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: Alan Schreiber, Food and Environmental Quality Laboratory, 100 Sprout Road, Richland, WA 99352-1643, ph: 509-372-7324, fax: 509-372-7460,
E-mail: ebechtel@beta.tricity.wsu.edu or aschreib@beta.tricity.wsu.edu

In This Issue

Return to WAPP Home Page

News and Notes

Note: The AENews is now accessible from the World Wide Web via the Washington State Pesticide Page. The address for the page is: http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~ramsay

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 Eric Bechtel (ph: 509-372-7378, fax: 509-372-7460, E-mail: ebechtel@beta.tricity.wsu.edu

Potato acreage at record high

Washington's potato planted acreage is estimated at a record 163,000 acres for the 1996 crop, 16,000 acres more than last year, according to the Washington Agricultural Statistics Service (WASS). The previous record acreage for Washington was 152,000 acres in 1994.

Idaho has an estimated 410,000 acres planted to potatoes this year, 10,000 more than the 400,000 acres planted for the 1995 crop. Oregon's planted acreage for 1996 is estimated at 59,500 acres, an increase of 7,500 acres from a year ago. With 632,500 acres planted to potatoes for 1996, the Pacific Northwest accounted for 50.2% of the nation's 1,261,200 acres planted to fall potatoes.

U.S. fall potato acreage was 3% more than last year's 1,223,100. Total harvested acres of U.S. fall potatoes for 1994, 1995 and 1996 were, respectively, 1,208,300 acres, 1,204,500 acres and 1,244,600 acres.

Food Quality Act signed into law

Congress passed and President Clinton signed into law legislation that fundamentally changes pesticide regulation. While the legislation has good and not so good components, the real story is what we do not know about it. See The Food Quality Protection Act and The Food Quality Protection Act: A Trojan Iceberg for more information.

Predictions for 1996 production

The Washington Agricultural Statistics Service recently released its initial indications for Washington agriculture. The Washington apple crop is predicted to be 5.6 billion pounds, the second largest crop ever. Should this prediction prove true, the state apple crop will represent 52% of all apples produced in the U.S. Bartlett pear production, at 95,000 tons, will be the smallest crop since 1969. Peach production is estimated at 10 million pounds, down 77% from 1995. Cold overwintering weather is responsible for the decrease in production. Grape production is forecast at 156,000 tons, a decrease of 52% from last year. Freeze and frost damage reduced the crop to its lowest levels since 1986. Dry edible beans were planted to 36,000 acres.

There were 36,000 farms in 1996, unchanged since 1994. The average size per farm decreased by three acres to 436 acres. Total farm acres decreased to 15.7 million acres.

Pesticide fraud indictment

A Nevada man faces the possibility of fines and jail time for allegedly spraying bodies of water with a chemical not intended for aquatic application and misrepresenting the actions of his Indiana-based company.

Following investigation by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Criminal Investigation Division and the FBI, Carl E. Klene of Las Vegas, Nev., owner of Aquatics Unlimited in New Palestine, Ind., was indicted July 30 on three counts of mail fraud and one count of misuse of a pesticide by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana.

Aquatics Unlimited chemically treated ponds, lakes and other bodies of water to control and eliminate unwanted vegetation and algae growth. According to the charges, Klene, to cut expenses and increase profits, allegedly used a brand of pesticide called "Karmex". This pesticide contains diuron, a chemical that is not approved for application to water.

The charges further allege that Klene entered into three-year contracts with his customers and claimed that only pesticides approved for aquatic use by EPA would be applied. Two applications per year were allegedly made during the contract period. By using Karmex, however, all vegetation, not just undesired vegetation, was killed during the first application. Subsequent applications made by Klene's company under the contract allegedly contained only water, even though customers believed they were paying for the application of an approved pesticide.

If convicted of mail fraud, Klene faces a term of up to five years of imprisonment on each count and/or a fine of up to $250,000 on each count. In addition, if convicted of illegal use of a pesticide, Klene faces a term of imprisonment of up to a year and/or a fine of up to $100,000.

Commission wants registration projects

The Washington State Commission on Pesticide Registration is accepting proposals to fund research and other activities toward obtaining or maintaining pesticide registrations for critical pest control needs in Washington. For more information, contact the commission web site at http://picol.cahe.wsu.edu/, E-mail to aschreib@beta.tricity.wsu.edu or contact Catherine Daniels at 509-372-7492. The WSCPR has approximately $600,000 in funding to support pesticide registration activities in 1997.

Note

Store Pesticides Safely, a publication listed in the June, 1996, Agrichemical and Environmental News Available Reports as available from USDA Extension Service and EPA, is available free by request from Robert G. Bellinger, Ph.D. at:

Clemson University
Department of Entomology
105 Long Hall
Box 340365
Clemson, SC
Bob_Bellinger@quickmail.clemson.edu

Return to Table of Contents

EPA proposes ground water
state management plans

The Environmental Protection Agency proposed in the June 26, 1996, Federal Register the establishment of State Management Plans (SMPs) to prevent pesticide contamination of the nation's ground water resources. The proposed regulation identifies five currently registered pesticides as needing SMPs because of their potential to contaminate ground water. The labels of these five pesticides (atrazine, simazine, cyanazine, alachlor and metolachlor) would be changed to permit their use only in accordance with the terms of an EPA-approved SMP. For a state or Indian reservation without an EPA-approved SMP for a pesticide, sale and use of the pesticide would be illegal.

Alachlor, atrazine, cyanazine, metolachlor and simazine are among the most frequently detected pesticides in ground water nationwide; there have been numerous detections above levels of concern established under EPA's drinking water standards. Although the greatest use of these herbicides is for weed control in corn, certain ones are used in other crops such as potatoes, pod crops, asparagus, ornamentals, fruit and berry crops, and forestry. Based on animal studies, each of the chemicals has been classified as a potential human carcinogen.

