A monthly report on pesticides and related environmental issues

Animated spider

Issue No. 140, October 1997

Open Forum:
In an attempt to promote free and open discussion of issues, The Agrichemical and Environmental News encourages letters and articles with differing views. To include an article, contact: Dr. Catherine Daniels, Food and Environmental Quality Laboratory, 2710 University Drive, Richland, WA 99352-1671, ph: 509-372-7495, fax: 509-372-7491,
E-mail: cdaniels@tricity.wsu.edu

Note: Based on instructions from WSU CAHE administration, information in this newsletter not originating from WSU contains a headline in the same color as the word "Note" at the beginning of this paragraph. This is to help ensure that readers can readily identify material obtained from a source outside WSU.

In This Issue

News and Notes 

The Coming Storm - FQPA

Available Reports

Allan Felsot

Officially Unofficial

Pesticide Container Collection

Food Quality Protection Act symposium
scheduled for December ESA meeting

PNN Update

No Apologies Needed For Washington Agriculture

State Issues

Court Finds For Manufacturer In Phosdrin Exposure Suit

Federal Issues

Spray Adjuvants - Book Review

Tolerance Information

Ten Most Influential People



Note: The animated spider graphic appearing at this site is used with permission. Copyright and use information may be obtained at http://www.inscot.demon.co.uk

Return to PICOL Home Page

News and Notes

Note: The AENews is accessible from the World Wide Web via http://picol.cahe.wsu.edu
Enter this address carefully, paying close attention to punctuation and spacing (no spaces between parts of the address). Some readers may experience difficulties accessing the site. These are believed to be related to the Internet and to on-line services, not the web site. If you are having a problem accessing the web page, please inform Dr. Catherine Daniels (ph: 509-372-7495, fax: 509-372-7491, E-mail: cdaniels@tricity.wsu.edu)


Unresponsive subscribers to be purged from AENews list

AENews subscribers were to complete and return by October 15 postcards stating their wish to continue receiving the newsletter. Those not responding will be purged from the mailing list. In the event of lost of misplaced postcards, please inform us. Agrichemical & Environmental News, WSU-TC, FEQL, 2710 University Drive, Richland, WA 99352-1671. Phone: 509-372-7495. Fax: 509-372-7491. E-mail: at 509-372-7495, cdaniels@tricity.wsu.edu

BASF to cancel vinclozolin uses

In what some consider a preview of similar upcoming action against other pesticides as a result of the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA), BASF is proposing the voluntary cancellation of several uses for its vinclozolin (Ronilan, Ornalin) products. This is to reduce aggregate risk posed by exposure to vinclozolin. Cancellation of these uses, including tomatoes, residential, turf, turf in parks, school grounds and recreational areas, plums, and grapes, will enable the EPA to make a "reasonable certainty of no harm" finding for succulent beans and the related tolerances for vinclozolin.

Under the FQPA, the "reasonable certainty of no harm" determination is required for each tolerance of a pesticide. BASF sought the determination to establish tolerances for vinclozolin on succulent beans, to allow addition of the crop to its vinclozolin label. The EPA determined that it could not make the "reasonable certainty of no harm" finding unless BASF eliminated several uses from the product label. The FQPA requires the EPA to consider dietary exposure, exposure from drinking water, and exposure from lawn, garden, and household use in determining aggregate risk. The EPA must now reserve a portion of the reference dose, formerly called the acceptable daily intake (ADI), for these nondietary exposures. The use deletions will take effect on October 14, 1997, unless a modification to this proposed order is published. Effective immediately, all vinclozolin products being manufactured must reflect these changes.

Retailers, distributors, and end users may sell, distribute, or use products with the previously approved labeling already in channels of trade until such supplies are exhausted.

...from Chemically Speaking, September 1997; page 6

WSCPR schedules November meeting

The next meeting of the Washington State Commission on Pesticide Registration is scheduled for Tuesday, November 25 at the Hal Holmes Community Center, 201 N. Ruby, Ellensburg, Wash. Call 509-962-7240 for directions.

DowElanco to change name

DowElanco will be Dow AgroSciences after January 1, 1998, company officials announced September 11, 1997, in a move reflecting the venture's new status as a wholly owned subsidiary of The Dow Chemical Company.

