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:
Catherine Daniels, Food and Environmental Quality Laboratory, Washington State University, Tri-Cities campus, 2710 University Drive, Richland, WA 99352-1671. Phone: 509-372-7495. Fax: 509-372-7491.
E-mail:
cdaniels@tricity.wsu.edu
In This Issue
For more information, contact Catherine Daniels at 509-372-7495, fax: 509-372-74910, or E-mail at cdaniels@tricity.wsu.edu
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 Catherine Daniels, Food and Environmental Quality Laboratory, Washington State University, Tri-Cities campus, 2710 University Drive, Richland, WA 99352-1671. Phone: 509-372-7495. Fax: 509-372-7491. E-mail: cdaniels@tricity.wsu.edu
The growers are asking the nation's highest court to hear their claim that CBS Inc. should be held liable for falsely disparaging apples in a 1989 segment on the apple growth regulating chemical Alar. A 1990 suit was dismissed by a U.S. District Court judge in Spokane, WA in 1993. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco affirmed the $250 million suit's dismissal last October. The Supreme Court petition argues that the lower courts erred in refusing to permit a jury to determine whether the "60 Minutes" segment's portrayal of the cancer risk posed by Alar was false.
CBS attorneys state the program never claimed its report represented
scientific certainty. Instead, it was intended to raise the issue of a
potentially imminent hazard, particularly to children.
Capitol Press - March 1.
The general thrust of the letters protests the registration of Bt potatoes
and demands that EPA delay registration of other Bt crops until development
of a proven resistance management plan.
Some highlights of the report:
According to Chuck Andrews, chief of DPR's Pesticide Enforcement branch, the results of the program mirror the findings of monitoring programs conducted by other states, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Years of state and federal residue monitoring clearly show, Andrews said, that illegal residues are rare. Moreover, any residues present in produce are typically at exceedingly low or undetectable levels.
DPR reports annually on the results of its produce sampling, in the nation's largest state residue monitoring program. The most visible component of the program is marketplace surveillance, in which samples are taken from throughout the channels of trade _ seaports and other points of entry into the state, packing sites and wholesale outlets. The goal of the program is to have laboratory analyses completed within six hours, so that it is possible to stop the sale of the produce if illegal residues are found.
All samples in the marketplace program are analyzed with multiresidue screens that can simultaneously detect many pesticides. To detect chemicals that are not picked up in these screens, DPR may also run tests for single pesticides. These screening techniques can pick up residues as low as 10 parts per billion.
There were 5,588 samples taken of 161 different commodities in the marketplace program in 1994. In about 66% of the samples, no residues were detectable. Another 32% had detectable residues, most of which were well below the levels that are legally allowable. Only 1.5% (84 samples) had an illegal residue.
DPR's annual report also highlights results of its priority pesticide program, in which monitoring is concentrated on pesticides of special health interest. Unlike the marketplace surveillance samples, in this program only crops known to have been treated with a targeted pesticide are tested.
There were 2,343 samples taken in this program in 1994. Although 100% of the samples were treated, most samples (86%) contained no detectable residues. Five samples (0.21%) had residues greater than the legally allowable level.
A free copy of the report, without tabular data, is available from DPR's Pesticide Enforcement Branch at the following address:
California Department
of Pesticide Regulation
1020 N Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
The report narrative can also be downloaded from the "Documents" section of
DPR's Internet home page:
http://www.cdpr.ca.gov
Return to Table of Contents
EPA has concluded that revoking these nine tolerances would have little impact on the price or availability of food to the consumer. Lynn Goldman, EPA Assistant Administrator for Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, said strict application of the Delaney Clause requires EPA to propose the revocations because of technical legal requirements for processed foods. The proposed revocations, she said, should not cause consumers to avoid particular foods.
According to Goldman, "This administration remains committed to comprehensive reform of our pesticide food safety laws, to establish a consistent, health-based standard for all pesticide residues in food. A standard is needed that will protect everyone, especially children, while allowing EPA to use current science in making its pesticide decisions. Until such reforms are enacted, however, EPA must comply with the Delaney Clause as it stands."
