Chem-News May 1990
PESTICIDE APPLICATOR TRAINING INSTRUCTORS GUIDE
In the last newsletter I announced a project to write an
Instructor's Guide for the New Northeast Core Manual. I would like to
thank Pete Barney (St. Lawrence County) and Shaeed Khan, Pesticide
Coordinator, University of D.C., for volunteering to help me with this
Guide. We are looking for educational activities pertinent to core
training. If you have lessons, hands-on activities, worksheets or other
training tools that you have used and found to work well, send them to
me. We would like to have at least one activity for every chapter in
the core manual. What better way to share your experience and expertise
with other PAT trainers and those who will enter the field, than to
compile all of these into one Guide for Instructors. It will be like a
community cookbook for PAT training. Please share these with us and
help the cause.
Ron Gardner, Chemicals-Pesticides Program
FEES SEEN CAUSING CANCELLATION OF OVER 40% OF ALL PESTICIDES SO FAR
Per product fees collected by EPA in 1989 totalled only $7.5
million and caused the cancellation of over 40% of all pesticide
products (19,300, Oct. 1989), according to a status summary prepared by
the National Agricultural Chemicals Association (NACA) and based on EPA
information. NACA noted, in 1990, EPA expects per product fee
collections to total $12.5 million at $1,300 per product, factoring in
an estimated added 10% attrition in product registrations. The 1990 fee
for the first product is $625, NACA said.
Through March 1990, EPA had collected about $15 million in active
ingredient fees, NACA said. It noted, "The remaining bills for List B,
C and D active ingredients which have not yet gone out will be
approximately $10 million altogether. EPA estimates a total income of
$34.5 million from active ingredient fees.'"
Pesticide and Toxic Chemical News, April 18, 1990.
PESTICIDE STORAGE NOW VIRTUALLY UNREGULATED
Robert Denny, Environmental Fate and Effects Division of the Office
of Pesticide Programs at EPA reported pesticide storage is now virtually
unregulated by the federal government. Planned federal minimal storage
standards will include: "coated concrete floors or the equivalent,
training for employees, posting of facilities and notice to fire
departments about contents of storage. There will be siting
requirements keeping the facilities away from population centers," Denny
said. "Existing sites would be grandfathered," he said. Other
requirements noted by the EPA official included: no underground
storage, availability of respirators and water for washing, and
security.
The requirements will apply to 5,000 kilograms (11,022 lbs.) of
product or more than 5,000 kilograms held by private applicators longer
than 60 days. Storage requirements will not exempt household and lawn
and garden products, Denny noted.
Final regulations will be issued in Dec. 1991 and become effective
two years after that.
Pesticide and Toxic Chemical News, April 18, 1990.
VOLUNTARY CANCELLATIONS FOR CARBOFURAN (FURADAN)
Voluntary cancellation of eight uses of granular carbofuran,
Furadan 10G and 15G, has been initiated by FMC Corporation, effective
Nov. 1, 1990, and the company has told EPA of willingness to negotiate a
shorter time period for existing stocks use. The eight uses: grapes,
peppers, potatoes, sugarcane, tobacco, Siberian elm, cottonwood and pine
seed orchards (this last use might be retained if FMC, EPA and USDA's
Forest Service can agree on label changes to reduce avian risk, FMC
noted). The company also modified labeling for certain crops to
eliminate application methods not covered by its risk reduction plan,
for example, for sugar beet, voluntary cancellation of the banded
application method. A letter sent earlier this month by FMC to Rick
Tinsworth, Director, Special Review and Reregistration Division at EPA
listed voluntary cancellations for a number of Section 24(c),Special
Local Need, uses.
Pesticide and Toxic Chemical News, May 16, 1990.
MINOR USE LEGISLATION INTRODUCED IN SENATE; $25 MILLION FOR IR-4
Minor use pesticide legislation, S 2604, introduced May 10 by Sens.
