The University of Georgia Cooperative Extension Service
College of Agricultural & Environmental Sciences
Georgia receives approximately $300,000 to support integrated pest management programs (IPM) in both extension and research. Additionally, we received an additional $100,000 competitive grant to promote IPM and biological control in ornamentals. These programs benefit every commodity and every citizen in Georgia. The economic, environmental, and human-health returns on this investment are enormous. There is serious talk in Washington about reducing the funds that support these programs.
Within the next week or two, important decisions will made concerning these funds. It is time to contact your legislators!
Let them know how the loss of these funds will affect you, your family, or your business. Refer specifically to Extension Smith-Lever 3(d) funds for IPM and Special Research funds for IPM and Biological Control Research (PL-89-106).You can call 202-225-3121. You can write.
|The Honorable (so and so)
Washington, DC 20510
|The Honorable (so and so)|
House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515
Or you can e-mail. Find e-mail addresses at: http://www.house.gov/
You have probably said, "Don't complain about farmers with your mouth full." Here's another, "Don't complain about government if you never bother to tell them what you want."
The EPA will have a public meeting on May 21 to discuss resistance management plans for plant pesticides (e.g., Bt cotton, Bt corn), including the need for plans and what components should be incorporated.The meeting will be at Texas A&M in College Station, but you do not have to be present to participate. You may submit written comments. Send your comments to:
Public Response and Program Resources Branch (7506C)
Office of Pesticide Programs
Environmental Protection Agency
401 M. St.
Washington DC 20460
Bt cotton and other genetically engineered plants will undoubtedly have huge impacts on Georgia agriculture. They reduce the need for pesticide use now, but resistance could wipe out all of these benefits and make other Bt's less effective as well. If you have something to say, say it now. These meetings may set the stage for the future of regulating these crops.
I just returned from an IPM labeling meeting. The premise of the meeting was simple; let consumers know that the product they are buying was produced using IPM. Education efforts are supposed to inform consumers that IPM is the earth-friendly way to produce crops or services (e.g., lawn pest management). Then, the market-place will provide impetus for IPM.
My idea for Georgia producers is a little different. I think we should develop and copyright some symbol or phrase, such as Georgia products help save the Earth, and a symbol of the Arches superimposed on the globe.
Here is the way the plan works. The University develops and copyrights the symbol. University scientists help producers develop criteria that would certify the producer as 'earth-friendly.' The standards could include IPM (e.g., pesticides only applied according to action thresholds), water quality (e.g., pesticide spills are handled promptly), and labor (e.g., all workers properly trained in pesticide safety and properly equipped). Some independent third party (not the University) would verify that producers meet the established criteria. Only certified producers would be allowed to use the copyrighted symbol.
I can see some real advantages for some markets. There is a substantial trend toward more environmentally or socially conscious products and services. For example, a lawn-care company or a fresh-vegetable grower could advertise that their product is certified by University criteria as 'earth friendly' or 'environmentally responsible.' Many consumers would like those kind of products. According to the Food Marketing Institute, 55% of consumers look for products that are environmentally conscious.
If your commodity or service would like to develop this kind of program, contact me to get the ball rolling. (706-542-9031, email@example.com)
If you need manuals to get your pesticide license, call your county agent. Ask them for a order form; it also has the testing schedule. Calling us is not an efficient way to get your books, we only have a few.
The Georgia Pest Control Handbook on CD will be here within a week! Includes such hits as 'Cotton Weed Control,' 'Peach Growth Regulators' and 'Legislation and Regulation' (gives me the blues). All 550 pages of the Pest Control Handbook in the space of a CD. Get your orders ready because there will only be 500 copies and no reprints. Makes a great gift! To order, call the Ag Business office at 706-542-8999.
Taft Eaker is taking on the responsibilities of the IPM Homeowner Clinic insect and disease ID. Taft comes to Athens from Laurens County, where he has been a county agent. Welcome!
All homeowner insect/disease samples should be sent to the Homeowner IPM Clinic, Extension Plant Pathology, 4-Towers Building, University of Georgia, Athens GA 30602.