The name change follows a June announcement by The Dow Chemical Company that it would acquire Eli Lilly and Company's 40% interest in the joint venture. The two companies had joined their plant science businesses to form DowElanco in 1989.

DowElanco is a U.S.-based company with more than $2 billion in annual sales. The company is also the majority owner of the biotechnology venture Mycogen.

EPA reports on 1995 pesticide use

A new EPA report says that the amount of conventional chemical pesticides used in 1995 in the United States totaled approximately 1.22 billion pounds, or 20% of such chemicals used globally. Pesticide users spent approximately $11.3 billion in the United States in 1995; roughly $10.5 billion was spent on agricultural chemicals. This means that the average farm spent nearly $4,200 on chemical pesticides for that year.

The report suggests a continuation of recent trends in pesticide use: agricultural pesticide use is remaining fairly stable with year to year variations resulting from changes in acreage planted and weather conditions. Herbicides again accounted for the largest segment of the pesticide market, in both dollars and pounds of material. The most widely used pesticide in U.S. agriculture again was atrazine. Of the $11.3 billion in 1995 U.S. pesticide sales, herbicide sales were $6.27 billion (55% of total), insecticide sales were $3.55 billion (32% of sales total), and fungicides accounted for $798 million (7% of total sales).

Ramik Brown on the rocks

Loveland Industries, maker of the rodenticide diphacinone, will review state labels for Ramik Brown and withdraw labels where sales fail to offset label maintenance costs. The company will postpone additional 24(c) registrations. It has set a minimum level of sales that must occur before it pursues or retains a 24(c) label in a state. The minimum sales quantity to obtain or retain a label is 15,000 pounds of product. Loveland Industries will consider sales this fall and winter and decide after January 1, 1998, which labels to withdraw.

Three Ramik Brown products are registered in Washington. Ramik Brown is federally registered for use on ditch banks, fence rows, grain storage buildings, industrial sites, rights of way, and wastelands. Ramik Brown is registered under Section 24(c) for orchard mice in apple, apricot, cherry, nectarine, peach, pear, plum, prune, and walnut. It is also registered under Section 24(c) for voles in barley, oat, rye, and wheat.

Anyone wishing to retain Ramik Brown in Washington should contact Dan Bergman at 509-529-7606. For additional information, contact John Pickle at Loveland Industries at 800-642-4699.

Return to Table of Contents

Available Reports


Return to Table of Contents


Officially Unofficial

...Alan Schreiber

"Officially Unofficial" is a regular feature that may include information considered inappropriate by some.

Alan Schreiber

The new fungicide, mefenoxam, is no less toxic than its predecessor, metalaxyl (Ridomil), but less of it is needed to be effective. Bear in mind that one of EPA's major policy goals is a 50% reduction in use of all pesticides by the year 2005. What is interesting about this deal is that, once the new replacement product was registered, Novartis requested that EPA cancel the registrations of its older pesticide.

Metalaxyl is about to go off patent; by canceling all of the registrations, the company virtually prevents its competitors from registering cheaper generic metalaxyl products. So, in one move Novartis was able to register a new product and prevent its competitors from making or selling the older product. In an interesting twist, according to the deal with EPA, Novartis will be able to sell its considerable stockpile of metalaxyl.

For more information on this story, see the National Journal, October 11 issue.

Return to Table of Contents

Food Quality Protection Act symposium
scheduled for December ESA meeting

A symposium on FQPA is scheduled during the Nashville, Tenn. national meetings of the Entomological Society of America on December 16, 1997. Symposium topics and speakers will be as follows:

Return to Table of Contents

No apologies needed for Washington agriculture

...Heather Hansen

Heather Hansen is the executive director of Washington Friends of Farms and Forests, PO Box 7644 Olympia, WA 98507, Phone: 360-705-2040, Fax: 360-705-2018. Washington Friends of Farms and Forests is a non-profit organization dedicated to the responsible use of the science and technology necessary to produce abundant, economical food and fiber for today's world.

Public relations specialists tell me it doesn't play well with the public to say, "Farmers feed the world." Most Americans have never experienced hunger. Sure, they've seen it on TV, but that's not the same as feeling it in your gut. Even the poor in this country generally get enough to eat, so the concept of hunger just doesn't mean much to Americans.