An SMP would be developed by a state or tribe to protect ground water from contamination by a certain pesticide. A plan would include an assessment of the risks posed to the state's ground water by a pesticide. Also included would be a description of specific actions the state will take to prevent contamination of ground water resources and its response to contamination if it does occur. EPA proposes that states have 24 months after the rule is final to develop and submit SMPs, six months for EPA to approve them, and a three month start-up period.

Currently in EPA Region 10, Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, Washington, and the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes are developing "generic" SMPs. Generic plans contain the basic SMP approach, which can later be supplemented with actions for specific pesticides.

Although the proposed rule focuses on five pesticides, it would also set the basic SMP requirements for other pesticides that EPA may identify in the future. The Federal Register notice lists several other pesticides that were considered for SMPs but not chosen at this time. In 1988, EPA also proposed (but has not yet finalized a decision) that SMPs be required for the insecticide aldicarb, whose registered uses include potatoes, sugar beets and dry beans.

EPA is soliciting written public comment on the proposed rule. The comment period closes on October 24, 1996. Those wishing a copy of the Federal Register notice and information on how to comment on SMPs, please contact Garrett Wright at USEPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue (Mail Stop: ECO-084), Seattle, WA 98101, phone: 206-553-1495 or E-mail: wright.garrett@epa.gov

Return to Table of Contents

The Food Quality Protection Act:
A Trojan iceberg

...Alan Schreiber

On July 23, 1996, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 by a unanimous vote of 417 to 0. On July 24, 1996, the act also passed the Senate unanimously without amendment. By July 26, the act was presented to the president, who signed it into law at a White House ceremony on August 3, 1996.

With a stroke of a pen, President Clinton signed into law the most sweeping change to the regulation of pesticides since the 1988 changes to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act that resulted in the reregistration of pesticides. It is possible that the 1996 changes could be even more far reaching than those of 1988.

The most unsettling aspect of the new legislation is what we do not know about it. I am calling the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 a Trojan iceberg. The act resembles a Trojan horse. It has, at first glance, several desirable characteristics, such as the overturning of the Delaney Clause. However, I believe it could ultimately have a much greater negative impact on the cost and production of food. The act can also be referred to as an iceberg. Just as 90% of an iceberg cannot be seen, so will much of the impact of the act remain unknown until EPA, USDA and FDA convert the legislation into regulation. We will not know the full impact of the legislation for several years.

Something that I have found particularly striking about this act is that I have found no one who can tell me the effects of this legislation. NO ONE KNOWS WHAT THIS LEGISLATION MEANS.

Briefly, I will provide some of my thoughts regarding some of the major points of the act:

• The legislation sets a uniform standard in setting all tolerances in food -- "a reasonable certainty of no harm". Historically, this means 1 in 1 million additional risk of cancer over a lifetime. While it is unclear what this means, one informed estimate is that this will require 80% of all tolerances to be readjusted downward, perhaps by one to three orders of magnitude for some pesticides. This will be tantamount to cancellation for many pesticides.
  
• EPA must treat as one pesticide all pesticides with the same toxic endpoint, such as all cholinesterase inhibiting pesticides. This means that the additive toxicological impact of all organophosphate insecticides must be considered.
  
• The legislation requires the development and implementation of a comprehensive screening program for estrogenic and other endocrine effects within three years and a report to Congress within four years. By its own admission, it will be difficult for EPA to meet this requirement fully.
  
• EPA is required to publish pamphlets containing consumer friendly information on the risks and benefits of pesticides, recommendations for reducing exposure to pesticide residues and maintaining a healthy diet.
  
• Virtually all of the recommendations of the 1993 National Academy of Sciences report on pesticides in the diets of infants and children are included. This includes a ten-fold increase (beyond the current 100-fold safety margin) in the safety margin for children.
  
• The legislation could have strong impacts on U.S. agricultural exports and imports. The legislation will require EPA to lower tolerances below the current Codex and World Health Organizations levels. This could prevent the importation of some fruits and vegetables and is bound to result in charges that the U.S. is creating trade barriers and in retaliation toward our exports.
  
• Organophosphate and carbamate insecticides will be the most severely impacted groups of pesticides.
  
• The Delaney Clause is overturned. The impact of this will be immediate. Several cancellations will be prevented. Already, IR-4 program will be able to proceed with several projects that had been on hold due to Delaney.
  
• Pesticide usage data can be used to estimate more accurately chronic risk from pesticides. This will make collection of pesticide usage data very important. The National Agricultural Pesticide Impact Assessment Program is establishing a national program to collect pesticide usage data.
  
• A schedule is created for review and adjustment of tolerances. The schedule calls for 33% of tolerances to be reviewed within three years, 66% to be reviewed within six years and all to be reviewed within 10 years. EPA is instructed to give priority to tolerances that appear to pose the greatest risk to public health. This means that most of the major food use pesticides and fungicides will be examined first.
  
• A very different definition of a minor use crop is created. This definition is the broadest definition yet in use. Virtually any crop can qualify as having a minor use pattern. If a pesticide use pattern is safer than existing alternatives or could be important in resistance management, it is a minor use. Minor use registration applications will be given expedited reviews (12 months).
  
• The act creates a minor use program at EPA. Previously, EPA had a single (overworked but committed) individual addressing minor use issues.
  
• The Secretary of Agriculture is directed to establish a minor use program and a data development grant program, to be funded by Minor Use Pesticide Data Revolving Fund. It remains to be seen what impact this will have.
  
• An additional $12 million is provided for increased FDA monitoring of pesticide residues in imported and domestic food.
  
• A significant change has been made in the way Section 18 exemption requests are handled. EPA will probably require additional data, and the agency will have a much more extensive (more time consuming) review process.
  
• Pesticide regulatory authority will be provided to Indian tribes, if at least 50% of the reservation lands are owned by the tribe or tribal members.

For more information on the Food Quality Protection Act, see The Food Quality Protection Act.