If your address has changed since you received your pesticide license, you should a take a few minutes to let the Georgia Department of Agriculture know your new address. You may be missing important notices or other information because they do not know where you are. Their number is 404-655-4958.
Now you can find out what IPM really means. There is compendium of IPM definitions: http://ipmwww.ncsu.edu/cicp/DIR/
If you want to keep up with what is going on with endocrine disruptors, hit the Web. Endocrine disruption is one of EPA's top five priorities: http://www.epa.gov/opprintr/opptendo/index.htm
National Parks IPM recommendations: http://www.colostate.edu/Depts/IPM/natparks/natpark.html
You want to know what is going on federally funded agricultural research? firstname.lastname@example.org (e-mail).
Engineers in USDA have developed a new fruit tree sprayer that reduces drift and improves application accuracy. Multiple fans produce a crossflow of air that can halve spray drift. If you want more information, e-mail the engineers.
The EPA has granted Georgia growers an emergency exemption (Sect. 18) for the use of Zorial Rapid 80 (norflurazon) to control annual grassy weeds in Bermudagrass hay. Only one application can be made by ground at 0.5 to 1.5 lbs a.i./acre. Do not apply where depth to water table is 30 feet or less. The exemption expires Sept. 15, 1997.
Broccoli is being grown no-till in soybean stubble under a system investigated by Aref A. Abdul-Baki of USDA. Because broccoli requires high organic matter and high nitrogen, this system could be very useful. Some growers report cutting pesticide use by . For more information, contact Abdul-Raki at 301-504-5057 or email@example.com
Time limited tolerances have been established for avermectin B1 in cottonseed, citrus, hops, potato, meat/by-products, milk, and processed feed/food commodities. Expires Sept. 1, 1999. (FR, 3-24-97)
Tolerances for sulfentrazone have been established for cereal grains (except sweet corn), forage, straw, hay, grain, stover, bran, and hulls. (FR, 3-10-97)
Bee keepers may soon have some new weapons against tracheal mites. The EPA is preparing to register a menthol feed-through product. Additionally, the Agency is considering tolerance exemptions for formic acid. (FR 2-5-97)
The University of Florida has released two tutorial computer disks for 'Pesticide Labeling' and 'Harmful Effects and Emergency Response.' They are based on the general standards manual for pesticide certification. The disks are worth recertification credit in Florida, but they have not been approved in Georgia yet. The tutorials are $45 each for non-residents. If you want more information, see their Web site. http://gnv.ifas.ufl.edu/~ent1/software/fasulo.htm
The EPA registered six new biological pesticides in the last quarter of 1996.
German Cockroach Pheromone (their trade name needs some imagination): to be used in boric acid bait stations.
DAZA: a hydrogenated form of azadirachtin (from neem trees) to be used indoors against a variety of pests. Outdoors, it is registered for bedding plants, flowers, potted plants, foliage plants, hydroponic plants, ornamentals, trees, shrubs, turf, fiber/forage/fodder crops.
Blue Circle: an fungicidal isolate from Burkholderia cepacia for control of damping-off diseases in a variety of crops.
YieldGard: a variety of Bt corn to control SW corn borer and corn earworm. No more than 100,000 acres can be planted in the South, and corn acreage may not exceed 5% of corn in any county with more than 1,000 of cotton. This restriction is response to concerns about resistance to the Bt toxin.
Able: a strain of Bt to control lepidopterous pests on a variety of crops.
Lepinox: a strain of Bt that has been genetically engineered to produce an additional delta endotoxin. For a lep control on a variety of crops.
The EPA has completed reregistration eligibility documents (REDs) for p-Chloro-m-cresol (anti-microbial agent) and Mepiquat Chloride (cotton growth regulatory). Both can be reregistered with some additional data and minor label revision. A RED for strychnine was also published; it can be reregistered for commercial applicators, but no determination has been made concerning potential homeowner use.