The nine tolerances being proposed for revocation are: dicofol (Kelthane) on apples, grapes and plums; mancozeb (Manzate, Penncozeb, Dithane) on oats and wheat; propargite (Comite) on apples and figs; simazine (Princep) on sugarcane; and triadimefon (Bayleton) on wheat. Once a pesticide tolerance is revoked, the affected crop can no longer be legally treated with that pesticide.
The Delaney Clause of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) prohibits the approval of food or feed tolerances for pesticide residues in processed food or animal feed if the pesticide is found to induce cancer in man or animals, regardless of the level of risk. Tolerances in processed food or feed are required when the pesticide used on the raw food or feed concentrates in ready-to-eat food or feed is at levels greater than the raw food or feed tolerance, or when the pesticide is used directly in processing.
Studies indicate that all pesticides covered in the March 4 announcement cause cancer in laboratory animals. In the past, EPA regarded pesticide residues that posed no significant risk as acceptable under the Delaney Clause. But the court decision (Les vs Reilly) required a strict literal interpretation of the Delaney Clause. EPA is required to revoke tolerances that violate the Delaney Clause, no matter how small the risk.
While the March 4 action is based on legal grounds, EPA is continuing to evaluate all of the pesticides involved, as part of its ongoing reregistration program. If, as part of this evaluation, EPA finds that any tolerances pose unreasonable risk, the agency will take appropriate regulatory action to ensure protection of public health. EPA is revoking the nine tolerances on raw foods, because it is otherwise impossible to guarantee that processed foods will be in compliance with the Delaney Clause. While the overall economic impact on growers is thought to be minor, some commodities and some growing regions may be more adversely affected than others.
Also on March 4, EPA concluded that it is unnecessary to revoke 31 raw food tolerances, because processed food tolerances are not needed to prevent the adulteration of processed food. Therefore, neither the Delaney Clause nor EPA's coordination policy apply.
The following raw food or feed tolerances will be retained: acephate (Orthene) on cottonseed, benomyl (Benlate) on citrus and rice, captan on grapes and tomatoes, carbaryl (Sevin) on pineapples, dicofol on tomatoes, diflubenzuron (Dimilin) on soybeans, dimethipin (Harvade) on cottonseed, ethylene oxide on whole spices (direct treatment), iprodione (Rovral) on peanuts and rice and lindane on tomatoes. Also proposed for retention are mancozeb on barley, grapes and rye; maneb on grapes; methomyl (Lannate) on wheat; norflurazon (Solicam) on grapes; oxyfluorfen (Goal) on cottonseed, peppermint, spearmint and soybeans; PCNB (Terraclor) on tomatoes; permethrin (Pounce, Ambush) on tomatoes; propargite on grapes and plums; thiodicarb (Larvin) on cottonseed and soybeans; and triadimefon on grapes and pineapple.
Three crops that will be the hardest hit by Delaney are pineapples, sugarcane and grapes. Decreases in the value of production for the three crops are estimated at 29%, 13% and 5.1%, respectively, due to the loss of Delaney chemicals. Total losses, according to EPA, could total as much as $500 million. EPA would attempt to mitigate those losses through the use of Section 18s and Section 24(c) registrations.
In a settlement agreement approved by the court in February 1995, EPA agreed to decide by April, 1997 concerning whether 81 raw food or animal feed tolerances should be revoked because use might lead to illegal residues in processed food or animal feed.
The March 4 announcement covers EPA's decisions on 41 of those 81 raw food or animal feed tolerances. (A tolerance for alachlor on sunflower seed was originally included in the group of 41 tolerances, but registration for this use was voluntarily cancelled and the tolerance revoked.) EPA expects to issue proposed decisions on the remaining 40 tolerances by April 1997.
Comments on the March 4 proposed actions are due within 90 days after publication of the decisions in the Federal Register. Comments should be addressed to:
Public Response Section
Field Operations Division
Office of Pesticide Programs
U.S. EPA
401 M St. S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
Return to Table of Contents
| Kelthane (dicofol) | apples/grapes/plums |
| Mancozeb (mancozeb) | oats/wheat |
| Omite (propargite) | apple/figs |
| Princep (simazine) | sugarcane |
| Bayleton (triadimefon) | wheat |
EPA prepared an analysis of the economic impacts of the proposed revocations, as required under Executive Order #12866. EPA concluded that the overall economic impact on growers will be minor, although some commodities and growers may be more adversely affected than others. For each of the proposed revoked uses, EPA determined the extent of current usage and determined the availability of alternatives as replacements. The increased costs associated with the proposed revocations result from using less effective, or more costly, alternatives.