Return to Table of Contents

International cooperation
said crucial to world hop industry

...Norm Batt

Increasing international scrutiny of agricultural chemicals and ever greater research costs make it more crucial than ever before for hop growers worldwide to cooperate on plant protection research programs, the U.S. representative to the International Hop Growers Congress (IHGC) told attendees at the August, 1996, meeting of the IHGC in Munich.

Norm Batt, an Idaho hop grower, is currently the U.S. representative to most IHGC meetings. He is a past president and current secretary of Hop Growers of America and is a past chairman of the U.S. Hop Industry Plant Protection Committee (USHIPPC).

On behalf of USHIPPC, Batt spoke about the U.S. regulatory process, the status of important chemicals and issues, and the benefits of countries sharing the burden of researching and registering new chemical alternatives.

U.S. agriculture, Batt explained, operates under a regulatory system, similar to one being instituted in Germany, in which a chemical intended for use on a particular crop must be approved specifically, under specific conditions and in certain dosages, for that crop. The industry or manufacturer must specifically request a registration and tolerance for a chemical in combination with the commodity on which it is to be applied and conduct research to develop residue data for that chemical/commodity combination.

For crops with extensive production acreage, growers generally experience little difficulty in convincing chemical manufacturers to research and develop new products. With hops and other small acreage crops, however, the costs of researching and steering a new product through the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) registration process often exceed what a manufacturer could expect in profits.

Help in obtaining pesticide registrations for U.S. growers of hops and other minor crops comes from the national IR-4 Program and from organizations of commodity growers. IR-4, a cooperative effort of the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the state university system, provides a network of scientists and laboratories that conducts residue studies on minor crops, ensures that research is done correctly, and prepares data for a registration request to EPA. The U.S. Hop Industry Plant Protection Committee is an organization of hop growers that helps the hop industry organize and set priorities. The committee helps determine which pesticide products address a specific need, obtains manufacturer permission, and then guides the products through the necessary research and regulatory requirements.

Committee priorities have changed during the past year. Establishment of German and U.S. residue standards for abamectin, bifenthrin and imidacloprid has alleviated much pressure on U.S. hop growers. Prior to the U.S. and German determination of maximum residue levels for the three chemicals, U.S. hop growers had few effective products allowed for use in both countries and difficulties in both growing and exporting their crop. The primary focus of the U.S. Hop Industry Plant Protection Committee was to secure emergency exemptions and temporary tolerances to allow a year by year program.

Now, with several effective products available to the industry, committee priorities are more long term and focus on the registration of new alternatives. Should resistance develop to existing products or pesticide regulations change, growers wish to avoid a situation similar to that of a few years ago, when the industry was pursuing European Union acceptance of diazinon. Registrations for bifenthrin and imidacloprid have reduced the urgency of securing European Union acceptance of diazinon, although the issue of E.U. acceptance of a Codex standard is of greater importance than diazinon itself.

The U.S. hop industry seeks not only to maintain the chemicals it has now but to develop alternatives to enhance resistance management and control additional pests and diseases. A product of particular interest to the U.S. and German hop industries is Hexythiazox for spider mite control. EPA is currently considering a German request for an import tolerance, and U.S. growers are requesting a registration so that the chemical might be used on U.S. hops in 1997.

While the chemicals available for use from year to year are becoming less than certain, there are a few things that can be known for sure. Agricultural chemicals will continue to come under increasing scrutiny in all countries, and the cost of research is likely only to increase. For these reasons, it is more crucial now than ever before for hop growers in the U.S., the U.K., Germany and other countries to work together on similar and compatible plant protection research programs. This will accomplish three important objectives. First, working on the same chemicals in several countries and sharing the data should reduce unnecessary duplication and reduce overall costs. Second, having a product registered at the same time in many hop growing countries increases the potential market for a manufacturer and makes the necessary research more cost effective. Third, with the industry coordinating its research priorities, it will be easier for governments to harmonize their regulatory efforts. International cooperation with research and registration of new chemical alternatives makes good business sense.

A few years ago, the U.S. Hop Industry Plant Protection Committee had no choice but to address the immediate needs of growers for a particular growing season. Although the pressure has been relieved, through the registration of chemical alternatives, growers should not rest. They should look for ways to harmonize specific residue standards to facilitate international trade and work on the harmonization of regulations themselves, so that a single substance may be registered simultaneously in both the E.U. and the U.S. At the very least, the U.S. and the E.U. should accept each other's data and not require chemical companies and the hop industry to duplicate research on both continents.

Such an effort has already begun. The U.S., U.K, and German hop industries are working to improve communications and develop as common a research agenda as is practical, considering the different needs of the three countries. The three nations are also sharing data, to avoid duplicative research with limited grower funds. Another part of the joint effort has been to increase the regulatory harmonization between the U.S. and the E.U., so that research and data packages may be exchanged between governments.

International trade is becoming increasingly important for the hop business. Development of economies like Mexico, Brazil and China will mean even more such trade in the future. This growing international sector will provide hop growers with the opportunity and necessity to cooperate on certain issues that transcend national regulation. The establishment of chemical residue standards, not only in domestic markets but also in customers' markets and in international organizations such as the Codex, will require hop growers worldwide to just as the U.S. Hop Industry Plant Protection Committee has done: organize as an industry, set priorities, and move forward in a cooperative, organized manner.

Return to Table of Contents

State agencies propose
coordination on pesticide issues

The following information was taken from a recently signed memorandum of agreement between the three state agencies.

Washington State University Cooperative Extension, the Washington State Department of Ecology, and the Washington State Department of Agriculture plan a Pesticides Partnering Agreement that promises to achieve greater environmental protection and client services at a lower cost to agencies, pesticide users and the public.

Coordinated public outreach and the ability to address messages and mandates collectively instead of separately should increase public involvement, allow the three agencies to make more informed environmental pesticide management decisions and provide their mutual clients with a complete understanding of what is expected of them.

Guiding principles for the agreement will be mutual trust and respect of partners, professionalism, public involvement, responsiveness, efficiency, and resolution of issues at the lowest level possible.

