Chem-News August 1989
DATE: August 17, 1989
TO: Those Interested in Pesticide Information
FROM: William G., Smith, Extension Associate
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Bureau of
Pesticide Management, Private Applicator Recertification Requirements
The Department has been required by the U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency to upgrade its requirements for private applicator recertification.
As you may know, the present recertification requirement for private
applicators is the completion of a take-home workbook exam in the 5th or
6th year of the six-year recertification cycle. Recertification is issued
for successful completion of this exam.
For private applicators whose recertification due date is on or after
September 21, 1989 the Department will require recertification by one of
three options:
1. Successful completion of the take-home workbook exam or
2. successful completion of a proctored exam, administered by the
Department or
3. accumulation of 10 training credits through attendance of at
least three training programs approved by the Department.
For private applicators whose recertification due date is on or after
September 21, 1990 the Department will require that private applicators
recertify by one of two options:
1. Successful completion of a proctored exam, administered by the
Department or
2. accumulation of 10 training credits through attendance of at least
three training programs approved by the Department.
For private applicators whose recertification due date is on or after
September 21, 1991 the Department anticipates further changes in the
recertification requirements.
Regulation changes to update recertification requirements for
pesticide applicators will be proposed in the coming months.
The Workbook and take-home exam is available from Cornell University
for a fee of $13.00 (make check payable to Cornell University) and send to:
Distribution Center, Private Recertification
# 7 Research Park
Cornell University
Ithaca, NY 14850
If you wish to obtain more information about training opportunities or
scheduling an exam with the Department, contact the nearest Department
regional office.
From NYSDEC letter dated July 28, 1989
EPA's Endangered Species Program
On July 3 EPA published their new proposed Endangered Species
Protection Program in the Federal Register.
In the revised program, EPA will concentrate on providing protection
for threatened and endangered species by focusing on the species themselves
rather than clusters of pesticide use sites. They will emphasize lower
application rates as opposed to complete prohibitions of use where such
measures will adequately reduce the risks to threatened and endangered
species.
There will be a generic statement on the label which will instruct
pesticide users to determine if any use limitations are contained in the
County Bulletin. the label will not list the counties as did the previous
proposed Program. EPA is working to determine the best way to distribute
bulletins and information identifying which counties are or are not
affected.
Until an enforceable Program is in place, EPA is planning to initiate
a voluntary Interim Program during the 1989 and 1990 growing season. This
will include a series of pilot programs; requests for public, state, and
regional comment; and educational efforts. EPA expects implementation of
enforceable measures to begin in 1991 with the issuance of Pesticide
Registration Notices to registrants of affected pesticide products (the
generic statement will be added to the label).
EPA originally planned to begin its endangered species protection
program in 1988, but on January 1988 it was deferred due to lack of public
input, faulty maps and wide-spread opposition.
Diazinon Status
Court Sets Aside Cancellation Order for Diazinon
"A federal appeals court panel June 2 set aside an Environmental
Protection Agency cancellation order halting the use of diazinon on golf
courses and sod farms and ordered the agency to review the order and be
more specific in its finding that the pesticide creates unreasonable risks
to birds.
"EPA proposed to cancel the two diazinon uses Oct. 1, 1986. The
agency cites 60 incidents in 18 states of birds killed when they fed on
grass, roots, seeds, or invertebrates in grass treated with the
insecticide."
Chemical Regulation Reporter - June 16, 1989.
Diazinon Cancellation Remanded To EPA To Make FIFRA-Required Finding
Also, because EPA "improperly" gave no effect to the word "generally"
in the phrase, "generally causes unreasonable adverse effects...," the
diazinon cancellation order was remanded to the agency "for application of
the correct legal standard" in the above ruling from the U. S. Court of
Appeals, Fifth Circuit, in the action against EPA filed by Ciba-Geigy
Corporation. The company's central argument was that diazinon does not
"generally" cause adverse effects on birds.
The court held that the EPA Administrator "improperly read the word
'generally' out of FIFRA Section 6 (b). The word is not superfluous: it
requires the Administrator to determine that the use of a pesticide in a
particular application creates unreasonable risks, though not necessarily
actual adverse consequences, with considerable frequency, and thus requires
the Administrator to consider whether he has defined the application he
intends to prohibit sufficiently. If the use of diazinon creates an
unreasonable risk of killing birds on only 10% of the golf courses on which
it is used, for example, the Administrator should define the class of golf
courses on which its use is to be prohibited more narrowly. Without
attempting to interpret the vast administrative record ourselves,
therefore, we grant Ciba-Geigy's petition to the extent of remanding the
case to the Administrator for application of the correct legal standard."