Following is information on the impact of Delaney cancellations on apple and wheat.
Wheat. EPA proposes to ban the use of two fungicides, Mancozeb and Bayleton, which are registered for use on wheat. EPA points out that these two fungicides are used on less than 1% of U.S. wheat acreage, and the agency concludes that there will be no noticeable impact on the production or price of wheat if they are canceled. While it is correct to say that these products are not widely used today, their use may expand dramatically in the next few years, as the price of wheat continues to increase. Having these fungicides available could mean that the U.S. would produce 200 million bushels more wheat annually than if the two fungicides were banned.
Every year, U.S. wheat production is reduced by uncontrolled plant pathogens. Mildews, rusts and leafspots occur to some extent every year on U.S. wheat acreage. Uncontrolled plant diseases lower U.S. wheat yields by an average of 10% to 15%. The use of fungicides would control these diseases and increase production by 3-4 bushels of wheat per acre. Fungicides are not used, however, because of the historically low price of wheat. Fungicides cost about $12 an acre. If wheat sells for $3 a bushel, an extra 3-4 bushels per acre would mean $9-$12 more in income per acre - not enough to justify a $12 per acre treatment. But if wheat is worth $5 a bushel (which it currently is), an extra 3-4 bushels of wheat per acre would more than pay for $12 per acre fungicide treatment. If EPA does not cancel these two fungicides, and if the price of wheat maintains its current price, we could expect the two fungicides would be used on about 50% of U.S. wheat acreage within a couple of years. Their use would result in more income per acre for wheat and 200 million bushels more in wheat production in the U.S.
Apples. EPA proposes to cancel the use of two miticides, Omite and Kelthane, which are used on approximately 30% of the nation's apple acreage to control mites. EPA concludes that available alternatives are slightly less effective, and that growers would lose about 3% of their apple crop due to mite damage. A 3% yield loss on 30% of the nation's apple acreage represents 100 million pounds of apples that will not be produced because of mite damage. EPA mentions a problem with the alternatives that apple growers would likely use: the alternatives are "more toxic to beneficial insects in some states."
The consequences of using alternatives that are toxic to beneficial organisms are worth examining. Miticides are not used on 70% of the nation's apple acres. Those acres are usually under complete biological control of mites, which means that beneficial insects, such as beetles and other mite species, control the harmful mites biologically. Beneficial species are also present to some extent on the 30% of apple acreage that receives miticide applications. The beneficial insects sometimes do not sufficiently control the damaging insects and mites. As a result, on about 30% of the apple crop, plant feeding mite populations expand too quickly for the predators to control.
The preferred miticide is Omite, because it controls the harmful mite populations without killing beneficial insects and mites. As EPA has pointed out, the alternatives to Omite and Kelthane would kill both plant feeding and beneficial mites. The result of using alternatives is that natural predators would eventually be killed off and apple growers would have to rely on the use of alternative mite control compounds that would require increased frequency of application and applications on more acreage.
The Clinton Administration wants 75% of U.S. crop acreage in integrated pest management programs by the year 2000. One of the shining success stories of IPM in the U.S. is the management of mites in apples, using selective chemicals and biological control agents. Thirty years ago, in the early 1960s, U.S. apple growers treated 100% of apple acres with miticides every year. In the late 1960s, apple miticide usage decreased to 30% of apple acres. It has remained at this level for 25 years, due to the use of selective miticides and conservation of beneficial organisms. EPA's proposed decision to ban Omite and Kelthane would result in the need to treat up to 100% of the nation's apples with miticides.
Summary. The apple miticides and wheat fungicides that EPA proposes to cancel have significant value to U.S. agriculture. Use of the wheat fungicides could prevent the loss of 200 million bushels of wheat to diseases every year. The apple miticides are key to IPM programs.
Note:This article was prepared by Leonard Gianessi, senior research associate with the National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy. The center is a Washington, D.C. think tank on agricultural policy issues.