Goals and activities for the partnership are as follows:

Goals

• Reduce unnecessary use, misapplication, discharge, and disposal of pesticides through education, technical assistance and coordinated enforcement.
• Support the increased use of integrated pest management (IPM) strategies. IPM means using all available tools to prevent pest problems from arising and to manage them when they do occur, ensuring that pesticides are used only when necessary and appropriate.
• Support the increased use of effective and lower risk alternatives, where possible.
• Increase involvement by people impacted by the actions of the three agencies.
• Coordinate cross-agency compliance and outreach efforts to improve customer services and reduce service costs.
• Achieve compliance through the least burdensome methods, emphasizing voluntary compliance as the preferred outcome. Voluntary compliance allows the agencies to shift efforts from enforcement and site cleanup toward technical assistance and outreach.
• Freely share information and data.
• Improve the ability of the agencies to communicate among themselves and the public, with better consistency and coordination.
• Develop and maintain a strong working relationship among the agencies and the public.

Activities

• Develop and conduct cross-agency technical exchange for staff and key managers. This will increase our awareness of jurisdictional roles and philosophy on water quality, site cleanup and waste management. It will also help identify common interests and capabilities, so that the agencies can better share resources and coordinate regulatory and technical assistance activities. This will build the agencies' client-service capacity to consistently deliver a more coordinated message.
• Complete an English/Spanish brochure on container management. This will integrate the agencies' concerns and advice on management of empty containers. The brochure will describe ways to reduce environmental risk from improper dumping or landfilling and raise awareness of recycling opportunities.
• Develop procedures to help agencies coordinate their responses to pesticide waste and spills and the investigation and cleanup of contaminated sites.
• Work with urban pesticide applicators to develop and conduct pollution prevention outreach.
• Convene a cross-agency forum for the discussion of policy issues. This group will develop policy and assess the need for other activities.

Washington State University
Cooperative Extension
Harry Burcalow,
Interim Director of Extension

Washington State
Department of Ecology
Mary Riveland,
Director
Washington State

Department of Agriculture
Jim Jesernig,
Director

Return to Table of Contents

DOH Review of Pesticide Incidents Occurring in the Residential Environment From January 1, 1991, through December 31, 1994, the Department of Health (DOH) received initial reports of 679 pesticide-related incidents occurring in the residential environment. These involved the following types of pesticide uses:
Homeowner Use	545
Commercial Home (e.g., PCO application, tree spray, etc.)	103
Non-Commercial Home (e.g., janitor, apartment manager)	31
The following table shows geographic distribution of residential incidents reported from 1991-1994 by counties with more than 20 incidents.
County	Incidents
King	178
Pierce	93
Snohomish	55
Spokane	49
Yakima	42
Kitsap	35
Skagit	25
Thurston	24
Age of individual involved in definite, probable or possible incidents was evaluated. Twelve children under 6 years of age were involved, then there is a fairly even distribution of cases by age from 6-49. After age 50, the numbers by age decrease. Following investigation, the 679 incidents involving 828 individuals were classified as definite-25, probable-128, possible-130, unlikely-89, unrelated-45, asymptomatic-376, unrelated-2 and unknown-33. From January 1, 1993, through December 31, 1994, 50 incidents occurring in the residential environment (involving 73 individuals) were determined to be definitely or probably related to pesticides. These were evaluated for factors contributing to exposure.
Classification	1993	1994
Definite	6 (7 individuals)	9 (9 individuals)
Probable	17 (34 individuals)	20 (23 individuals)
Total	22 (41 individuals)	28 (32 individuals)

Available Reports

• Pesticides report 36. Glossary of terms relating to pesticides (IUPAC Recommendations 1996). IUPAC, Pure and Applied Chem., Vol. 68, No. 5, pp. 1167-1193, 1996.
• Food Quality Protection Act of 1996. July 1996.
• EPA release on Food Quality Protection Act of 1996. August 1996.

Return to Table of Contents

Primary pesticides applied to apples

(Data for 1995)
Chemical	Area Applied Percent	Applications Number	Total Applied 1,000 lbs
Herbicides:
2,4-D	14	1.4	52.6
Diuron	13	1.1	2.1
Glyphosate	36	1.5	173.9
Paraquat	24	1.3	61.4
Simazine	23	1.1	127.8
Insecticides:
Azinphos-methyl	86	3.3	774.1
Carbaryl	46	1.4	290.9
Chlorpyrifos	74	1.8	592.9
Methyl parathion	24	2.2	136.5
Petroleum distillate	70	1.2	8,099.1
Propargite	25	1.7	184.8
Fungicides:
Captan	42	4.5	1,049.2
Fenarimol	36	2.7	19.0
Mancozeb	33	3.1	733.2
Myclobutanil	53	2.3	46.7
Sulfur	27	2.3	1,165.2
Ziram	27	2.6	641.5
Other Chemicals:
Cytokinins	21	1.1	2.2
Ethephon	10	1.1	22.0
Gibberellic acid	22	1.2	2.3
NAA	40	1.4	7.1
Data to create this table were taken from Agricultural Chemical Usage, 1995 Fruits Summary. USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service and Economic Research Service. July 1996. pp. 38, 39. The table shows a total of 345,200 bearing acres in 1995 for the nine major states of California, Georgia, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Washington.

