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

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

In This Issue

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

Return to PICOL Home Page

News and Notes

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

The April issue of the Agrichemical and Environmental News included an article titled "Restricted Use Pesticides" by Jane Thomas in which 162 active ingredients identified by EPA as Restricted Use Pesticides (RUPs) were listed. A clarification of the chemicals included in this list is necessary. This list identifies RUP active ingredients; however, the RUP listing, taken from an EPA Internet site at http:/www.epa.gov/opppmsd1/RestProd/index.html, may only pertain to certain formulations.

For example, the EPA web page lists avermectin as an RUP, but only when it is found as an emulsifiable concentrate; the RUP designation is due to aquatic and mammalian toxicity concerns. The two products falling into this RUP category are Zephyr 0.15EC and Agri-Mek 0.15EC.

According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, national per capita consumption of fresh potatoes in 1995 was more than 50 pounds. The USDA also reported a 1995 U.S. per capita consumption of 27 pounds of lettuce, 16 pounds of onions, and eight pounds of carrots.

Velsicol Chemical Corporation announced May 15 that it is permanently stopping production of chlordane and heptachlor; it will formally quit the business by the end of the year.

Arthur Sigal, president and chief executive officer of Velsicol, said financial considerations were behind the decision. "We have always believed in the efficacy of these products and the science that supports their continued use, but the economics no longer support continued manufacture," he said in a statement. "Our intent is to withdraw from the marketplace in an orderly way, giving our customers sufficient opportunity to complete commitments already made."

Chlordane and heptachlor are pesticides used primarily for termite control in wooden structures and as a soil insecticide in tropical regions. Heptachlor is currently used in the United States only to protect underground cable junction boxes from fire ants. The EPA cancelled all food uses of the pesticides between 1975 and 1978, an agency spokesperson said.

At the behest of EPA, Velsicol in 1988 voluntarily cancelled the pesticides for termite control in the United States, but the company has continued to export the products for use in Africa, Northeastern Australia, Asia and South America. The market is shrinking, however, in part because "some users are experimenting with other alternatives, particularly in the less harsh tropical climates," a Velsicol spokesperson said.

Novartis announced May 13 the acquisition of the Merck & Co., Inc. crop protection business (located in Whitehouse Station, N.J.) for $910 million. The deal includes worldwide rights to Merck's business, which had 1996 sales of $200 million with a strong position in the acaricide/insecticide and post-harvest fungicide markets.

Also included is about $21 million in product inventories. Novartis has entered into a long-term supply agreement but will not be acquiring any of Merck's manufacturing plants.

Merck is divesting the crop protection business as part of its decision to combine its animal health and poultry genetics business with Rhone Poulenc's animal health business to form a joint venture to be known as Merial.

The crop protection activities have been very consistently profitable. Sales have grown during the past four years at a compounded annual growth rate of 12 percent, and gross profit and operating income have grown at a compounded annual growth rate of 12 percent and 13 percent, respectively.

Merck's product line is primarily based on two active ingredients: abamectin and thiabendazole. Abamectin, which is sold primarily under the brand names Agri-mek/Vertimec, is an acaricide/insecticide. Thiabendazole, which is sold under the brand name Mertect, is a post-harvest fungicide.

Novartis had overall 1996 sales of $19 billion and ranked first in agribusiness that year, with sales of $5.2 billion. The company has the world's largest research and development budget ($2.1 billion in 1996) in the life sciences industry. It employs a workforce of about 90,000 in more than 100 countries.

Return to Table of Contents

Pesticide Notification Network:
an update from the coordinator

The Pesticide Notification Network is an information distribution system intended to disseminate pesticide registration and label change information to pesticide user groups across Washington.

Operated by Washington State University for the Washington State Commission on Pesticide Registration, the PNN has now been operating for three months. By far, the majority of the notifications that have been sent relate to issuance, revision or cancellation of either Section 18 exemptions or Section 24(c) SLN registrations. The system has also distributed notifications concerning manufacturers' voluntary product cancellations and use deletions.

PNN notifications are sent to a list of individual contacts via either E-mail or fax; the distribution list is specific to the crop or pesticide usage site. These individual messages are referred to as transmittals; one notification may require sending transmittals to as many as 20 individuals.

