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

Chem-News September 1990

EPA PROPOSING TO REVOKE TOLERANCES FOR PESTICIDES CALCIUM ARSENATE AND 
LEAD ARSENATE
     EPA is proposing to revoke the tolerances, or allowable residue 
levels, for the pesticides calcium arsenate and lead arsenate, which in 
years past were used to control insects on a variety of raw agricultural 
commodities.  Calcium arsenate was registered for use on asparagus, 
beans, blackberries, blueberries (huckleberries), boysenberries, 
broccoli, Brussels sprouts, cabbage, carrots, cauliflower, celery, 
collards, corn, cucumbers, dewberries, eggplant, kale, kohlrabi, 
loganberries, melons, peppers, pumpkins, raspberries, rutabagas, 
spinach, squash and youngberries.  Lead arsenate was registered for use 
on apples, apricots, asparagus, avocados, blackberries, blueberries 
(huckleberries), boysenberries, celery, cherries, citrus (used as a 
growth regulator and only in Florida), cranberries, currants, 
dewberries, eggplant, gooseberries, grapes, loganberries, mangoes, 
nectarines, peaches, pears, peppers, plums (fresh prunes), quinces, 
raspberries, strawberries, tomatoes and youngberries.
     The registrations of calcium arsenate and lead arsenate for these 
crops were cancelled in 1988 and further sale, distribution and use were 
prohibited.  (The use of lead arsenate on citrus was voluntarily 
cancelled in 1987 and EPA granted use of existing stocks until all 
stocks were depleted.  At the time of the voluntary cancellation, it was 
estimated that approximately 100,000 pounds of stocks existed.  EPA 
estimates that 90,000 pounds were used in 1988 and the remaining 10,000 
pounds in the spring of 1989).  Most registrations of both pesticides 
had been suspended prior to the cancellation action for failure of the 
registrant to submit data required by the Agency.  There also had been 
no known use of calcium arsenate for many years.  The cancellation 
actions were based on cancer risks to workers and acute toxicity to the 
general public.  These proposed actions have a 45-day comment period.
PHOSMET (IMIDAN):  DELETION OF USES AND DIRECTIONS FOR USE ON CITRUS, 
GRAPES, ALFALFA, CORN, COTTON, PEAS, AND POTATOES
     Phosmet is the commonly accepted name for N-
(mercaptomethyl)phthalimide S-(0,0-dimethylphosphorodithioate).  It is a 
broad spectrum organophosphate insecticide/acaricide which was initially 
registered as a pesticide under FIFRA in 1966 by Stauffer Chemical 
Company.  Phosmet is available as a 90 percent and 94 percent active 
ingredient technical product for formulating phosmet end-use products.  
Technical phosmet is produced by ICI Americas under the trade name 
Imidan Technical (90 percent) and Prolate Technical (94 percent).  
Phosmet is primarily used in the formulation of insecticides/miticides 
products for use on crop and non-crop areas.  ICI Americas, the sole 
registrant of the technical grade of the active ingredient phosmet, has 
requested to amend its registration of Imidan Technical, Imidan 50-WP 
Agricultural Insecticide, and Imidan 70-WP Agricultural Insecticide by 
deleting all uses and directions for use on citrus, grapes, alfalfa, 
corn, cotton, peas, and potatoes.  EPA intends to approve the request.  
Since ICI is the sole registrant of the technical grade phosmet there 
will no longer be a manufacturing use product available from which to 
formulate any registered use products for phosmet on citrus, grapes, 
alfalfa, corn, cotton, peas, and potatoes.  End-use registrants are 
being notified by certified mail that their generic data exemption will 
be revoked and they will be given the opportunity to generate data in 
support of these uses.  EPA is now soliciting comments on the proposed 
amendments.  Interested persons are invited to submit three copies of 
their written comments identified by the docket control number OPP-
30307, to Public Docket and Freedom of Information Branch, Field 
Operations Division (H7504C), Office of Pesticide Programs, 
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St. SW., Washington, DC 20460.
DINOCAP AND FRUITONE FORMULATIONS
     There has been some concern expressed by growers who have noticed 
that dinocap has a selected formulation which is not being supported for 
reregistration.  The only dinocap product being "pulled" is the 2,4-
dinitro-6-octylphenyl crotonate isomer when offered alone which is of 
historic interest but is no longer manufactured.  All other dinocap 
formulations are being continued at this time!