Return to Table of Contents

Primary pesticides
applied to apples in Washington

(Data for 1995)
Chemical	Area Applied Percent	Applications Number	Total Applied 1,000 lbs
Herbicides:
2,4-D	11	1.9	24.0
Glyphosate	44	1.8	125.3
Paraquat	17	1.5	28.2
Simazine	23	1.2	61.5
Insecticides:
Azinphos-methyl	94	3.3	474.4
Bt (Bacillus thur.)1	21	2.2
Carbaryl	60	1.4	184.7
Chlorpyrifos	80	1.3	268.5
Malathion	22	1.5	53.8
Methoxychlor	21	1.5	49.1
Methyl parathion	19	1.2	54.2
Oxamyl	15	1.1	9.7
Petroleum distillate	77	1.0	4,098.1
Fungicides:
Captan	10	1.2	39.3
Fenarimol	26	1.7	5.1
Mancozeb	13	1.3	89.1
Myclobutanil	61	1.7	17.9
Sulfur	27	1.5	427.1
Ziram	34	1.5	325.4
Other Chemicals:
Cytokinins	42	1.1	2.0
Ethephon	20	1.1	20.2
Gibberellic acid	42	1.1	2.0
NAA	51	1.5	4.9
NAD	16	1.0	1.9
Data to create this table were taken from Agricultural Chemical Usage, 1995 Fruits Summary. USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service and Economic Research Service. July 1996. p. 48. Bearing acres in 1995 for Washington totalled 153,000 acres. 1The total applied is not available, because amounts of active ingredient are not comparable between products.

Return to Table of Contents

Sprouted seeds and foodborne illnesses:

Implications for seed growers

...Val Hillers and Richard Dougherty

After months of searching for the food responsible for a massive outbreak of foodborne illness in Japan, the Japanese Ministry of Health announced this month that sprouted radish seeds have been implicated as the food responsible for the E. coli O157:H7 infections. More than 9,000 people have been infected and nine people have died.

This outbreak is not the first associated with sprouted seeds. In 1995 alfalfa sprouts were implicated in an outbreak of salmonellosis in Oregon, British Columbia, Vermont and Denmark. In 1994 contamination of alfalfa sprouts was blamed on a large outbreak that involved people in 27 states and Finland. These large outbreaks occurring around the world have focused attention on how sprouts get contaminated and on ways to control the risks of illness.

If seed are contaminated with small levels of pathogenic bacteria such as Salmonella or E. Coli O157:H7, the sprouted vegetable seeds can contain very high levels of the bacteria, sufficient to produce illness. This is because bacteria reproduce extremely rapidly when they have optimum levels of moisture and warmth, such as the conditions necessary for germination and sprouting. For example, research conducted at the University of Georgia found that Salmonella levels increased from 1,000 cells per gram in the seed to 10 million cells per gram following germination and sprouting (which involves keeping the seeds warm and moist for 5-7 days).

Sprouts are rarely cooked or even washed prior to eating, so any bacteria that grow during the sprouting process are consumed with the sprout. Hideaki Nishimura, a Japanese student at the Food and Environmental Quality Laboratory, provided the following description of how radish sprouts are used in Japan:

People in Japan, he said, use radish sprouts (called Kaiware) for salad and serve them with meat and fish. The taste is a little hot and bitter, so small amounts are used with many kinds of foods. It may, for example, be served as a side dish with steak and fish and to top cold Chinese noodles or the Japanese style of pasta. Kaiware is used sometimes also with raw fish dishes (sashimi, sushi). The hotness complements oily fish such as tuna and bonito. Nishimura also said that, "If the source of the E. coli outbreak is Kaiware, the consumption of Kaiware will be decreased in Japan, because we seldom cook Kaiware."

Within hours of the announcement by the Japanese Ministry of Health, major Japanese supermarkets pulled radish sprouts off their shelves. Sprout growers quickly lashed back at the government for pointing the finger at their crop. The Japan Kaiware Association, representing 50 growers nationwide, filed a protest at the Ministry of Health, claiming the evidence was too circumstantial and asking that the Agriculture Ministry declare radish sprouts to be safe.

Since we have watched many other food safety stories unfold, there is a familiar ring to this scenario, even if it is happening in Japan. Government regulators and food safety educators have dual tasks: protection of the lives of people who eat the food and protection of the livelihood of those who produce the food. Our experience from many other food safety "crises" is that the best way for an industry to protect the livelihood of its producers is to quickly take positive steps that send a message that the health of the people who eat the food is at least as important as the livelihood of the food's producers. Denial is almost always counterproductive, even if the targeted food is later absolved of blame. It is also counterproductive to decide, "It's someone else's problem." For instance, the source of the contaminated radish seeds is not known. However, all who produce radish seeds will likely feel the impact; thus, the entire radish seed industry worldwide should respond.

If growers of seed used for human consumption take a proactive stance to assure the safety of their seeds, they will likely be able to preserve the sprouted seed market for their crops. We suggest a two-pronged approach, which involves a careful analysis of how to control contamination of the seeds as well as funding research on effective ways to eliminate any pathogenic bacteria on the seeds.

In the food industry, Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP) is the term used for examining each step in the chain of the production of a food, pinpointing the significant safety hazards, and determining the ways to control the hazards. A national committee has used the HACCP approach to determine the ways that pathogens get on fresh produce. An examination of the committee's findings may be helpful in thinking about the potential hazards on seeds for sprouting.

Preharvest, the potential hazards were listed as manure used for fertilizer and bodily waste from wild or domestic animals or humans, contaminated irrigation water, and human handling. Postharvest, the potential hazards include human handling, ice and wash water, wild and domestic animals, transport trucks, and temperature abuse.

Conducting a similar HACCP analysis of each step in the production, storage and transportation of seeds for sprouting is the best way to identify where seeds might become contaminated with pathogenic bacteria. E. coli O157:H7 and Salmonella are most frequently associated with animals and birds. Thus, it is of critical importance to identify places where the seeds may have contact with manure and where rodents and wild birds may have access to the seeds. Could the harvesting equipment or transport trucks be a potential source of contamination? How can these hazards be controlled for seeds which are destined for sprouting? Is there a separate harvesting and transport system for seeds destined for sprouting rather than for planting? If not,should such a separate system be put into place?

In summary, the key question for all people involved in the growing and marketing of seeds and sprouts for human consumption is how to avoid contamination of the seeds and/or how the seeds can be sanitized to kill pathogenic bacteria (and still retain the sprouting ability). We suggest a proactive industry response, using a HACCP-based approach as well as funding research on ways to assure safety of sprouted seeds.