For more information about the PNN, contact either Jane Thomas (509) 372-7493, jmthomas@tricity.wsu.edu or Alan Schreiber (509) 372-7324, aschreib@tricity.wsu.edu at FEQL, 100 Sprout Road, Richland, WA 99352-1643.

Return to Table of Contents

Officially Unofficial

• Since 1985 more than 250,000 farmers have lost their farms. Every week 500 farms go out of business.
• For every farmer under the age of 35, there are two farmers over the age of 65.
• In 1995 farmers earned an average of only $5,000 per year from their farming operations.
• Farmers are twice as likely to live in poverty as members of the general population are.
• The farmer's share of the food dollar has slipped from 37 cents in 1980 to only 21 cents in 1994.
• Two-thirds of farmers work at jobs off the farm.

 Return to Table of Contents

BASF Corp. has agreed to put up $1.5 million in cash to reimburse North Dakota farmers who used a costlier BASF herbicide because the company chose to omit certain minor crops from the label of an essentially identical product with a lower price tag.

Tom Dickson, attorney for the plaintiffs in a class action suit against BASF settled May 1, said some 300 farmers have already filed claims. These farmers bought BASF's herbicide POAST instead of the less expensive POAST PLUS because the latter product was labeled for use only on soybeans and alfalfa. The lower priced product apparently was marketed to compete with another producer's herbicide.

POAST PLUS was registered for other crops, but BASF chose not to include such uses on the label, according to Donald Stubbs, chief of the herbicide branch in the EPA Office of Pesticide Program's Registration Division.

"That's the company's prerogative," said Stubbs. "They don't have to put it on the label."

Doug Daugs, one of three farmers who engaged BASF in the court action after he was fined by the state for using POAST PLUS on canola and sunflowers, was not impressed by the $1.5 million settlement in the North Dakota District Court in Hillsboro. At best, said Daugs, he would be reimbursed for the $76 he was fined after the company complained to the North Dakota Department of Agriculture about the use of POAST PLUS on crops not listed on the label.

According to EPA's Stubbs, the BASF case is probably not the only example of its kind. "I think quite a few of the companies do that. This was the tip of the iceberg, in all honesty."

The practice is not within EPA's regulatory purview, however, Stubbs said. "I don't think that we are thrilled with the idea, but there isn't much we can do about it," he said. "Our job is to protect the public health, not to control prices."

BASF representatives said the company agreed to a settlement in North Dakota, even though the firm was "on solid legal ground." According to a company spokesperson, "We arrived at a fair and amicable settlement because we value our customers and would never do anything to jeopardize that relationship. BASF remains committed to developing and marketing products, as with POAST, that contribute to the economic well being of producers everywhere."

Return to Table of Contents

Washington State Department of Agriculture Director Jim Jesernig on May 30 announced the appointment of Bob Arrington as the new assistant director for the department's Pesticide Management Division.

Arrington has spent the past five years with the department as the program manager for the Weights and Measures and Motor Fuel Quality programs.

"I have been very impressed with Bob's professionalism and attention to detail since the day I arrived at WSDA," Jesernig said. "His ability to work well with diverse stakeholders and his exceptional skills in business planning have been a big plus for the department and will be a big plus for the division."

Prior to joining the Department of Agriculture in June 1992, Arrington served for 30 years with the United States Army. While in the Army, Arrington gained extensive management experience while serving as city manager for the American community in Augsburg, Germany. He gained additional management experience as a department director for the Army in Schwetzingen, Germany.

Arrington earned a master's degree in public administration from Shippensburg University and a bachelor's degree in engineering from Michigan State University.

"I'm looking forward to this interesting and challenging assignment, to listening and learning from our stakeholders, and working with the agency's highly professional staff," Arrington said. "My goal is to continue to move this division forward in a manner which best serves the public interest."

Arrington replaces John Daly, who has accepted the deputy supervisor of operations position with the Department of Natural Resources.

Arrington may be contacted at P.O. Box 42589, Olympia, WA 98504-2589 or by calling 360-902-2030.

