The University of Georgia College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences
Your source for pest management and pesticide news
December 2001/Volume 24, no. 12
Happy Holidays from all of us at GPMN! We wish the Warmest of Holiday Seasons for You and Your Family.
Be sure to mark February 14, 2002, for two big reasons. If you don't know #1, you better find out or hide from your sweetie. #2 is the annual pesticide satellite conference. In cooperation with Gwinnett County and Georgia Public Television, we will broadcast an all-day pesticide workshop to more than a dozen sites across Georgia. Commercial pesticide applicators in Georgia will receive five hours of recertification credit in any category EXCEPT 28, 29 and 30. Private applicators will receive two hours of pesticide credit.
We can also broadcast the satellite program to other states. Just let us know if you are interested in establishing a downlink site in your area. Planned topics will include:
The latest on the Ga/Fla/Ala battle for water resources
The Food Quality Protection Act (how it will affect you)
IR-4 (how you can use this program to obtain new pesticide tools)
Georgia Department of Agriculture (what they look for in inspections and how you can dispose of unwanted pesticide)
EPA (how the regional office wants to help you)
Mix/load pads for both big and small operators
Pesticide safety (helping you to live a long and healthy life)
Seating in some sites is limited, so preregistration is required. You can find the details at http://entomology.ent.uga.edu/
In case you missed it, an agreement between EPA and the registrant phases out the use of chlorpyrifos products around the home. Here are the current details of the phase-out.
Keep in mind that this phase-out is primarily a business decision. If you continue to use chlorpyrifos products according to the label directions, both EPA and the registrants do not consider the risks to be excessive. Proper use of existing products is also the safest method of disposal. Do not pour any pesticide product down the drain or dump it on the ground. If you do not wish to use the product, the EPA advises you to contact the state department of agriculture or your local extension service.
For more details, visit
The Interim Risk
Management Decision (IRED) is available for comment until January 14, 2002.
With mitigation eliminating homeowner's and children's exposure around
the home and the phase out of the termiticide uses, chlorpyrifos fits into its
own "risk cup."
EPA has determined that all currently registered uses of chlorpyrifos, except open-pour dust formulations, may continue until the cumulative risks for all of the organophosphate (OP) pesticides have been considered. Chlorpyrifos is registered for use on numerous food crops (corn, beans, peas, sugar beets, cole crops, cucurbits, tree fruits, tree nuts, grapes, and berries, among others). The results of this risk assessment show that chlorpyrifos residues in food and drinking water do not pose risk concerns. With additional mitigation measures, ecological risks for non-endangered species and worker risks will be acceptable when you consider the benefits of remaining uses. (Ecological risks and worker risks are regulated under FIFRA, a statute that balances risks and benefits. Under FQPA, benefits receive much less consideration is a risk threshold is breached.) Risks to endangered species are still under consideration, but additional restrictions are likely to be localized.
EPA's next step is to consider the cumulative risks of the OP pesticides because they are all toxic in a similar way. The final risk mitigation decisions will not be made until the cumulative assessment is complete.
The IRED is available in the Pesticide Docket (703-305-5805) and is located on EPA's website at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/reregistration Comments, identified by docket control number OPP-34203G, must be received by EPA on or before January 14, 2002. (EPA News Update, 12-06-01)
The EPA is asking for comments concerning the Rodenticide Cluster (brodifacoum, bromadiolone, bromethalin, chlorophacinone, diphacinone, and pival) and Zinc Phosphide by December 28, 2001. In 1998, the Agency required the addition of a marker dye and bittering agent to these rodenticides. The idea was that the dye would stain the hands, mouth, etc. of children to indicate contact with a rodenticide. Additionally, the bittering agent would prevent a child from eating more than one bite.
There were potential problems, however. Many other items could stain a child's hands as well. False alarms could result, or parents would ignore the stain as unimportant. The bittering agent affected the efficacy of the products because rats would also avoid the bitter taste.
After consideration and discussion with the registrants, the EPA plans to drop the requirements for the stain and the bittering agent. Other rules will be established to protect the public and nontarget animals from rodenticides.
