The University of Georgia College of Agricultural & Environmental Sciences
Cooperative Extension Service


The Georgia Pest Management Newsletter

Your source for pest management and pesticide news

June 1997/Volume 19, no. 4

Estrogenic pesticides may not be synergistic after all
NEW TOOLS
EPA has granted a specific exemption under provisions of Section 18 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act for Georgia
Scientists with USDA have developed artificial diets for big-eyed bugs and lacewings
Two recent genetic discoveries may be important for controlling corn earworm and fall armyworm
The USDA reports a new biological control agent for coffee senna and sicklepod
Smaller cells help honey bees resist tracheal and Varroa mites
New rearing techniques may make a nematode an effective control for sap beetle
Some data indicate that consumers are interested in purchasing products grown under IPM
FEDERAL NEWS
PR Notice 97-2 describes policies regarding prioritization and scheduling of applications for new pesticides
The EPA has increased fees for tolerance/legal residue petitions by 3.33%
In region 5 (the Great Lakes area), the EPA ordered EKCO Housewares Inc. to stop selling kitchen products in the following list for making pesticidal claims
For five years, roach and ant bait stations will be exempt from EPA requirements for adult ease of opening
HEALTH & ENVIRONMENT
Never Store Pesticide in Any Food or Beverage Container!!!
The EPA and DowElanco have reached an agreement about the future of chlorpyrifos
You should wait for 12-24 hours to re-enter rooms that have been treated with pesticide
The EPA is using the wrong model to estimate pesticide exposure in drinking water, according to the American Crop Protection Association
Interim report released that examined nearly 300 peer-reviewed studies on the relationship of chemicals to the endocrine systems of humans, laboratory animals and wildlife
BIOTECHNOLOGY
The EPA has finally granted a temporary tolerance of bromoxynil on cotton products
The European Union and the U.S. Department of Agriculture are trying to reach agreement on labeling genetically engineered foods
The EPA hopes to issue a final rule on plant pesticides by the end of 1997
Monsanto recently recalled genetically engineered canola seed that contained an unapproved gene
FOOD QUALITY PROTECTION ACT
We are approaching an interesting decision point in FQPA involving aflatoxins and organophosphate insecticides
A Massachusetts bill would require seven days notice of the entire neighborhood before pesticides can be commercially applied
CANCELED
It is the end of the line for chlordane and heptachlor

Estrogenic pesticides may not be synergistic after all, according to four research laboratories. In June 1996, Tulane University frightened the world when they announced that mixing some organochlorine pesticides increased their estrogenic activity by more than 1,600 times. However, research by Duke University, the Chemical Institute, of Toxicology, the National Institute for Environmental Health, Texas A&M, and Zeneca have not been able to replicate the Tulane results.

The new research indicates that the organochlorines tested by Tulane are additive estrogenic compounds instead of synergistic ones. In other words, the weak endocrine action of the organochlorine remains weak when two or more are added together. (Pestic. & Tox. Chem. News, 6-4-97)

Ordinarily, disputes between labs are of relatively little consequence. In this case, however, the Tulane results helped to shape an act of Congress, the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA). When FQPA was passed, we reported that the screen for endocrine disruptors would be a difficult and expensive process. Even with the great investment, the screen seemed necessary based on the results from Tulane. If these pesticides were indeed synergistic by 1,600 time, it could be dangerous for humans to be exposed. On the other hand, the additive effect of weak estrogenic compounds may be of unimportant.

As an end result, we are left with two unfortunate consequences. Even in light of this new discovery, Congress is very unlikely to revisit FQPA, which means we are stuck spending resources on an expensive, and perhaps unnecessary, screen for estrogenic activity in pesticides. On the other hand, the report from Duke University, et al. will cause many people to overlook estrogenic activity as of no consequence. As usual, the truth lies in the middle. The estrogenic activity of pesticides does not appear to be a catastrophe, but the effects should not be ignored until we fully understand them.

