The University of Georgia College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences
Your source for pest management and pesticide news
January 2002/Volume 25, no. 1
If you are still looking for that perfect Valentine
YOU CAN USE
The EPA granted conditional registration to a new product with the active ingredient chlorfenapyr
The National Pesticide Telecommunications Network (NPTN) provides useful information concerning pesticides
The first pesticide active ingredient for FY 2002
The EPA anticipates speedy registration for three new biopesticides
The USDA is looking for a few good ideas for several substantial grant programs
A U.S. chemical producer is suing the Canadian government
The EPA will no longer require pesticides in the toxicity category 4 to carry the signal word CAUTION
As of December 31, 2001, retailers must stop sale for almost all chlorpyrifos home use products
Methyl bromide is scheduled for phase-out by 2005
The EPA plans to implement an international ban on tributyl tin
There is a new insect repellent in town called KBR 3023
The EPA is moving forward with plans to investigate pesticide use in schools
QUALITY PROTECTION ACT - REREGISTRATION
Be sure to review and comment on the Organphosphate Pesticides Preliminary Cumulative Risk Assessment
AND THE ENVIRONMENT
The EPA is funding a $750,000 study to investigate the effects of children's exposure to small amounts of pesticide
According to the Foundation for Advancements in Science and Education (FASE), U.S. Customs records show that the United States exported nearly 3.2 billion pounds of pesticide products
Believe it or not, some unscrupulous companies have tried to profit from public fears about anthrax
The EPA has asked the National Academy of Sciences to evaluate scientific and ethical issues posed by the use of studies that intentionally dose human subjects with pesticides or other toxins
According to an EPA administrator, the Agency is ready to use data from human subjects
Mexico is establishing rules for the use of genetically engineered crops
The EPA Office of Research and Development, the FDA, and the National Institutes of Health met in December to discuss progress and research needs to assess allergenicity associated with genetically engineered foods.
In small scale testing, it has been shown that pollen from transgenic plants can pollinate non-transgenic plants that are sexually compatible.
It's hard to believe that another year has passed. We have seen a lot of changes in pest management over the last year. The Food Quality Protection Act has changed the pesticide market forever for both professional and nonprofessional applicators. If possible, the impacts of FQPA will be even greater during 2002. Pesticide regulation can be a tedious process, but do not fall asleep at the switch in 2002. The EPA will make some important decisions this year that will establish the process for many upcoming decisions. Make sure that EPA hears from your organization.
If you are still looking for that perfect Valentine, mark your calendar for the upcoming Pesticide Satellite Workshop! This all day workshop will be transmitted via satellite to more than a dozen sites across Georgia. Everyone is welcome, but commercial pesticide applicators will receive five hours of recertification credit (sorry, no credits for categories 28, 28, or 30). Private applicators will receive two hours of recertification credit. Additionally, you will get the latest information on issues that affect you and your business. You are welcome to bring your sweetie for a unique experience that they will never let you forget. For details and registration, visit http://entomology.ent.uga.edu/
The EPA granted conditional registration to a new product with the active ingredient chlorfenapyr. The product (Phantom) may be used as a post-construction, soil-applied liquid and as an indoor treatment for ants and roaches. This product cannot be used for pre-construction termiticide applications. This is a new use pattern for chlorfenapyr.
The National Pesticide Telecommunications Network (NPTN) provides useful information concerning pesticides to professionals and the general public. From now on, NPTN will be known as the National Pesticide Information Center. The telephone number is unchanged (800-858-7378). The web site is http://npic.orst.edu/
I use their services regularly when I have a question concerning pesticide risks.
The first pesticide active ingredient for FY 2002 is Indian meal moth Granulosis Virus. The Indian meal moth is a serious pest of stored products around the world. You have encountered this pest is you have ever discovered your flour, meal, etc., covered with webbing. This new product will be used on indoor food and indoor non-food crops such as dried fruits and nuts and for crack and crevice treatments. If it is effective, this active ingredient will provide an alternative that is safer than many conventional pesticide treatments.