Ever since I was a member of class XVII of the Washington Agriculture and Forestry Leadership Program, it has meant more to me. My class spent nearly three weeks in India. Every day, we saw children begging for food. Their twig-like arms tugged at our sleeves and their ribs showed through threadbare shirts. We saw stick-thin mothers, holding malnourished babies, begging for milk.

Overall, India isn't nearly as poor as some other countries. In fact, many of the poorest we saw were refugees from Bangladesh or Tibet. But with 900 million people living in India, nearly 200 million (That's nearly the population of the United States) are classified as hungry. The official definition of hungry is an individual who doesn't get enough calories on a regular basis to sustain normal body weight.

Seventy percent of the population lives on farms that average one or two acres in size. Far from the pastoral vision that may seem to describe, crops must depend on the monsoons for water and fend for themselves against insects, diseases, and rodents. Most farm work is done by hand.

India produces wheat, rice, potatoes, lentils, some fruits and vegetables, and spices. The country produces enough food to feed all of its people, but the lack of infrastructure takes its toll. There are few processing or storage facilities. Semi-trucks are non-existent. Buses, trucks, camel carts, and bicycles share the narrow dirt roads. Transportation is so difficult that it is cost prohibitive to move wheat from the north, where it is grown, to the cities in the south. Wheat and potatoes are stored in open piles on the ground, where they are fair game for rodents, insects, and mildew. Less than 1% of the fruits and vegetables produced in India is processed. Forty percent of the total harvest rots.

India is the biggest export market for lentils grown in Washington State. As much as 10% of Washington lentils, or about 15,000 metric tons of lentils valued at about $6 million, have been shipped to India in one year. During dry years, when the monsoons fail, India imports wheat, some of it from Washington. As trade barriers fall and the middle class expands, India is beginning to import apples.

So, although the public may not understand when we say farmers feed the world, I'm going to keep trying to explain it. I can still feel that gentle tug on my sleeve and see dark eyes begging for food. So, continue what you're doing and don't apologize for your high-tech, high-yield methods. Somewhere, a child eats dinner tonight thanks to the progressive farmers of Washington State. 

Return to Table of Contents

Court finds for manufacturer in suit over Phosdrin exposure

A federal district court on October 14 dismissed product defect claims brought against Amvac Chemical Corporation and Wilbur-Ellis Company. Three farmworkers filed the claims after they were allegedly exposed to the insecticide Phosdrin while working in Washington apple orchards in the summer of 1993.

Amvac is the manufacturer of Phosdrin, while Wilbur-Ellis was a Phosdrin distributor. The plaintiffs, in their suit against the two companies, alleged that they suffered a variety of health problems resulting from their Phosdrin exposure and sought to recover damages from both defendants under Washington's Product Liability Act.

The court held that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) precluded the plaintiffs from attacking the adequacy of the EPA-approved Phosdrin warning label. The court also agreed with Amvac's argument that Phosdrin, a highly potent organophosphate, was an "unavoidably unsafe" product as defined under tort law. Comment k under Section 402(A) of Restatement of Torts states that the manufacturer of an "unavoidably unsafe" product cannot be held liable for damages resulting from the product's use, so long as the product was properly prepared and bore adequate warnings.

The court's decision is believed to be the first in which comment k has been applied to product defect claims asserted against a pesticide; the doctrine has most frequently been applied in cases involving vaccines and drugs.


Return to Table of Contents

Spray adjuvants - book review

...Alan Schreiber

Hundreds of adjuvants are on the market. Some are indispensable, and some are on par with snake oil. I have developed a certain amount of expertise on pesticide use, but I am at a loss when it comes to spray additives.

A recently published 240-page reference book on spray adjuvants does something I have seen nowhere else; it summarizes primary information from the product labels for 150 adjuvants. John Reinhold of SSB Consulting has arranged summaries of adjuvants according to major classes: defoaming agents, compatibility agents, buffers, acidifiers and water conditioning agents, equipment cleaning agents, conventional non-ionic surfactants, hybrid surfactants, organosilicone surfactants, crop oil concentrates, non-ionic surfactant nitrogen blends, vegetable seed oils, drift retardants and depositional aids, stickers, and spreader stickers.

Perhaps most valuable is the book's summary of available research, which shows actual data, when available, and references for additional information in some cases. The book includes only products backed by regional technical representatives who can provide data supporting their products. Additionally, information is presented in a relatively non-technical manner that gives this book wide applicability from growers to university researchers.