The moral of this story is simple, but we seemed doomed to repeat history. When new discoveries point to a horrendous (or wonderful) conclusion, do not establish far-reaching policy until the results have been confirmed.

NEW TOOLS

EPA has granted a specific exemption under provisions of Section 18 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act for Georgia for the use of Confirm 2F (tebufenozide) to control beet armyworms in peppers. The exemption expires October 31, 1997.

Confirm may be applied at the rate of 6 to 8 fluid ounces product per acre/application. Total active ingredient used is not to exceed 24 ounces/acre/season. A maximum of 3 applications may be made using either aerial or ground equipment. A 7 day PHI is required.

Pyridaben: Temporary tolerance (expires 5-31-2001): almond, apple, citrus, milk, fat, meat, pears

Scientists with USDA have developed artificial diets for big-eyed bugs and lacewings. This breakthrough is important because these two insects attack many types of important agricultural pests including aphids, whiteflies, scales, and caterpillars. The two predators have been released to control pests, but the cost of rearing large numbers was prohibitive because the predators could only be reared on live prey. For example, lacewings have typically been reared on insect eggs that cost more than $300/lb. The artificial diet can be produced for about $2.50/lb, and each pound of diet can produce 10,000 big-eyed bugs or 30,000 lacewings. This new diet could mean important advancements for biological control. If you want more information, contact Thomas Henneberry 602-379-3524, henneb@asrr.arsusda.gov OR Allen Cohen at 601-232-2230. (Ag. Research, 6-97)

Two recent genetic discoveries may be important for controlling corn earworm and fall armyworm. Maysin is a compound produced in corn silk that confers resistance to corn earworm; USDA and UGA scientists are teaming up to increase the natural production of maysin. Maysin binds with amino acids in the insect gut, and the insect starves. UGA scientists identified the resistance qualities of maysin in 1979, but recent advances in genetic mapping make it possible to increase the amount of maysin made by a corn plant. If you want to know more contact, Michael McMullen or Patrick Byrne at 573-882-7606.

Scientists with USDA and MSU are working on a natural enzyme that greatly reduces a caterpillar's appetite. Affected larvae only grow to one-half their normal size. They have discovered the gene that codes for this enzyme, and they plan to introduce the gene into commercial lines of corn. In addition to direct retardant effects, the enzyme could help ward off resistance to corn that has been genetically engineered to produce the toxin from Bacillus thuringiensis. Contact Paul Williams for more information (601-325-2735, pwilliams@dorman.msstate.edu). (Agric. Research, 6-97)

The USDA reports a new biological control agent for coffee senna and sicklepod. Two applications of corn oil, water, and Colletotrichum gloeosporioides killed more than 90% of newly emerged sicklepod in soybeans. The Agency is looking for commercial cooperators. For more information, call Douglas Boyette at 601-686-5217. (Pestic. & Tox. Chem. News, 6-4-97)

Researchers with USDA have found that smaller cells help honey bees resist tracheal and Varroa mites. The scientists used comb foundation with cells with a 22% smaller diameter. The result was 40% survival of Varroa mite infestation compared with 0% survival for commercial-sized cells. For more information, contact Eric Erickson at 520-670-6481 or ehejr@ccit.arizona.edu

New rearing techniques may make a nematode an effective control for sap beetle. Psammomermis nitiduesis was discovered in 1992, but scientists could only rear females until recently. In a recent trial, 80% of the sap beetles were infected. For details, call 309-681-6242. (USDA 4-97)

Another nematode may be helpful to control slugs and snails. In a field trials, a wide range of crops were protected from damage while mollusks in field margins were unaffected. (Univ. of Bristol, MBCN vol. III, no 11 via Pestic. Coordinator Report, 6-97)