The backlog at EPA is growing. At the end of 1996, there were nearly 450 pending pesticide petitions. The Food Quality Protection Act is partially responsible, but the backlog began earlier. In 1994, there were 374 left-over petitions. The EPA is realized the dilemma that faces many of us, how to do more without resources to match. (Pestic. & Tox. Chem. News, 3-5-97)
Last year was a banner year for EPA enforcement. The Agency reports that they referred more than 250 criminal cases to the Justice Dept; nearly $77 million in criminal fines were imposed. Additionally, $173 million in combined criminal and civil fines/penalties were levied. Just think what EPA could have done if the government had not shut down last year.
If you want to see EPA's plan for implementing FQPA, call them (703-305-5131) or hit the Web at http://www.epa.gov/opppsps1/FQPA
The President has called FQPA 'the peace of mind act.' I am sure that many agriculture people would like give him a 'piece of their mind'.
The EPA is scheduled to review 9,300 pesticide food tolerances by August 3, 2006. One third (3,100) are supposed to be completed by August 1999. The Agency better get rolling; they need to complete about three tolerance assessments per day, seven days a week, 365 days a year. The pesticides considered more risky (OP's, carbamates, carcinogens) will be first in the queue.
Since FQPA has been in effect, the EPA has granted 52 emergency exemptions (Sec. 18) and denied one; five were withdrawn by the states. Six new conventional pesticides have been registered (2 were reduced risk). Ten new biological pesticides have been registered. Significant risk reduction has been achieved or agree upon for methyl parathion and chlorpyrifos.
Within six months, the EPA hopes to compete registration of six more conventional pesticides, 6-8 biologicals, and determine 300 more emergency exemptions. They have published an implentation plan. The Agency also plants to complete 20 more REDs.
There will also be at several advisory groups associated with FQPA. The Endocrine Disruptors Screening and Testing Advisory Committee (they need an acronym) and Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee will be formed; SAP, SAB, and SFIREG will also have input.
California farmers have provided wildlife habitat on their farms for years, but that community service could be coming to an end. The habitat is now considered a potential liability because an endangered species could be discovered there, and the grower would no longer be able to use the land as he wished. (AP 11-22-96 via Arkansas Pesticide News)
If you want to help feed the world, here is some grant money for you. The FY 1997 Request for Proposals (RFP) for CSREES' Community Food Projects Competitive Grants Program appeared in the March 26 Federal Register. The program supports the development of community food projects to meet the food needs of low-income people; increase community self-reliance in providing for food needs; and promote comprehensive responses to local food, farm, and nutrition issues. Two and one-half million dollars is available to fund the program this year. Grants are limited to private, nonprofit, community-based organizations with a proven track record in the community food security area, and university involvement is encouraged. Applications must be received by June 6, 1997. The RFP is accessible on the CSREES Home Page via http://www.reeusda.gov/new/funding/food.htm and may be ordered from the Agency's Proposal Services Unit at 202/401-5048 or via e-mail (address requests to psb@reeusda). Program Codirectors are MARK R. BAILEY (202/401-1898; firstname.lastname@example.org) and ELIZABETH TUCKERMANTY (202/720-5997; email@example.com).
It will cost up to $70 million to clean up Mississippi homes contaminated by methyl parathion. More than 2,400 houses were contaminated, and more than 1,250 people were relocated. To clean up a contaminated house requires replacement of walls, floors, cabinets, carpets, etc. Guess who is paying the bill to renovate these houses at nearly $30,000 per house?
Needless to say, there has been an avalanche of claims of contamination. Would you risk your house being sprayed with methyl parathion for a $30,000 renovation at no cost to you? Don't rush out and spray your house. Homeowners that applied methyl parathion after Feb. 21 are being arrested and prosecuted. Mississippi has made pesticide misuse a felony. (Chem. Reg. Reporter, 2-28-97 via Chemically Speaking)
From 1992 to 1994, an Ohio exterminator was also using methyl parathion indoors. The clean-up costs for 66 homes was $20 million, or more than $300,000 apiece! For that kind of money, I will burn my house down, with all the furniture and my 1979 Duster in it. (Pestic. & Tox. Chem. News, 4-9-97)
The EPA has published a new brochure to help protect our children, 'Ten Tips to Protect Children from Pesticide and Lead Poisonings around the Home.' It contains basic information, such as 'store pesticides out of children's reach' and 'never transfer pesticides to food containers.' If you would like copies, contact the National Center for Environ. Publications at 513-489-8190. They are available in English and Spanish.