If you have a problem with Indian meal moth in your home, it is not necessary for you to apply a pesticide. Locate and discard all infested materials. Clean very thoroughly. Keep dry, stored products in tightly sealed containers or in the freezer. For more information about controlling household pests, see "Keeping Pests out of the Home with Fewer Pesticides" at http://entomology.ent.uga.edu/
The EPA anticipates speedy registration for three new biopesticides. Bacillus pumilus strain GB34 is proposed as a seed treatment for soybeans to suppress root diseases caused by Rhizoctonia and Fusarium. Chondrostereum purpureum isolate PFC 2139 is proposed as a biological herbicide to control alders, aspens and other hardwoods in rights of ways and forests. Review of the latter active ingredient is being conducted as a joint review with the Pest Management Regulatory Agency in Canada. Finally, annosodium silver thiosulfate will be used as preservative for cut flowers.
The Biochemical Classification Committee conducted 24 reviews of potential new active ingredients. Of the 16 compounds that met the criteria for classification as biochemical pesticides, there were: four insecticides, four insect repellents, two deer repellents, one aquatic herbicide, one fungicide, one molluscicide, one nematicide, one plant growth regulator, and one SAR-inducer. Two compounds were determined to be antimicrobials (sent to AD for review) and two compounds were determined to be conventional pesticides (sent to RD for review). One mixture was determined to be a mixture of unidentified microbial active ingredients, but the mixture cannot be reviewed until additional information regarding the nature of the active ingredient(s) is provided. One mixture was determined to be not a pesticide. The Committee was also unable to make a determination on two additional substances (one proposed as a fungicide and the other as an insect repellent) due to insufficient information. (USDA-OPMP Newest News, 12-28-01)
The USDA is looking for a few good ideas for several substantial grant programs. The Requests for Applications have been issued for the Pest Management Alternatives Program (PMAP), the Integrated Research, Education, and Extension Competitive Grants Program (IREE) Pest Management (which includes the Crops at Risk (CAR), Risk Avoidance and Mitigation Program (RAMP), Methyl Bromide Transitions Program (MBT), and the Organic Transitions Program (ORG), as well as, Food Safety are on the CSREES Funding Opportunities web page. The location of the Funding Opportunities page is: http://www.reeusda.gov/1700/funding/ourfund.htm. The due date for proposals for the PMAP and IREE - Pest Management is February 20, 2002. The due date for Food Safety proposals is February 27, 2002.
Hats off to USDA for the best creative use of acronyms. Who else but the federal government would have both CAR and RAMP in the same grant program? You can thank COOL CATS (Central Organizational Office Legislating Creative Acronyms To Society), a little known but vital office of the federal government.
Remember NAFTA? The North American Free Trade Agreement Technical Working Group on Pesticides has been working to make sure that all North American growers have access to the pesticides they need to compete in the new marketplace. You can read about their progress in the North American Initiative Milestone Report. The workgroup has cooperated with North American governments, growers, industry, environmental and public interest groups, and other pest management stakeholders to harmonize pesticide regulations. Read the report at www.epa.gov/pesticides/international/harmonization.html#A2. If you need a paper copy, call 703-305-5017. (EPA Program Update, 1-10-02)
A U.S. chemical producer is suing the Canadian government for $100 million because Canada banned the use of lindane on canola. NAFTA allows corporations to sue the participating countries if national laws damage the company's investments. In an earlier case, Canada repealed a ban on the gasoline additive MMT and paid a U.S. company $13 million.
Ironically, lindane cannot be used on canola in the United States. Crompton Corporation claims the Canadian government broke an earlier agreement the company made with the Canadian pesticide regulatory agency. Crompton Corp. reportedly agreed that it would not request the reinstatement of lindane in Canada if both the United States and Canada found it unsafe to use on canola. However, the agreement also stipulated that if either government agency deemed lindane safe for use on canola, then it would be reregistered in Canada.