Graham (D-Fla.), Adams (D-Wash.) and Inouye (D-Ha.), would make IR-4
permanent, authorize $25 million for fiscal year 1991 and provide for:
transfer of certain registrations to growers in lieu of canceling or
amending the registration to terminate the minor use; USDA research on
control of minor crop pests, and an increase in the department's
emphasis on IPM for minor crops. The bill's other provisions included:
-- Required residue data would be limited to geographic areas orlikely
use of minor use pesticides.
-- Minor use growers could enter into agreements with pesticide
manufacturers to waive liability of the registrant to the grower.
-- Reduction or waiver of registration fee for minor uses.
-- The transfer of registrations to growers would be limited to those
pesticides EPA determines would not pose unreasonable adverse effects on
the environment. Growers would assume outstanding data requirements.
-- Collection by IR-4 of efficacy and residue data on minor crop
pesticides. IR-4 would also develop analytical methods for minor use
pesticides.
Sen. Graham, in introducing the bill, said, "Our aim is to help
keep important and safe chemicals available for minor crop growers, and
at the same time, encourage USDA to develop alternative pest control
measures through IPM and research. In many ways, we are creating an
orphan-drug program for agricultural chemicals."
Noting that all of Hawaii's agriculture consisted of minor crops,
Sen. Inouye said that IPM strategies "are the long-term approaches to
pest control."
In introductory remarks, Sen. Adams observed that the legislation
would direct EPA and USDA to complete a study identifying pests that
affect minor crops, identifying chemical control measures for such pests
and giving status to the search for alternative means of control.
Pesticide and Toxic Chemical News, May 16, 1990.
EBDCs TOLERANCE REDUCTION/REVOCATION PROPOSAL
EPA's proposal for reducing and/or revoking tolerances for EBDC's
saves some tolerances in line with the proposed "less-than-full"
cancellation. For cancelled uses, tolerances are phased down, then out,
on different schedules for different foods. Most would expire in
December 1993, but final expiration for others would vary.
A final expiration date of December 1994 was set for potatoes and
apples and March 1993 for peaches, nectarines, fennel, apricots and
rhubarb.
There would be no phase-down or revocation of tolerances for the 10
retained uses: grapes, wheat, cranberries, onions, sugar beets, sweet
corn, peanuts, almonds, asparagus and figs.
EPA's recounting of the specific revocations (the first three
calling for phase-downs in advance of final expiration, the second two
also allowing a phase-out time) stated:
Mancozeb -- "Reduction and/or revocation of tolerances . . . in or
on apples, bananas, barley grain and straw, carrots, celery, corn grain,
corn forage and fodder, cottonseed, crabapples, cucumbers, fennel,
kidney and liver (from animals fed with EBDC-treated feed), melons, oat
grain and straw, papayas, pears, potatoes, quinces, rye grain, summer
squash and tomatoes."
Maneb -- "Reduction or revocation of tolerances . . . in or on
apples, apricots, bananas, beans (dry form), beans (succulent),
broccoli, Brussels sprouts, cabbage, carrots, cauliflower, celery,
Chinese cabbage, collards, cranberries, cucumbers, eggplants, endive,
figs, grapes, kale, kohlrabi, lettuce, melons, mustard greens,
nectarines, onions, papayas, peaches, peppers, potatoes, pumpkins,
rhubarb, spinach, summer squash, turnip tops, turnip roots and winter
squash."
Metiram -- "Reduction and/or revocation . . . in or on apples,
cantaloupes, celery, cucumbers, peanuts, pecans, potatoes, sugar beets,
sweet corn and tomatoes."
Mancozeb -- "Revocation of mancozeb food and feed additive
regulations for bran, flour and milled feed fractions of barley, oats
and rye in processed foods and animal feed."
Zineb -- "Revocation of all tolerances in or on all agricultural
commodities" (as of October 1990).