The decision by Circuit Judge Alvin B. Rubin, stated: "Because FIFRA
defines 'adverse effects' as 'unreasonable risks,' the Administrator need
not find that use of a pesticide commonly causes undesirable consequences,
but only that it creates a significant probability that such consequences
may occur. FIFRA therefore does not oblige the Administrator to maintain
the registration of a pesticide that might not generally have adverse
effects but, say, killed children on 50% of the occasions on which it was
used. A 50% risk that children might be killed is plainly an "unreasonable
risk" more than sufficient to justify cancellation of the noxious
pesticide. Similarly, a significant risk of bird kills, even if birds are
actually killed infrequently, may justify the Administrator's decision to
ban or restrict diazinon use."
Pesticide Reports, July 1989.
Groups Challenge EPA Delaney Clause Position in Petition, Lawsuit
"A petition from the Natural Resources Defense Council and Public
Citizen requesting EPA to revoke Section 409 tolerances for seven
pesticides will be followed by a lawsuit if the petition is denied, Public
Citizen's William B. Schultz said last week.
"The petition asks EPA to revoke tolerances for benomyl,
chlordimeform, dichlorvos, dicofol, mancozeb, phosmet and trifluralin. It
charges that EPA has determined these pesticides are animal carcinogens,
thus triggering application of the Delaney clause and requiring the agency
under Section 409 of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act to revoke the
tolerances.
"At a May 25 press conference, the groups also announced the filing of
a lawsuit in federal district court in Sacramento which seeks to force EPA
to collect and examine residue chemistry data to determine whether
pesticides concentrate in processed food.
"The lawsuit charged that EPA has 'systematically failed to require
pesticide manufacturers to submit adequate data to determine whether
residues of pesticides that are already registered, many of which are also
known to cause cancer or other adverse health effects, concentrate in
processed foods."
"National Food Processors Association President John R. Cady hit
NRDC's 'alarmist approach of indicting the entire processed food supply' in
its announcement of the petition and lawsuit, asserting that contrary to
NRDC's assertions, pesticide residues rarely concentrate in processed
foods.
"NRDC's brand of science has been challenged by many credible
scientific and public health authorities, yet the group continues to
needlessly frighten American consumers, Cady said." (Pesticide & Toxic
Chemical News, May 31, 1989).
COMMENT: Here we go again. The concept that small amounts of carcinogens
don't seem to affect the health of animals any more than it does ours seems
to get lost in the phobia for a "no risk environment". How much "no risk"
can we afford? The steady loss of pesticides needed to ensure a great
variety of cheap, high quality food may end up as a greater risk to our
health than any trace residues will ever be. (Burton R. Evans, University
of Georgia).
From: The University of Georgia, Vol. 11, No. 7, July 1989.
CDFA Issues UFW Warning to the Nation's Grocers
The California Department of Food and Agriculture has issued an open
letter to the nation's grocers regarding the United Farm Workers (UFW)
about its long-standing boycott of California grapes. Below is the
original version (unedited copy) of the letter that was sent to grocers.
DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE
1220 N Street, P.O. Box 942871
Sacramento, California 94271-0001
July 6, 1989
An Open Letter to the Nation's Grocers:
You may have recently received material from the United Farm Workers (UFW)
about its long-standing boycott of California grapes. We are concerned
that
you not be misled by many false and deceptive statements made by the UFW
and
its supporters.
The UFW is wearing a mantle of food safety. but at heart, its boycott is a
labor-organizing campaign, an effort to bolster a troubled union.
According
to a June 18, 1989 article in the New York Times, the UFW now has no more
than a fifth of the 100,000 members it once boasted--and no table-grape
workers under contract. The UFW's strident--and untrue--allegations about
dangerous pesticide residues in grapes may have helped it bring in
donations,
but at a great cost to the rest of us. They have damaged consumer
confidence
in food. Grapes, along with other fruits and vegetables, are good and safe
to eat, and leading medical authorities all agree are necessary for good
health.
The UFW would have you believe that California grapes are not safe to eat.
This is not true. JThe California Department of Food and Agriculture has
the
most comprehensive residue testing program in the country. Each year,
about
80 percent of the produce we test has no detectable residues. Less than 2
percent contains illegal residues. The record is even better for grapes.
Since 1980, more than 1,000 samples have been tested, with no illegal
residues detected.
The solution to the pesticide residue issue is education. The consumer,
armed with all the facts, will make an informed decision to purchase food
he
or she knows is safe and wholesome.