Leonard P. Gianessi
Senior Research Associate
National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy
1616 P Street N.W., First Floor
Washington, D.C. 20036
(202) 328-5048
Return to Table of Contents
The first proposal requests field studies of various herbicides on rhubarb. Identification of successful candidate compounds will result in requests to IR-4 for assistance in GLP residue trials in subsequent years.
The second proposal requests field studies of various herbicides on dry bulb onions. Identification of compounds that control weeds, including volunteer potatoes, while being safe on onions will result in a request to IR-4 for assistance in GLP residue trials.
The third proposal requests assistance in testing candidate herbicides for weed control, seed yield and crop safety on carrot, parsley, parsnip and dill seed crops.
The fourth proposal, on canola, requests assistance to screen two insecticides during bloom against four insect species. Efficacy data will determine whether IR-4 assistance will be sought in later years for GLP trials.
The fifth proposal, on hops, requests assistance for six different GLP projects. Four insecticide projects, one herbicide project, and one fungicide project are included in this proposal. They are a mix of residue studies and label expansions of application methods.
The sixth proposal requests assistance in the control of ghost shrimp and mud shrimp on oyster farms. Of great interest to this industry is the development of an alternative to carbaryl (Sevin).
The seventh proposal requests assistance in controlling insects on red currants. The industry has requested a Section 18 this year and seeks to generate data to register an insecticide for control of currant cane borer and other insect pests.
The eighth and ninth proposals, on spinach grown for seed and on radish (other than daikon) grown for seed, respectively, request funds for herbicide evaluations.
The tenth proposal seeks assistance in evaluating insecticides against cabbage maggot. The pest attacks both food and seed versions of several crops, and field populations of this insect have developed resistance to several registered insecticides.
The eleventh proposal requests assistance in the development of an IPM program for thrip and spider mite control on vegetable seed crops. Candidate insecticides will be tested for crop safety, efficacy, and compatibility with a new predator mite.
The twelfth proposal requests funds to evaluate various insecticides for control of aphids on vegetable seed crops. Due to Washington's reclassification of many small seeded vegetable seed crops, GLP residue tests are not required for any of the vegetable seed projects listed here.
The thirteenth proposal, also on vegetable seed crops, requests funds to evaluate the effects on seed quality and germination following the use of Diquat, a pre-harvest desiccant. Seed losses during harvest, either from inclement weather or the presence of weeds that delay drying times, are of major concern to this industry.
The fourteenth proposal requests assistance in the management of anthracnose in lettuce. Two 1995 proposals for captan registration on head and leaf lettuce, respectively, were dropped on the basis of an outstanding risk assessment study. Candidate fungicides will be screened, and information will be developed for growers on crop residue management, pathogen biology and relative cultivar susceptibilities. An on-farm demonstration trial and a field day are also planned.
The fifteenth proposal requests funds for reregistration GLP field and laboratory residue trials of cryolite, an insecticide bait on raspberry and strawberry. This would be a joint project between Oregon and Washington.
The sixteenth proposal, on tulip and iris bulbs, requests help in controlling a disease of both field and greenhouse bulbs.
The seventeenth proposal, on Kentucky bluegrass grown for seed in the Columbia Basin, requests funds to screen various herbicides for control of grassy weeds. Data have been generated for other soil types, but Columbia Basin growers would likely be excluded from using those products without herbicide data generated from this area.
The eighteenth proposal requests funds for collecting GLP field and laboratory residue data to establish tolerance levels of thiabendazole on lentils and chickpeas, while the nineteenth proposal requests funds for collecting field and laboratory residue data to establish tolerance levels of Baythroid on dry peas, lentils and chickpeas. Both projects are funded by Idaho and Washington.
The twentieth proposal, on clover grown for seed, requests assistance in reclassifying the crop to a non-food, non-feed status as well as generating data for a series of field efficacy and phytotoxicity trials. Trials include insecticides for control of cutworm and/or armyworm and herbicides for preemergent and postemergent weed control.
All proposals will be evaluated on their relevance to stated WSCPR areas of
emphasis, overall merit and quality, feasibility of completing project
objectives within stated time frames, appropriateness of requested budget and
adherence to WSCPR guidelines.
