PMEP Home Page Chem-News Chem-News Archive: 1989 Chem-News July 1989

Chem-News July 1989

			July 20, 1989
TO:		Those Interested in Pesticide Information
FROM:	      William G. Smith, Extension Associate
                       INDEX
	Notification Regulations for Lawn Care Pesticides	
	Daminozide (Alar) Label Amended	
	Pesticide Tolerances Established	
	Chemicals Labeled for Chemigation
	NY Law Amended for Aerial Applicators	
	Food Laboratory Report	
	How American Agriculture Came to be the Foundation
	   of our National Affluence	
	
Notification Regulations for Lawn Care Pesticides
	As a result of recent court decisions, Environmental Conservation 
Commissioner Thomas C. Jorling today (July 17) announced the implementation 
of regulations for the application of lawn care pesticides.
	The New York lawn care regulations that took effect June 22, 1989, 
require that customers be provided with written contracts and copies of 
pesticide labels and that uniform black-on-yellow signs be posted for 
treated areas.
	Commissioner Jorling said:  "New York State is confident that it will 
win its court appeal to reinstate similarly strict pesticide notification 
regulations that will include commercial places of business and 
agricultural areas.  The public has the right to know about the use of 
these potentially dangerous chemicals.  The state standards for notifying 
the public about the use of lawn care pesticides remain the most 
comprehensive in the nation.  In the meantime, applicators and the public 
are reminded of their responsibilities and rights under the lawn care 
notification regulations that are now in effect.
	Jorling also reminded the public of the state notification law that 
remains in effect and requires that certified pesticide applicators 
distribute copies of pesticide labels in advance to occupants or owners in 
advance of all applications within or on the premises of occupied 
structures.
	Under the lawn care regulations, commercial lawn care applicators 
must supply customers with contracts at least 48 hours in advance of the 
application of pesticides.  the contracts must specify the date of each 
planned application, the total number of applications and the total cost to 
the customer, a list of all materials to be supplied by the applicator, and 
warning labels of any products to be applied.
	The lawn care notification must remain in place on the treated area 
for at least 24 hours after the application.
	The requirement for the posting of the lawn care signs also applies 
to public agencies, utility companies, railroads and universities when the 
pesticide application is within 100 feet of dwellings or any building that 
is open to public use.
	The lawn care law defines "commercial lawn applicators" as a 
certified applicator who applies pesticides to the ground, trees or shrubs.  
Golf courses generally are exempt, but visual notification markers must be 
placed when the golf course is on public park lands.  Agricultural 
applications also are exempt.
	To permit the lawn care industry time to comply with the state law 
and regulations, the Department of Environmental Conservation has announced 
that strict enforcement of the new standards will begin August 1.
	Copies of the lawn care regulations have been mailed to all 
registered business and certified applicators.
	Copies of regulations also may be obtained by writing to:
		Lawn Care
		New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
		625 Broadway
		Albany, New York   12233-7254
	DEC News Release Monday, July 17, 1989
Tomato Transplant Use Deleted from daminozide (Alar) Label
	On June 15, 1989, EPA received a request from Uniroyal Chemical 
Company, 74 Amity Road, Bethany, Connecticut, 06525, to amend its B-Nine SP 
registration to delete the tomato transplant use from the subject product 
label.  The active ingredient of B-Nine SP is daminozide.  In the Federal 
Register of May 24, 1989 (54 FR 22558), EPA published its preliminary 
determination to cancel all food uses of daminozide based on its conclusion 
that use of daminozide posed an unreasonable increased lifetime cancer risk 
from dietary exposure.  No regulatory action was proposed for the nonfood 
uses of daminozide on ornamentals and bedding plants.  The only food use on 
the B-Nine SP label is the tomato transplant use.
	Federal Register, Vol. 54, No. 112, 6/22/89
	Also, a proposal for daminozide on apples, apple sauce, and apple 
juice may be issued in the future which would provide for a 5.0 part per 