"Special Report on Environmental Endocrine Disruption: An Effects Assessment and Analysis" The EPA has completed a review of 300 peer-reviewed studies that examine the effects of chemicals on the endocrine systems." The studies we reviewed demonstrate that exposure to certain endocrine disrupting chemicals can lead to disturbing health effects in animals, including cancer, sterility, and developmental problems," said Dr. Robert Huggett, EPA Assistant Administrator.
The EPA report summarizes the findings of studies that examine the link between endocrine disrupting chemicals and a range of health effects, including cancer, harm to male and female reproductive systems, and thyroid damage. While these effects have been seen in numerous animal studies, evidence of these kinds of effects in humans is limited.
Specifically the report highlights the need for more information on the intensity, frequency, and duration of human exposure to chemicals that have been demonstrated to disrupt the endocrine systems of animals. The report notes the need for more research on the effects of chemical mixtures with endocrine disrupting potential, and calls for a strengthening of specific cause-and-effect data.
Keep your eyes open for grant possibilities. The Office of Research and Development has plans to award a series of competitive research grants on endocrine disruption to academic and not-for-profit institutions during fiscal year 1997. The Agency also is funding a more extensive effort by the National Academy of Sciences to examine the scientific literature on endocrine-related chemicals in the environment and publish that review later this year.
The public can order the report from EPA's Office of Research and Development at 513-569-7562. It also is available on the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/ORD/%20whatsnew.htm.
The University of Georgia (Dr. Roxanne Parrot), OSHA, the Human Resources Cancer Control Program, Gold Kist, and John Deere are teaming up to protect Georgia farmers from skin cancer. In general, farmers are more healthy than the general population, but they suffer from a greater rate of skin cancer because farmers are outside so much.
Local education seems to be the key. In addition to skin cancer displays, feed/seed stores are offering sun-block and John Deere hats that protect the neck from the sun. Extension home demonstrations are telling farm wives how to protect themselves and the family. Children are warned through 4-H programs and coloring books about protecting yourself from the sun. The educational materials are both in English and Spanish. Way to Go!!
According to a recent study, the general public is exposed the greatest amount of pesticide at home. Lawn-applied pesticides are tracked into the house even a week or more after application. The pesticide accumulates in carpets, furniture, etc. Children that play in the floor may be at greatest risk. Vacuuming removes about 1/3 of contaminated dust. A door mat helps, but it is best to remove your shoes. (Environ. Health Letters, 35(24) via Access-Pesticides)
Pesticide disruption of endocrine systems is postulated to be a factor in some cancers, developmental problems, and infertility in both humans and animals. Pesticides are an easy target, but the situation does not seem to be that simple.
The body controls hormone levels; excess hormones are typically eliminated. Therefore, environmental additions of hormones may have little or no effect, especially on adults. However, developing humans or animals may be particularly vulnerable. Additionally, there are many diseases (e.g., breast cancer or prostate cancer) for which we do not understand all of the trigger mechanisms. In short, no one knows for sure if pesticides disrupt hormonal systems or if minor disruptions pose significant human or environmental risks. Stay tuned; we will keep you informed on the research findings as they come are reported.
The state of Illinois has developed a list of 'known', 'probable', and 'possible' endocrine disruptors based on a review of available literature. 'Known' disruptors include atrazine, chlordane, dicofol, endosulfan, lindane, methoxychlor, and others; not all of the 'known' disruptors are pesticides. Styrene is listed as a 'probable' and 26 other chemicals are 'suspect'. (Pestic. & Tox. Chem. News, 3-12-97)
The World Wildlife Fund is also getting into the act with 'Reducing Your Risk: A Guide to Avoiding Hormone- Disrupting Chemicals, 1997.' This free booklet presents laymen with an overview of endocrine disrupting chemicals and explains how endocrine system and hormone disruptors work. Outlines evidence that certain pesticides and other chemicals are hormone disruptors and describes steps to reduce exposure to these chemicals. Suggests alternatives to pesticides and points out that some pesticides thought not to cause hormone-disruption may contain hormone-disrupting secret "inert" ingredients. Get your copy; scare your kids. firstname.lastname@example.org; http://www.wwfcanada.org/hormone-disruptors/index.html.
