PMEP Home Page Chem-News Chem-News Archive: 1991 Chem-News March 1991

Chem-News March 1991

DATE:       March 1991
TO:         Those Interested in Pesticide Information
FROM:       William G. Smith, Senior Extension Associate
INDEX
                                                                    Page
USDA Seeks Comments on Proposed Biotech. Res. Guidelines              1
Conference Told Biotechnology a Tool, Not Panacea                     2
Study Shows Pesticide Lobbyists Affect EPA Decisions                  2
NY Pesticide Recertification Packet Confusion                         3
NY Private Applicator Certification Renewal                           4
EPA Applicator Certification Proposal Draws Objections                4
EPA Groundwater Restricted Use Criteria Options' & Impacts Noted      4
Kimm Tells Mushroom Growers How to Save Minor Uses                    6
Interregional Research Project No. 4, 1990 Annual Report              6
Cancellation of Flowable Carbofuran Being Considered by EPA           7
Can Ivomec Be Used on Dairy Animals?                                  7
NYS Dept. of Agr. & Mkts. Food Lab. Jan. Rept.                        7
Imidan 50-WP Label Expanded                                           8
* * * * * * * * * *
USDA SEEKS COMMENTS ON PROPOSED BIOTECHNOLOGY RESEARCH GUIDELINES
WASHINGTON, Feb. 1-The U.S. Department of Agriculture is seeking public 
comments on its proposed guidelines for research involving the planned 
introduction into the environment of genetically modified organisms.
     The proposed guidelines provide a step-by-step process for 
assessing the safety of field research with specific genetically 
modified organisms.  They also offer recommendations for the design of 
appropriate confinement measures to control the survival and spread of 
such organisms during field research.
     Dr. Charles E. Hess, Assistant Secretary of Agriculture for Science 
and Education, said the guidelines are a major step forward for 
biotechnology research.  "They provide scientific guidance to the 
research community while helping to assure the public that this 
technology is used in a safe, responsible manner," he said.
     Hess also said continued research in agricultural biotechnology in 
the United States is important to the development of cheaper, safer, 
more nutritious, and more environmentally sensitive food and fiber 
products for U.S. consumers.
     Dr. Alvin Young, director of USDA's Office of Agricultural 
Biotechnology (OAB), said the guidelines, although not mandatory, 
complement USDA's existing body of regulations and strengthen USDA's 
efforts to ensure that state-of-the-art agricultural research moves 
forward in a safe and timely manner.  "The guidelines will also help 
researchers as they work with the biosafety committees of their 
affiliated institutions to design safe field trials," Young said.
     The guidelines, entitled "Proposed USDA Guidelines for Research 
Involving the Planned Introduction into the Environment of Organisms 
with Deliberately Modified Hereditary Traits," were written by the OAB 
with primary scientific input from USDA's Agricultural Biotechnology 
Research Advisory Committee.
     The scientific committee and public at large may comment on the 
proposed guidelines during a 60-day comment period which closes on April 
2.  Written comments should be sent to Dr. Daniel Jones, Office of 
Agricultural Biotechnology, Room 324-A, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 
Washington, D.C. 20250-2200.  Copies of the guidelines may be obtained 
from OAB at the same address, or by calling (202)447-9165.
     -- USDA Selected Speeches and News Releases
CONFERENCE TOLD BIOTECHNOLOGY A TOOL, NOT PANACEA
     The Third National Conference on Organic/Sustainable Agriculture 
Policies heard a panel on biotechnology tout this new science as a tool 
but not a panacea for agriculture and the environment. 
     Mike Phillips, Senior Associate, Food and Renewable Resources 
Group, Congressional Office of Technology Assessment, said, 
"Biotechnology is another tool in the kit. We can't just rely on one 
approach. Pesticides will still be with us."
     An opposing view was expressed by Jim Altemus, Public Relations 
Manager, Monsanto Agricultural Company, who called biotechnology "the 
biggest scientific discovery of the century.
     Phillips said the issue is not black and white, saying it depends 
on the kind of systems there are and how herbicides or other pest 
controls are introduced into the system. "Biotechnology can 
significantly ameliorate problems caused by pests. Transgenic plants 
produce their own herbicides and pesticides, and are much safer if you 
only target the species affected." He added that the food supply is 
threatened without a constant stream of techniques . The Monsanto 
representative predicted that biotechnology will help the small farmer 
stay on the farm longer because he will not have to replace equipment or 
pay farm labor for the application of chemicals.
     Phillips said the challenge is to develop a systems approach to the 
problem, and added that the system needs to be efficacious and 
profitable. He said this would require an interdisciplinary approach.
     -- Pesticide & Toxic Chemical News, 2/20/91
STUDY SHOWS PESTICIDE LOBBYISTS AFFECT EPA DECISIONS 
WASHINGTON - The Environmental Protection Agency in recent years has 
been charged by both major opponents in the dispute over pesticide use -
- the food industry and environmentalists -- with favoring the other 
side.
     People in the food industry believe the EPA has bowed to well-
orchestrated environmentalists' pressure in banning some needed and safe 
chemicals.  Environmental forces contend the food industry has prevented 
the EPA from removing dangerous chemicals from the market.