EPA officials said the proposed effective dates will also depend
upon "the time it takes different commodities to clear the channels of
trade," elaborating:
"All zineb tolerances are proposed to be revoked in October
1990. Tolerances for residues of mancozeb and maneb on
commodities with fresh uses are proposed for revocation in
December 1991. Tolerances for most of the remaining
commodities, in which a portion of the crop is stored or
processed are proposed for reduction in December 1991, with
revocations proposed for December 1993. . . ."
The statement continued: "Tolerance actions will not become
effective for any commodities except those corresponding to cancelled
uses, and the schedule of revocation will take into account the
existence of any commodities containing residues of the EBDCs that are
the result of legal application.
Pesticide and Toxic Chemical News, May 16, 1990.
EVERY APPLICATOR WOULD HAVE TO BE CERTIFIED UNDER NEW PESTICIDE BILL
Every applicator, private or commercial, applying any pesticide
would have to be certified and keep records of pesticide applications,
under a bill expected to be introduced in the Senate. Introduced by
Sen. Lieberman (D-Conn.), it also would change the threshold for
suspension from "imminent" hazard to "significant adverse effects' and
make other major changes in FIFRA.
Cosponsors were Sens. Reid (D-Nev.) and Durenberger (R-Minn.). All
are members of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and
Reid heads its Subcommittee on Toxic Substances.
"If our bill had always been law," Lieberman said in introducing
the measure -- which did not have a bill number at press time -- "Alar
and EBDCs could have been taken off apples and other vegetables during
the early 1970s." Reid's comment: "This legislation will help reassure
parents that the food they buy for their kids is not poisoned by
pesticides. Our children should never have been victimized by
inefficient regulations in the first place."
The title of the bill was "The Pesticide Health and Safety Act of
1990." A section-by-section analysis included:
-- "Definitions: Expands the definition of certified and private
applicators to cover those who use all registered pesticides. Expands
the term 'environment' to specifically cover population subgroups
understood to be more heavily exposed and/or more sensitive to
pesticides.
-- "Registration: Amends the registration provisions of FIFRA to ensure
that a pesticide's effects on the health of children and other
population subgroups are specifically reviewed prior to registration.
Requires that EPA establish specific standards for the review of a
pesticide's neurotoxic effects prior to registration.
-- "Certified applicators: Certification standards must provide that a
certified applicator is proficient in integrated pest management and
sustainable pest control methods.
-- "Cancellation: The cancellation standard is revised to enable the
EPA Administrator to cancel a pesticide when there are prudent concerns
that the pesticide causes unreasonable adverse effects on human health
or the environment. The registrant has the burden of showing that the
standard for cancellation has not been met. . . . In determining
whether to cancel a pesticide, the Administrator must review the impact
of the cancellation on the price and availability of vital retail foods,
analyze the available substitute chemical and nonchemical pest control
methods and alternative agriculture techniques, and, if the pesticide is
used on more than one commodity, review its cumulative effect on human
health and the environment. All cancellation proceedings must be
concluded in two years.
"If the Administrator determines that cancellation is not
proper pursuant to this section, but has prudent concerns
about particular risks of a pesticide, the Administrator may
reclassify one or more uses of the pesticide as a
prescription use. Under a prescription use classification,
the pesticide can only be used after a certified applicator
has determined that the target pest is present and that other
pest control techniques are not viable.
-- "Suspension: The suspension standard is revised to enable the
Administrator to suspend a pesticide upon a determination that use of
the pesticide may cause significant adverse effects to human health or
the environment....
-- "Sunset provision: All pesticide registrations and tolerances will
expire every nine years.... The already-established fees collected in
conjunction with reregistration shall also be available to the
Administrator to conduct research on the neurotoxic effects of pesticide
products and other research deemed necessary.
-- "Recordkeeping: The Administrator shall require commercial and
private applicators to keep records of pesticide applications and shall
require pesticide dealers to maintain records of sales and distribution
of pesticides.