The National Coalition Against the Misuse of Pesticide's latest target is telephone poles. For just $20, you can order a 48 page booklet, 'Poison Poles: Their Toxic Trail and the Safer Alternatives, 1997.' email@example.com; http://www.ncamp.org/.
By the time it hits your plate, the humble hamburger has been the subject of more than 40,000 federal and state regulations, according to a study by Colorado State Univ. In addition to pesticide tolerances, antibiotics, and meat inspection; there are regulations for the speed of ketchup flow (no more than 9cm in 30 sec at 69 degrees F for Grade A fancy) and the width of pickle slices (1/8 to 3/8"). (Chemically Speaking via Kansas Pesticide Newsletter)
Last summer, a number of U.S. and Canadian citizens became ill as a result of Cyclospora contaminated food. The outbreak has been traced back to pesticide applications in Guatemala. Apparently, the water they used to mix the pesticides was contaminated. Some officials want pesticide water to meet the standards for drinking water is the pesticides are to be applied to food. (Food Chemical News, 2-10-97 via Chemically Speaking)
The 1996 Amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act will impact U.S. agriculture and forestry areas that supply public drinking water. The Amendments call for identification of water source areas and potential water contaminants for public water systems serving 300 or more customers. The law also will require that water customers be notified annually of the sources of their drinking water and potential contaminants. Funding is available for community loans to address water quality problems as well as for university outreach and assessments. For further information, contact Mary Ann Rozum at 202/401-4533 (telephone) or firstname.lastname@example.org (e- mail). Details also are available on the World Wide Web at http://www.epa.gov/ogwdw (click on "Safe Drinking Water Act"). For dates and locations of public meetings, call the EPA Safe Drinking Water Hotline at 1-800/426-4791.
A new study released by the North Carolina Pesticide Board shows widespread pesticide contamination in the state's groundwater. Over 27% of the wells sampled in pesticide use areas were contaminated by legal, routine pesticide use. The report documents contamination resulting from pesticides that were applied according to directions on the product labels. The report states that a total of 36 chemicals were found in the wells. Of those, 31 were pesticides or pesticide breakdown products. According to the Agricultural Resource Center (ARC), a North Carolina-based non-profit organization, many of the pesticides found cause cancer, birth defects, genetic damage or harm to the immune and endocrine systems. Contact John Smith, Pesticide Administrator, NCDA, P.O. Box 27647, Raleigh, NC 27611; (919) 733-3556 for the report.
The United Farm Workers filed notices under California's Proposition 65 charging that strawberry growers have failed to warn workers about the hazards of laboring in fields treated with the Captan fungicide, a known carcinogen that has also been linked to birth defects. Strawberry workers have signed sworn affidavits saying they were not warned about the dangers of captan as required under Proposition 65. The proposition, a citizen-sponsored ballot initiative overwhelmingly approved by California voters, requires that the public (including workers) must be warned about exposure to toxic chemicals known to cause cancer, birth defects or other reproductive harm. Under Proposition 65, a judge can order penalties of as much as $2,500 per violation per worker.
Diazinon and other pesticides in wastewater effluent and storm water runoff pose an environmental challenge for large cities such as Fort Worth. Amendments to the Clean Water Act (CWA) passed in 1987 require most wastewater treatment plants with capacities greater than 1 million gallons per day to begin monitoring the quality of wastewater effluent using a sensitive biomonitoring technique. Between 1989 and 1993 the City of Fort Worth's wastewater treatment facility failed 28 out of 34 (82%) of 7-day characterization tests using biomonitoring. Toxicity identification evaluations performed after biomonitoring failures identified the insecticide diazinon as the primary contaminant. The source of the contamination is residential over application and improper disposal.
FMC will not support the continued registration of Furadan 4F (carbofuran) on grapes or strawberries. There is concern over the avian risk. (FR 2-13-97) E-mail for more information email@example.com.