Those wishing more information may contact Reinhold at SSB Consulting, PO Box 1495, Philomath, OR 97370. The book, titled "The Farmer's Reference Guide to Spray Adjuvants," is available for $15.

Return to Table of Contents


The 10 most influential people on Washington agchem issues

...Alan Schreiber

1 Allan Felsot - Felsot is the environmental toxicologist for the WSU Food and Environmental Quality Lab. Felsot's research, analyses, and opinions have been used as the basis for developing pesticide regulations, refuting regulations and, in general, have helped move discussion of pesticide regulations to a more factually based forum within Washington. His most noteworthy accomplishment in 1997 was the role he played in the potentially Alar-like controversy associated with use of heavy metals in fertilizers.

2 Ann George - George is the administrator of the Washington Hop Commission. George also runs the Washington Hop Growers Association and serves on the Washington State Commission on Pesticide Registration and the IR-4 Commodity Liaison Committee. She has developed the most effective commodity based pesticide registration effort in the country and has generally been quite influential on a number of federal and state regulatory issues. She has been a leading promoter of the PNW Minor Crop tour each year; this tour brings a host of federal and state regulatory officials to Washington and Oregon.

3 Wally Ewart - Ewart is vice president for scientific affairs for the Northwest Horticultural Council. Ewart is responsible for Pacific Northwest tree fruit industry pesticide issues at the federal level. He has been heavily involved in obtaining and maintaining many of the pesticide registrations on tree fruit in Washington. He is probably the most knowledgeable person in the state on the Food Quality Protection Act. Ewart is also one of the co-hosts of the PNW Minor Crop Tour.

4 Ted Maxwell - Maxwell has responsibility for pesticide registrations for the Washington State Department of Agriculture (WSDA). In 1997, WSDA submitted 27 Section 18 emergency exemptions, nine of which were crisis exemptions, and granted approximately 50 Section 24(c) registrations. This is a record number of Section 18 submissions and a near record number of Section 24(c) registrations. Bearing in mind that this is the year of FQPA, the number of regulatory actions at the state level is quite remarkable; only California has more registration actions. When normalized for the relative size of the two states' agricultural industries, Washington obtains more registrations than any other state per unit of agricultural production.

5 Heather Hansen - Hansen became the executive director of Washington Friends of Farms and Forests, a nonprofit advocacy group for Washington's agriculture and forestry industry, in 1997. In this capacity she has reinvigorated the organization following a sometimes difficult merger with the Washington Agribusiness Coalition. The organization has seen an increase in membership and development of new relationships with related organizations. It has also reprioritized the issues that it embraces. Of particular note is Ms. Hansen's monitoring of interactions between and within state and federal agencies involved with pesticide issues.

6 Pat Boss - Boss became the director of government relations for the Washington State Potato Commission in 1997. In this capacity Boss has become a leader in electronic dissemination of information related to pesticides, environmental issues, and other issues of interest to the potato industry and the rest of Washington agriculture. He has become integrally involved with the National Potato Council, EPA, and regulation of pesticides and fertilizers used on potatoes in Washington.

7 Jerry Baron - Baron, at Rutgers University in New Jersey, is national coordinator for the IR-4 Project. Baron has been influential in the pesticide registration process for minor crops, a process essential to Wshington crop protection. Although his influence on availability of pesticides in Washington is not readily apparent, he is an extremely important behind-the-scenes player. He has been involved in many of the IR-4 - based pesticide registrations in the state of Washington (There are more than 100).

8 Rick Melnicoe - Melnicoe is the Western Region coordinator for field research for the IR-4 Project and is the IR-4 liaison for the Washington State Commission on Pesticide Registration. In this capacity Melnicoe will decide whether a field research center will be replaced in Mt. Vernon, WA. He is also very influential in determining which IR-4 projects will be conducted in Washington each year.

9 Dan Coyne - Coyne is the Washington state governmental affairs lobbyist for the American Crop Protection Association, Western Crop Protection Association, FarWest Fertilizer and Agchem Association, and other private sector organizations involved in the sale and manufacturing of pesticides in the state. Because of his position and method of operation, Coyne wields a considerable amount of influence on the shaping of legislation and regulations associated with pesticides and fertilizers.