If you have any questions about the UFW allegations, or about the issue of
food safety in general, please feel free to contact me. We can provide
solid, documented facts.
Sincerely,
Henry J. Voss
Director
(916) 445-7126
Registration of Pesticides
In response to reregistration inquiries, EPA has estimated the status
of active ingredients undergoing reregistration. Of the 1,300 chemicals
which were registered prior to November, 1984, it is anticipated that most
of these chemicals will drop out in response to the new requirements of
FIFRA-88. Thus, it is estimated that approximately 600 active ingredients
will require reregistration. The office of Pesticide Programs then noted
that of the 600 active ingredients: about 70 were voluntarily cancelled or
suspended as a result of DATA-CALL-INS; 194 are on List A (registration
standards developed); and about 336 are candidates for Lists B, C, and D.
Of the 194 chemicals in List A: 19 have been cancelled or suspended, 14
have special reviews underway (also subject to second round review), and 38
have sufficient data for second round review. EPA gave the following list
of pesticides considered ready for second round review in FY89 and FY90: in
FY89 - MCPA, warfarin, butylate, chlorpyrifos, atrazine, chlorobenzilate,
chloroneb, ethion, simazine, carbaryl, terbacil, coumaphos, norflurazon,
terrazole, formetanate MCL, and dimethoate; in FY90 - chloramben, bifenox,
dicamba, NH4 sulfamate, eptam, bromacil.
ACCESS, July 1989
Waxman Bill (HR 1725)
A bill submitted to Congress by Representative Waxman (D-Calif.) is
causing considerable concern among agricultural and food industries. It is
opposed by EPA, FDA and USDA. The bill would replace the zero risk concept
of the Delaney Act with a negligible risk concept (for carcinogens). This
is in line with recommendations by the National Academy of Sciences and is
a concept that is welcomed by the agricultural and food industries, as well
as many scientists. However, the specifics of the bill are such that many
chemicals are likely to be lost in the process, partly because of the
deadlines it would impose and partly because of the way it deals with
negligible risk. Negligible risk is generally considered to be one per
million, i.e., there is a 95% chance that an increase in the normal
incidence of cancer will not exceed one per million population. The risk
could actually be less than one per million or zero. Under the Waxman
Bill, all negligible risk levels established for all chemicals when added
together could not exceed a negligible risk level. This appears to mean
that individual tolerance levels would have to be set well below negligible
risk levels. And there is the complicated if not unanswerable question --
how do you add negligible risk levels together? The bill uses the term
accumulative health risk.
The bill is also reported to eliminate the risk/benefit concept which
is currently in FIFRA. This bill has the potential for eliminating many
more minor crop registrations than the 1988 amendments to FIFRA.
(Mississippi Environment, June 1989).
Review of Federal Pesticide Proposal
A bill (HR 1725) proposed by Representative Waxman and now before
Congress, would have considerable impact on California's agriculture if
passed.
Currently, pesticide tolerances are established for enforcement
purposes; they serve as indicators of whether or not the use regulations
are being followed. Risk estimates are based upon risk assessments which
are developed from experimental results before tolerances are set. They
serve as guides for setting allowable human exposures. Pesticide
registrations are based upon an evaluation of the risks and benefits
associated with use.
This bill will eliminate the risk/benefit approach to pesticide
registrations. Permissible pesticide use will be based on estimated health
risks. Under the bill, the most conservative models must be used to derive
the risk estimates.
The bill requires that tolerances be established for all active and
inert ingredients of pesticides on raw or processed commodities. The bill
further requires that all tolerances be established so that human dietary
exposures will be less than the "negligible risk" level. Negligible risk
is defined as the level of human exposure which will not cause or
contribute to any known or anticipated adverse human health effects which
exceed a rate of one in a million. Any kind of adverse health effect could
trigger the standard.
Under the bill, exposure calculations are to be based on total
potential dietary exposure. This assumes that 100% of the crop is treated
and that residues are equal to 100% of the tolerance. Higher tolerance
values could be used only if the actual frequency of crop treatment and
residue levels are known, and if the commodity is uniformly distributed and
consumed.
The EPA will be compelled to review the registrations for all
pesticides and inert ingredients within 180 days of passage of the bill.
Under the proposed law, pesticide and inert ingredient tolerances will
become more and more restrictive over a period of six years. Ultimately,
the maximum allowed accumulated health risk for all pesticides on a crop
will be set at the negligible risk level: all residues combined cannot
create a greater than negligible risk. In addition, exposure is to be
estimated based on the residues of each individual pesticide or inert
ingredient on all commodities which have tolerances, and the total when
added together cannot equal a greater than negligible risk.