million (ppm) tolerance in November 1989, a 1.0 ppm interim tolerance in 
November 1990, and a zero tolerance by May 1992 according to an EPA 
official.
	P&TCN, 6/28/89
Pesticide Tolerances Established
	Propiconazole (Tilt).  Tolerances were established for residues of 
the fungicide in or on grass forage at 0.5 ppm; 5.0 ppm in or on grass hay 
and 10.0 ppm in or on grass seed screenings.  Ciba-Geigy submitted the 
petition.  These tolerances expire in two years.
	Iprodione (Rovral).  Tolerances for residues of iprodione of 20.0 ppm 
in or on cherries (sweet), nectarines, peaches, and plums were revised to 
provide for residues resulting from postharvest use as well as the 
previously approved preharvest use.  EPA proposed the changes, based on a 
petition submitted by Interregional Research Project No. 4 on behalf of IR-
4 Director Dr. Robert H. Kupelian and the Agricultural Experiment Station 
of California.
	P&TCN, 6/28/89
Chemicals Labeled for Chemigation 
	EPA's label improvement program (LIP) requires pesticide 
manufacturers to revise each label to either prohibit chemigation use or 
include use directions for chemigation.  The LIP includes products labeled 
for agriculture, nursery, turf farm, golf course or greenhouse uses 
released for shipment after April 30, 1988.  The following list of 
pesticides meet the LIP requirements.  However, due to the large number of 
products, all may not be listed and labels are frequently amended.  Hence, 
READ THE LABEL of the specific product for the final word.
The following products are labeled for use in chemigation systems:
Aatrex Nine-O, Di-Syston 8, Lasso Micro-tech, Sevin XLR Plus
Aatrex 4L, Dithane F-45, Lexon, Sevin 4F
Aatrex 80W, Dual, Lorsban 4E, Sevin 50W
Ambush, Dual 8E, Lorsban 4E-HF, Sevin 80S
Ambush 25W, Du-Ter, Manex, Sonalan EC
Antor 4ES, Dyrene 4, Manex II, Subdue 2E
Asana XL, Eptam 7E, Manzate 200, Super Six
Atrazine 4L, Eradicane Ext., Metasystox-R, Surflan AS
Atrazine SL, Eradicane 6.7E, Monitor 4, Surflan DF
Atrazine 80W, Guthion 2L, Nemacur 3, Sutan + 6.7E
Baythroid 2, Guthion 2S, Penncap-M, Sutazine +
The following products are labeled for use in chemigation systems 
Benlate, Guthion 35% WP, Pounce 3.2 EC, Tandem 
Benlate 5OOF, Kocide 101, Pounce 25WP, Tersan 1991
Bicep, Kocide 404S, Prowl, Tersan 1991 DF 
Bicep 6L, Kocide 606, Pydrin 2.4, Tillam 6-E
Buctril ME4, Lariat, Ridomil/Bravo 81W, Treflan EC
Capture 2EC, Larvin 3.2, Saddle, Vernam 7-E
Dimethoate 400, Lasso, Sencor DF, Vydate L,
Dipel ES, Lasso/Atrazine Sencor 4
Lasso EC, Sevin SL
These products specifically prohibit use in chemigation systems:
Acclaim lE, Dylox, Lexone 4L, Savit 4F
Assure, Escort, Linex 4L, Scepter,
Azodrin, Extrazine II DF, Lorox Plus, Scout,
Balan DF, Extrazine II 4L, Metasystox,Simtrol 4L,
Banner, Extrazine 4L, Milogard 4L, Squadron,
Banvel, Extrazine 90 DF, Nortron EC, Stomp,
Baytex, Fallow Master   N-Serve 24, Super-Tin 4L,
Bladex 80W, Furadan 4F, N-Serve 24E, Supracide 2E
Caparol 4L, Fusilade 2000, Option 1EC, Telar,
Captan, Galaxy, Pennant, Tilt,
Classic, Garlon 4, Phosdrin 4EC, Treflan MTF,
Cobra, Gemini, Prefar 4E, Treflan 5,
Comite, Griffex 4L, Preview,Trilin AT,
Command EC, Harnlony Extra, Princep/Caliber 90, Tri-Scept,
Command 4EC, Hoelon 3EC, Princep 4L, Vendex 4L
Cotoran 4L, Karmex DF, Princep 80W, Vendex 5OWP,
Crossbow, Kelthane EC, Pursuit, Whip 1EC,
Deploy, Laddock, Ramrod,
Dibrom 8, Lannate LV, Ramrod & Atrazine,
Dursban 4E, Lexone DF, Roundup
	Kansas Chemigation Newsletter, Dec. 1988.
Environmental Conservation Law Amended for Aerial Applicators Applying 
Pesticides in New York State
	The Department of Environmental Conservation has amended Part 325 of 
Title 6 NYCRR of the Environmental Conservation Law to require that all 
pilots are personally certified and ensure that aerial applications of 
pesticides are made only by persons certified by the DEC.  The effective 
date of this amendment is July 9, 1989.
	NYS Register, June 28, 1989
Food Laboratory Report from the New York State Department of Agriculture 
and Markets
	A summary of pesticide food testing by the New York State Department 
of Agriculture and Markets for the month of June is given below:
	1. Three of 143 food samples contained excessive pesticide residue 
levels.  Carrots 'grown organically' contained Ronilan and Botran; 
grapefruit contained Ethion.
	2. Analysis of seven corn products for aflatoxins showed that two 
samples contained less than 20 parts per billion (ppb). The other five 
