PMEP Home Page Chem-News Chem-News Archive: 1990 Chem-News August 1990

Chem-News August 1990

EPA TO REQUIRE STATE GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT PLANS
     According to an EPA spokesman, all states will have to develop pesticide 
management plans before they can use pesticides that EPA poses a threat to 
groundwater resources.  EPA's long-awaited agricultural chemicals in 
groundwater strategy will make submission of pesticide management plans a 
requirement rather than an option of states as was proposed by the agency's 
1987 draft strategy.  The strategy is expected to be completed by the end of 
the summer.
     All states will be required to submit a management plan for designated 
pesticides, even if the state's groundwater resources are not vulnerable to 
contamination by that pesticide.  A state whose groundwater resources are 
vulnerable could set forth in its plans best management practices, wellhead 
protection measures, or other mechanisms the state will use to keep the 
pesticide out of groundwater supplies.  Other states may be able to submit a 
simple plan outlining why a designated pesticide would not threaten its 
groundwater.  EPA will evaluate the adequacy of each state's groundwater 
protection plan before farmers will be allowed to use pesticides that threaten 
groundwater.
     EPA also plans to propose its restricted use rule soon, according to an 
agency spokesperson.  The rule would restrict pesticides that pose a threat to 
applicators or to groundwater.  Once the rule is proposed, the agency will 
propose about 25 chemicals for restricted use.
     Chemical Regulation Reporter, June 29, 1990, and Chemically Speaking, 
     Norm Nesheim, Florida Cooperative Extension
NEW YORK CENTER FOR AGRICULTURAL MEDICINE AND HEALTH ANNOUNCES A SYMPOSIUM ON 
AGRICHEMICALS
     Agrichemicals, one of the most controversial subjects in agriculture 
today, will be the subject of a day long symposium sponsored by The New York 
Center for Agricultural Medicine and Health, Cooperstown, New York.  The 
symposium will address  the use and health effects of agrichemicals.
     "Agrichemicals:  The Present Dilemma" will be held on Friday, October 12, 
1990 from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. at The Desmond Americana Hotel in Albany, New 
York.  The symposium is being designed to appeal to a varied audience 
including farmers and those who interact with farmers such as physicians, 
nurses, veterinarians and educators.
     Topics to be addressed include:  a historical review of the growth and 
use of agrichemicals; current use of agrichemicals in the Northeast along with 
what chemical properties are of concern to us; acute toxicity problems 
associated with the use of agrichemicals; summary of physicians' reporting 
requirements for pesticide exposure; and chronic toxicological problems 
associated with the use of agrichemicals.
     To receive more information about the symposium, please contact Judy 
Dennis or Elena Lochmatow at 607-547-6023 or toll free at 1-800-343-7527.
     William G. Smith, Chemicals-Pesticides Program
REMAND DECISION, FINAL ORDER ISSUED FOR DIAZINON
     On March 29, 1988, EPA cancelled registrations for the pesticide diazinon 
unless they were amended to prohibit use on golf courses and sod farms.  
Applying Section 6(b) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide 
Act ("FIFRA"), 7 U.S.C. Section 136d(b), EPA determined that diazinon use on 
golf courses and sod farms poses an unreasonable risk to birds.  On petition 
for review, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit set aside 
that order and remanded the case to EPA for a determination of whether these 
uses cause an unreasonable risk "commonly" or "with considerable frequency."  
Today's decision responds to that remand.   For the reasons set forth below, 
diazinon use on golf courses and sod farms causes an unreasonable risk to 
birds commonly and with considerable frequency.  Moreover, the record fails to 
show that regulatory alternatives short of cancellation would reduce risk to 
reasonable levels.
     The final order issued by EPA for diazinon use on golf courses and sod 
farms follows:
     1.  The registrations at issue in this proceeding are hereby cancelled, 
unless they are already amended as described below or unless the registrant 
submits a timely application to amend the registration to prohibit use on golf 
courses and sod farms.  To be timely, an application must be submitted within 
30 days of receipt of this Order or its publication in the Federal Register, 
whichever is later.  the application shall propose to amend the registration 
of the product to include the following statement on top of the front panel of 
the label (or on supplemental labeling):
     This product must not be used on golf courses and sod farms.