     Dinocap is a mixture of two main isomers.  One is 2,4-dinitro-6-
octylphenyl crotonate (the product being cancelled) and the other is 
2,4-dinitro-4-octylphenyl crotonate.  There are three minor 
constituents.  According to Bruce Sidwell of the Special Review and 
Reregistration Division of EPA, dinocap will remain on the market and 
not be affected by the cancellation of one of its components.
     The 3-CPA/Fruitone CPA listed as having some of its formulation 
cancelled should not be confused with 1-naphthylacetic acid/Fruitone N.  
These are two very different products.  There is a third product called 
4-CPA/Tomato Fix which might also be mistaken for the product of 
concern.  Only 3-CPA/Fruitone CPA is affected.  All other products with 
similar names will be kept.
EMERGENCY EXEMPTION, SECTION 18, UPDATE FOR NEW YORK STATE
     To date, the Chemicals-Pesticides Program has reviewed, approved, 
and submitted two emergency exemptions, FIFRA Section 18, requests to 
the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) for 
their review for the 1991 growing season.  They are:
--    ProGro Dust Seed Protectant Fungicide (30% carboxin and 50% 
      thiram) to control onion smut on onion seed.  Dr. James Lorbeer is 
      the principal investigator.  Note:  This request has been 
      forwarded on by DEC  to EPA for their final review.
--    Cyromazine (Trigard 75 WP) on onions to control the onion maggot.   
      Drs. C. J. Eckenrode and R. Straub are the principal 
      investigators.
    W. G. Smith, Chemicals-Pesticides Program.
FOREIGN FUNGUS TAKES ON MAJOR U.S. CROP PEST
     The potato leafhopper, nemesis of crops from the Northeast through 
the Corn Belt, may someday be halted in its destructive wanderings by a 
fungus that's logged quite a few miles of its own, U.S. Department of 
Agriculture scientists say.
     Imported from Europe and South America, the fungus Zoophthora 
radicans can kill a leafhopper in three to four days, according to 
entomologist Raymond I. Carruthers of USDA's Agricultural Research 
Service.  After the leafhopper dies, the fungus spews spores that fall 
onto other leafhoppers and also sticks to leaf surfaces where the pests 
might cross.
     As a natural alternative to chemical pesticides, the fungus could 
mean significant savings for farmers on control measures to combat the 
leafhopper, Carruthers said.
     "Leafhoppers attack more than 200 crops, including potatoes and 
alfalfa," he said.  "Farmers in the Northeast and Midwest probably apply 
more insecticides to control potato leafhoppers than any other pest in 
alfalfa.
     "We can grow this pathogen relatively easily in liquid medium 
without having the insect at all," he continued.  "We simply collect it, 
dry it, grind it up, bag it and refrigerate it so it lasts longer.  When 
you want to use it, you just take it out, add water and it will produce 
spores that infect the insect."
     Control of the potato leafhopper has been complicated in the past 
by the pest's migratory habits, according to Alan J. Sawyer, an ARS 
ecologist.
     "It normally winters no further north than Louisiana, then comes up 
to attack the crops," he said.  "These differences in infestation levels 
and arrival times, plus the lack of a year-round population of the pest, 
have made it difficult to use biological controls against the 
leafhopper."
     In preliminary field test in 1986, different types of Z. radicans 
were released in New York and Illinois.  The pathogen in Illinois 
survived the winter, but the one in New York apparently did not.
     "We applied it to the alfalfa foliage in the evening when the 
plants were damp from dew, but we don't know if farmers ultimately will 
use it that way," Carruthers said.  "We're continuing our studies and 
hopefully we can develop better strategies for sustaining the fungus in 
the field."
     Z. radicans entered the picture after Donald W. Roberts of the 
Boyce Thompson Institute (BTI) at Ithaca, New York, and Richard Soper of 
ARS obtained a grant to seek leafhopper control on cowpeas in Brazil.
     "The leafhopper there is closely related to the leafhopper that's a 
major pest in the United States," said Carruthers, who works at ARS' 
Plant Protection Research unit at Ithaca.  Joint efforts between USDA 
and BTI led to the identification of a pathogen that would kill the 
Brazilian leafhopper.  Carruthers said the pathogen was brought from 
Brazil to the United States, tested and found to be highly effective 
against the U.S. potato leafhopper.
     Carruthers later located a slightly different strain of Z. radicans 
in Yugoslavia.  He said he has worked with the Yugoslavian strain 
because it is easier to grow in the lab and produces more spores.
     USDA:  Selected Speeches and News Releases
NON-GRANULAR STRATEGY FOR CARBOFURAN
     Non-granular strategy planned by EPA's OPP will deal with the 
regulation of flowable carbofuran which will replace the granular 
formulation if and when it is dropped, an agency official noted last 
week.  The granular strategy is now expected to be issued next month.  A 
risk-benefit assessment will be done on flowable carbofuran as an 
alternative to the granular formulation, an EPA official said last week.