10 Robert Berger - Berger is the chair of the Washington State Commission on Pesticide Registration. He shapes policy, sets meeting agendas, schedules meetings, and oversees the commission. Under his leadership, the WSCPR has supported 80 projects worth in excess of $2.2 million. These projects have helped make Washington one of the most active sites of pesticide registration in the nation.

I did a similar write up on this topic for the March 1995 issue of the AENews. It is very interesting to see the change in names since that time. My rankings in descending order then were Louis Meissner (Wilbur-Ellis), Duncan Wurm (Washington Friends of Farms and Forests), Bill Brookreson (WSDA), Dan Ford (Evergreen Legal Services), Gary Chandler (chair of the House Committee on Agriculture and Ecology), Marilyn Rassmussen (chair of the Senate Agriculture Committee), Enid Layes (state government affairs specialist), Cha Smith (Washington Toxics Coalition), Rick Melnicoe (IR-4 Project), Anne George (Washington Hop Commission) and Allan Felsot (WSU).


Return to Table of Contents


The coming storm - FQPA

...Alan Schreiber

A member of an agrichemical company once called me "the most pessimistic person" she had talked to about the Food Quality Protection Act. My first newsletter article on the subject was in August of 1996, the month the act passed. Few, if any, of my predictions have proven to be exaggerations thus far, and I am confident still that the final results will lead to more difficulties than expected.

I will begin by providing two quotes from the recent IR-4 Annual Meeting and one from the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (CDPR). According to Jim Jones, EPA Office of Pesticide Program's Registration Division, "The revocation of tolerances (cancellation of food use registrations) will start in 18 to 24 months." Larry Elworth, Strategic Pest Management, Gettysburg, Pa. said, "There is a realistic estimate that 70% to 80% of organophosphate and carbamate registrations could be gone within five years." Tobi Jones, CDPR in Sacramento, said, "The impact of FQPA will be an order of magnitude worse than reregistration."

Who is going to be most impacted by FQP? Following are some guidelines that can be used to judge what chemical/crop/use sites are most at risk.

Synthesizing these guidelines can show what use patterns are at risk. In particular, OP, carbamate, and carcinogenic compounds that are used on crops contributing significantly to the diet are in danger. Compounds with many minor uses, use patterns that result in significant residues, and/or agricultural compounds that also have a lot of non-agricultural uses are also in trouble. If the risk cup for a compound is "full", then any use could potentially be in jeopardy. Also, if the cup is full, EPA strongly discourages any additional registrations, even if the new registration will not result in additional dietary exposure.

It is impossible to know what compounds are going to lose registrations, but many use patterns that are cornerstones to crop protection and IPM programs are not going to be here within five years.

What can a commodity group do?

Any commodity group that relies on an organophosphate, carbamate, or carcinogenic compound needs to be active now. EPA and chemical companies are making decisions on your compound now. The best FQPA strategy for a commodity is 50% defense and 50% offense.

The defense includes evaluation of pesticides at risk under FQPA and coordination of the data generation to support continued registration of critical compounds. The offense includes coordination of data generation for registration of pesticides to replace vulnerable or canceled compounds considered critical.

The Defense

1) Update existing data on the importance of the pesticides, including usage data; information on use patterns; and any economic data on value of the pesticides, such as a benefit assessment.

2) Perform a triage on chemicals potentially threatened by FQPA. Determine which are most at risk and determine a timetable for potential regulatory action for these chemicals.

3) Working with EPA, registrants and others, determine data gaps, risk issues of concerns, or other potential problems with continued registrations of existing compounds.

4) When possible, determine potential impacts of cancellation of threatened chemicals using economic analyses.

5) Work with EPA, registrants, university scientists, other commodity groups, and other interested parties to"save" registered pesticides. There is strength in numbers.

The Offense

1) Find new compounds of use to your industry. There are dozens of new pesticides in various stages of the registration pipeline. Talk to chemical companies and university scientists to determine what compounds could meet your unmet pest control needs.

2) Determine registration status and registrant plans for registration, if any, for compounds of interest to your commodity.

3) Develop a strategy for expediting registrations through negotiations and data generation with registrants, EPA, IR-4, legislators, etc.

4) As appropriate, work with stakeholders to coordinate/assist with generation of data in support of registration.