Return to Table of Contents

• Strawberry integrated Pest Management and Pesticide Use Survey for 1995. March 1997. Pesticide Information Office, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida.
• Pesticides and the Home, Lawn, and Garden. PPP-29. Purdue University Cooperative Extension Service. West Lafayette, IN 47907.
• Pesticides and Spill Management. PPP-28. Purdue University Cooperative Extension Service. West Lafayette, IN 47907.
• Pesticides and Commercial Vehicle Maintenance. PPP-27. Purdue University Cooperative Extension Service. West Lafayette, IN 47907.
• Distribution and Severity of Pests in the Midwest. Project # 93EPIX-1-0107. University of Illinois, Department of Crop Sciences.
• Washington IR-4 Minor Use Report Card. IR-4 Reports. IR-4 Project, NJAES, P.O. Box 231, New Brunswick NJ 08903.
• IR-4 Project: The Minor Use Program, FQPA and the Challenges to Minor Crop Pest Management. IR-4 Project.

Return to Table of Contents

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

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

Washington Pest Consultants Association
Container Collection Dates

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

For more information about plastic pesticide container collection, contact:

Steve George, WPCA Recycling Coordinator,
31 High Valley View St. Yakima, WA 98901
(509) 457-3850 or point your
World Wide Web browser to
http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~Ramsay/wpca.html

Return to Table of Contents

This issue may be unfamiliar to many readers, but recent actions by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and concern expressed by one or two states have threatened the use of indemnification as a tool in SLN registrations. This could be devastating to growers of many minor crops because of loss of existing registrations and reluctance on the part of companies to pursue additional registrations.

There are now more than 20 Washington SLN registrations that use this tool, and several more registrations are pending. Research is currently underway that will only result in registrations if indemnification is available. If these registrations are lost and replacements are not registered, growers may be unable to competitively produce some of these crops in the United States. Some major pesticide companies currently do not register their products on the very minor crops because of perceived liability.

Indemnification is a word I rarely used until I became involved with registration of pesticides for minor uses. In fact, many people use waivers of liability when referring to agreements between growers and the registrants of pesticides where the grower accepts the liability if the product damages the crop or fails to perform as expected.

When indemnification is discussed, the first questions people unfamiliar with the subject ask are, Why should a company place this kind of language on an SLN? If it does, why would a grower agree to sign such a document? There are many reasons, but here are some of the major points.

In a period of increased registration requirements and costs, pesticide companies first concentrate research on producing information for registration on crops and uses that will produce the largest volumes of sales. This may sound mercenary, but many sales are needed to repay the costs of producing data, obtaining registration and building plants to produce pesticides. Some minor crop producers find that pesticides valuable for their crop are discontinued when there are no major uses to support the cost of producing additional data required by the EPA to maintain registrations.

Another factor is shrinking budgets for university and USDA research that in the past produced much of the data used to justify registrations for minor uses. This is compounded by increased research costs due to federal and state requirements.

To overcome these obstacles, many grower organizations participate financially and sometimes become third-party registrants. A third-party registrant is an entity, other than the primary registrant, that registers the product at the federal or state level for a specific use. Most third-party registrants are not in a position to accept liability for even limited use of a pesticide. Most third-party registrants in the Northwest are grower organizations.

The production of enough data to prove that a pesticide will not harm a crop under any conditions or circumstances can be costly and time consuming. Many minor uses are on high- value specialty crops with very limited acreage. Other crops such as vegetable seed crops may require entirely different cultural practices from the same crop grown for food and have additional pest control problems. In addition, many specialty crops are poor competitors and require a combination of herbicides at reduced rate s to achieve a margin of safety to the crop while providing adequate weed control. Companies that register a pesticide under these conditions must weigh the limited sales potential against the possible risks that the use may entail.

I believe those who feel that government should not permit indemnification or liability agreements between growers who use the pesticide and companies or organizations that register the pesticide overlook one major point. The easiest way to limit liability without indemnification agreements is for the company not to register the product for the use in question. This places an almost absolute limit on the liability from the pesticide registrant. Unfortunately, it takes away from the grower the choice to evaluate whether a pesticide with indemnification is a better solution for his pest problem than other pesticides or cultural practices that may be available.

The growers of these crops, familiar with the crops and the conditions present when they are grown, may find that the risks are minimal or acceptable for pest control and that economic production of the crops is possible.

