efficacy of wasp parasitoids. Certain parasitoid wasps lay their eggs in caterpillars that attack tomato. When the caterpillars attack the tomato, the plants release certain chemicals to defend themselves against the attack. Apparently, the wasps can detect these chemicals, so they know where to look for their caterpillar prey. It is as if the tomato plants are calling for help. Understanding these types of ecological relationships can really help to reduce our dependence on chemical pesticides. (Nature, 6-17-99)
The EPA established an exemption from tolerance for hydrogen peroxide when applied to any food crop as an algaecide, fungicide, or bactericide at a 1% solution. (FR 6-21-99)
Since 1995, corn gluten has been known to be active as a preemergent herbicide. It has the advantages of being practically nontoxic to animals, biodegradable, and providing a nitrogen source for existing plants. The disadvantages are common to many biocontrols. It is tricky to use, and efficacy can be unpredictable. If you are interested, consult June 1999 issue of IPM Practitioner.
If you still have trouble remembering the rules regarding pesticide recordkeeping, look for a new video and a handy refrigerator magnet. The USDA has released an updated 8-minute video to educate certified private applicators; English and Spanish versions will be available. Every county in Georgia should receive copies of the video soon. Other state extension services can request as many copies as they need by sending an e-mail request to email@example.com The magnets (3 ½" x 4") will also be available soon in both English and Spanish. (FPRP Update, 6-99)
A word to the wise: If the government is spending all of this money to educate applicators, they are probably going to start enforcing the recordkeeping regulations more vigorously.
The EPA is drafting new policies that would require pesticide registrants to conduct tests measuring developmental neurotoxicity and other effects for organophosphate and carbamate pesticides. Other tests will include acute neurotoxicity studies on adult rats and immunotoxicity tests with adult rates and in vitro. Additional data means additional expense. The American Crop Protection Association estimates the developmental neurotox tests would cost $300,000-$600,000 per chemical. Look for an opportunity to comment on these new proposed policies in a few months. (Pesticide & Tox. Chem. News, 6-24-99)
The EPA is forming a workgroup to investigate greater disclosure of pesticide inert ingredients. Under current regulations, pesticide labels must list all active ingredients. The amount of inert ingredient(s) must be specified, but the number and type of inerts are not identified. Unfortunately, some of the inert ingredients may be hazardous to human health even if they do not control the pest. Some people want the inerts to be clearly identified, but some companies feel that the inerts should remain a trade secret. A June 21 notice in the Federal Register requested nominations for the work group. (Pesticide & Tox. Chem. News, 6-24-99)
If you ever wonder what is going on at EPA, here is a web site for you. It will help you keep up with new policies in all parts of EPA and opportunities for you to comment on proposed regulations and policies.
The Pennsylvania Pesticide Control Act requires that commercial and public businesses notify people who are registered as hypersensitive to pesticides. To get on the hypersensitivity list, a person must register and obtain a doctor's certification of their condition. The pesticide business must notify anyone on the hypersensitivity list whose primary or secondary location is within 500 feet of a proposed pesticide application. The business can either leave a message on an answering machine, alert an adult by phone, or leave a written message (if phone calls fail). (Pesticide Highlights, 6-99)
This law may not be only one in the country, but it is the first I have seen. My emotions are mixed. I don't have any problems with this law specifically, but I am always concerned where things may lead. Initially, certain parts of restaurants were closed to smokers, then entire buildings, and now entire towns. I don't want to sound pro-tobacco, but I think it is a good example of how one regulation precipitates another. Keep in mind that regulations are rarely loosened or removed.
When there is a chemical emergency, the MSDS may not provide all of the information that first-responders need. The EPA urges local officials and emergency response teams to be prepared for emergencies. For details, visit www.epa.gov/ceppo or call 1-800-424-9346.
If you still do not wear your protective clothing when you use pesticides, be sure your healthcare professional has a copy of Recognition and Management of Pesticide Poisonings from EPA. This guide provides valuable information to healthcare professionals concerning the treatment of pesticide poisonings. Order the manuals by calling 703-305-7666 or visit the web site www.epa.gov/pesticides/safety/healthcare A Spanish version will also be available soon.