Val Hillers and Richard Dougherty are Extension food specialists at Washington State University.

Return to Table of Contents

The Food Quality Protection Act

This is a summary of selected provisions in the recently passed Food Quality Protection Act. Not all provisions of the act are discussed here.

Title I: Suspension - Applicators
Subtitle A: Suspension
This provision amends the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) to allow an emergency order suspending a pesticide's registration before issuing a notice of intent to cancel a registration, if a notice is issued within 90 days of the suspension order. Should the cancellation notice not be issued within this time period, the emergency order expires.

Section 103 requires the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to reassess tolerances during reregistration to ensure that they meet the new safety standard established by the act. Section 104 establishes a Science Review Board to assist EPA's Scientific Advisory Panel. The Panel comments on EPA's proposals to cancel pesticide registrations and on regulations issued under FIFRA.

Eliminated by the act, in Section 106, is the requirement of a five-year mandatory cancellation of a pesticide's registration. This section also revises the provision permitting continued sale and use of existing stocks of suspended or canceled pesticides and establishes a requirement of periodic review of pesticide registration, with a goal of review every 15 years.

Subtitle B: Training for Maintenance Applicators and Service Technicians
This provision allows the states to establish minimum requirements for training maintenance applicators and service technicians and defines those terms.

Title II: Minor Use Crops Protection
Subtitle A: Minor Use Crop Protection
This provision amends FIFRA to define "minor use" as the use of a pesticide when: (1) the total U.S. acreage for the crop is less than 300,000 acres; or (2) EPA determines that the use of the pesticide does not provide sufficient economic incentive to support the initial or continuing registration of a pesticide, and either there are insufficient alternatives available for the pesticide's use, the alternatives to the pesticide pose greater environmental or health risks, the pesticide plays a significant part in managing pest resistance, or it will be used in an integrated pest management (IPM) program.

The provision extends the period of exclusive data use to support original registration applications for pesticides for an additional year for each three minor uses registered after this Act's enactment and within seven years of commencement of the exclusive use period, up to a total of three additional years for all minor uses registered by EPA.

The provision requires EPA, upon the request of a registrant, to extend the deadline for the production of residue chemistry data required to support a minor use registration, subject to specified conditions. It applies the same extension conditions to data for reregistration and authorizes EPA to modify or revoke the extension under certain circumstances.

The provision permits EPA, in handling the registration of a pesticide for a minor use, to waive applicable data requirements if the absence of data will not prevent EPA from determining the risk presented by the pesticide and that the risk would not have an adverse environmental effect.

The provision provides for expedited review (generally within 12 months of submission) of applications to support minor use pesticide registration and it sets forth conditions for extensions of registrations for unsupported minor uses.

The provision directs EPA to establish a minor use program and requires a report by EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs regarding minor use pesticide registrations. It also directs the Secretary of Agriculture to establish a Department of Agriculture minor use program and a data development grant program, to be funded by a Minor Use Pesticide Data Revolving Fund established in the U.S. Treasury.

Subtitle D: Expedited Registration of Reduced Risk Pesticides
This provision directs EPA to develop procedures for expedited review of applications for registration of pesticides whose use may reasonably be expected to: (1) reduce the risks of pesticides to human health or non-target organisms: (2) reduce the potential for water or other environmental contamination; or (3) further IPM strategies.

Title III: Data Collection Activities to Assure the Health
of Infants and Children and Other Measures
This provision directs the Secretary of Agriculture, in consultation with EPA and the Secretary of Health and Human Services, to coordinate the development and implementation of survey procedures to ensure collection of adequate data on food consumption patterns of infants and children. It requires residue data collection by the Department of Agriculture to provide improved surveillance of pesticide residues, including increased sampling of foods most likely consumed by infants and children.

Sections 302 and 303 direct the Secretary of Agriculture to: (1) collect pesticide use data of statewide or regional significance for all the major crops and crops of dietary significance; and (2) in cooperation with EPA, implement research, demonstration, and educational programs to support adoption of IPM. The two sections also require Federal agencies to use and promote IPM techniques.

Section 304 revises the definition of "unreasonable adverse effects on the environment" to include human dietary risk from pesticide residues that are inconsistent with the standard determined adequate to protect the public health under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.

Section 305 directs the Secretary of Agriculture to submit a Report to Congress on the status of Federal pesticides use information gathering activities.

Title IV: Amendments to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA)
This provision defines "pesticide chemical residue" as a residue in or on a raw agricultural commodity or processed food or a pesticide chemical or any other added substance present as a result of a pesticide chemical's metabolism or degradation.

It requires EPA, where a pesticide is labeled for use on a particular food, to: (1) revoke any tolerance or exemption that allows the presence of that pesticide chemical or its residue in or on the food if EPA cancels the registration of the pesticide or modifies it to prohibit the pesticide's use in connection with the food; and (2) suspend any tolerance or exemption upon the suspension of the associated use of the pesticide. It provides for: (1) tolerances for unavoidable residues in the case of a residue of a canceled or suspended pesticide chemical that will unavoidably persist in the environment and be present in or on a food; and (2) residues resulting from a pesticide application that was lawful at the time of application but for which the tolerance or exemption has since been revoked, suspended or modified.

The provision prohibits a state from establishing a limit on a pesticide chemical residue in or on any food that is not identical to federal requirements, except in the case of tolerances set using benefits considerations or where the state petitions EPA based on compelling local circumstances.

For more information on the Food Quality Protection Act, see The Food Quality Protection Act: A Trojan Iceberg.

Return to Table of Contents

Pesticide issues forum
scheduled for October

Washington State University is holding a symposium on regional pesticide issues for October 17, 1996, at the Pasco Red Lion.

The all-day symposium, titled Pacific Northwest Pesticide Issues, is intended as education for individuals working with pesticide issues. These include, in particular, consultants, agrichemical industry representatives, grower associations, pest management associations, environmental organizations, educators, and regulators. Certification credit will be available.