There is speculation that trade pressures triggered Canada's decision. American canola growers, barred from using lindane, have complained that they are at a competitive disadvantage relative to Canadian growers since lindane substitute products are considerably more expensive. (PANUPS, 1-3-02)
The EPA will no longer require pesticides in the toxicity category 4 to carry the signal word CAUTION. The rule will go into effect in February 2002. The Agency said they are reducing confusion for pesticide buyers. Currently, the EPA requires pesticides to carry one of three signal words (DANGER, WARNING, or CAUTION) based on the acute risks associated with the pesticide. However, the EPA could not identify a signal word for pesticides that were less toxic than other CAUTION pesticides. As a result, the Agency decided to remove the signal word. The rule is expected to go into effect 60 days after publication.
Qualified registrants must file an application with the agency requesting permission to amend the label by removing the word. As removal of the word would be optional, agency officials say this application process would enable them to keep track of those registrants that delete the word and those that retain it to avoid the expense of reprinting labels or for other reasons. (Pesticide and Toxic Chemical News, 12-14-01)
As of December 31, 2001, retailers must stop sale for almost all chlorpyrifos home use products and many other indoor and outdoor non-residential uses. From recent calls, it seems like many retailers did not receive the message. You can find the stop-sale notice at www.epa.gov/oppfead1/cb/csb_page/updates/noticedursb.htm. This web site provides all of the information that you will need to know about the action against chlorpyrifos.
Retailers have two options for leftover chlorpyrifos products. Contact your distributor and ask them to take back the unsold product. If the distributor refuses the product, retailers will have to pay for disposal via a waste disposal company. Georgia and some other states offer pesticide collection programs; contact your local Extension agent for details.
Consumers with chlorpyrifos products may continue to use them according to the pesticide label. Keep in mind that chlorpyrifos products were not canceled because of newly discovered risk. The cancellations were primarily an economic decision based upon registrant/EPA negotiations. Certainly the potential exposure of children will be reduced, but there is considerable debate about whether it was necessary to eliminate all of the home products.
Methyl bromide is scheduled for phase-out by 2005, but language in the agreement allows for continued "critical uses." Unfortunately, everyone considers his or her use to be "critical." Before the phase-out is completed, regulators must establish a process to determine critical uses. Federal agencies and other stakeholders will meet this month to discuss and unveil the application process for a critical use exemption. (USDA-OPMP Newest News, 1-4-02)
The EPA plans to implement an international ban on tributyl tin (TBT). As of January 1, 2003, vessels with TBT on their hulls could be denied entry to ports in countries that implement the ban. As a result, registrants could be left with recall, buy-back, and/or disposal of stocks not used up by January 1, 2003. Voluntary cancellation offers registrants the opportunity to design their own phase-out plans. (USDA-OPMP Newest News, 12-28-02)
There is a new insect repellent in town called KBR 3023. Bayer Corporation has received full, unconditional registration for KBR 3023 with the active ingredient picaridin. Several different products will be sold with this active ingredient. We have no empirical information regarding efficacy or safety, but unofficial surf of the web produced several articles that indicated KBR 3023 was an effective mosquito repellent.
The EPA is moving forward with plans to investigate pesticide use in schools. In early January 2002, the Phase 1 report on the plan for Pesticides in Schools feasibility study will be ready for internal EPA review for two weeks, and then circulated to interested parties for comment for the remainder of January 2002. The report outlines the number of school and related institutions in the United States. It also reviews the available health and exposure literature and describes what needs to be considered for a Phase 2 feasibility study. Phase 2 would establish what is needed to conduct a baseline survey of current practices. The EPA is preparing a new fact sheet, expanding the web offerings, and implementing Center grants on IPM in Schools.