-- "Scientific Advisory Panel: The membership of the panel shall
include a pediatrician and a scientist trained in public health. The
Administrator shall require each nominee to provide information on
previous employment and consulting activities and this information shall
be made available to the public. No member of the panel shall be
permitted to consult or receive any direct or indirect benefit from a
company with any interest in pesticide products while serving on the
panel...."
Pesticide and Toxic Chemical News, May 16, 1990.
NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND MARKETS FOOD LABORATORY
MONTHLY REPORT FOR APRIL, 1990
During the month 242 foods and food packaging materials were
analyzed for pesticides. Three of the 230 foods contained residue
levels in excess of tolerances (bananas 1.1 ppm Thiabendazole, imported
peas 0.49 ppm Ronilan and pancake mix, labeled "organic certified", 0.21
ppm Malathion); eight of the 12 food packaging materials were coated
with 5.3 to 406 ug Malathion per square foot of surface area.
NYS Department of Agriculture and Markets
"ALL NATURAL" HERBICIDE ISN'T JUST A PIPE DREAM
The idea of an "all-natural" herbicide may seem surprising. But as
scientists learn more about the chemical processed that occur in plants,
the idea becomes more likely.
"This isn't just 'pie-in-the-sky' research,"says Jerry Doll, UW-
Madison extension weed scientist. "We have known for years that
chemicals in some plants inhibit the growth of others."
Black walnut trees, for example, produce a potent toxin, juglone,
which washes into the ground with rainfall and prevents the growth of
some broadleaf plants. Juglone is also toxic to insects. Farmers of
the 19th century rubbed "juice" of the black walnut on their livestock
to repel flies.
Researchers feel these natural chemicals play a role in a plant's
defense against disease, insects and other plants. Because of this
growth-inhibiting phenomenon-known as allelopathy--certain crops could
potentially harm each other. Rye, for example, deters the growth of
some vegetables, and wheat straw can harm sugar beets. The key lies in
knowing which crops kill weeds.
Doll is working with Ken McNamara, formerly of the Rodale Research
Institute, to study allelopathy in a joint two-year, $62,000 project
funded by the USDA Low-Input Sustainable Agriculture program. They will
examine winter rye's weed-killing effects on seven Midwest farms.
This project was largely inspired by the experiences of Michael
Strohm, an Illinois grain farmer. Strohm has used rye to help control
weeds in his no-till corn-soybean rotations for about five years with
excellent results.
"Exclusive dependence on synthetic chemicals can create economic
and environmental problems," Doll says. "A rye cover crop, seeded the
previous fall, may offer a solution to these problems of soybean
growers. The on-farm segment of our study will compare a rye cover crop
to conventional weed control methods, such as tillage and herbicides."
Plans call for each farmer to plant rye on three to five acres
previously planted with corn. Next spring, the rye will be killed in
one of three ways: plowing, shredding at the pollination stage or
applying a low-dose herbicide. Soybeans will then be no-till planted
into the rye residue which will act as an allelopathic mulch. Living or
dead, such mulches release natural plant compounds into the soil to
protect against weeds.
While rye deters the growth of many annual weeds, including
lambsquarters, it does not harm large-seeded crops like corn or
soybeans. It also doesn't appear to affect perennials, such as bindweed
and Canada thistle, or large-seeded annuals such as velvetleaf.
In a second experiment, at the Arlington Agricultural Research
Station, scientists will compare results of conventional weed control
methods to those obtained from planting fall-seeded winter rye and
spring oats -- Another crop with allelolpathic qualities.
Plant scientists speculate that they could breed plants for their
ability to produce allelopathic compounds in the same way insect-
resistant traits have been developed. Some plants may have lost their
natural weed-fighting ability in breeding programs that focused on
traits like yield and size. In the meantime, they will continue working
on a natural herbicide.