Registration is from 7:30 a.m. to 8 a.m. Adjournment is at 4 p.m.

Schedule
7:30-8:00	Registration & Welcome	Carol Ramsay Pesticide Educ.	Washington State University Pullman, WA 99164-6382
8:15-9:45	Human and Wildlife Health: Endocrine Disruptors and Hormone Mimics	Allan Felsot Environmental Toxicologist	Washington State University Pullman, WA 99164-6382
9:45-10:00	Break
10:00-10:15	Regulatory Status of the Endocrine/ Hormone Issue	Marie Jennings Manager	US EPA, Region X Pesticide Programs Seattle, WA
10:15-11:15	Cholinesterase Toxicology and Testing	Sheldon Wagner, MD Professor Clinical Tox.	Oregon State University Dept. Of Ag. Chemistry Corvallis, OR 97331-7301
11:15-11:45	Cholinesterase Testing: Practicalities	Mike Gempler Phil Hull	WA Growers League 406 W. Chestnut Yakima, WA  98902
11:45-1:00	Lunch
1:00-2:45	Genetically Modified Plant Protectants	To Be Announced and Alan Schreiber Pesticide Coord.	Washington State University Food & Environmental Quality Laboratory Richland, WA 99352-1643
2:45-3:00	Break
3:00-4:00	Food Quality Protection Act	Alan Schreiber
More information may be obtained from Washington State University Pesticide Education at phone: 509-335-9222, fax: 509-335-1009. Registration is $35 per person to cover lunch, beverages and speaker costs. Checks should be made payable to Washington State University and mailed to Washington State University, Pesticide Education, P.O. Box 646382, Pullman, WA 99164-6382. Enclosed with registration checks should be information including the name(s), company and address of the person(s) wishing to attend. Room reservations at Red Lion are available by calling 1-800-Red-Lion. Government employees must request rooms three weeks in advance, to receive the state rate.

Return to Table of Contents

New pesticide database
available on World Wide Web

The Pesticide Information Center (PIC) at Washington State University Tri-Cities introduces PICOL (Pesticide Information Center On-Line) a new database program to provide current information on all pesticides registered in Washington and Oregon. PICOL replaces the Pesticide Label Information Retrieval System (PLIRS). Users can find information generated from the PIC office on the PIC Internet web page at http://picol.cahe.wsu.edu/

• The main attraction is the Label Database. The Label Database contains current label information from the Washington State Department of Agriculture and the Oregon Department of Agriculture on products registered in those two states. It is designed to identify labels registered for use on given crops, sites or pests. The system serves as a guide to the labels and is not designed to be used as a recommendation list. Federally registered products (Section 3s), as well as Special Local Needs (24c) labels, were included in the system. Short duration registrations such as Section 18s and Experimental Use Permits are not. The system is unique, in that a user can extract a list of currently registered insecticides, herbicides, fungicides, rodenticides, etc. on almost any pest for any given crop in the Pacific Northwest.
  
• A subscriber can also access the new PICOL Tolerance Database. Pesticide tolerances for any crop grown in the Pacific Northwest can be located here. Information for tolerances is derived from the Federal Register.
  
• Other free information available includes a section about the Washington State Commission on Pesticide Registration (WSCPR), where anyone can access minutes of past meetings as well as the ongoing Request for Proposals.
  
• Electronic copies of the newsletter Agrichemical & Environmental News can also be obtained from PICOL.
  
• The Pesticide Notification Network, a site still under construction, is available on PICOL and lists new section 18s & 24(c)s. Other information will be added as this network develops.
  
• Extension bulletins generated from the PIC are also being put on line.

Although information from the WSCPR, AENews and other organizations and publications is free of charge, a subscription is required for the PICOL Label Database and Tolerance Database. The fee is $100 a year pro-rated quarterly. Viewing the results of searches will cost an additional $1 to $2 for either the labels or the tolerances. A detailed description of charges is available on-line.

New users must schedule a phone training session in order to receive their passwords. Those individuals lacking either a computer or access to the Internet may obtain information on pesticide labels by calling the PIC office at 509-372-7492 to request a search. The cost of each search depends on size and complexity, but averages about $10.

For more information about PICOL contact the Pesticide Information Center at (509) 372-7492 or fax (509) 372-7460 or write Washington State University Tri-Cities, 100 Sprout Rd, Richland, Washington 99352.

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 rim 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 not meeting above specifications will not be accepted.

WPCA container collection dates

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 the WAPP web site at http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~ramsay/wpca.html

Return to Table of Contents

Federal Issues

Tolerances

The following tolerances were granted by EPA since the last report (July 1996). These data do not mean that a label has been registered for this use. These pesticides must not be used until a label is registered with EPA or a state department of agriculture.

*Key

A=adjuvant	D=desiccant	D/H=desiccant, herbicide	F=fungicide
FA=feed additive	FM=fumigant	G=growth regulator	H=herbicide
I=insecticide	N=nematicide	P=pheromone	V=vertebrate repellent
IN=inert

Chemical*	Petitioner	Tolerance (ppm)	Commodity (raw)
(IN) Potassium citrate	AgrEvo USA	exempt	when used as a chelating agent, pH control
(IN) Pentaerythritol searates	Wacker Silicones	exempt	when used as an emulsifier
(F) Triphenyltin hydroxide	EPA	0.05	kidney and liver: cattle, goats, hogs, horses, and sheep
		0.05	pecans
		0.05	potatoes
		0.01	sugar beet, roots
(F) 1-[[2-(2,4-Dichlorophenyl)- 4-propyl-1,3-dioxolan-2-yl]methyl]-1H-1,2,4-triazole	Ciba- Geigy	1	stonefruit group
(H) Glyphosate	Monsanto	0.13	grain crops (except wheat & oats)
(F) Folpet	EPA	25	apples
		25	avocados
		25	cranberries
		15	cucumbers
		5	grapes
		50	lettuce
		15	melons
		15	onion (dry bulb)
		25	strawberries
		25	tomatoes
(I) Dihydroazadirachtin	AgriDyne	exempt	all raw agricultural commodities when applied as an insect growth regulator and/or antifeedant at 20 gm or less per acre with a maximum of seven applications per growing season
(IN) Phosphinothricin Acetyltransferase (PAT) and the genetic material necessary for its production (plasmid vector pZ01502)	Northrup King Co.	exempt	corn
(IN) CP4 Enolpyruvylshikimate- 3-D and the genetic material necessary for its production	Monsanto	exempt	in all plants
(N) Bacillus thuringiensis CrylA(b) Delta-endotoxin and the genetic material necessary for its production	Monsanto	exempt	in all plants