Your goal should be to have three pesticides with differing modes of action for each of your industry's pests of concern. If you have fewer than three alternatives for each of your pests, your industry is vulnerable. If you have three alternatives for each pest, but more than one of the three falls within the categories of compounds at risk under FQPA, then you may become vulnerable in the near future. Integration of non-chemical with chemical means of control should be a priority when planning future pest control research.

For more information on how to develop a response to the FQPA, contact Alan Schreiber at 509- 372-7324 or by E-mail at aschreib@tricity.wsu.edu.


Return to Table of Contents


The use and misuse of material safety data sheets

...Allan Felsot

Allan Felsot is the environmental toxicologist at the Washington State University Food and Environmental Quality Laboratory

Would you handle a chemical that can cause irreversible eye damage, skin sensitization, allergic reactions, and permanent digestive tract damage preceded by severe pain, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, or even shock? Even worse, the chemical reportedly has caused behavioral effects in newborn rats and may be associated with adverse effects on fertility.

Would you eat a chemical that can potentially cause gastrointestinal irritation to the point of nausea, vomiting, rigidity, and even result in convulsions or coma? Would it be appetizing to know that the same chemical has been reported as a teratogen, a cause of birth defects, and that it has the potential to terminate pregnancy?

Amazingly, we are exposed often to such chemicals. How can the EPA allow this? Perhaps we should petition our congressional representatives to ban these chemicals. OK, I will lead the charge to immediately ban apples and table salt! Surprised dear reader? But the material safety data sheets (MSDS) for acetic acid (an important, naturally occurring chemical in apples) and sodium chloride (table salt) proclaim these hazards for the two common chemicals we use daily without concern.

So do we discard the MSDS? Considering that the information sheets are required by law to be in every workplace using a chemical product, such action would be imprudent. But it would be wise to understand the purpose for the MSDS, its key components, and how it can be misused.

The MSDS is not intended to be used for environmental residues of chemicals that we may be exposed to in air, food, or water. Yet, I am dismayed by the tendency of well-intentioned citizens at agency sponsored workshops to decry the presence of a contaminant based on the health hazards information listed on the MSDS. Obviously, naturally occurring acetic acid and sodium chloride do not have the effects listed at the concentrations we are likely to encounter them. However, if a manufacturing process used glacial acetic acid, the nearly pure, concentrated form of the chemical, workers could face a grave hazard if not properly informed and protected.

In considering hazards that might exist if a chemical product is spilled, and the related exposure standards or safety thresholds, one must remember the often repeated toxicological concept of "Dose Makes the Poison." The real purpose of the MSDS is to protect workers who handle pure forms or very high concentrations of a chemical. The MSDS indicates how much of a chemical workers can be exposed to during an eight-hour day without harm. Such an exposure standard presumes that workers will wear protective clothing and that they will at least have been informed of the chemical's hazards.

So how do we use the MSDS? These sheets were initially written for health and safety professionals and trained workers in the chemical industry, but their scope has expanded to about every workplace in which a chemical is used. The objective of an MSDS is to concisely inform workers about the hazards of materials they handle, so they can protect themselves and respond to an emergency situation such as a spill or accidental release.

To that end, an MSDS is divided into 16 distinct sections where pertinent information can be quickly reviewed:


Sect. 1

Chemical Product & Company Information

Sect. 2

Composition/Information on Ingredients

Sect. 3

Hazards Identification

Sect. 4

First Aid Measures

Sect. 5

Fire Fighting Measures

Sect. 6

Accidental Release Measures

Sect. 7

Handling and Storage

Sect. 8

Exposure Controls/Personal Protection

Sect. 9

Physical and Chemical Properties

Sect. 10

Stability and Reactivity

Sect. 11

Toxicological Information

Sect. 12

Ecological Information

Sect. 13

Disposal considerations

Sect. 14

Transport Information

Sect. 15

Regulatory Information

Sect. 16

Other Information


According to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), any chemical is hazardous if it meets any one of the following criteria:

The Hazards Identification Section (3) describes a chemical's appearance and gives an overview of the most significant immediate concerns of emergency personnel. Health hazard information may be summarized by functional terms like toxic agent, irritant, teratogen, carcinogen, reproductive toxicant, organ specific toxicant (usually liver, kidney, nervous system), or agents that damage lungs, skin, eyes or mucous membranes. Section 3 includes hazards from all routes of bodily entry (eye, skin, inhalation, and ingestion). Health effects will be delineated according to whether they are acute (short-term) or chronic (long-term).