If you want more information, contact John Pates of EPA (Pates.John@EPA.gov) or visit the EPA web site www.epa.gov/pesticides
The EPA has released a science policy paper concerning the assessment of aggregate exposures to a pesticide. This publication describes the general principles and specific procedure for assessing aggregate, non-occupational human exposure and risk from a single chemical by all relevant pathways or routes of exposure. This assessment is not the same as the cumulative assessment, which looks at the risks associated with a group of similar pesticides.
In the aggregate assessment, EPA is currently considering food, drinking water, and residential scenarios for oral exposure and residential scenarios for exposure through the skin. This document emphasizes the way aggregate exposure and risk assessment may be conducted when "ideal" data, methods, and tools are available. The Agency hopes to use methods that represent all of the potentially exposed individuals in the population instead of basing decisions on a single person that is at the high end of potential exposure. Read more at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/trac/science/. (EPA-OPP Update, 11-29-01)
If you compost grass clippings, you may want to avoid the use of clopyralid (Confront) on your lawn. Clopyralid is used to control dandelions, clover, and other broadleaf weeds. Unfortunately, this herbicide can persist at damaging levels in compost. There have been reports of contamination from Washington State, Pennsylvania, and other areas.
Most herbicides break down during the composting process, but herbicides in the pyridine carboxylic group break down very slowly. These herbicides are not considered to be a serious health threat to animals, but tomatoes and some other broadleaves can be affected at less than 10 parts per billion.
If you or your lawn-care company use clopyralid on your lawn, exclude these clippings from your regular compost pile. You could have a separate compost pile that you spread back on the lawn, or you could leave the clippings on the lawn. (PANUPS, 12-11-01)
The Education Conference Committee voted down the School Environment Protection Act (SEPA). Killing this bill was somewhat surprising, since quite a few environmental groups and industry representatives, including the National Pest Management Association backed its passage. The vote was close and mostly along party lines, with nearly all of the Republicans on the committee voting no and the Democrats voting yes.
What does the demise of SEPA mean? It means that we will not have IPM in Schools forced upon us yet. It does mean that we need to take initiative in implementing IPM in every Georgia school, along with day-care centers, hospitals, nursing homes, etc. The bottom line is that IPM is coming now or later. Our image will be much improved if we are proactive on this issue. If IPM is legislated upon us, how can we take much credit?
I know that many companies already use several IPM practices because it is also a good business model. However, these companies still need to get on the IPM in Schools bandwagon, so they can get recognition as a leader in the field. Additionally, it is the stated goal of the Cooperative Extension Service to implement IPM in every area of pest management. In every industry, the leaders typically gain important advantages over their competitors.
A Government Accounting Office (GAO) report indicates that the federal government needs to do a better job of implementing IPM. Here is the abstract of the GAO report.
Chemical pesticides play an important role in allowing Americans to enjoy an abundant and inexpensive food supply. However, these chemicals can have adverse effects on human health and the environment, and their long-term effectiveness will be increasingly limited as pests continue to develop resistance to them. Consequently, it has become clear that sustainable and effective agricultural pest management will require continued development and increased use of alternative pest management strategies such as integrated pest management (IPM). Some IPM practices yield significant environmental and economic benefits in certain crops, and IPM can lead to better long-term pest management than chemical control alone. However, the federal commitment to IPM has waned over the years. The IPM initiative is missing several management elements identified in the Government Performance and Results Act that are essential for successful implementation of any federal effort. Specifically, no one is effectively in charge of federal IPM efforts; coordination of IPM efforts is lacking among federal agencies and with the private sector; the intended results of these efforts have not been clearly articulated or prioritized; and methods for measuring IPM's environmental and economic results have not been developed. Until these shortcomings are effectively addressed, the full range of potential benefits that IPM can yield for producers, the public, and the environment is unlikely to be realized. (GAO-01-815, 8-17-01)
GAO reports often have far-reaching impacts. There will probably be plenty of money for IPM projects over the next few years. However, there will also be increased pressure for universities, state agencies, and industries to implement IPM programs. We have a tremendous opportunity and responsibility. Let's don't blow it.
The EPA is closing the Special Review of 1,3 dichloropropene (Telone) without further regulatory action. Telone is a pre-plant soil fumigant used mainly to control plant-parasitic nematodes. Telone is registered for use on all vegetables, fruit and nut crops, all forage crops (grasses, legumes and other non-grass forage crops), tobacco, all fiber crops and all nursery crops (ornamental, non-bearing fruit/nut trees and forestry crops).