     2.  The Assistant Administrator for Pesticides and Toxic Substances may 
require or disallow such other language as she considers appropriate.  She is 
directed to monitor efforts to comply with this Order and, if appropriate, to 
suggest modifications relating to the treatment of existing stocks.
     3.  Distribution and sale of any diazinon product at issue in this 
proceeding is prohibited unless the product bears a new label (or supplemental 
labeling) approved by the Assistant Administrator for Pesticides and Toxic 
Substances.
     4.  Use of diazinon products on golf courses or sod farms is prohibited.
     5.  Any pending applications for diazinon products for use on golf 
courses and sod farms are hereby denied.
     6.  This Order applies to all diazinon products covered by the Notice of 
Intent to Cancel, 51 Fed. Reg. 35034 (October 1, 1986), as amended by 52 Fed. 
Reg. 5656 (February 25, 1987).
     7.  This Order shall become effective at the date and time it is filed 
with the Hearing Clerk.
     Dated:  July 12, 1990, William K. Reilly, Administrator
     Federal Register, Vol. 55, No. 147, 7/31/90
UPDATE ON CARBOFURAN
     A carbofuran decision has been pushed back until the spring of 1991 
because benefits/use data are inadequate.  According to an EPA staffer, the 
agency will be trying new methodologies to assess benefits since the courts 
have been critical of EPA benefits analyses.  Carbofuran, which has been 
undergoing a special review since early 1989, principally because of avian 
mortality, is produced by FMC Agricultural Chemical Co.
     P&TCN 7/25/90
PUBLIC BELIEVES FARMERS ARE REDUCING CHEMICAL USAGE, SURVEY FINDS
     A nationwide opinion survey commissioned by the American Farm Bureau 
Federation (AFBF) found that 79% of the public believes farmers are adopting 
new methods to reduce use of agricultural chemicals.  The same percentage 
wants this reduction trend to continue or approves of chemical use at current 
levels, AFBF officials told a Washington news conference on July 18.
     "We found that the public is reasonable on food safety issues; only 21% 
say they want to ban chemicals in agriculture," commented AFBF President Dean 
Kleckner, calling most results from the survey of 1,000 adults by Market 
Facts, Inc. "encouraging."
     On the other hand, 73% of respondents believe that farmers "use more 
chemicals than are necessary to achieve higher profits," Kleckner continued, 
adding:  "This apparent contradiction, we believe, is due to the fact that the 
public has heard about the progress farmers are making.  At the same time, the 
public is susceptible to negative suggestions.  If you ask people whether 
something is wrong, they tend to say yes."
     The Farm Bureau also found misconceptions about farmers that it called 
"disturbing."  Noting that 56% of respondents believe that few farmers receive 
extensive training and education in chemical use, Kleckner said the public 
"isn't aware of the training and certification programs conducted by land 
grant universities."
     In related AFBS findings, 75% of respondents said it is "very important" 
for government to strengthen training programs for agricultural chemical use, 
and 78% said it is very important for farmers to support research that leads 
to reduced use of chemicals.
     P&TN 7/25/90
CRAYFISH TOLERANCE SET FOR RESIDUES OF FLURIDONE
     A tolerance was set for residues of fluridone of 0.5 ppm in crayfish, as 
was petitioned by Elanco Products.  Noting that a two-year mouse study 
indicated increased incidences of skin fibrosarcomas in females at 49 
mg/kg/day (the highest dose tested) EPA said its "weight-of-the-evidence 
review of all relevant data . . . concluded that fluridone is in group E -- no 
evidence of carcinogenicity in humans."
     P&TN 7/25/90
EPA BANS ALL USES OF COMPOUND 1080 EXCEPT FOR TOXIC COLLARS
     EPA this week took steps to ban virtually all uses of Compound 1080 
(sodium fluoroacetate) when it denied registration applications from 
California and Colorado for rodent control, noting that the substance was 
acutely toxic to non-targeted mammals and birds and posed a threat to 
endangered species.  EPA, however, left standing the registration for predator 
control uses of Compound 1080 for "toxic" livestock protection collars.