Sufficient evidence exists in California and elsewhere to demonstrate
that actual pesticide residues present on raw and processed agricultural
commodities are a minute fraction of the tolerance, and that the actual
residues do not constitute a measurable health hazard. Generally, when
thorough analyses have been made, pesticide residues have been
undetectable. The level of contamination by pesticides is so low that we
now recognize that most commercially produced commodities are chemically
indistinguishable from those sold as "organically" produced crops. Because
the percentage of crops treated and the actual residues present are much
lower than the frequency of treatment or maximum residue levels allowed,
lowering tolerances cannot change the health risks to consumers. Thus, the
actual risks to the consuming public are a small fraction of the levels
implied by the authors of this bill. This law will not result in a
significant improvement in consumer health by reducing pesticide residues.
Please appreciate that this analysis does not represent an official
University of California position on the bill.
Dr. Mike Stimmann, Pesticide Coordinator, University of California,
Davis.
Impact on the Continued Availability of Ciba-Geigy Products--Corporation
Letter
The following is a letter from Dr. John Ellis of Ciba-Geigy
Corporation regarding the reregistration status of their pesticide
products:
Dear Cooperator:
SUBJECT: IMPACT OF REREGISTRATION ON THE CONTINUED AVAILABILITY OF CIBA-
GEIGY PRODUCTS
Back in May, I hurriedly sent out a list of CIBA-GEIGY products and
uses that have been discontinued as a result of the EPA's procedure for
reregistration. Needless to say, I have received numerous phone calls from
recipients who were seeking more information on when these reregistration
actions take effect. I apologize for not providing this so, therefore, I
am writing you again to be more explicit. The list of CIBA-GEIGY products
and uses that have been discontinued is enclosed. Some revisions have been
made to this list since it was last issued.
For chlorobenzilate (Acaraben), terbutryn (Igran), propazine
(Milogard), dipropetryn (Sancap), and chloroxuron (Tenoran) -- CIBA-GEIGY
has voluntarily requested that EPA cancel all registered uses for these
products. The Agency will, at some point in the future, propose to
withdraw the currently established residue tolerances for all uses of these
products. Customarily, EPA permits end-users of products to continue to
use the products for their intended use until the supply is exhausted.
Therefore, any end-user who currently holds an inventory of the above-
listed products may continue to use the inventory for the foreseeable
future. It is advised that users expeditiously deplete their inventories
since withdrawal of current tolerances would make residues on crops treated
with these products illegal. We would expect that EPA would provide a
notice of at least six months prior to official withdrawal of the
tolerances for these products. With respect to chloroxuron, EPA has
provided CIBA-GEIGY with a notice of cancellation which clearly states that
end-users may continue to use inventories that they may hold in accordance
with label directions included on the packaging. For the other products,
EPA has yet to provide an official notice of cancellation but it is
expected that the Agency will also provide for users to deplete inventories
in accordance with label directions.
CIBA-GEIGY has also asked for voluntary cancellation of chlordimeform
products. In accordance with the terms of cancellation for this product,
all use of the product must cease by October 1, 1989, irrespective of
whether an end-user holds inventory after that date.
Occasionally, CIBA-GEIGY and other registrants will delete certain
uses from a product while retaining other uses. It is entirely permissible
for an end-user to use a material for a discontinued use for the
foreseeable future provided the package from which the inventory is
obtained bears the appropriate end-use directions for the site in question.
Otherwise, the use would be considered a violation of FIFRA. It is impor-
tant that users realize that the Agency will be withdrawing residue
tolerances for discontinued products and uses at some point in the future.
It is difficult to project with any degree of certainty exactly when this
will occur. It is particularly important to be aware of this point because
once the residue tolerances have been withdrawn, any commodity that has
been treated, even though it may have been treated in accordance with the
label of a previously registered product, could be considered in violation
if it contains a residue of the pesticide in question.
If you have further questions, please give me a call at (919) 292-
7100, extension 2171.
Sincerely yours,
John F. Ellis, Ph.D.