Return to Table of Contents
...Alan Schreiber
"Why, then the world's mine oyster, Which I with sword will open." The Merry Wives of Windsor, Act 1, Scene 1, Line 2. Shakespeare
Note:The information for this article was taken from the Willapa - Grays Harbor Oyster Growers' Association proposal to the Washington State Commission on Pesticide Registration. It was prepared by Richard Wilson, Ph.D., a Willapa Bay oyster grower.
If oysters are your world, or at least if you like the little invertebrates, then you should be thankful for 3.4 tons of Sevin (carbaryl).
Washington produces more than one-third of the oysters grown in the United States. The Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor areas of the Washington coast account for more than 60% of the Washington oyster crop. In Willapa Bay, about 10,000 intertidal acres out of a total 40,000 acres are used to produce oysters.
The annual farmgate value of the Willapa Bay oyster crop alone exceeds $15 million, and this industry accounts for one in every 12 jobs in Pacific County. When processing, wholesale and retail sales are included, the value of the oyster industry to these two marine estuaries exceeds $30 million.
The stability of this long existing industry (the oldest oyster farms in the country are on the Washington coast) continues to be weakened, if not completely threatened, by two species of burrowing shrimp: the ghost shrimp and mud shrimp.
In the mid to late 1950s, oyster farmers began losing large portions of their crop due to burrowing shrimp, which soften the fine sedimentary muds and kill the oysters through burial.
Burrowing shrimp have four general effects on oyster culture. These are 1) loss of seed due to covering or smothering of oyster seed by sediment; 2) a similar loss by burial of adult oysters; 3) operational difficulties and; 4) a reduction in growth rate and/or poor condition of the oysters due to feeding competition with the shrimp. Also, uncontrolled burrowing shrimp outbreaks render intertidal areas unfit for most estuary plant and animal species.
As a result of state and federal research, Sevin was registered in 1963 to control burrowing shrimp on oyster beds in marine estuaries. Approximately 2,500 acres of the 10,000 acres of cultivated oyster ground in Willapa Bay are thought to be in need of Sevin to control burrowing shrimp.
Sevin is a broad spectrum insecticide that has some degree of short-term impact to non-target species. The real and perceived damage caused by use of Sevin in a marine estuary has been the basis of a long standing controversy resulting in regulations that restrict the use of the compound.
Examples of regulatory limitations on use of Sevin include 1) due to real or perceived threat to young salmon, Sevin treatments can only be applied during one or two tide series in mid-summer, a practice that does not conform to farming practices. Often a valuable harvest bed that produces a yearly crop must remain empty for a season because of this timing. Oyster seed often cannot be planted in the spring for best growth during the April-June period, due to a high abundance of shrimp prior to treatment in July. 2) The number of acres that can be treated is limited by state agencies regardless of the level of shrimp infestation. The current limit is 800 acres, which has been raised from 400 acres a few years ago. The rate of shrimp infestation has increased recently, because activities to control shrimp have not kept pace with the rate of the pest's increase. 3) Oyster growers are limited in the amount of carbaryl per acre they can use and how it is applied. 4) Application by helicopter cannot be made closer than 200 feet to a tidal drainage slough, thus leaving a shrimp-infested strip on what often is the best part of an oyster bed.
Losses to the oyster industry occur through several means. The value of seed loss in Willapa Bay each year is $1.5 million. The losses due to direct burial total 50,000 to 100,000 gallons of oyster meats, or $1 million to $2 million. Economists estimate up to a 50% increase in production, equalling $6 million, if additional control of shrimp can be achieved.
Recently, the Willapa - Grays Harbor Oyster Growers' Association submitted a
proposal to the Washington State Commission on Pesticide Registration to fund
a project to screen various reduced risk pesticides for control of burrowing
shrimp on oyster beds. The project would be a cooperative venture with WSU,
WSCPR, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife and the oyster growers'
association.
Return to Table of Contents
Overall, herbicides are the most widely used compounds, with five compounds used on at least 25% of mint acres. The most commonly used compounds were Sinbar, Gramoxone, Buctril, Poast and Stinger. Other herbicides on mint included Basagran, Treflan, Prowl, Goal, Roundup and Assure II.
Acephate (Orthene) and propargite (Omite) were the most commonly used insecticides, with small amounts of sulfur, dicofol (Kelthane), malathion and methomyl (Lannate) applied. Sulfur was the only commonly used fungicide, but small amounts of Telone C17, Vydate and Vapam were used for disease and nematode control.
Nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium and sulfur were applied to nearly 100% of
peppermint, with native spearmint receiving less fertilizer and scotch
spearmint receiving substantially less than peppermint and native spearmint.
Boron, zinc and magnesium were also applied, but to a much lower percentage
of Washington mint.
Return to Table of Contents
In 1976, USDA-ARS established a companion minor use program to provide further support for the minor use effort. The objectives of the IR-4 Project were expanded in 1977 to include registration of pesticides for protection of nursery and floral crops, forest seedlings and turf grass. It was expanded again in 1982 to include an initiative to register biopesticides for agricultural pest control.
There are currently 6,479 IR-4 food use requests for assistance. Of these, 1218 are researchable projects, with 904 representing requests for new uses and 314 representing reregistration requests. A total 177 projects, representing 483 field trials, were scheduled for research in 1995.
Since the beginning of the IR-4 ornamental program, 12,109 requests for assistance on ornamental pesticide registrations have been received. There are presently 1,141 researchable ornamental requests. IR-4 funded 443 ornamental research trials in 1996.
IR-4 is the principal public effort supporting the registration of biopesticide control agents for use on minor crops. In 1995, IR-4 supported nine research projects. During this time, IR-4 submitted five biopesticide petitions to EPA or industry requesting exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance.
The program has provided data to support 2,074 food use clearances (1,127 since 1984), 3,602 ornamental registrations and research on 26 biopesticides, which has resulted in 18 minor use registrations.
The IR-4 Project was responsible for 104 minor use pesticide clearances in 1995. Fifty-three of these were for new tolerances and exemptions, 39 were tolerance extensions through crop groupings, and 12 were supported label amendments and reregistration projects. During 1995, industry labeled 377 ornamental uses based on IR-4 data.
Based on priorities established by regional and national workshop committees, 144 food use projects were selected for research in 1996. The 1996 research program will enable IR-4 to complete about 100 clearance projects. The major emphasis is reregistration; the program expects to accomplish its current reregistration commitments by December 1997.
For a copy of the IR-4 Annual Report, contact the IR-4 Program at
908-932-9575.
Return to Table of Contents
The three officers, the immediate past chair and the administrator will serve as the executive committee for the commission. Voting commission members decided that only voting members will be allowed to serve as officers.
The WSCPR voted to host a Washington Crop Protection Tour that would target pesticide registrants. The intent of the tour is to bring key pesticide company decision makers to Washington and let them know of pest control needs. The tour will be sponsored jointly by WSCPR and WSU, with IR-4 assistance. The Washington Friends of Farms and Forests, Washington Asparagus Commission, Washington Hop Commission and the Mint Industry Research Council will sponsor breaks or meals for the tour. The tour is scheduled for July 16, 17 and 18.
Greg Royer, WSU Executive Director for Budget and Planning, stated that WSU
would charge no indirect costs or overhead on WSCPR funds or on matching
funds provided by commodity groups, registrants or other interested parties
to the WSCPR.
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.
| Date | Site | Sponsor/contact | Phone | Notes | |
| 5/20 (8-noon) | WFS Pomeroy | Western Farm Service,
John Massey | (509)924-9213 | ||
| 5/21 (8-noon) | McGregor Walla Walla |
McGregor Co., Gary Burt | (509)529-6787 | ||
| 5/30 (9-3 p.m.) | Snipes Mtn. Landfill |
Yakima County, Mark Nedrow | (509)574-2457 | cardboard accepted | |
| 5/31 (8:30-3 p.m.) | Terrace Hts. Landfill |
Yakima County, Mark Nedrow | (509)574-2457 | cardboard accepted |
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
**Things are not looking good for propargite (Omite, Comite). Between
being named as one of the five Delaney chemicals and EPA considerations of
placing the compound in Special Review, this miticide could be facing a long,
tough fight. Propargite is the most valuable miticide in the U.S. The
single biggest site of use that concerns EPA is apples. A 1994 NAPIAP
assessment of acaricide use on apples stated that 269,000 pounds of active
ingredient was applied to 147 acres and that loss of the chemical would cost
the apple industry $16.3 million.