The Northwest is a major producer of minor crops. These crops represent a large portion of the contribution of agriculture to the economy. The loss of our ability to economically produce any of these crops would not only affect growers but also the sup pliers, processors, and maybe the availability of that commodity in the marketplace. Millions of dollars of production will be lost without adequate pest control for these crops.

This article earlier indicated that recent EPA action has threatened the future of registrations that include indemnification as part of the labeling. In at least three states, among which were Washington and Oregon, the EPA called the state registration staff and advised them that the specific SLN was invalid. That is the normal course of action when EPA desires a state to withdraw the registration rather than EPA formalizing the action. EPA is taking these actions without any public notification that hundreds of existing and future registrations may be lost for minor uses. Some of these registrations have existed for more than seven years. Before further action against existing or pending registrations, I believe EPA should meet with minor crop group representatives, state registration administrators experienced with these labels, and IR-4. With the help of these groups, EPA can seek solutions to avoid loss of current and future registrations for minor crops.

I would appreciate hearing from anyone with additional information on this issue or with SLNs for which indemnification has been challenged.

Companies, commodity groups or individuals with an interest in this issue are urged to contact either the author or Alan Schreiber. Schreiber may be contacted at FEQL, 100 Sprout Road, Richland, WA 99352-1643, 509-372-7324, 509-372-7460 (fax) aschreib@tricity.wsu.edu 

Return to Table of Contents

EPA has announced details on a plan for carrying out the 1996 Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA). This plan includes the following four primary goals concerning the FQPA:

All foods Americans produce or consume will continue to be safe for all people to eat. By the year 2005, EPA wants:

• To see a 50 percent reduction in use of pesticides classified as having the highest potential to cause cancer;
• A 100 percent reduction of food use pesticides that do not meet the new statutory standard of "reasonable certainty of no harm";
• To double the number of registrations of safer chemicals and biopesticides;
• To obtain a 50 percent reduction in agricultural acres treated with pesticides that have carcinogenic or neurotoxic characteristics; and,
• To have completed the active ingredient and product reregistration for all pesticides reregistered under FIFRA 88.

By relying on pollution prevention and other approaches that eliminate, reduce, or minimize contamination with respect to production, consumption, use, and reuse of materials, all Americans will live and work in safe environments and healthy communities. The agency believes that by 2005:

• Public and ecosystem exposure to pesticides will be reduced by implementation of improved cultural practices, enhanced public education, and registration of products with reduced toxicity;
• The number of workers who experience adverse health effects caused by things such as acute poisoning will be reduced by 50 percent;
• The quantity of biopesticides used in agriculture will double;
• Consumer and commercial nonagricultural use of pesticides with significant neurotoxic effects will be reduced by 50 percent;
• The use of pesticides with high potential to leach into and persist in ground water will be reduced 50 percent;
• Alternatives for 80 percent of the pesticidal uses of methyl bromide will be registered; and,
• Protection for endangered species will be included in all pesticide labels.

Information on the state of the environment will be user friendly and widely accessible. This will increase opportunities for Americans to learn about the environment and foster environmental stewardship through information exchange within communities and across economic sectors. By 2005, EPA will:

• Have current, accurate, and easily accessible information about pesticide products and policy decisions publicly available, including on the Internet;
• Have agreements with most major food retailers to distribute information to consumers about pesticides.

• EPA will develop and begin use of new tools and concepts to provide the best possible scientific basis for addressing current and future environmental problems. By 2005, EPA will:
• Establish 10 cross media environmental protection projects using voluntary public/private partnerships;
• Develop or revise all regulations, policies and guidelines for registering safer pesticides to improve and streamline registration process.

The following lists FQPA Implementation highlights and statutory completion deadlines.

• May 1997: Proposed Antimicrobial Reform Regulation must be published in the Federal Register.
• August 1997: The schedule of pesticide tolerances to be reassessed within the next 10 years must be published in the Federal Register.
• August 1997: Final regulation outlining the process for establishing emergency exemption tolerances must be published in the Federal Register.
• August 1997: Procedures and guidelines for implementing expedited processing and review of reduced risk pesticides must be developed.
• August 1997: The process to coordinate Federal and State data requirements must be developed.
• November 1997 and Annually Thereafter: A report containing the status of the reregistration progress and projected years of completion must be published in the Federal Register.
• May 1998: The final Antimicrobial Reform Regulation must be published in the Federal Register.
• August 1998: Endocrine disruptor screening and testing strategy done.
• August 1998: Consumer brochure distributed to large retail grocery stores.
• August 1999: Progress report on the registration of minor uses must be published in the Federal Register.
• August 2000: Report to Congress on endocrine disruptor screening program.