     P&TN 7/25/90
EPA TO REMOVE 82 PESTICIDE ACTIVE INGREDIENTS FROM B LIST
     EPA announced this week that it has issued a notice of intent to remove 
82 pesticide active ingredients from any further consideration for 
reregistration and to cancel the 318 products containing these active 
ingredients.
     The agency said it was taking this action because "the registrants of 
these active ingredients failed to commit themselves to support their 
chemicals through the reregistration process".  The 82 active ingredients are 
among 229 contained in List B of the reregistration process.
     A 60-day response period is being provided so that existing registrants 
or others may commit to support the data and fee requirements of the active 
ingredients . "Without such commitment, all included registrations will be 
cancelled without hearing and the active ingredients will be removed from any 
further consideration for reregistration", the agency said .
     EPA said 29 of the 82 active ingredients have no active product 
registrations.  Thirteen of them have reported no production since 1986. 
Twenty others have reported yearly production of less than 100,000 pounds 
since 1986.
     When registrations are cancelled as a result of the action proposed, 
registrants will generally be permitted to sell the cancelled products for one 
year after the cancellation becomes effective. EPA said that existing stocks 
in the hands of dealers or users generally can be used until they are 
exhausted, with these general provisions serving "to cushion the impact of the 
cancellations until alternative products are available. "
     Under the FIFRA amendments of 1988, all pesticides registered prior to 
November 1984 must be reregistered by 1997.  The pesticides have been divided 
in lists A, B, C and D. During phase two of the reregistration process, 
registrants of pesticides containing active ingredients on list B, C or D are 
required to inform EPA of their intent to seek or not seek reregistration, 
identify the data requirements for which they have already submitted adequate 
data and commit to replacing missing or inadequate data for the active 
ingredients in their products.  Pesticides on list A were already in the 
reregistration process at the time of the 1988 amendments.
     A copy of the 82 active ingredients is available from the Chemicals-
Pesticides Program at Cornell.
NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND MARKETS FOOD LABORATORY MONTHLY 
REPORT FOR JULY, 1990
     Potato chips labeled "Natural, 100% Organic," contained 1.56 ppm 
Chlorpropham (CIPC), a sprout inhibitor.  The exterior surface of a rice 
package was found to be coated with 16.32 ug/ft2 Malathion.  Approximately 98 
percent of the milk samples and 51 percent of all other foods tested were free 
of detectable residues.
     New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets.
VOLUNTARY CANCELLATION OF PHOSPHAMIDON
     Ciba-Geigy has decided to phase out from its product line insecticides 
containing the active ingredient phosphamidon.  Phosphamidon has been marketed 
under the trade name Swat for control of insects and mites on cotton and under 
the name phosphamidon for control of aphids on apples.
     Ciba-Geigy notified the Environmental Protection Agency on May 30, 1990, 
that it would like to voluntarily cancel its phosphamidon registration.
     High registration and reregistration costs, and limitations on our 
research and development budget, are major factors in decisions to continue to 
support product registrations and develop new products.  As a result, we are 
not able to devote our limited resources to satisfying the regulatory 
requirements for products with relatively low farmer demand, such as 
phosphamidon.  In addition, there are other viable alternatives for use in the 
cotton and apple markets to control the insect pests controlled by 
phosphamidon.
     Phosphamidon will continue to be sold by Ciba-Geigy at least until May 
1991 or until inventories are depleted, whichever comes first.  After that, 
distributors and dealers may continue to sell phosphamidon to which they have 
title.  Phosphamidon application by farmers will also be permissible.
     If you have any questions on this action, please feel free to call me at 
(919) 632-2171.
     J.F. Ellis, Ph.D., Director, Biological Research, Ciba-Geigy
ITC HEARING ON "BIG GREEN" INITIATIVE HAS CHAMPIONS, DETRACTORS
     The U. S. International Trade Commission hearing on the probable effects 
of California's so-called "Big Green" ballot initiative on U.S. international 
trade saw a procession of witnesses who were divided somewhere between lavish 
praise and scalding criticism.