**EPA's unofficial opinion is that there will be no relief from Delaney from this session of Congress.
**EPA is currently 1,600 employees short of its authorized level of 17,600. Since the agency believes it is so short-handed, EPA Administrator Carol Browner stated that there will be no reductions in force if its budget is cut.
**Application of a pesticide to a crop not listed on a compound's label is against the law. This is unambiguous; everybody knows the rules. These rules apply even to pesticide applications made for research. In order to conduct pesticide research on crops that are not on a label (as in the case of efficacy trials), one must obtain an experimental use permit. Obtaining an EUP is a requirement before ANY pesticide can be applied to any crop or site not listed on a label. Even pesticides applied on university property for research or maintenance purposes require an EUP. Guess how many EUPs WSDA received last year from university researchers.
**EPA has just released a guidance document on obtaining 24(c)
registrations. The 22-page document provides the best single source of
information around on 24(c) registrations. For a copy of the document,
contact Alan Schreiber at phone: 509-372-7324, fax: 509-372-7460,
E-mail:
aschreib@beta.tricity.wsu.edu or WSDA at 360-902-2030.
Return to Table of Contents
*Key
| A=adjuvant | D=desiccant | D/H=desiccant, herbicide | |
| F=fungicide | FA=feed additive | G=growth regulator | H=herbicide |
| I-insecticide | N=nematicide | P=pheromone | V=vertebrate repellent |
| Chemical* | Petitioner | Tolerance (ppm) |
Commodity (raw) |
| (A) Acrylate polymers/ copolymers | EPA | exempt | raw agricultural commodities |
| (I) Hexythiazox | Gowan | 0.02 | apples |
| (I) Imidacloprid | IR-4 | 0.2(a) | vegetables, cucurbit |
| (A) Octadecanoic Acid, 12-Hydroxy- Homopolymer, Octadecanoate | ICI | exempt | growing crops or to raw
agricultural commodities after harvest |
| (I) Imidacloprid | Gustafson | 0.05 | canola seed |
| (G) Pelargonic Acid | Mycogen | exempt | apples, pears |
(a) Time-limited tolerance expires December 31, 1996
As a consequence of this policy and the Delaney Clause, some pesticide tolerances are expected to be revoked, and the pesticide registrations on which they are based are expected to be cancelled. Last year, EPA conducted an economic impact assessment to determine potential impacts on agricultural producers as a result of continuation of this policy without change. The assessment concluded that the total economic impact on affected producers could be as much as $500 million. Only three crops were estimated to incur impacts greater than 5% of their annual 1989-91 U.S. production value (pineapple 29%, sugarcane 13% and grapes 5.1%).
Absolute projected impacts were highest for sugarcane, grapes, potatoes, rice and apples, which together comprised about 70% of the total impact projected. For various reasons, however, the assessment was based on a worst-case scenario, and actual impacts are expected by EPA to be far less. EPA will update its economic impact analysis when it evaluates remaining uses potentially affected by the Delaney Clause.
For additional information, contact:
Ms. Jean M. Frane, EPA, Policy and Special Projects
Phone: 703-305-5944
Fax: 703-305-6244
E-mail:
frane.jean@epamail.epa.gov
For additional information, contact:
Ms. Jean M. Frane, EPA, Policy and Special Projects
Phone: 703-305-5944
Fax: 703-305-6244
E-mail: frane.jean@epamail.epa.gov
Supported uses expected to be reregistered
Supported by registrants: apricots, broccoli, Brussels sprouts,
cabbage, cauliflower, citrus, cucumbers, eggplant, grapes, kiwifruit,
kohlrabi, lettuce, melons, nectarines, peaches, pears, peppers, plums,
potatoes, pumpkins, squashes, and tomatoes.
Supported by IR-4: blackberries, blueberries, boysenberries,
cranberries, dewberries, loganberries, raspberries, strawberries, and
youngberries.
Unsupported uses likely to be cancelled: apples, beans, collards,
mustard, radishes, and turnips.
For additional information, contact IR-4 or one of the following:
Ms. Elizabeth Codrea
Gowan Company
Phone: 602-783-8844
Fax: 602-343-9255
- or -
Mr. Chris Davis
ELF Atochem North America, Inc.