The safe limits for exposure of workers (TLV) is found in Section 8, which will also recommend the proper protective clothing and devices. Section 11 lists relevant toxicology data like the LD50 and known results of chronic toxicity tests. Any LD50 for oral and dermal exposure less than 50 or 200 mg/kg body weight, respectively, would be considered highly toxic, requiring the utmost caution and maximum in protective safety equipment. Sodium chloride has an orally administered LD50 of 3000 mg/kg in rats, making it slightly more toxic than glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup (LD50 = 5600 mg/kg). Nevertheless, the MSDS for sodium chloride recommends the following personal protective equipment: safety glasses with side shields; appropriate gloves; appropriate protective clothing; and a purifying dust or mist respirator.

Considering that most hazard information comes from experiments with rodents exposed to very high doses, most chemical substances will have some associated hazard if the concentration is high enough. Protective equipment recommendations reflect this basic toxicological fact.

The MSDS has become a fact of life in the work place. Its proper use can protect workers; it is of great importance in providing guidance for emergency response, such as administering first aid and cleaning up a spill, and protecting the environment through proper disposal of waste. Common household items like sodium chloride, when used at high concentrations in industry, will have an MSDS that describes some very frightening effects. But when it comes to everyday consumption of food, which naturally contains tiny amounts of sodium and chloride, the MSDS should be taken with "a grain of salt."


Return to Table of Contents


Plastic pesticide container collection dates, requirements

Container requirements

  1. Must be multiple rinsed, so that no residues remain.
  2. Must be clean and dry inside and out, with no apparent odor.
  3. Hard plastic lids and slip-on lids must be removed.
  4. Glue-on labels may remain.
  5. The majority of the foil seal must be removed from the spout. A small amount of foil remaining on the container rims is acceptable.
  6. Half pint, pint, quart, one and two-and-a half-gallon containers will be accepted whole.
  7. Five-gallon containers will be accepted whole, if the lids and bails are removed.
  8. Special arrangements must be made for 30-gallon and 55-gallon containers, by calling (509) 457-3850 prior to the collection.

**Containers that do not meet the above specifications cannot be accepted.**


Washington Pest Consultants Association
Container Collection Dates

Please put these dates on your calendars and help notify pesticide users of the program, so that containers do not become a waste issue. Taking time to clean and recycle these reusable products can save money and prove that the industry is responsible in its use of pesticides.



Sponsor (contact)



21 (8 a.m.-11 a.m.)

Western Farm Service, Waterville

Western Farm Service (John Massey)

(509) 838-5007

21 (1 p.m.-4 p.m.)

Western Farm Service, Coulee City

Western Farm Service (John Massey)

(509) 838-5007

22 (8 a.m.-11 a.m.)

Western Farm Service, Davenport

Western Farm Service (John Massey)

(509) 838-5007

22 (1 p.m.-4 p.m.)

Western Farm Service, Reardan

Western Farm Service (John Massey)

(509) 838-5007

23 (8 a.m.-noon)

Western Farm Service, Rosalia

Western Farm Service (John Massey)

(509) 838-5007

30 (9 a.m.-2 p.m.)

Snipes Mtn. Transfer Station

Cardboard Accepted

Yakima County (Mark Nedrow)

(509) 574-2457

31 (8:30 a.m.-2 p.m.)

Terrace Heights Landfill

Cardboard Accepted

Yakima County (Mark Nedrow)

(509) 574-2457


7 (8 a.m.-noon)

Windflow Fertilizer

Windflow Fertilizer (Mauri Worgum)

(509 932-4685

For more information about plastic pesticide container collection, contact:

Steve George, WPCA Recycling Coordinator,
31 High Valley View St. Yakima, WA 98901
(509) 457-3850 or point your
World Wide Web browser to

 Return to Table of Contents

PNN Update

The information contained here is not to be construed as a substitute for obtaining and reading product labels. Always read the label before applying a pesticide.

The Pesticide Notification Network is operated by the Washington State University Pesticide Information Center for the Washington State Commission on Pesticide Registration. The PNN system is designed to distribute pesticide registration and label change information to groups representing Washington's pesticide users. The information below (with the exception of the tolerance data) is a summary of what has been distributed on the PNN within the past month.