Director
Biological Research
JFE/sh/0502
Enclosure
CIBA-GEIGY Products/Uses That Have Been Discontinued
as the Result of EPA Reregistration
Active Ingredient Crops Dropped Reason Why+
atrazine perennial ryegrass 1,2,4
orchardgrass 1,2,4
pineapples 1,4
proso millet 1,4
rangeland 1,2,4
bermudagrass 1,2
(24c registrations)
chlordimeform cotton 1,4
(all uses)
chlorobenzilate grapefruit 1,4
(all uses) oranges 1,4
lemons 1,4
limes 1,4
tangelos 1,4
tangerines 1,4
kumquats 1,4
chloroxuron onions 1,4
(all uses) strawberries 1,4
soybeans 1,4
diazinon asparagus 1
citrus fruits 1,2
dandelions 1
olives 1
coffee 1
filberts 1
figs 1
pecans 1
dried beans 1,2
watercress 1
dried peas 1
alfalfa 2
cotton 1,2
peanuts 1
clover 2
cowpeas 2
sorghum 1
tobacco 1
trefoil 2
wheat 2
lespedeza 2
range grass 2
bermudagrass 2
grass forage 2
field corn* 1,2
caneberries (ex. in CA, OR, WA) 1
walnuts (ex. in CA) 1
almonds (ex. in CA) 1
*All uses dropped except seed treatment and aerial use of D-z-n diazinon
14G.
dipropetryn cotton 1,4
(all uses)
metolachlor pod crops for dry and
succulent varieties -
25G formulation only 1
phosphamidon broccoli 1
cantaloupes 1
cauliflower 1
cucumbers 1
grapefruit 1
lemons 1
oranges 1
peppers 1
sugarcane 1
tangerines 1
tomatoes 1
watermelons 1
propazine sorghum 1,4
(all uses)
simazine drainage ditch banks 1,4
cooling towers 1,4
forage bermudagrass 1,4
alfalfa 1,4
grasses grown for seed 1,4
tree plantations for
timber 1,4
terbutryn winter wheat 1,4
(all uses) winter barley 1,4
sorghum 1,4
_____
NOTE: Field residue trials will not support any greenhouse use of
diazinon. All current uses will be discontinued because of reasons number
1 and 4.
+ Code for reason a product or use has been cancelled:
1. Cost of data development for reregistration not justified by sales.
2. ADI constraints.
3. Liability concerns.
4. Capacity to do the work to meet the EPA deadline.
Issued 7/25/89
Pursuit Emergency Exemption (Section 18) Denied by DEC
The Chemicals-Pesticides Program has received a letter from the
Department of Environmental Conservation (Marilyn DuBois) indicating that
she would not forward Cornell's request on to the EPA for an emergency
exemption for use of the herbicide imazethapyr (Pursuit) to control weed
species in peas, snap beans, and dry beans. DuBois stated that, "Cornell
University specialists failed to show that a significant yield increase was
obtained when imazethapyr (Pursuit) was used when compared to presently
registered herbicides."
Cornell University contacted EPA to discuss their review process and
to find out if other states had been granted the use of imazethapyr
(Pursuit) for the 1989 growing season. According to the Emergency Response
Branch at EPA, eleven states were issued emergency exemptions for the use
of imazethapyr (Pursuit) for the 1989 growing season. Those states
receiving exemptions for use on dry beans, peas, dry edible peas and/or
southern peas were: Michigan, Maryland, Pennsylvania, New Jersey,
Virginia, Tennessee, Washington, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Idaho, and Oregon.
W. Smith, Chemicals-Pesticides Program
Food Laboratory Report for July 1989
Five vegetable samples, labeled organically grown, contained
detectable levels of CIPC and Botran. Similarly, five samples of food
packaging materials were coated with significant levels of Diazinon and
Dursban.
Special projects during the month included:
1. Analysis of 27 apple and apple product samples for Alar. Detectable
levels were found in ten samples. Levels ranged from 15 ppb to 2.36 ppm.
UDMH was found in the latter sample at 27 ppb.
2. Analysis of 10 raw milk samples for aflatoxin and 11 raw milk samples
for sulfamethazine. Contamination was not found in any of the samples.
3. Analysis of 12 Swiss cheese samples for misbranding. Low sodium and
cholesterol claims were found to be unsubstantiated.
New York State Agriculture and Markets, July 1989
wgs/8/89
Disclaimer: Please read
the pesticide label prior to use. The information contained at this web
site is not a substitute for a pesticide label. Trade names used herein
are for convenience only; no endorsement of products is intended, nor is
criticism of unnamed products implied. Most of this information is historical
in nature and may no longer be applicable.
To Top
For more information relative to pesticides and their use in New York State, please contact the PMEP staff at:
| |
5123 Comstock Hall
Cornell University
Ithaca, NY 14853-0901
(607) 255-1866
|
|
 |
This site is supported, in part, by funding from the
 |
Questions regarding the development of this web site should be directed to the
PMEP Webmaster