Phone: 215-419-7147
Fax: 215-419-7243
Supported uses expected to be reregistered
Supported by Ciba: almonds (CA), animal quarters (except dairy barns,
milk rooms & poultry houses), apples, apricots, bananas (import tolerance -
no label in U.S.), barns (except dairy barns, milk rooms & poultry houses),
barrier strips, beans (succulent lima, pole and snap, including seed trmt),
beets (red), blackberries (WA, OR & CA), boysenberries (WA, OR & CA),
broccoli, Brussels sprouts, cabbage, cantaloupe, carrots, casabas,
cauliflower, celery, cherries, Chinese broccoli, Chinese cabbage, Chinese
mustard, Chinese radish (CA & FL), collards, corn (field) (seed trmt),
crenshaws, cucumbers, dewberries (WA, OR & CA), ditch banks, endive, food
handling establishments, ginseng, grapes, honeydew melons, hops, kiwifruit
(import tolerance _ no label in U.S.), lettuce, loganberries (WA, OR & CA),
muskmelons, mustard, nectarines, onions (green & bulb), ornamentals, parsley,
parsnips, peaches, pears, peas (succulent including seed trmt), peppers,
pineapples, plums, potatoes, prunes, radishes, raspberries (WA, OR & CA),
roadsides, rutabaga, sheep, spinach, squash (summer), squash (winter),
strawberries, sugarbeets, sweet corn, sweet potatoes, Swiss chard, tomatoes,
turf (other than golf courses and sod farms), turnips, walnuts (CA), and
watermelons
Supported by IR-4: blueberries, cranberries, figs (no label yet),
filberts (no label yet), mushroom houses, and watercress (24(c) in HI)
Unsupported uses likely to be cancelled: alfalfa, bananas, beans (dried),
bermudagrass, citrus fruits, clover, corn (field) except seed trmt, cotton,
cowpeas, grass forage, guar, lespedeza, olives, pastures, peanuts, peas
(dried), pecans, rangeland, sorghum, soybeans, trefoil, and tobacco.
For additional information, contact:
Ms. Carolyn Bussey
Ciba Crop Protection
Phone: 910-632-2838
Fax: 910-292-6374
E-mail: uscgcrr3@ibmmail.com
-or-
IR-4 (send requests for support to the appropriate IR-4 regional office listed below. See IR-4 regional offices)
For information, contact:
Ms. Niloufar Nazmi
Special Review Branch
Phone: 703-308-8028
Fax: 703-308-8041
nazmi.niloufar@epamail.epa.gov
Send written comments to:
Public Response Branch (7506C) EPA,
EPA, Office of Pesticide Prog.
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
opp-docket@epamail.epa.gov,br>
For assistance in defending unsupported food or ornamental crop uses of cryolite or diazinon, Washington residents contact:
Alan Schreiber
100 Sprout Road
Richland, WA 99352-1643
Phone: 509-372-7324
Fax: 509-372-7460
E-mail:
aschreib@beta.tricity.wsu.edu
or the appropriate IR-4 office:
Northeastern Region
John Martini, Reg. Coordinator
NE Regional Pesticide Lab
NYSAES _ Cornell University
Geneva, NY 14456
Phone: 315-787-2308
Fax: 315-787-2397
Northcentral Region
Dr. S. Miyazaki, Reg. Coord.
Pesticide Research Center
Michigan State University
East Lansing, MI 48824-1311
Phone: 517-353-9497
Fax: 517-353-5598
Western Region
Rick Melnicoe, Reg. Coord.
Dept. of Environ. Toxicology
University of California
Davis, CA 95616-8588
Phone: 916-752-7633
Fax: 916-752-2866
Southern Region
Dr. C. Meister, Reg. Coord.
Institute of Food & Ag. Science
Pesticide Research Lab
University of Florida
Gainesville, FL 32611-0531
Phone: 904-392-2399
Fax: 904-392-1988
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
Special Local Needs cancellations: The following SLNs have been cancelled.
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 or subscribe to the newsletter, please contact Catherine Daniels.
Contributions, comments and subscription inquiries may be directed to:
Catherine Daniels, Food and Environmental Quality Laboratory, Washington State University, Tri-Cities campus, 2710 University Drive, Richland, WA 99352-1671. Phone: 509-372-7495. Fax: 509-372-7491.
E-mail:
cdaniels@tricity.wsu.edu
Return to Table of Contents