Some data indicate that consumers are interested in purchasing products grown under IPM. Wegman's Food Markets in New York experimented with fresh corn certified to be 'IPM grown.' The food safety manager described consumer response as 'overwhelmingly positive.' In a follow-up survey of 600 customers, 90% of the respondents answered that they would prefer to buy IPM products and that they would accept some blemishes if fewer pesticides were used. This survey represents a small sample of consumers, and it may be biased. However, we may be seeing the beginning of a new marketing trend that will help promote IPM. Other companies are taking notice. If you interested in starting a similar program, give me a call at 706-542-9031. (Gempler's IPM Solutions, Summer 1997)

Be careful of contaminating equipment used for food/feed. Farm workers in Michigan killed 175 heifers after they moved feed with a front-end loader that had been used to transport fonofos. (Pestic. & Tox. Chem. News, 5-14-97)

A new Special Research Grants Program, during the current fiscal year. The RFP encourages development of risk mitigation strategies and/or pest management alternatives in relation to pesticides considered likely candidates for tolerance review and assessment under the Act. You can see the details at http://www.reeusda.gov/ipm

If you are curious to know how much research scientists and administrators are paid, you should visit this Web site. The Current Research Information System (CRIS), Science and Education Resources Development (SERD), CSREES, has issued its 1996-1997 Salary Analysis. The report includes an analysis of salaries of research workers and research administrators at cooperating State organizations. http://ctr.uvm.edu/cris/crisrpts.htm

Grant proposals for the Agricultural Telecommunications Program are due August 4, 1997. For details, http://www.reeusda.gov/agtel

Monsanto produces several crops that are resistant to Roundup herbicide, including soybeans, cotton, and canola. As a result, Roundup could be a $4 billion product. (Agrow: World Crop Protection News, 5-2, 5-16, and 5-30-97)

FEDERAL NEWS

PR Notice 97-2 describes policies regarding prioritization and scheduling of applications for new pesticides. The order of priority is: 1) methyl bromide alternatives, 2) reduced risk pesticides, 3) USDA-EPA identified vulnerable crops (listed in the PR notice), minor use priorities, non-minor use priorities, international trade issues triggered by FQPA.

The EPA has increased fees for tolerance/legal residue petitions by 3.33%, an amount equal to the locality pay enhancement for Federal employees living in metropolitan Washington D.C. and Baltimore. The basic fee for a new tolerance is $64, 025. The relationship between locality pay and tolerance petitions is not clear to me, but what do I know. (FR, 5-9-97)

Within the next two years, the Strategic Planning Task Force on Research Facilities review all currently operating agricultural research facilities, constructed in whole or in part with Federal funds, and all planned agricultural research facilities proposed to be constructed with

Federal funds to ensure that a comprehensive research capacity is maintained. It is probably part of the new accountability required of the federal government.

Imagine the nerve of those taxpayers wanting to know where the taxes go. Accountability is a mixed blessing. It allows you to cut out the dead wood, but the paperwork reduces the productivity of good workers because they have to use valuable time to fill out the accountability paperwork.

In region 5 (the Great Lakes area), the EPA ordered EKCO Housewares Inc. to stop selling kitchen products in the following list for making pesticidal claims. Any product that makes a claim of controlling pests is a pesticide and must be registered with EPA.

The products carried such claims as 'prevents germs,' 'inhibits growth of a wide range of germs, bacteria, fungi, mold, and mildew,' and 'effective against Salmonella, Staphylococcus, E. coli.' Under EPA regulations, the company would have to prove these claims. (EPA Press Release, 3-29-97)

I know for a fact that you can kill a roach with a can opener. The company, however, does not recommend this use.

The EPA will hold a workshop to explain the process for registering plant pesticides on July 17 at the Doubletree Hotel in Arlington, Va. If you want more information contact Laura Sallmen Smith 703-308-8716 or sallmen-smith.laura@epamail.epa.gov Tell her that Paul Guillebeau sent you.

For five years, roach and ant bait stations will be exempt from EPA requirements for adult ease of opening. Under this regulation, pesticide containers must be child resistant, but adults must be able to open them without an unreasonable struggle. If containers are too difficult to open, adults may not close them properly.