France may tax pesticides based on their toxicity. The French government is investigating methods to gauge the health and environmental risks associated with pesticides and assigning a tax based on those risks. Given the scientific uncertainty associated with pesticide risks, it may be impossible to establish an equitable system. (World Food Chem. News, 6-9-99)
The debate concerning multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS) continues. MCS is defined as a disorder in which some people have adverse reactions to very low exposures to manmade chemicals. Reported symptoms include fatigue, memory loss, lack of concentration, shortness of breath, dizziness, etc. Many people are convinced of this illness, but several researchers report that MCS is the result of depression, anxiety, or other disorders. Patients that reportedly have MCS are disproportionately female, well-educated, and work in white-collar jobs. (Agromedicine Program Update, 6-15-99)
The United States is ready to support an international team to investigate safety and nutrition of genetically engineered foods. The United States and Europe have been at odds about labeling genetically engineered foods. Voluntarily labeling is the choice of the United States unless some allergen is being introduced, but the European Union has supported mandatory labeling for all products with genetically engineered components. (World Food Chem. News, 6-9-99) There are wheels within wheels; guess which country produces the most genetically engineered food.
Because Bt crops have become much more popular than originally predicted, EPA is considering changes in the required resistance management programs. Since their year of introduction (1996), Bt acreage has increased 300% in potato and 1700% in corn. (World Food Chem. News, 6-9-99)
European concerns about the safety of genetically engineered crops may be spreading into the United States. According to a Time magazine poll, about 81% of the respondents said the genetically modified foods should be identified, and 58% said that they would not buy it. I guess that is why producers do not want to label the products. Public action groups are taking up the banner to require additional restrictions and labeling for genetically engineered crops. (Pesticide & Tox. Chem. News, 6-10-99)
I can see both sides of this issue. The potential benefits of biotechnology are enormous. We could be developing a tool that may greatly reduce the need for more dangerous pesticides; food nutrition can be improved; shelf life and flavor can be better. By golly, this new technology is good for society, and we are going to make them use it even if it kills them and puts us out of business.
On the other side, people do have a right to know what they are eating. Many people simply do not like the fact that a big company is trying to hide something from them. The amount of fats, carbohydrates, etc. are already identified. Undoubtedly, there will soon be food lines that are identified as GM (genetically modified) free.
In my opinion, the companies that want to market genetically engineered foods are making a big mistake. There are tremendous benefits of genetically modified crops, including less need for pesticides, improved nutrition, etc. In many ways, genetic engineering is not different from traditional plant breeding that we have done since prehistoric times. Companies should educate consumers. Otherwise, the companies create the impression that they have something to hide by staunchly resisting any labeling of genetically modified foods. I do not think that American consumers will swallow much secrecy about genetically engineered components in food.
The following product registrations or uses are being canceled at the request of the registrant. Unless the requests are withdrawn, the cancellations will be ordered 11-22-99. If you want to rescue some product, contact the registrant.
I do not know what to make of all of these insect repellents being canceled, but I will look into it. Slapping myself to death would be an ugly way to go.