If and when this plan moves ahead, it would be prudent for the pest control industry and schools to show that we are proactively implementing IPM programs in schools. Even if schools and/or companies are doing the right things, a formal plan will help demonstrate to government agencies, parents, and others that you are minimizing pesticide risks to children. Contact us; we will be glad to help.
Be sure to review and comment on the Organphosphate Pesticides Preliminary Cumulative Risk Assessment! Until now, EPA has made decisions based on reviews of individual organophosphates. However, FQPA requires EPA to evaluate risks for groups of pesticides with a similar toxic mode of action (e.g., organophosphates). Previous regulatory decisions may be dwarfed by actions based on the cumulative assessment. Additionally, the cumulative assessment established for the organophosphates will also serve as the basis for similar assessments of carbamates and other groups of pesticides. You can find the assessment at www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative The Agency will accept comments until March 8, 2002.
The EPA is funding a $750,000 study to investigate the effects of childrenâ€™s exposure to small amounts of pesticide. Another grant from the Centers for Disease Control will look at farm worker exposure to multiple pesticides.
The EPA study will focus on organophosphate insecticides. The organophosphates have concerned the Agency for several years because this group includes some of the pesticides most commonly used around the house and in agriculture.
The researchers will expose adult and young rats to pesticides and develop computer models based on their observations. Extrapolating the data to humans is the challenge for this type of experiment. The physiological systems of rats and humans are very different, and pesticide effects on the two species will also vary. The researchers hope to use the rat data and available human data to predict pesticide effects on children.
The CDC-funded research will try to establish better decision models for EPA to use when they establish regulations to protect farm workers that are exposed to several different pesticides. There has been a substantial amount of research concerning exposure to individual chemicals, but there are few data on multiple exposures. (Bayer Product Stewardship Update, 1-10-02)
According to the Foundation for Advancements in Science and Education (FASE), U.S. Customs records show that the U.S. exported nearly 3.2 billion pounds of pesticide products from 1997 - 2000. The average rate per day (2.2 million pounds) is a 15% increase over the daily export rate from 1992-1996.
Approximately 60 percent of the pesticides were shipped to destinations in the developing countries. These export numbers concern some people because pesticide poisoning is a problem in many developing countries. Protective equipment is scarce; training is sporadic. Additionally, products with restricted registrations in the United States are often available to the general public in other countries.
Companies in the United States are being more responsible, however. There were no exports of pesticides banned for use in the U.S. There were exports of pesticides that are not registered in the United States, but there is typically no market for these pesticides in the United States (e.g., a pesticide used to control pests on bananas). (PANUPS, 1-11-02)
Believe it or not, some unscrupulous companies have tried to profit from public fears about anthrax. The EPA recently ordered two companies to stop selling pesticides that claim to protect you from anthrax. Homeland Security Plus was selling the BioHazard Decontamination Solution, and Testing Kits Inc. was selling EnviroFoam.
EPA has authorized the limited use of an anthrax decontamination foam (a formulation of quaternary ammonium and hydrogen peroxide) for use in emergency cleanup operations of the U.S. Congress, federal agencies and the U.S. Postal Service under a FIFRA exemption. This emergency use was authorized for limited spot decontamination only by federal, state or local emergency response personnel and not by the general public. Additional data review required by registration will help determine whether such products can be used more widely. Testing Kits Inc did not manufacture the anthrax decontamination foam for which the EPA exemption was granted.
The EPA has asked the National Academy of Sciences to evaluate scientific and ethical issues posed by the use of studies that intentionally dose human subjects with pesticides or other toxins. The Academy will furnish recommendations concerning the particular factors and criteria involving the potential acceptability of third-party studies. Recently, most submissions to the Agency have concerned toxicity testing of pesticides, such as studies used to establish a No Observed Adverse Effect Level or No Observed Effect Level. The Academy will also provide recommendations on whether internationally accepted protocols or existing U.S. regulations could be applied to evaluate such studies.