Because bait stations are permanently sealed, the EPA waived this requirement. The bait stations must still meet all standards regarding child safety. (FR, 6-13-97)

Here is an actual quote from a letter I received from a federal agency; understand it if you can. "The ROBO . . . is being reprogrammed to get it off the Wang to run on Oracle on the GRIN Sun computer." The letter was a report of exotic beneficial insects released in Georgia in 1985.

Two parasitoids, Encarsia lahorensis and Torymus koreanus, were released to control citrus whitefly and oriental chestnut gall wasp, respectively. The report did not indicate if there was additional activity since 1985-86.

HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT

NEVER STORE PESTICIDE IN ANY FOOD OR BEVERAGE CONTAINER!!! A Georgia woman was killed last week after drinking an organophosphate pesticide that was left in a wine bottle. Another woman was in serious condition. There is no excuse for this type of irresponsible behavior.

The EPA and DowElanco have reached an agreement about the future of chlorpyrifos. The EPA was concerned about the large number of reported incidents involving chlorpyrifos, which is one of the most widely used pesticides for control of insects around the home. There are 972 products in the U.S. that contain chlorpyrifos; an estimated 18% of all U.S. households have one or more chlorpyrifos products. To reduce residential exposure, EPA and DowElanco agreed to a number of actions.

Additionally, the registrants and EPA will develop strategies to reduce further reduce exposure.

Registrants will have to establish a panel to design a study investigating potential chronic and neurological effects of chlorpyrifos. Finally, the agreement establishes continued funding of a poison control center project that monitors chlorpyrifos incidents.

Household products with new labels should appear on store shelves in 1998. Unless further regulatory action is taken, all chlorpyrifos products can continue to be used according to the label on the product.

To protect your family and pets, take the following precautions.

Over the next three years, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry wants to study children who have been exposed to methyl parathion during the illegal indoor applications in Mississippi and other states. There have been no studies regarding the potential long-term effects of methyl parathion and children. Some long-term studies of adult exposure have raised concerns. (Pesticide & Tox. Chem. News, 6-11-97)

The National Pesticide Telecommunications Network Hotline is now available on the Web and via e-mail.

http://ace.orst.edu/info/nptn/ OR nptn@ace.orst.edu

Or you can call them at 1-800-858-7378.

The NPTN offers nonbiased, scientific information about pesticides, including toxicology, poisonings, environmental risks, etc. The service is free, and it is available from 9:30am-7:30pm (Eastern Time) seven days a week. The system is designed for both professionals and the public. Most of 2000 calls per month are from families concerned about flea products, termite treatments, or other pesticide uses around the home.

According to a study by the New Jersey Environmental Protection Dept. and the Environmental and Occupational Health Science Institute, you should wait for 12-24 hours to re-enter rooms that have been treated with pesticide. They found that volatile organic compounds, or VOC, (found in pesticide solvents) do not dissipate as quickly as predicted. The persistence is caused by VOC binding to carpets and other surfaces. The specific effect would depend on the type of pesticide, the type of VOC, and the surfaces to which the pesticides are applied. (Oklahoma Pesticide Reports, 10-96 via Access Pesticides, 6-97)

The EPA is using the wrong model to estimate pesticide exposure in drinking water, according to the American Crop Protection Association. Under FQPA, the EPA must consider all route of exposure when they evaluate pesticide tolerances. When the EPA considered granting a tolerance for bromoxynil on cotton products, the Agency used the Generic Expected Environmental Exposure Concentration (GENEEC) model. This model was intended to estimate the concentration of pesticide that would accumulate in farm ponds. Because few people drink water out of farm ponds, this model overestimates the amount of pesticide in drinking water. The EPA does not disagree, but they do not have a better model. The Agency is using GENEEC as a screening tool. If the water residues are safe under GENEEC, drinking water should be safe. The EPA and ACPA are trying to identify or develop a more appropriate model. (Pestic. & Tox. Chem. News, 5-28-97)

The EPA has released an interim report that examined nearly 300 peer-reviewed studies on the relationship of chemicals to the endocrine systems of humans, laboratory animals and wildlife. It investigated whether there is evidence that endocrine disruptors play a part in human health effects, including ovary and reproductive tract impacts, endometriosis and breast cancer in women; reproductive system harm, testicular cancer and prostate cancer in men; and hypothalamus, pituitary and thyroid impacts in both sexes.