How will these future events affect activities today? Overall, there are now about 20,000 registered pesticide product formulations, containing about 675 active ingredients and 1,835 inert ingredients. About 470 pesticide active ingredients are used in agriculture, and EPA has established more than 9,300 residue limits (tolerances) for pesticides in food. The FQPA mandates that the EPA reassess all 9,300 existing tolerances. The agency has admitted that it is unlikely to meet its annual goal for the re registration of pesticides in 1997 due to the impact of the FQPA. In an average year, EPA registers 40 new active ingredients and reregisters 40 older pesticides. Since FQPA enactment, EPA has registered two new active ingredients, 10 new biological pesticides, and one new antimicrobial pesticide.

EPA has received 137 Section 18 Emergency Exemption requests since passage of FQPA. Forty-two Emergency Exemptions have been granted, and 11 tolerances have been established for 21 of the requests. One request was denied, five have been withdrawn, and the rest are pending.

What EPA does in fulfillment of the FQPA will affect hundreds of pesticide producers, 2,500 formulators, 29,000 distributors and other retail establishments. Also affected will be 40,000 commercial pest control firms, more than 1,000,000 farms, 3,500,0 00 farmworkers, several million industry and government users, and each and every household. Within EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs, a total of about 800 people will carry out these activities related to pesticide regulation and management.

Full details on the plan and more information about the FQPA are available by calling (703)-305-5805, or via the Internet at: http://www.epa.gov/opppsps1/fqpa

Details on FQPA itself are available via the Internet at: http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/lawsregs.htm

Return to Table of Contents

The 1997 IR-4 projects

I recently received a list of IR-4 projects proposed for initiation in 1997. The number, diversity and scope of projects are impressive. IR-4 plans to begin about 167 projects on 80 crops. The precise number is hard to estimate, depending upon the definition of what constitutes a crop (I counted head lettuce and leaf lettuce as separate crops, for example). It depends also on the definition of a project. Nine projects are reregistration projects, some of the last such projects that IR-4 will undertake. These are marked with an "R-" before the chemical name in the accompanying table.

Bear in mind that, when IR-4 undertakes a project, it means that an unmet pest control need exists for a crop; a solution is known, but the company cannot afford to register the compound for the use. For most crops listed, companies cannot afford to register any product. Many minor crops can obtain pesticide registrations only with IR-4 help.

IR-4 projects take three to five years from initiation to registration in most cases. So, in addition to these 167 projects, IR-4 has perhaps two to four times as many other projects in various stages of development.

Return to Table of Contents

Sulfonylurea herbicides: Ecological menace or herald of environmental stewardship? 

 ...Allan Felsot

Imagine being able to control an acre of weeds with as little as half an ounce of herbicide. If you have used products with idyllic names like Harmony and Finesse or macho names like Oust, then you are familiar with the sulfonylurea (SU) herbicides and know that their small packages belie the big things they can do.

If you were farming before the mid-1980s, then you probably appreciate the advantages of making a spray mixture out of something in a tiny bottle as opposed to a five-gallon jug. Handling the products could hardly be safer. The products' mammalian and wildlife toxicities are so low they're difficult to measure accurately. To put it in perspective, the acute toxicity of everyday household items such as aspirin, caffeine and table salt are greater. Even long-term exposure to SU residues seems comparatively harmless; the EPA still regards these compounds as totally nonmutagenic and noncarcinogenic nearly 15 years after their first commercialization.

Residues of the earliest commercialized SU, chlorsulfuron (Glean), lasted in the soil long enough to sometimes limit crop rotations, but later compounds like thifensulfuron (Harmony) degraded to harmless levels within weeks after application. Thus far, no one has reported finding SU residues in water.

Based on their incredibly low application rates per acre, safety to mammals and wildlife, and lack of movement to water supplies, SU herbicides could be considered an example of chemical pesticide compatibility with environmental stewardship. Yet SU herbicides are under fire as potential purveyors of ecological havoc. Why?