     P&TCN 9/5/90
ONE-THIRD OF EPA ACTIVITY TO BE DEVOTED TO BIOTECH PRODUCTS
     One-third of the activity at EPA will soon be devoted to microbial 
products, the agency's Elizabeth Milewski predicted last week at the 
American Chemical Society meeting in Washington, D.C.
     Speaking at a symposium on Regulatory and Enforcement Issues 
sponsored by ACS' Division of Biochemical Technology Thursday, Aug. 30, 
Milewski noted that for FIFRA, relatively few adjustments have to be 
made to handle biotechnological pesticides.
     Some of the procedures under TSCA "don't work as well" with micro-
processing as they do with chemicals, Milewski said, explaining that EPA 
feels it needs to review products made through biotechnology at the R&D 
stage, while with chemicals the need to review doesn't occur until the 
commercial stage.
     Most risk issues with biotech products, Milewski said, appear to be 
related to environmental health, not human health.
     Speaking at a symposium on Food Safety Evaluation sponsored by ACS' 
Division of Agriculture and Food chemistry Aug. 28, EPA's Thomas 
McClintock reported that many transgenic plant pesticides are 
approaching large-scale field testing.
     To date, he said, no adverse effects have been noted in the 46 
small-scale field tests involving nine crops and 14 different pesticidal 
substances.
     Noting that OPP intends to divide the transgenic plants into two 
categories -- proteinaceous pesticides and non-proteinaceous pesticides 
-- McClintock explained that there will be minimal human health concerns 
about the proteinaceous pesticides because they are expected to break 
down into amino acids when digested.
     The non-proteinaceous pesticides, McClintock said, may be evaluated 
separately or may be evaluated like conventional chemical pesticides.  
He noted that none of this category has been submitted to date.
     For toxicity studies, he said, OPP has delineated three categories 
of transgenic plants -- (1) where a new proteinaceous substance is 
produced as the active ingredient; (2) where the level of an endogenous 
pesticidal ingredient -- proteinaceous or non-proteinaceous -- is 
raised; and (3) where the plant produces de novo non-proteinaceous 
pesticides.
     Where a new proteinaceous substance is produced as the active 
ingredient or where the level of an endogenous pesticidal ingredient 
that is proteinaceous is increased, McClintock said, only acute oral 
studies and the reporting of observed dermal toxicity or irritation 
effects will be required for food uses;  for non-food uses only dermal 
effects will be needed.  For non-proteinaceous endogenous or de novo 
pesticides, oral studies, perhaps pulmonary studies, and information on 
dermal effects will be needed for food use pesticides.
     Depending on EPA concern, the oral studies may be acute, subchronic 
or chronic, and may be performed using the purified pesticide, the gene 
expressing the pesticide, an extraction of the pesticide product or the 
whole food.
     He pointed out that EPA's policy has not been formally developed, 
and that its development will involve public participation and comments 
and outside peer review.
     P&TCN 9/5/90
EPA SEEKS MAJOR REDUCTIONS IN CORN HERBICIDES AND INSECTICIDES
     EPA is planning research projects aimed at major reductions in corn 
herbicides and soil insecticides, Dr. Diana M. Horne, OPP, told a 
symposium on integrated pest management at the American Chemical 
Society's annual meeting in Washington, D.C., Aug. 28.
     She said a corn herbicide reduction project jointly sponsored by 
EPA and USDA and conducted by Colorado State University could save up to 
170 million pounds of herbicide annually, representing "a tremendous 
potential reduction in risk exposure to farmers, well water and 
groundwater."
     The OPP official said the agency is also working to fund a corn 
soil insecticide reduction project aimed at eliminating "prophylactic 
overuse" of soil insecticides.  Reductions of as much as 99% in soil 
insecticides are envisioned, she said, noting that both projects will 
complement the USDA Agricultural Research Service's Low 
Input/Sustainable Agriculture (LISA) program.
     Observing that  FIFRA '88 and new proposed amendments will 
accelerate removal of pesticides from the market, leaving gaps in 
available control techniques, Horne declared, "The climate has never 
been  favorable for the adoption of environmentally sound agricultural 
alternatives."