samples were free of detectable levels.
	3. Analysis of 16 raw milk samples for Sulfamethazine and 
aflatoxins indicated that the drug Sulfamethazine was not detected at the
10 ppb level or aflatoxins at 0.05 ppb in any of the samples.
	4. Analysis of 37 apple and apple product samples for daminozide 
(Alar) and UDMH (a breakdown product) revealed that daminozide was found in 
15 samples (0.08 to 3.59 ppm, ave. .90 ppm) and UDMH in six samples (10.3 
to 42 ppb, ave. 17.2 ppb.).
	NYS Agriculture and Markets, 6/89
How American Agriculture Came to be the Foundation of Our National 
Affluence
	Productivity per man-hour in agriculture has been increasing about 
twice as fast as the rate of productivity per man-hour in manufacturing.  
The greater the farm productivity, the more people a single farmworker can 
feed.
	Picture yourself at a huge dinner table. It is about 105 feet long 
and there are 80 people at the table, not counting the person sitting at 
the head of the table.  You are about to enjoy a meal of soup, rolls, 
sirloin steak, mashed potatoes, fresh asparagus, mushrooms, crisp salad, 
apple pie, and milk. When the meal is over, you want to thank your host  
the person at the head of the table.  He happens to be a farmer, and he 
produced the food all of you consumed, as well as some of the material in 
the clothes you are wearing.  He also produced much of the wood in the 
dinner table and chairs.
	Back in 1965, the dinner table would have been smaller, since a 
farmworker then could provide food and fiber for only 37 people.  In 1955, 
it was 19.5 people.  Two centuries ago, in 1776, when more than 90 percent 
of the population lived on farms, one farmworker produced food for himself 
and just about two other people.  What happened.
	How did we transform a raw land peopled by a handful of unskilled 
farmers into the mightiest agricultural and industrial nation on earth in 
the blinking of a chronological eye.  How did the United States accomplish 
in two centuries what other countries have failed to accomplish in ten 
times that length of time.
	1.  Through a strong incentive to be productive.
	2.  Through creation of Land Grant Colleges and education of sound 
management practices.
	3.  Through improved technology and management tools (machinery, 
fertilizer, chemicals and hybrids).
	4.  Through university research and extension.
	You can measure our progress with this example:  If we produced 
today's food supply with the efficiency and techniques available at the 
time of World War 1, we would need 7 times as many farmworkers Q 31 million 
instead of today's 2.4 million.  One person out of three in today's urban 
labor force would need to leave his job and go back to the farm. The 
present products and services produced by that one out of three would be 
lost.
	We would need twenty times as many horses and mules as we have today.  
Just to raise that many horses and mules, even with an all-out breeding 
effort, would take nearly 20 years. Then, it would take 180 million acres 
of land to raise horse feed that's half as many acres as we planted to 
crops last year.  It's about  twice the U.S. acreage that grew crops for 
export last year.  People around the world would be starving while our 
horses ate.  
	People in the United States wouldn't be eating very well, nor nearly 
as cheaply either.  The labor costs alone for raising potatoes, for 
instance, would be nearly 50 percent more than farmers now get for 
potatoes.
	To get the nitrogen necessary for today's yields would require 
farmers to grow and plow down large acreages of alfalfa, a nitrogen 
producing legume.  That would take 140 million acres, and there would  be 
that much less land available to grow grain crops.
	The combination of 180 million acres for horse feed and 140 million 
acres to grow nitrogen would total 320 million acres. That is equal to the 
entire amount of harvested cropland in the United States in 1973.
	In short, trying to produce today's food needs with World War I 
techniques would be a catastrophe for the nation.  This tells us something 
about the task ahead. If we don't make even more remarkable agricultural 
progress in the next 50 to 60 years, the people of that time will be 
engulfed in catastrophe.
Source:  USDA
WGS/7/89

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 PLEASE NOTE: If you are not in New York State, you must contact the appropriate agency for your area.

This site is supported, in part, by funding from the