SU herbicides kill plants at concentrations nearly 50 times lower than the concentrations used for other herbicides, and this has resulted in fear that widespread use of these compounds may cause unprecedented damage to nontarget crops and native plants. In addition to the usual environmental advocacy groups, some scientists, regulatory officials, and even growers have expressed concern. It is not unusual for scientists and regulatory officials to sometimes overstate their worries about safety, largely because absolute safety can never be guaranteed. But when growers themselves express concern about hazards to their livelihood over the use of specific pest control products, it's time to pay attention and start looking for the truth.

The journey begins with explanation of why SU herbicides can be extremely toxic to plants while so safe to animals. SU herbicides inhibit an enzyme only found in plants and microorganisms. Known as acetolactate synthase (ALS), the enzyme is part of a cascade of reactions that catalyze the synthesis of valine, leucine and isoleucine, known as the branched chain amino acids. These amino acids, along with others, are assembled into proteins that are necessary for all physiological functions.

Obviously, not all plants are harmed by SU herbicides. Crops such as wheat, soybeans, and corn can tolerate exposure because they rapidly detoxify the chemical. Whatever herbicide is not broken down can then react with ALS. Studies with isolated ALS enzyme from a variety of plants show it can be inhibited by solutions containing very low parts per billion (ppb) of the herbicide; a solution containing only one ppb would be about 99.9999999 percent pure.

Fueling the perception that the exceptionally high bioactivity of SU herbicides makes them uniquely dangerous to nontarget plants is the inability of modern instruments to detect them at levels that damage plants. This perception is only partly true.

Recently, methods have been published for detection of SU herbicides in soil and water at levels less than the amounts known to cause toxicity. The ability to detect very low levels in plants continues to lag behind because analytical methods are usually developed to meet the requirements of the tolerance, which is the legal amount of residue allowed in a commodity.

The tolerance levels for SU herbicides are significantly greater than the amounts that can injure susceptible plants. Nevertheless, the risks associated with SU herbicides can be estimated by examining the probability that nontarget plants will be exposed and determining if the levels of exposure pose any unique toxicological hazards.

Are the toxic effects of SU herbicides so uniquely different from other herbicides as to pose an unforeseeable risk? The firestorm over SU herbicides has been fueled by several research articles claiming inhibition of reproduction without noticeable effects on vegetative growth or appearance of the foliage.

These observations came from studies of peas, canola and soybeans exposed in the greenhouse to doses of chlorsulfuron (Glean) representing 0.5 to 1.0 percent of the field application rate (0.1-0.2 grams per hectare). The effect was observed only when t he plants were treated at very specific reproductive growth stages. Similar dosages of atrazine and glyphosate were not toxic. However, 2,4-D had the same effects on sunflower and smartweed as did Glean. Indeed, other experiments show that 2,4-D can be just as toxic at similar percentages of application rate, if a sufficiently susceptible plant is used.

When an observation by some researcher leads to a hypothesis of ecological disaster, then subsequent observations should be used to determine whether that hypothesis has any validity in the real world. Whether SU herbicides uniquely cause reproductive damage in plants without any other noticeable symptoms was discussed at a recent symposium held in conjunction with the Weed Science of America meetings in Orlando, Fla. DuPont, the manufacturer of SU herbicides, contracted nine university and USDA scientists, representing a diversity of geographic cropping regions, to put the hypothesis to test in the field.

Percentages of application rate simulated the low levels used in the pea, canola and soybean experiments. The crops chosen for study included peas, cotton, sorghum, corn, canola, cherry, wine grape, peach, sugar beet and cucumber.

The researchers observed no yield reductions in most experiments. In no instance did any scientist report a yield reduction without a corresponding observation of foliar and growth effects. Some of the tests timed the pesticide applications to coincide with the hypothetically most sensitive reproductive stage.

Two other points are germane to assessing the ecological risk of SU herbicides. Even the greenhouse studies with pea, canola and soybean showed a definitive threshold before an adverse effect was observed. Thus, there is some low dosage that is safe; t his only confirms that the long-held toxicological principle of "Dose makes the poison" also applies to plants.