Maybe I'm optimistic, but it might be possible to isolate
allelopathic toxins from allelopathic plants that we can use as "natural
herbicides," says Doll. "If so, these herbicides could be sprayed on
plants or the soil's surface to remove weeds with little risk of
contaminating the soil or groundwater and without leaving residues
harmful to humans, livestock or wildlife."
University of Wisconsin Quarterly, Vol. 8, No. 4, Winter 1990.
A GLIMPSE OF A WORLD WITHOUT PESTICIDES AND FERTILIZERS
Consumer food prices 45 percent higher. A less varied, less
reliable, less healthful supply. More worldwide hunger and starvation.
That's just a glimpse of how life would change if American farmers
were forced to stop using crop protection chemicals and fertilizers.
the impacts of a return to chemical-free farming are described in a new
study by GRC Economics of Washington, D.C., an economics consulting
unit.
The study, sponsored by the National Agricultural Chemicals
Association and The Fertilizer Institute, is a potent response to those
who say the only remedy for risks posed by farm chemicals is a return to
no-input agriculture. The study provides an enlightening look at how
valuable pesticides and fertilizers have been - and what would be lost
without them.
The study acknowledges that intensive agriculture, spurred by world
demand, has led to cultivation of some erodible and fragile lands and
has raised concerns about erosion and contamination of groundwater.
However, the study also shows that governments, and farmers
themselves, are addressing the concerns effectively. For example, many
farmers are adopting "Best Management Practices" that maximize yields
while protecting and improving the land and water. Such practices
include the responsible use of chemicals, which continue to make
important contributions to production.
Inexpensive, Abundant Food
According to the GRC study, pesticides and fertilizers, along with
mechanization and improved plant hybrids, have helped America's farmers
lead the world in productivity.
During the past half century, according to the report, the cost of
food to American consumers has dropped from 24 percent of disposable
income to 14 percent, helping to improve nutrition and raising the
national standard of living.
Thanks to high yields made possible by chemicals, the United States
is a major world supplier of farm commodities. In 1988, the nation
produced 28 percent of the world's coarse grains and accounted for
almost 60 percent of world trade. Abundant grains and oilseeds enable
Americans to pay low-prices for cereals and vegetable oils and to enjoy
the benefits of inexpensive, efficient meat and poultry production.
Pesticides have helped expand fruit and vegetable farming to areas
where growing climates are ideal but where fungal diseases and insects
previously had made production too costly.
The GRC study shows this progress would be reversed if farmers had
to rely on manure fertilizers, mechanical cultivation, and non-chemical
pest controls.
Farming Without Chemicals
To estimate the effects of eliminating chemicals, GRC researchers
reviewed published data from the USDA and other sources, then checked
and updated the information through interviews with agronomists and
plant pathologists with land grant universities and state extension
services.
The study found the loss of chemicals would change the face of
America's agriculture. The impacts would include:
-- Lower food supplies. Fruit and vegetable production would be cut by
more than half. Corn output would fall 43 percent, soybeans 18 percent,
wheat 53 percent, cotton 73 percent, rice 70 percent. Outputs also
would fail for cereals, flour, rice and vegetable oil. Meat and poultry
production would drop as higher feed prices eroded producer profits.
Crops grown elsewhere using chemicals would likely be prohibited because
of the same food safety concerns that took chemicals away from American
farmers. Therefore, imports would not make up the shortfall.
-- Higher prices. Overall consumer food prices would increase about 45
percent. Fruits and vegetables would cost 50 percent more; breads,
cereals and pasta, 30 percent more; vegetable oil, 41 percent more.
Prices would rise 28 percent for poultry, 35 percent for pork, 10
percent for beef.
-- Trade difficulties. Lower output and higher prices would reduce the
nation's farm exports by $5 billion per year, or almost 13 percent.
This would worsen the trade deficit and strain the stability of the
dollar. For the first time, the nation could face the specter of an
agricultural trade deficit.