With very few exceptions (for example, the pharmaceutical DES), the report found no causal relationship between endocrine disruption and human health impacts. However, it emphasized that there are large data gaps and that, in theory, many of the human effects that have been hypothesized could indeed be the result of endocrine disrupting chemicals.

However, endocrine disruption has been reported in many species of wildlife, including snails, fish, alligators, gulls, eagles, panthers, seals and dolphins.

Still don't understand exactly what an endocrine disrupter is? The official definition is "an exogenous substance that changes endocrine function and causes adverse effects at the level of organism, its progeny, and/or (sub)populations of organisms." Now you know. (PANNA, 6-16-97)

We often hear that we should follow the European example of using less pesticide. A recent report illustrates that Europe has the same problems that we face.

A study by the European Crop Protection Association (EPCA) shows that average pesticide application rates have fallen by 21% between 1991 and 1995, from 4.2 kg/ha to 3.3 kg/ha. Does that mean that things are safer? Not really, the reduction mostly represents the use of newer products with lower application rates.

I was touring a pesticide manufacturing plant, and the star attraction was a new herbicide that was active at a minuscule rate per acre; a single tablet could be used to treat an acre or more. Our host insisted that the reduced rate meant that the pesticide was safer than others. I was not convinced. If that tablet fell through a hole in your pocket, you could wipe out crops for miles. Additionally, our host added, the pesticide is used at such low rates it is not detectable in streams. I wonder if they meant that EPA will never catch us.

The number of registered agrochemical products in Austria has been cut by almost two thirds since the country's strict pesticide legislation began in 1991. By the end of 1991, the number of registered pesticide products was cut by over a third. During the next five years, there was a further decrease of 46%. Approximately 645 pesticide products were available at the end of 1996, compared with 963 products registered in Germany, 1,176 in the Netherlands and approximately 320 in Sweden. Additionally, there have been only 23 new products approved in five years. Conversely, France approved more than 455 new products, the UK more than 379, and Denmark more than 170. Which growers will have the better IPM program? The growers with choices or the growers without choices.

Some environmental groups (and sometimes EPA) have this gatekeeper mentality. Do not let any new pesticides be registered; the ones we have are bad enough already. Keep in mind, however , that chemical companies want to sell products, and they hear the public asking for safer pesticides. No one tries to register the next chlordane or heptachlor. The new pesticide products are much safer than the older ones. Additionally, the best way to eliminate a dangerous pesticide is to introduce a safer alternative. (PANNA, 6-3-97)

A recent poll indicated that more than 80% of the participants supported revision of the Endangered Species Act to compensate landowners when ESA caused them to lose money on their property. Additionally, most respondents felt that there was little to show for the expenditures made for endangered species. A Senate bill would provide tax incentives for landowners that voluntarily preserved vital habitat.

BIOTECHNOLOGY

The EPA has finally granted a temporary tolerance of bromoxynil on cotton products. There had been some anxious moments for cotton growers that had planted BXN cotton, genetically engineered for resistance to bromoxynil. Without a tolerance, the FDA could seize any feed/food products from cotton that had been treated with bromoxynil. However, many growers had already planted BXN cotton.

Bromoxynil use will be limited to 400,000 acres of cotton (3% of U.S. cotton). The cotton tolerances will expire January 1, 1998.