|Chlorpyrifos 4# AG, Chlorpyrifos 15G, and Nufos 15G: popcorn. (FR, 6-21-99)||Eagles 7 Mange Treatment (didn't know eagles got mange)|
|Cutter Evergreen Scent Insect Repellent Spray||Falls Lindane 20% EC|
|Cutter Evergreen Scent Insect Repellent Cream||Fertilizer Plus Lawn Disease Preventer|
|Cutter Evergreen Scent Insect Repellent Pump Spray||Garden Weeder contains Dacthal|
|Cutter Evergreen Scent Insect Repellent Stick||Golden Sun Feeds Hi Phos "12" Lavi Ban|
|Cutter Insect Repellent Spray||Hartz Flea & Tick Repellent for Cats|
|Cutter Insect Repellent Stick||Hartz Flea & Tick Repellent for Dogs|
|Cutter Insect Repellent||Imperial 5% Dacthal|
|Cutter Insect Repellent Cream Formula M||Imperial Garden Weed Preventer|
|Cutter Evergreen Scent Insect Repellent Spray Formula M||Insect Guard|
|Cutter Evergreen Scent Insect Repellent Cream Formula M||Insect Guard II|
|Cutter Original Insect Repellent Spray Formula||Insect Repellent 3|
|Cutter Original Insect Repellent Pump Spray||Iprodione HG Fungicide|
|Cutter Insect Repellent - Tick Repellent|
|Cutter Evergreen Insect Repellent||Iprodione Lawn & Ornamentals Fungicide|
|Cutter Insect Repellemt #10||Kathon CS 25|
|Cutter Evergreen Insect Repellent #10E||Kathon CS 35|
|Cutter Insect Repellent #10G||Kathon CS-30 Oil Field Microbiocide|
|Actually, a lot more Cutter products are being canceled, but you get the idea.||Kathon MWX|
|Off! Liquid Insect Repellent||Kelthane 35 Agricultural Miticide|
|Off! Pressurized Insect Repellent||Lawn Disease Control Plus Fertilizer|
|Off! Formula III Liquid Spray Insect Repellent||Lindane 12.5% Concentrate|
|Add in about 20 more S.C. Johnson products with DEET||Lindane 12.5% Insecticide|
|20% Lindane EC||Lindane 1-E|
|878 Insect Repellent Spray||Lindane 400 Undyed Flowable Liquid|
|Adios II Insect Repellent||Magnacide 4551|
|Agco Methomyl 2 Insecticide Dust||Martin's Bombane Jet Stream|
|Ala-Scept ESC Herbicide||Martin's Cube Powder 5% Rotenone|
|Ala-Scept Herbicide||Martin's Rotenone Powder|
|All in 1 Tuft 16-4-6||Martin's US EQ 335 Screw Worm Remedy|
|All products containing isofenphos||Mira Insect Repellent Spray for Horses|
|Amrep 5006||Misty Anti-Crawl II Residual Insecticide (one of my favorite names)|
|Baygon Crack & Crevice Insecticide||Mosquito Quard|
|Ben's Backyard Formula Tick & Insect Repellent||Personal Repellent Formula 5731 (I have been told I exude this)|
|Ben's Wilderness 50% Formula Tick & Insect Repellent||Prentox 20 Lindane EC|
|Best Garden Weeder||Prentox Lindane 20% EC|
|Black Flag Insect Repellent Spray||Prentox Lindane 25W|
|Bug Stop Lotion||Rainbow Jungle Formula Insect Repellent|
|Bug Stop Pump Spray||Ramrod + Atrazine DF Herbicide|
|Clean Crop Lindane 25 Seed Treater||Ramrod and Atrazine Flowable Herbicide|
|Clean Crop Lindane 25WP Dyed Seed Treater||Real Kill Insect Repellent Spray|
|Clean Crop Lindane 75WP Seed Treater||Rovral 30 Flowable Fungicide|
|Contact Insect Repellent||Royal Brand Lindane 25W|
|Cornbelt Dacthal 5G||SA-50 Brand Home Garden Weed Granules|
|D-15 Insect Repellent||Screen Insect Repellent|
|Deco Salt No. 35||Smep Granular Hy-Kil-4|
|DEET Plus Composite Spray||Southland Pearson 20% Borer Spray|
|DEET Plus Insect Repellent||State Formula 254 IRS Insect Repellent Spray (note, this is not IRS repellent)|
|Dichlorobenil 2G||Watkins Insect Repellent-Formula 50|
|Drexel Lindane 20% EC||Z Stop|
The appearance of any trade name in this newsletter is not intended to endorse that product nor convey negative implications of unmentioned products.
The Georgia Pest Management Newsletter is a monthly journal for extension agents, extension specialists, and others interested in pest management news. It provides information on legislation, regulations, and other issues affecting pest management in Georgia.
Do not regard the information in this newsletter as pest management recommendations. Consult the Georgia Pest Control Handbook, other extension publications, or appropriate specialists for this information.
Your input in this newsletter is encouraged.
If you wish to be added to the mailing list, just call us at 706-542-1765
Or write us:
Department of Entomology
University of Georgia
Athens, GA 30602
Or visit us on the Web. You will find all the back issues there and other useful information.
Paul Guillebeau, Assistant Professor & Extension Entomologist