The EPA will revoke the tolerance for propargite (Omite, Comite) on APPLES (including dried apple pomace), APRICOTS, BEANS (SUCCULENT), CRANBERRIES, FIGS (including dried figs), PEACHES, PEARS, PLUMS, PRUNES, and STRAWBERRIES. Uniroyal has already deleted these uses from the product labels. (FR 2-13-97) For more information, e-mail firstname.lastname@example.org.
The following products are being canceled at the request of the registrant. Unless the request is withdrawn by Sept. 22, 1997, the product registrations will be canceled. Existing stocks may be sold for one year following the cancellation request. Users may continue to use products according to the label. (FR 3-26-97)
The following uses are being deleted from the product label at the request of the registrant. Unless the request is withdrawn by Sept. 22, 1997, the uses will be deleted. Existing stocks may be sold for 18 months following the deletion request. Users may continue to use products according to the label. (FR 3-26-97)
There is greater acceptance of genetically engineered crops in the United States because consumers see them as an alternative for pesticides. According to recent polls, U.S. shoppers have confidence in genetically engineered foods. Nearly 80% of respondents expected to benefit from biotechnology within five years. Japanese consumers also have confidence in biotechnology. Europeans, however, do not share our enthusiasm. In a 1995 survey, 80% of European consumers considered both pesticides and biotechnology as serious risks. (Pestic. & Tox. Chem. News, 4-2-97)
In the U.S., residues of plant pesticides CryIAİ and the genetic material necessary for its production in plants are exempt from EPA tolerance requirements in or on all raw agricultural requirements. In other words, Bt genes for this pesticidal protein can be placed into any crop without worrying about a tolerance. (FR 4-11-97)
Tolerances for glyphosate (Roundup) have been established for field corn (grain and forage), sorghum (grain and forage), and oats. Why are these tolerances needed since Roundup kills corn, sorghum, and oats? It does not kill Roundup Ready corn, sorghum, and oats. Look for them soon. (FR 4-11-97)
The Union of Concerned Scientists want EPA to deny an extension of bromoxynil (Buctril) tolerances on cotton. Without this tolerance, you cannot use Buctril on BXN cotton (genetically engineered to tolerate Buctril). The Union reports that bromoxynil is a possible carcinogen and poses environmental threats. The EPA said they should make a decision soon. In the meantime, cotton farmers are planting or preparing to plant BXN cotton seed. Let's hope the rug is not pulled out from under them. (Pestic. & Tox. Chem. News, 4-9-97)
Environmental and industry groups were sharply divided at a recent meeting to discuss resistance management plans for Bt cotton and other Bt crops. Consumer and environmental groups considered the survival of bollworm in last year's cotton as clear evidence that the current resistance management strategy will not work. The current plan relies on a high dose of the Bt toxin coupled with refugia of non-Bt cotton. Industry, USDA, and growers generally considered last season's surprises to be a minor setback or 'learning experience.'
Consumer/environmental groups called for immediate suspension of Bt cotton registration until an effective resistance management strategy is proven.They also argued against the approval of additional Bt crops. The EPA is unlikely to grant these requests. The groups pointed to EPA's historically slow response rate; they were concerned that EPA would not act in time to halt resistance to Bt if it occurred. They also cited a recent paper published by the National Academy of Science in which a single gene was discovered to give Diamondback moth resistance to four Bt toxins (Proceedings of NAS, 94:1640).
Industry advocated voluntary resistance management programs rather than additional regulations. Part of their plan would be to educate growers about the importance of resistance management. (Pestic. & Tox. Chem. News, 3-26-97)
From my experience, voluntary resistance management is unlikely to work. Many states have resistance management strategies for Colorado potato beetle or other pests prone to resistance. A key element of the strategy is to rotate among several different classes of pesticides. The strategy is sound, but the usage data typically show that nearly every grower is using the one pesticide considered to be the most effective. When that pesticide begins to fail, growers switch en masse to the next most effective alternative. It is difficult to fault the growers, they are simply trying to maximize their profits, just like any other businessman.