Everyone assumed that last year's bromoxynil tolerance would be renewed until the Union of Concerned Scientists raised health concerns about bromoxynil. Bromoxynil is known to cause cancer and birth defects in laboratory animals, but the EPA decided that the cotton use pattern did not create an unreasonable risk. (EPA Press Advisory, 6-97)

The European Union and the U.S. Department of Agriculture are trying to reach agreement on labeling genetically engineered foods. European consumers want to know what their foods contain. The USDA feels that bioengineered crops are no different from other crops. Furthermore, it may be very difficult to keep genetically engineered foods separate, particularly in bulk commodities such as corn or soybeans. About 15% of the U.S. soybean acreage was planted with genetically engineered soybeans. (Pestic. & Tox. Chem. News, 6-18-97)

The EPA hopes to issue a final rule on plant pesticides by the end of 1997. Plant pesticides are plants that have been genetically engineered to produce their own pesticides (e.g., B.t. cotton). FQPA requires EPA to consider 12 factors when they review pesticide registrations, so the plant pesticide rule will be a combination of four regulations and policy statement.

The EPA is still struggling with the best way to manage resistance to plant pesticides. Except for B.t. potato, all plant pesticide registrations have required some strategy to manage resistance. The only problem is that no one knows if the strategies will work because resistance is often unpredictable. (Pestic. & Tox. Chem. News, 6-4-97)

Not surprisingly, a number of chemical companies oppose EPA requirements for resistant management plans for plant pesticides. The EPA has required resistance management plans for every plant pesticide except for the very first one, B.t. potato (potato expressing Bacillus thuringiensis toxin against Colorado potato beetle).

I have mixed emotions on this issue. First, the EPA has never required resistance management for any pesticide; why should they treat plant pesticides differently? On the other hand, resistance to B.t. could rob organic farmers of one of their few effective pesticides.

However, resistance has been a driving force for new pest management strategies. Why are Northwest growers so interested in nonchemical control of codling moth on apples? Azinphos-methyl no longer provides adequate control in many areas. Many sources indicate that environmental risks were the only factor that forced DDT from the market. Resistance had also devalued DDT. In many cases, it simply was not worth the fight required to keep it on the market. If we maintain the efficacy of a mediocre tool, we may not discover a more valuable control strategy.

The opposition of registrants probably has a selfish motive as well. If the older (cheaper) tools are still effective, why should growers invest in new strategies? The companies that control biotechnology are neither short-sighted nor naive. Growers are risk-averse, which means they are unlikely to buy new technology (a pig in a poke) if the familiar tools (a bird in the hand) provide adequate control. Registrants have already invested millions in the next wave of biotechnology; they want someone to buy it.

Finally, resistance can be very unpredictable. Some pests (e.g., Colorado potato beetle, pear psylla) have become resistant to nearly every pesticide used to control them. Some other pests have remained susceptible to a single pesticide for decades.

This example illustrates how technology often outruns regulation. I will not fault EPA or registrants for their stance. No one knows what will happen.

Monsanto recently recalled genetically engineered canola seed that contained an unapproved gene. The seed had been genetically engineered to be resistant to glyphosate. There are two glyphosate-resistance genes (Roundup Ready). In Canada, however, only one of the genes had been approved for food/feed crops.

Some environmental groups are pointing at this mistake as a harbinger of doom, and Monsanto said it may be difficult to trace the mistake. In this particular instance, little or no harm would have been done, but some circumstances can make it critical to properly track bioengineered products. (Rachel's Environment & Health Weekly #549, 6-5-97, The Rams Horn: A Monthly Newsletter of Food System Analysis, 4-97.

Pollination of crop plants by honeybees reduce the potential for cross-pollination with undesirable relatives. We reported the occurrence of genetically engineered traits 'jumping' to wild hosts; honeybees can help diminish this possibility for plants that require cross-pollination. Honeybees are faithful to one plant as long as the nectar/pollen supply is adequate. These guidelines may improve the efficacy of this strategy. 1) Maintain strong hives. 2) Provide an adequate number of colonies for the job. 3) Wait until at least 5% of the crop is flowering. (APIS, 4-97)

FOOD QUALITY PROTECTION ACT

We are approaching an interesting decision point in FQPA involving aflatoxins and organophosphate insecticides. Aflatoxins are mycotoxins produced by some Aspergillus fungi. They have no taste, odor, or color. Aflatoxins are powerful mutagens, carcinogens, teratogens, and acute toxins. They also inhibit the immune system and the activity of vaccines.