The Pesticide Information Center (PIC) operates the Pesticide Information Center On-Line (PICOL) web page. This provides a label database, status on registrations, and information on related issues. PICOL can be accessed on the Internet at http://picol.cahe.wsu.edu. The PIC office phone number is (509) 372-7492.

State Issues

New Registrations

Section 24(c) Cancellations

Section 24(c) Revisions

Return to Table of Contents

Federal Issues

Label Changes

    1. This product is now designated as Restricted Use Pesticide. Note that per WSDA this designation also applies to related SLNs WA830012 (apple), WA920045 (apple/pear), and WA930016 (cranberry).
    2. Chemigation is now included as an application method for cranberries, as long as the product is applied through sprinkler irrigation systems (also provided by SLN WA930016).
    3. Lima bean use is now limited to succulent beans only.
    4. Pea uses are now limited to succulent peas only.
    5. Use on potatoes is restricted to Irish potatoes only.
    6. The following uses have been deleted: apple, pear, filbert, walnut, celery, mushroom house, alfalfa, clover, corn, cowpea, rangeland, and pasture.
    7. The following uses have been added: Chinese broccoli, Chinese cabbage, Chinese mustard, ginseng, mustard, sweet potato, and hops.
    1. Chemigation instructions are now included on this label.
    2. The following usage sites have been added to the label: apple, non-bearing apples and pear, pear, grape, ornamental tree, conifer nursery, rose, Christmas tree, shrub, bulb (gladiola), evergreen tree, and trees grown for pulp.
    1. Addiition of kohlrabi and eggplant.
    2. Removal of mustard.
    3. Addition of chemigation instructions.
    1. Addition of blueberry. (This use was previously allowed under a federal supplemental label).
    2. Addition of seed dressing use for wheat and barley.
    3. Addition of table beet, beet greens, mustard greens, turnip greens, garlic, dill, ornamental, and quince.
    4. Addition of directions for use of this product on any crop included in the main label grown in either a greenhouse or shadehouse. Specific directions are provided for greenhouse-grown cucumber, eggplant, pepper, and tomato.
    1. Conifer - Austrian, red, and Scots pine as well as Douglas fir
    2. Conifer seedling treatment - longleaf, loblolly, and slash
    3. Wheat
    4. Seed treatment for: broccoli, Brussels sprouts, cabbage, Chinese cabbage, cauliflower, collard, kale, kohlrabi, mustard greens, canola, rutabaga, turnip, chickpea, spinach, wheat, barley, oat, and rye

Manufacturers' Use Deletions


Supplemental Labels

Return to Table of Contents


Tolerance Information

The following tolerances were granted by EPA since the last report (September 1997). These data do not mean that labels have been registered for these uses. These pesticides must not be used until labels are registered with EPA or a state department of agriculture.


A = adjuvant 

FA = feed additive 

I = insecticide 

D = desiccant 

FM = fumigant 

IN = inert 

D/H = desiccant, herbicide 

G = growth regulator 

N = nematicide 

F = fungicide 

H = herbicide 

P = pheromone 


V = viricide 

 VR= vertebrate repellent




Tolerance (ppm)

Commodity (raw)





soybean, forage


soybean, hay


soybean seed





pea (dry)


mustard seed


Glutamic acid



broccoli, cabbage, cauliflower, green pepper, lettuce, peanut, potato, snap bean, spinach, and tomato


Gamma Aminobutyric



snap bean, peanut, potato, tomato, lettuce, green pepper, spinach, broccoli, cauliflower, and cabbage





canola, seed

a =

Time limited tolerance expires November 15, 1998

b =

Time limited tolerance expires August 27, 1998

c =

Time limited tolerance expires September 30, 1998



Return to Table of Contents

Contributors to the Agrichemical and Environmental News:

Alan Schreiber, Allan Felsot, Catherine Daniels, Mark Antone, Eric Bechtel, Jane Thomas

Contributions, comments and subscription inquiries may be directed to: Dr. Catherine Daniels, Food and Environmental Quality Laboratory, Washington State University, 2710 University Drive, Richland, WA 99352-1671, ph: 509-372-7495, fax: 509-372-7491, E-mail: cdaniels@tricity.wsu.edu


This page has been accessed  times since November 25, 1997.