Telone is classified as a non-food use pesticide because studies show that no residues are present in crops grown on treated soil (and thus there are no tolerances or exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance).
The Special Review was initiated in 1986 (about as long as death-row tenure) based on cancer concerns for workers. Since then, the registrant (Dow AgroSciences) submitted additional worker exposure and air and water monitoring studies and implemented a range of measures to mitigate risks to workers and to residents in areas where Telone is applied.
Based on EPA's review of new data and the addition of these mitigation measures, EPA has concluded that the use of Telone will not cause unreasonable risks to human health or the environment and that all labeled uses are eligible for reregistration. If you want more details, visit the EPA web site, http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/. (EPA-OPP Update, 12-11-01)
The EPA has set Pesticide Registration Maintenance Fees set for 2002. EPA has instituted an increase in the annual maintenance fee it collects from companies holding one or more registrations for products regulated under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). The Agency is required to collect these fees to help fund reregistration activities. The fee increase will affect nearly all of the 1,764 companies with FIFRA pesticide registrations.
For the first product registered, the fee increased from $825 to $1,225. The fee for additional products increased from $1,650 to $2,450. The new authorization does not affect caps that limit the amount of fees any company is required to pay, so the impact of the fee increase will fall on those registrants whose fee payments are not otherwise capped. If your company is required to pay these fees, you should have received a bill from EPA. Payments are due to EPA by January 15, 2002.
The EPA published a cancellation order for registrations for all indoor uses, certain agricultural uses, and certain outdoor non-agricultural uses for end-use diazinon products belonging to certain registrants. Retail sale of existing stocks of products labeled for indoor uses listed in this notice, except mushroom houses, will not be lawful after December 31, 2002; registrants may no longer sell such products as of November 15, 2001. Registrants may sell existing stocks labeled for canceled agricultural uses or outdoor non-agricultural uses until one year after the effective date of the final cancellation order; retail sales of these products may continue. Purchasers may continue to use the canceled products in accordance with existing labels.
One registrant, Prentiss Inc., revoked their voluntary cancellation for Prentox Liquid Household Spray and Prentox Diazinon 4E. Therefore, these products are not included in this cancellation order. I do not know what is going on; I do not see any way for Prentiss to maintain these registrations even if they do not cancel them voluntarily.
Information on the December agreement between EPA and the registrants is available at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/op/diazinon.htm.
France has announced a nationwide ban on the triazine herbicides due to threats to human health and the "generalized presence" in water supplies. Atrazine and the other triazine herbicides are widely used around the world, but there have also been many troubling reports of triazines detected in surface water.
The French ban will prohibit the use of atrazine, simazine and cyanazine after June 30, 2003. Recent studies in France showed that atrazine could be detected in most surface water samples and groundwater samples. There are some reports that atrazine may disrupt the endocrine system, and some people claim that it also affects the immune system.
Belgium has also announced that it will ban the sale of atrazine from May 2002 and its use as of June 2002. (PANUPS, 11-16-01)
The J.T. Eaton & Co. of Twinsburg, Ohio, submitted a false application to EPA concerning products designed to repel squirrels and birds. The company was fined $100,000, and two executives were fined $10,000 each. All defendants were placed on one year of probation. Stanley and Benjamin Baker had knowingly submitted falsified test results to EPA concerning one of their products. Falsifying test results can create a chemical exposure risk that may have adverse health impacts, so the company could have also faced a great deal of liability exposure. (EPA Press Advisory, 11-15-01)
Pied Piper Pest Control Inc., the company owner, and an employee, were all charged on Nov.7 with federal law violations resulting in the killing of fish and other aquatic life in Rock Creek, a tributary of the Potomac River. Apparently, there was a pesticide spill involving cypermethrin in the parking lot of the company. The charge states that Pied Piper washed the spill into the storm drain instead of cleaning it up properly. Unfortunately, cypermethrin is highly toxic to fish. If convicted, the company can be fined up $700,000. The owner could be sent to prison for a year and fined $100,000, if convicted, and the employee faces a maximum of two years and a $200,000 fine. (EPA Press Advisory, 11-15-01)
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:
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