     P&TCN 9/5/90
GREATER TEAMWORK AMONG DISCIPLINES SEEN NECESSARY
     Dr. Myron Johnsrud, administrator of USDA's Cooperative Extension 
Service, noted that IPM was implemented originally by entomologists, yet 
now many professions are involved, including economists and soil 
specialists.  In a paper published in advance of Johnsrud's 
presentation, USDA officials emphasized that the "contemporary frontier 
for IPM" is sustainable agriculture systems that "incorporate economic, 
environmental, legal and other considerations into the decision-making 
process.  These systems will be 'enterprise-based' rather than 
'production-based' and will demand a level of teamwork that is orders of 
magnitude greater than we have achieved to this point."
     USDA also observed that IPM's future will be tied to programs in 
competitive and sustainable agriculture systems.  "Left to their current 
developmental trends, these programs may ignore some of the gains which 
IPM has made in integrated programming.  The relationship of IPM to 
(these) programs must be explored and strengthened," the paper declared.
     P&TCN 9/5/90
NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND MARKETS FOOD LABORATORY 
REPORT
     Approximately two percent of the 131 food samples tested for 
pesticide residues contained residue levels in excess of approved 
tolerances.  Two different lots of bananas contained 0.5 and 2.56 ppm 
thiabendazole (0.4 ppm tolerance) and a sample of imported tomatoes 
contained 0.04 ppm fenamiphos (tolerance not established for tomatoes).  
Detectable residues were not found in 98 percent of the milk and cream 
samples and 49 percent of all other food samples.  The latter category 
was composed largely of fruit and vegetables, of which 62 percent were 
imported.
     NYS Dept. of Agr. & Mkts. for August 1990
CORNELL TO ASSESS/SURVEY PESTICIDE NEEDS AND ALTERNATIVES
     Recent developments regarding pesticides in groundwater, residues 
in food, endangered species, and the acceleration of the Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA) to reregister pesticides are placing pressure on 
agricultural producers to provide reliable pesticide-use data.  The 
Chemicals-Pesticides Program at Cornell University will assess the use, 
needs, and alternatives to pesticide use on field corn, small grains, 
alfalfa, cauliflower, snap beans, onions and sweet corn.  Funding for 
this special project was obtained from a federal appropriation of the 
National Agricultural Pesticide Impact Assessment Program (NAPIAP) 
within the U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).
     Why is it necessary for New York agricultural producers to provide 
pesticide-use information?  If EPA determines that a significant risk 
may be associated with a pesticide use, then a Special Review notice for 
that pesticide will be published in the Federal Register.  This notice 
describes the reasons for determining the significant risks and the 
assumptions and data used in their analysis.  The EPA will conduct a 
comprehensive Risk/Benefit analysis for each use of that pesticide.  
Potential risks are evaluated by considering factors such as:
     --  the nature of any adverse effect;
     --  the magnitude of exposure to humans and other nontarget 
         organisms; and
     --  the size of the population at risk.
The benefits of each active ingredient are also evaluated by assessing 
the availability, efficacy and cost of each use, as well as considering 
alternative control practices.   Pesticide use summaries, provided by 
growers, will assist Cornell and USDA with important information about 
those chemicals growers need for crop production.  More importantly, 
information will be used in the benefits portion of EPA's Risk/Benefit 
analysis.  It is through NAPIAP and our survey that growers can provide 
benefits information to USDA and EPA for those pesticides and 
alternative uses needed so that responsible pesticide legislation can be 
achieved.
     How do we expect to collect the pesticide benefit information?  The 
Chemicals-Pesticides Program will offer a two-hour session in 
conjunction with County Cornell Cooperative Extension Associations.  
Included in this session will be a one-hour educational program that 
will also offer growers recertification credit.  The remaining hour will 
consist of completing a short survey form with assistance from program 
staff.  It would be helpful if growers attending these special sessions 
brought with them their most recent pesticide-use records for those 
crops being surveyed (field corn, small grains, alfalfa, cauliflower, 
snap beans, onions and sweet corn).  Agents/specialists that are unable 
to schedule a session in their counties/regions can request from the 
Chemicals-Pesticides Program that direct mailings be made to respective 
growers.
     Surveys, similar to the one being conducted in New York, are now 
being undertaken in other states.  The information obtained from these 
surveys will allow for the development of a national data base that will 
greatly enhance the pesticide assessment (benefits and alternatives) 
process.  The survey is beng conducted with the assistance of Cornell 
Cooperative Extension, the New York State Department of Agriculture and 
Markets, and the Cornell Integrated Pest Management Program.
     For further information, please contact the Chemicals-Pesticides 
Program, 5123 Comstock Hall, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY/14853, (607) 
255-1866.
     D. Ramil and W. G. Smith, Chemicals-Pesticides Program
wgs-9/28/90

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

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