The other point is more statistical in nature. Consider the number of annual SU herbicide applications and compare this to the number of drift complaints or observations that native plants are being harmed. The percentage of problems relative to the n umber of applications must be minuscule.

If SU herbicides were purveyors of ecological havoc, I would expect to see more widespread problems after nearly 15 years of their commercial use. Instead, I hear the same complaints that have been heard about 2,4-D since its commercialization. Occasionally, pesticides drift from one field to another and there is crop damage. The number of complaints varies by year; some years seem to have a lot of complaints, while others have very few.

Training programs will continue to remind pesticide applicators of their responsibilities. Regulatory agencies, in attempting to reduce drift, will continue to make restrictions on spraying. Manufacturers will continue to improve spray application technology.

Meanwhile, chemical companies will continue a little advertised trend that began years ago. They will continue to synthesize new compounds that are safer to human and nontarget organisms (including beneficial predators) but which are specifically more toxic to pests and generally require lesser and lesser amounts of active ingredient to do the job. They will continue to demonstrate that chemical technology can be consistent with the goal of farming in concert with environmental stewardship.

Return to Table of Contents

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

*Key

EPA published in the Federal Register of April 11, 1997, a document establishing time-limited tolerances for combined residues of the pesticide propiconazole in or on the food commodities almonds and cranberries. The tolerance level for cranberries was listed incorrectly. The parts per million is now corrected to read "1.0".

The EPA increased fees charged for processing tolerance petitions for pesticides under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). The change in fees reflects a 3.33 percent increase in locality pay for civilian Federal General Schedule (GS) employees working in the Washington DC/Baltimore, MD metropolitan area in 1997.

Emergency Exemptions (Section 18) 

Crisis exemptions have been granted for the following uses:

• FMC for use of bifenthrin (Capture 2EC) on canola and rapeseed for control of cabbage and turnip aphid. The exemption expires August 15, 1997.
• Valent USA for use of fenpropathrin (Danitol 2.4EC) on currants for control of currant borer. The exemption expires June 14, 1997.
• Rohm & Haas for use of myclobutanil (Rally 40W) on mint for control of powdery mildew. The exemption expires August 15, 1997.
• Novartis for use of pyridate (Tough 3.75 EC) on garbanzo beans (chickpeas) for control of broadleaf weeds. The exemption expires June 20, 1997.

Specific exemptions were granted for the following uses:

• American Cyanamid for use of pendimethalin (Prowl 3.3 EC) on mint for control of kochia and redroot pigweed. The exemption expires December 31, 1997.
• DowElanco for use of clopyralid (Stinger) on canola/rapeseed for control of Canada thistle. The exemption expires July 31, 1997. This use is prohibited in Spokane County due to the presence of water howellia (Howellia aquatilis).
• Bayer for use of tebuconazole (Folicur 3.6F) on wheat to control stripe rust. The exemption expires July 7, 1997.

 Return to Table of Contents

Special Local Needs (Section 24c)

The Washington State Department of Agriculture has granted label registration to the following pesticide uses under the provision of Section 24(c) amended FIFRA.

• Zeneca for use of Eptam 7E in tank mix combination with metribuzin (Lexone or Sencor) to control a broader spectrum of problem weeds in Irish potatoes -WA970025.
• Drexel for use of Dimethoate 4EC on peas for control of aphids - WA970026.
• Wilbur-Ellis for use of Digon 400 on peas for control of aphids - WA970027.
• Zeneca for use of Ambush on hybrid poplar trees for control of aphids, beetles, cutworms, spotted tentiform leafminer, and tarnished plant bug - WA970028.
• Platte for use of Clean Crop Dimethoate 400 on peas for control of aphids - WA970029.
• Micro Flo for use of Dimethoate 4E on peas for control of aphids - WA970030.
• Terra International for use of Dimeate 4E on peas for control of aphids - WA970031.
• Gustafson for use of 42-S Thiram on coriander seed for export to Mexico for control of seed decay, damping-off, and seedling blight - WA970032.

SLN cancellations

The following Washington Special Local Need (SLN) registration has been voluntarily canceled by the registering company:

• DuPont for use of Vydate L Insecticide/Nematicide - WA830008, WA840023, WA890024. 

Return to Table of Contents

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

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

This page has been accessed times since June 23, 1997.