Aflatoxins are the only mycotoxin regulated in the United States. The actions levels for foods and feeds are extremely low: milk (0.5 ppb), other human food (20 ppb), animal feed (20 ppb-300 ppb). Foods or feeds that exceed these thresholds cannot be used.

There is no pesticide that directly controls aflatoxin, but organophosphate insecticides control insects that help spread Aspergillus. Here is where the problem arises. The EPA plans to start the FQPA review process with the organophosphates because they are considered to be the most dangerous class of pesticides. Some organophosphate uses may be cancelled because of the risks. However, there is no pesticide that is considered to be a more dangerous dietary contaminant than aflatoxin. Will EPA allow the continued use of 'risky' pesticides that reduce the potential for aflatoxin contamination?

It will be interesting to follow the EPA process as they unravel these issues. Some organophosphate uses may be maintained even if the pesticide presents a greater than negligible risk. The risk of the pesticide could be offset by a greater threat from aflatoxin. Also, look for some consumer groups to attack any pesticide use that presents greater than negligible risk even if it does reduce aflatoxin.

If you want the details, read 'Aflatoxin and the Food Quality Protection Act' by L.P. Gianessi. Call the National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy at 202-328-5048 if you would like a copy.

Items to Watch

A Massachusetts bill would require seven days notice of the entire neighborhood before pesticides can be commercially applied. Warning signs would have to be in place 48 hours before application. Pesticide companies would have to submit monthly reports to the state deparment of agriculture including the types, amounts, and addresses of sites where pesticides were applied.

Needless to say, pesticide companies are against the bill. It would cost them millions to comply, and pest problems could not be treated on short notice. However, there is considerable support for this bill in the legislature. We will watch closely; the implications are enormous. (Boston Globe, 5-8-97 via Chemically Speaking, 6-97)

CANCELED

It is the end of the line for chlordane and heptachlor. The sole manufacturer, the Velsicol Chemical Corporation announced last week that it is permanently ceasing production of these two organochlorine insecticides. They add that they will not make its proprietary technology available to any other company for manufacture [unless the price is right]. Stocks are expected to be exhausted by the end of this year.

Except for the control of fire ants in cable boxes, all uses of chlordane and heptachlor have been prohibited in the United States since 1987. Between 1991 and 1994, however, at least 10 million pounds of these chemicals were exported.

At least 70 countries have banned or severely restricted the two chemicals, suspected of being human carcinogens and endocrine disruptors. They also persist for decades. The U.N. also listed both for possible international phase-out because of the potential for long-range, global transport. Despite widespread international recognition that chlordane and heptachlor pose serious health and environmental risks, Velsicol's president and CEO, Arthur Sigel, said in the company's announcement, "we have always believed in the efficacy of these products, and the science that supports their continued use, but the economics no longer support continued manufacture." (PANNA, 6-17-97)

The following products will have uses voluntarily deleted from the label unless the requests are withdrawn. Registrants may continue to sell products for these uses for 18 months. Users may continue to apply products according to the label directions until supplies are exhausted.


The appearance of any trade name in this newsletter is not intended to endorse that product nor convey negative implications of unmentioned products.



The University of Georgia and Ft. Valley State College, the U.S. Department of Agriculture and counties of the state cooperating. The Cooperative Extension Service offers educational programs, assistance and materials to all people without regard to race, color, national origin, age, sex or disability.

An Equal Opportunity Employer/Affirmative Action Organization Committed to a Diverse Work Force

Issued in furtherance of Cooperative Extension work, Acts of May 18 and June 30, 1914, The University of Georgia College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences and the U.S. Department of Agriculture cooperating.

Gale A. Buchanan, Dean and Director


Back to Georgia Extension Service home page.