Reregistration Notifications

cyanazine (Bladex) -- The USEPA has announced the conclusion of the Special Review of cyanazine and EPA's acceptance of requests to voluntarily cancel cyanazine registrations. The registrants of cyanazine products have agreed to phase out cyanazine use until the cancellation date of 12/31/99. The phase-out period will limit the maximum labeled ai per acre per year rate of 6.5 lbs now, to 5 lbs beginning in 1997, 3 lbs beginning in 1998, and 1 lb beginning in 1999. Cyanazine products may be sold and distributed in channels of trade (except by registrants after 12/31/99) through 9/30/02, and used through 12/31/02. Cyanazine is currently registered as an herbicide on corn (field and sweet) and cotton. Notice of the preliminary determination to take this action was noted by the Reregistration Notification Network on 4/15/96.

For additional information, contact:
Mr. Joseph E. Bailey
EPA, Special Review Branch
Phone: 703-308-8173, Fax: 703-308-8041
E-mail: bailey.joseph@epamail.epa.gov

triphenyltin hydroxide (TPTH, Du-Ter) -- The USEPA plans to revoke the tolerances for residues of triphenyltin hydroxide (TPTH) on carrots, peanuts and peanut hulls as of 8/9/96. The USEPA received no comments on their proposal. The uses resulting in these residues on carrots and peanuts were canceled in 1991 and 1988, respectively. TPTH is still registered on pecans, potatoes and sugar beets. Written comments or hearing requests, with reference to OPP-300414A, should be submitted to the Hearing Clerk and Public Response Branch at EPA by 8/9/96.

For information, contact:
Ms. Jude Andreasen
EPA, Special Review Branch
Phone: 703-308-8016
Fax: 703-308-8041
E-mail: andreasen.jude@epamail.epa.gov

Send written comments to:
Hearing Clerk (1900)
EPA
Room M3708, 401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
E-mail: opp-docket@epamail.epa.gov

folpet (Phaltan) -- The USEPA plans to revoke the tolerances for folpet residues as of 9/16/96 on blackberries, blueberries, boysenberries, celery, cherries, citrus, crabapples, currants, dewberries, garlic, gooseberries, huckleberries, leeks, loganberries, onions (green), pumpkins, raspberries, shallots, and squash (summer and winter). The proposal for this action was reported by the Reregistration Notification Network on 12/14/94. The registered food uses, except avocados, supported by these tolerances and others have been suspended or canceled since 1987. Avocados remain the only registered food use for this fungicide. The registrant, Makhteshim-Agan, wishes to maintain the remaining tolerances for import purposes on the following nine commodities: apples, cranberries, cucumbers, grapes, lettuce, melons, onions (dry bulb), strawberries, and tomatoes. Written comments or stay petitions, mentioning OPP-300363B, should be sent to the Hearing Clerk at EPA by 8/16/96.

For information, contact:
Mr. Jeff Morris
EPA, Special Review Branch
Phone: 703-308-8029, Fax: 703-308-8041
E-mail: morris.jeffrey@epamail.epa.gov

Send written comments to
Hearing Clerk (1900)
EPA
Room M3708, 401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
E-mail: opp-docket@epamail.epa.gov

The source for this information, the Reregistration Notification Network, is a cooperative effort of USDA-NAPIAP, Interregional Project No. 4 (IR-4), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), and the American Crop Protection Association (ACPA).

For additional information on any reregistration notification, contact the individual(s) listed or contact:

Alan Schreiber
WSU Pesticide Coordinator
100 Sprout Road
Richland, WA 99352-1643
Phone: 509-372-7324
Fax: 509-372-7460
aschreib@beta.tricity.wsu.edu

Return to Table of Contents

State Issues

Special Local Needs (Section 24c)

Label restrictions for Special Local Needs in Washington: The following pesticide uses have been granted label registration by the Washington State Department of Agriculture under the provision of Section 24(c) amended FIFRA.

• Rhone-Poulenc for use of Rovral on crucifers grown for seed for control of Alternaria leaf and pod blight and Sclerotinia white rot -- WA960027.
• Zeneca for use of Diquat on potatoes for control of late blight -- WA960028.
• ISK Biosciences Corp. for use of Ensign® on potato for control of late & early blight -- WA960015.
• ISK Biosciences Corp. for use of Bravo Weather Stik® on potato for control of late & early blight -- WA960029.
• Drexel for control of Dimethoate 2.67 on lentils for control of aphids and lygus bugs -- WA960031.

Return to Table of Contents

Contributors to the Agrichemical and Environmental News:

Alan Schreiber, Allan Felsot, Catherine Daniels, Mark Antone, Carol Weisskopf, Eric Bechtel

If you would like to include a piece in a future issue of the Agrichemical and Environmental News, please contact Alan Schreiber. To subscribe to the newsletter, please contact Eric Bechtel.

Contributions, comments and subscription inquiries may be directed to: Food and Environmental Quality Laboratory, Washington State University, 100 Sprout Road, Richland, WA 99352-1643, ph: 509-372-7378, fax: 509-372-7460, E-mail: ebechtel@beta.tricity.wsu.edu.

Return to Table of Contents

This page has been accessed times since August 28,1996.