     The hearing was held at the behest of Carla A. Hills, U.S. Trade 
Representative, who wrote Commission Chairman Anne E . Brunsdale, "As we 
interpret the language of the initiative, it could establish California 
standards for residue levels in food which could be more stringent than those 
existing under applicable federal laws. This potential conflict between 
federal and state standards could affect current U. S. obligations under the 
General Agreement on Tarifvish 
praise and scalding criticism.
     The hearing was held at the behest of Carla A. Hills, U.S. Trade 
Representative, who wrote Commission Chairman Anne E . Brunsdale, "As we 
interpret the language of the initiative, it could establish California 
standards for residue levels in food which could be more stringent than those 
existing under applicable federal laws. This potential conflict between 
federal and state standards could affect current U. S. obligations under the 
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade ( GATT ) .... Furthermore, since the 
international harmonization of health and safety standards for food and 
agriculture products is a major component of the U. S. proposal on agriculture 
in the current Uruguay Round of multilateral trade negotiations, adoption of 
the initiative could significantly affect any new U . S. agricultural trade 
obligations arising out of the ongoing GATT negotiations . "
     This rather turgid spelling out of the reasons for the ITC hearing 
provoked a rather ve decided to 
become active, partisan participants in a California statewide political 
campaign."   He continued:
     "It appears to Californians that you are being set up by Ms. Hills to do 
political dirty work for the chemical and agribusiness interests opposing 'Big 
Green.'  For this reason, most Californians will regard this investigation 
with a great deal of skepticism. I believe the Commission must go to extreme 
lengths to avoid the appearance of political impropriety and to insure some 
semblance of credibility."
     Merrilees fumed that " 'Big Green' is on the ballot in California because 
Washington has failed to protect us from dangerous pesticides . Our state has 
1, 500 drinking water wells that are contaminated with pesticides and are 
unfit for human consumption -- and that's just in our Central Valley. We are 
poisoning 1,000 farmworkers each year with pesticides, according to state 
estimates . "
     A.J. Yates, a family farmer from Fresno County, Calif., however, had an 
opposite view, declaring, "'Big Green' is an example of bad politics and a 
disregard for sound scientific reasoning that is the basis of existing federal 
and state pesticide regulation. 'Big Green' seeks to exploit fear and 
confusion in the public in order to gain a ban of a wide spectrum of essential 
chemicals that are important to me in producing food 
and fibers."
     Yates identified the greatest threat as the initiative's targeting of 
inert ingredients in many other pesticide formulations, noting, "For example, 
benzene is found in all oil-based pesticides. Oil sprays are used extensively 
in orchard crops to protect trees from insects and disease outbreaks under IPM 
(Integrated Pest Management ] programs . The loss of oil-based pesticides 
would devastate my operation. I'd be faced with potentially incredible damage 
to my crops."
     An opposing view was expressed by Eric Christensen, a project attorney 
with the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), who said his organization 
is a prime sponsor of California's Environmental Protection Act of 1990 ( 
EPA90), and has been actively campaigning for its passage.
     Christensen said, "The pesticide provisions of EPA90 are well grounded in 
scientific evidence that demonstrates many pesticides present a significant 
threat to human health. Some 500 million pounds of pesticides are used 
annually in California, more than any other state in the union. More than 
3,000 drinking water wells have already become contaminated from the use of 
such pesticides and there is increasing evidence, particularly in California's 
Central Valley, of human health effects such as cancer, miscarriages and birth 
defects resulting from pesticide exposure. "
     The NRDC attorney added that the phaseout of pesticides already proven to 
cause cancer or birth defects, "with substantial publicly-funded research to 
develop alternatives, is a well-founded decision that should be left to the 
people of California . " Christensen also maintained that EPA90 is trade 
neutral, explicitly subjecting domestic and foreign producers to the same 
pesticide standards for the California market, thereby meeting the GATT 
requirements that imported products be accorded treatment "no less favorable" 
than domestic products.