While the Academy considers these issues, EPA will not use human studies to make pesticide regulatory decisions. If the Agency is legally required to use any such human study during this interim period, the Agency will assemble a Science Advisory Board sub-panel to review and comment on scientific appropriateness and ethical acceptability of the study. The EPA would also ask for public involvement.
Ironically, FIFRA (a major U.S. pesticide law) requires industry to report adverse effects that arise from human studies involving pesticides. Furthermore, EPA would have to consider that information and possibly use it to make some decision. (EPA Update, 12-17-01)
This area of pesticide regulation is very slippery. If the EPA will consider human data to evaluate pesticide risks, the information may be more reliable that data derived from rat/mouse experiments. On the other hand, there is concern about the humans that would participate in these types of experiments (I will not recommend this avenue for my children to earn extra money). The EPA will face strong criticism if the test groups are predominantly minorities or poor people, even though EPA will neither select the subjects nor fund the research.
According to an EPA administrator, the Agency is ready to use data from human subjects. The administrator said that a formal EPA policy for accepting human tests has not been finalized, but the Agency has recently reviewed data from studies involving human subjects carried out by pesticide companies.
In 1998, an EPA advisory panel concluded that human testing of pesticides is only acceptable if the research promises reasonable health benefits to society. Human testing in the interest of industry or agriculture was called unjustifiable. Already, a conundrum is apparent. Improvements in agriculture often bring about direct health benefits to society. Some people also feel that human testing for pesticide safety violates the Nuremburg Code, which establishes the rights of medical research subjects. The Code was the result of human testing done by the Nazis during World War II. The Code states that human tests are justified only if they are likely "to yield fruitful results for the good of society, unprovable by other methods or means of study."
Between 1986 and 1996, only a handful of human tests were submitted to the EPA. With the passage of the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) in 1996, however, the number of human tests increased dramatically. The FQPA requires that 9,000 pesticides be reassessed for their potential impact on children. Pesticide manufacturers are required to multiply the safe exposure level from animal studies by 10 to ensure safety for human children. These strengthened regulations have led the pesticide industry to pursue human testing, arguing that such testing allows them to more accurately assess the safe exposure threshold.
In 1999, Dow AgroSciences paid 60 volunteers $460 apiece to swallow tablets, half of which were placebos and half of which were laced with the pesticide chlorpyrifos. Dow said that the tests showed no signs of toxicity. Similar tests will likely be undertaken on a wider scale now that the EPA has given its approval. The scientific advisory committee had urged the EPA to establish rigorous standards for human testing and to require pre-approval of proposed studies by an independent review board. No such restrictions have been published to date. (AP, 11-27-01)
Mexico is establishing rules for the use of genetically engineered crops. The government has established an Office of Biosecurity and Genetically Modified Organisms. A report received by EPA outlines Mexico's commitment to regulate biotechnology. (USDA-OPMP Newest News, 1-4-02)
The EPA Office of Research and Development, the FDA, and the National Institutes of Health met in December to discuss progress and research needs to assess allergenicity associated with genetically engineered foods. Genetic engineering typically involves the expression of some novel protein. Regulators want to ensure that these new proteins will not cause or exacerbate food allergies in susceptible individuals. (USDA-OPMP Newest News, 1-4-02)
In small scale testing, it has been shown that pollen from transgenic plants can pollinate non-transgenic plants that are sexually compatible. A buffer zone can eliminate most, but not all, of the pollen transfer. The EPA, USDA, FDA, and the Office of Science and Technology have been developing a policy paper on how this situation should be handled to insure that any food from the non-transgenic crop plants would meet Federal standards for safe food. At December 20th meeting, EPA and FDA were asked to compare what data each would require and determine if both agencies would need exactly the same data and if not, why any difference were needed. (USDA-OPMP Newest News, 1-4-02)
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, Associate Professor & Extension Entomologist