-- Hardships for the poor. Price increases would fall hardest on lower-
income people. A family at the poverty level ($12,000 annual income)
would spend an additional $958 a year on food.
-- Health risks. Consumers would find it hard to maintain or increase
consumption of fruits, vegetables and high-fiber grains recommended by
the National Research Council to reduce the risk of heart disease and
cancer.
-- Questionable food safety. Without chemicals to control molds and
fungi, natural toxins in food would increase. Some of these are known
to cause cancer and other health problems.
-- Environmental pressures. Planted acres would increase by 10.3
million acres per year to make up for reduced grain and oilseed output.
More marginal land would be brought into production. The absence of
herbicides would force farmers to increase cultivation, leading to more
soil erosion.
-- World hunger. Reduced world food supplies would mean more deaths
from starvation, especially in under-developed countries.
-- Supply shocks. Reduced food stocks would hurt the nation's ability
to withstand a drought or plant-disease outbreak without severe impacts
on supplies and prices.
The 1988 drought cut yields 30 percent, but the nation had 2
billion bushels in stock, enough to meet 25 percent of demand. With
much smaller food stocks, the impact of a drought would be much more
severe.
The study raises serious doubts about whether alternative farm
practices that eliminate most or all chemicals can sustain the nation's
agricultural strength.
At the same time, "Best Management Practices" -- including
conservation tillage, crop rotation, and targeted application rates of
chemicals -- show strong promise for bringing continued growth in farm
out put while ensuring a clean environment and a safe, dependable food
supply.
The Bottom Line, Spring 1990.
WORLD FOOD EXPENDITURES
How much of their income consumers spend for food is a leading
barometer of how well off they are. It is also a barometer of how
productive the country's farmers are. Farm productivity, not income, is
more important in determining how much consumers spend on food.
The less money people spend on food, the more money available for
items other than basic necessities. It is no wonder, then, that
countries often use food consumption expenditures as a measure of
consumer well-being and relative "success."
Given the connection, Americans fare very well, the best in the
world, in fact. In 1986, the latest year for which comparable
information is available, Americans spent only 10.4 percent of their
personal consumption expenditures for food to be eaten at home (see
table). This compares with 11.5 percent for Canada, 13.7 percent for
the United Kingdom, and 14.4 percent for The Netherlands.
In less developed countries, such as the Sudan, India, and the
Philippines, at-home food expenditures often account for more than 50
percent of a household's budget. Food expenditures of 40 percent are
not unusual for Central and South American nations.
Why do Americans enjoy such a comparative advantage? It is mostly
because U.S. consumers have larger incomes. No! It is mostly because
of U.S. farm productivity that Americans spend less on food!
What Influences Spending
Americans do not have the highest per capita income -- the Swiss do
-- yet we spend the least on food. Other factors besides income
influence food expenditures in developed nations. The kind and variety
of foods available within a country's boundaries affect
food spending since imported foodstuffs can be costly. Thanks to
abundant arable land and a varied climate, Americans do not have to rely
as heavily on imported foods as other nations.
A country's food marketing and distribution system is highly
successful at moving large amounts of perishable food over long
distances with a minimum of spoilage or delay.
Productivity also comes into play. American farmers have a
tremendous wealth of agricultural information and state-of-the-art
farming equipment at their disposal, allowing them to produce food
efficiently. All of these factors enable the American food system to
efficiently grow a wide variety of foods and deliver them to the
consumer.
When we sit down at the table, we get a lot for our money.