Here are the results of a recent survey (commissioned by Novartis) of consumer attitudes in Europe. One-third (32%) of the respondents say they are familiar with the bioengineering of food, and another third (33%) claims to know nothing at all about the subject. One-quarter (25%) say they have a positive feeling about bioengineering of food while 17% have negative feelings. A majority (61%) believe that the use of bioengineering in agriculture is very common or somewhat common. More than 70% feel that bioengineered food is very safe or somewhat safe; 15% think such food is unsafe. Most (54%) feel that food produced with the use of chemical pesticides is unsafe. Only one quarter (25%) would be less likely to buy a food product because it is bioengineered; 13% would be more likely to buy such a product. More than 90% felt that bioengineered food should be labeled as such, including 73% who strongly agree with this position. Curiously, 56% indicated that bioengineering would not influence their decision to buy the product.
The CSREES/ARS FY 1997 Biotechnology Risk Assessment Research Grants Program announcement appears in the April 4 Federal Register. Under this competitive awards program, funds totaling $1.54 million are available to support research on the safety of introducing genetically modified organisms (e.g., plants, micro-organisms, fungi, bacteria, viruses, arthropods, fish, birds, mammals, and other animals) into the environment. Proposals may be submitted by any U.S. public or private research or educational institution or organization and must be postmarked by May 16, 1997. (Hand-delivered proposals, including those submitted by express mail or a courier service, must be received by May 16). Copies of the announcement, the administrative provision for the program, and the application kit may be obtained from CSREES' Proposal Services Unit at 202/401-5048 (telephone) or email@example.com (e-mail).
The 1997 announcement is accessible on CSREES' Home Page at http://www.reeusda.gov/crgam/biotechrisk/biotech.htm. For additional information about the program, contact ED KALEIKAU, CSREES, at 202/401-1901 (telephone) or firstname.lastname@example.org (e- mail), or ROBERT M. FAUST, Agricultural Research Service, at 301/504-6918 (telephone) or email@example.com (e-mail).
A farmer in California must pay $30,000 for not providing documentation of his organic practices. He represented his apples as organic when he sold them, but he does not have the verifying documents to prove it. You may consider this fine as unfair or excessive, but I do not. Organic farmers invest a great deal of time and sweat so they can sell their wares for a premium. If consumers cannot believe that 'organic' apples were produced according to the proper standards, there will be no organic market. (AP 9-12-96 via Arkansas Pesticide News)
Some people think that pesticides are on the way out. Don't bet the farm on it.
According to a recently released report from Allan Woodburn Associates, global agrochemical sales grew by 5.5% to $30,560 million at the end-user level in 1996. Growth in real terms is estimated to be approximately 2.2% when the effects of inflation and currency factors are taken into consideration. This is the third consecutive year that sales have risen. The non-crop pesticide sector which grew by 11% accounted for the largest part of the increase.
The United States remains that largest market; pesticide sales have increased about 6% annually in the 90s. Western Europe accounts for about 26% of the world market; sales have increased 100% in the last 12 years. (Agrow: World Crop Protection News)
For $3/first minute and $1/each additional minute, you can call UC Davis 'Bug Hotline' (Hours: 9:00 am - 5:00 pm, Monday-Friday. Phone (900) 225-BUGS (225-2847). They will do things you wife won't do. They will identify arthropods and answer questions about them. However, they will not give pesticide recommendations. You can call your local Georgia extension agent; we will give you the same information and make pesticide recommendations, for free. Just be nice to us when you see us.
If you want a real bargain, utilize National Pesticide Telecommunications Network. It is a free service that answers questions about pesticides, such as "Can I use this pesticide if I am pregnant?", "Is this old bottle of 'stuff' a pesticide?" or "Are these lawn chemicals safe?" If it is an emergency, they will connect with the right people. Call them anytime from 9:30 a.m. to 7:30 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, excluding holidays. Saturday and Sunday service will begin in Spring 1997. Phone: 1-800-858-7378; Fax: 1-541-737-0761.
The appearance of any trade name in this newsletter is not intended to endorse that product nor convey negative implications of unmentioned products.
Back to Georgia Extension Home Page