     Susan Denzer and Al Courchesne, representing the National Family Farm 
Coalition, testified:
     "Opponents of 'Big Green' argue that chemical intensive agriculture is 
the only way to farm efficiently and successfully. We would like to submit for 
the record a summary of a study known as the 'Progress Report from the Task 
Force on Pest Control Alternatives' from the Vice-President of the University 
of California's Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources. This report 
identifies five categories of pest control alternatives; organic, synthetic, 
cultural practices, host plant resistance and biological pest control. The 
report demonstrates that there are indeed viable alternatives to each of the 
chemicals that would be banned under 'Big Green.'"
     John M. Urbanchuk, Senior Vice-President and Director, GRC Economics, an 
economics consulting unit of Hill and Knowlton, Inc., warned: "Our analysis 
concludes that the implementation of EPA90 is likely to result in a 40% 
reduction in the output of fruits, vegetables and field crops in California."
     He added that grapes, California's highest value crop at $1. 2 billion, 
are at risk if sulfur is banned due to the presence of inert heavy metals, and 
that reductions in output "of this magnitude will affect not only California 
farmers, food processors and consumers, but consumers in the rest of the 
country. "
     Thomas DiMare, President of DiMare Co., an international family produce 
farming and shipping operation, asserted, " In my opinion, the Hayden [ State 
Senator Tom Hayden is a sponsor] 'Big Green' initiative takes the existing 
strict California pesticide standards and walks them over a plank into a sea 
of unreasonable and unworkable regulations which will disrupt the national and 
international marketplace. "
     Paul A . Drazek, Assistant Director, National Affairs, American Farm 
Bureau Federation, said the initiative would reduce competitiveness of 
American agricultural exports, ultimately restrict access to foreign markets 
for U.S. exporters of both agricultural and non-agricultural products, and 
conflict with the trade obligations and objectives of the U.S., which has 
obligated itself to the GATT standards code and the harmonization of 
agricultural health standards.
     Derl I. Derr, President, International Apple Institute, McLean, Va., said 
the "nihilistic approach" of the initiative fails to allow scientific judgment 
about the significance of residues in food at very low levels, adding that 
even trace amounts of chemicals would be banned. She noted that the initiative 
"fails to recognize that the level of exposure is a significant part of the 
equation concerning the toxicity of a compound," and argued, "The crucial 
point is this.  What may be harmful in large doses is not necessarily harmful 
in trace amounts."
     Sandra Archibald, Assistant Professor of Agricultural Economics, Stanford 
University, noted that one-quarter of California's grape production is 
exported, making it the third ranking export commodity in the state. "If 
sulfur is banned, producers can expect up to 100% yield losses in some years, 
depending upon weather."  But, Archibald added, " In all cases, analysis 
indicates that consumers lose significantly, with some gainers and losers 
among California producers in the short run but definite gains to non-
California producers over time. "
     David Pimentel, professor of entomology and agricultural sciences, 
Cornell University, said EPA90 is "highly necessary given the government's 
failure to protect consumers, " continuing:
     "California voters will be entirely justified in passing the EPA90 to 
safeguard their health when neither the federal or state government has 
adequately done so. The pesticide industry has grossly exaggerated the 
economic impacts of pesticide cancellations .... When DDT and related 
chemicals were banned in 1972, a 50% reduction in U. S. food production was 
predicted, as were massive losses in many of California's fruit crops with the 
banning in 1977 of the pesticide DBCP. These predictions were, of course, far 
from correct. The output of U.S. agricultural commodities has continued to 
grow, with no change in quantity or price connected with cancellation of 
pesticides . "
     Steven C . Anderson, President, American Frozen Food Institute, said, 
"With its reputation as the nation's trendsetter, and the fact that 
California's economy alone makes it the tenth largest economic power in the 
world, there is little doubt that 'Big Green's' passage would have a ripple 
effect across the country, effectively dictating U.S. environmental policy. 
Enactment of 'Big Green' would fragment U.S. regulation, destroying the 
possibility for a rational uniform approach to the regulation of food safety 
in the United States or in the international arena. "
     Trade Representative Hills, in her letter to the lTC, had noted that the 
California initiative will be decided in the November election, and that the 
Uruguay Round of negotiations is expected to conclude with a ministerial level 
meeting scheduled to be held in Brussels in early December. 
     P&TCN, 7/25/90
wgs/8/90

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