In 1986, U.S.Consumers Spent Less Than People in Other Countries
For Food Eaten At Home
Percent of total personal consumption expenditures(1) Total
Food Personal
Nonalcoholic Alcoholic beverages consumption
Country Food beverages beverages Tobacco and tobacco expenditures(2)
________________________________________________________________________
Percent Dollars
per person
Sudan(4) 62.9 0.6 .0 1.2 64.7 348
Sierra Leone(3) 57.9 1.8 3.8 1.9 65.4 285
India 53.3 0.9 1.5 1.9 57.5 198
Philippines 51.5 0.8 1.7 2.0 56.0 389
China 47.8 na 5.7 na 53.5 na
Iran 45.0 0.4 1.0 3.0 49.4 2,056
Sri Lanka 43.8 0.5 2.7 6.0 53.0 288
Venezuela 42.0 1.9 7.6 1.4 52.9 1,876
Honduras 41.3 1.1 2.1 0.6 45.1 582
Jamaica 38.6 1.7 4.1 5.4 49.8 663
Jordan(3) 37.2 1.3 .0 1.9 40.3 1,400
Korea 36.3 0.9 3.3 3.2 43.7 1,277
Thailand 35.7 2.4 4.2 2.6 44.9 513
Greece 34.6 1.4 2.7 3.0 41.8 2,649
Portugal(5) 32.9 0.3 2.6 2.0 37.8 1,716
Mexico(6) 31.9 1.2 2.2 1.5 36.7 1,340
Ecuador 31.3 1.9 2.8 1.7 37.6 781
Columbia(4) 31. 0 1.1 3.6 1.2 36.8 995
Cyprus(3) 30.2 2.0 2.7 2.3 37.2 2,315
Malta 28.3 3.9 4.7 3.7 40.5 2,425
USSR 28.0 na 10.0 2.0 40.0 na
South Africa 27.6 1.5 4.6 2.3 36.0 988
Israel 26.8 1.8 0.6 1.5 30.5 4,081
Spain 26.2 0.4 1.1 1.5 29.2 3,755
Fiji(3) 25.2 2.0 3.4 2.2 32.8 1,037
Ireland(3) 24.8 1.5 12.3 5.1 43.7 2,983
Puerto Rico 23.4 .0 3.8 1.9 29.1 4,928
Italy 21.5 0.3 1.3 1.8 25.0 6,361
Singapore 21.1 1.7 2.4 3.0 28.2 3,213
Switzerland 20.2 1.2 4.1 2.1 27.6 12,341
Iceland(4) 19.5 2.4 2.2 1.9 26.0 6,738
Norway 18.9 1.0 2.9 2.1 25.0 9,082
Finland 18.8 0.5 4.0 2.1 25.4 7,534
Japan 18.8 0.6 1.2 1.2 21.8 9,235
Sweden 17.9 0.4 3.4 1.9 23.6 7,989
Belgium 17.7 0.5 1.4 1.7 21.3 5,803
Austria 17.5 0.7 2.5 2.5 23.2 6,944
France 16.8 0.5 2.1 1.1 20.5 7,904
West
Germany 16.8 0.6 3.1 2.1 22.6 8,042
Hong Kong 16.5 0.8 1.2 0.9 19.4 4,190
Denmark 16.4 0.6 3.5 3.0 23.5 8,653
Australia 15.5 0.3 4.8 1.9 22.5 6,479
Luxembourg(3) 15.5 0.6 1.6 6.7 24.3 5,546
Netherlands 14.4 0.5 1.9 1.8 18.7 7,151
United
Kingdom 13.7 0.6 1.9 2.8 19.0 5,830
Canada 11.5 0.6 3.0 2.2 17.3 8,280
United States 10.4 0.0 1.3 1.2 13.6 11,500
(1)Percent of total personal consumption expenditures spent for food
that was consumed at home. Distribution among the food, nonalcoholic
beverages, alcoholic beverages, and tobacco subcategories has been
estimated for some countries. 1986 data, unless otherwise noted.
(2)Consumer expenditures on goods and services. (3)1985. (4)1983.
(5)1981. (6)1984.
Source: United National System of National Accounts.
The authors are agricultural economists with the Agricultural and
Trade Indicators Branch and the Centrally Planned Economics Branch,
respectively, Agriculture and Trade Analysis Division.
wgs 5/90
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