     A recent study by the University of Maryland and Resources for the 
Future, a think tank that does environmental research, indicates that 
intervention in the regulatory process by the food industry, 
environmental and other special interest groups does influence EPA's 
decisions.
     The study also found that EPA balances risks and benefits in 
regulating pesticide use, as the law requires.
     "Other factors being equal," the study notes, "intervention by 
environmental groups has about twice the impact on the likelihood that a 
pesticide will be banned as intervention by growers does . . ."
     When food industry groups are backed by academics, their impact on 
EPA equals that of the environmentalists, however.
     The EPA determines whether a pesticide can be used and, if so, what 
residues may safely remain on foods.  By law, the EPA must prevent 
"unreasonable" risks but also consider "the economic, social and 
environmental costs and benefits" of an action involving a pesticide.
     Resources for the Future and the University of Maryland studied the 
EPA's decisions on 245 registered food uses for the 19 cancer-causing 
pesticides reviewed during the 1975-89 period.  The EPA canceled 39 
percent of these food uses, making a crop-by-crop judgment on the 
ecological effects of the product, its impact on wildlife and the 
disease risk to applicators and to consumers.
     Among the most controversial questions is the longtime health risk 
to consumers.  In a widely publicized case, the Natural Resources 
Defense Council alarmed the nation and much of the world when it said 
that as many as 5,300 preschool children might eventually contract 
cancer from eating apples treated with Alar, a chemical that prevents 
fruit from prematurely dropping from trees.
     The California Department of Food and Agriculture, on the other 
hand, calculated that Alar would cause 3.5 additional cancer cases  for 
each 1 trillion apple eaters.   There currently is a debate in Congress 
over removal of the requirement that EPA consider economic benefits of a 
pesticide.  These can be substantial, and the effort to remove the 
requirement is being fought by industry.
     Banning use of alachlor on corn cost farmers $227 million in the 
first year after the action, but average first-year losses resulting 
from banned pesticides were only $9 million, the study states.  The 
analysis indicates that the chances of a pesticide being banned dropped 
as economic losses mounted, but that EPA in some cases took actions 
imposing costs of more than $35 million to save a single life.
     Finally, the study confirms that pesticide regulation is handled in 
a traditional Washington manner.  "To those who view pesticide 
regulation as the proper province of economists and risk analysts alone, 
these findings may be discouraging.  "On the other hand, those taking 
the view that regulation -- like government taxation or spending -- is 
inherently a political act may find it encouraging that affected parties 
not only participate actively in the regulatory process but do so quite 
effectively.
     -- George Anthan, Washington-based agricultural correspondent for 
The Des Moines Register.
NEW YORK PESTICIDE RECERTIFICATION PACKET CONFUSION
     A problem has just been brought to our attention and I am sorry 
that we here in the Program were not told of it sooner.  The crux of the 
situation is that there are two "Recertification Packets".  One was 
created, printed and distributed by Cornell Cooperative Extension for 
more than a dozen years which we called the Private Recertification 
Packet and the Commercial Recertification Packet.  These packets contain 
a recertification manual, a practice exam and a copy of the Pesticide 
Compendia.
     The Department of Environmental Conservation has just recently 
combined several official publications and other information into a 
"Recertification Packet".  The DEC packet contains; a copy of Circular 
863, Article 33 of the Environmental Conservation Law, a copy of 
Circular 865, Part 325, Rules and Regulations Relating to the 
Application of Pesticides, backflow prevention requirements, private 
applicator pesticide storage guidelines and an order form for Cornell 
manuals.
     This situation, where different information packets exist with the 
same name, has been complicated by a DEC letter to all Cornell 
Cooperative Extension Agents stating, among other things; "The DEC 
Bureau of Pesticide Management Central Office in Albany will mail a 
Private Applicator Recertification Packet to the applicators, explaining 
the entire Exam process.  This packet contains important information 
which the Bureau of Pesticide Management has the responsibility to 
provide to all Private Applicators, including documents upon which the 
Private Applicator will be tested.  Therefore, the packet should not be 
provided by any other parties; all requests should be forwarded to the 
Albany Pesticide Office".
     Applicators must obtain the DEC packet from the Bureau of Pesticide 
Management in Albany.  The Applicators must also obtain a Private or 
Commercial Recertification Packet from Cornell Cooperative Extension.  
Despite the identical names, these are two distinctly different packets 
of information and the applicator must have both to become recertified.  
Please do not stop distributing the extension recertification packets.  
The letter from the Bureau of Pesticide Management did not refer to our 
information and we must continue to make it available to applicators 
upon request.
     -- Ron Gardner, Chemicals-Pesticide Program, Cornell University
NEW YORK PRIVATE APPLICATOR CERTIFICATION RENEWAL
     Private Applicators must renew their certification 3 years after 
passing the certification exams.  Applicators recertify after 6 years.  
DEC has established a policy that they will send one notice stating that 
it is time to renew the certification.  The applicator must respond to 
this notice or risk having their name deleted from DEC's records.  Once 
deleted, an applicator would have to begin the certification process all 
over again.  So, encourage applicators to check on the year they must 
renew (its on the card) and respond to the renewal notice as soon as it 
is received.
     -- Ron Gardner, Chemicals-Pesticide Program, Cornell University
EPA APPLICATOR CERTIFICATION PROPOSAL DRAWS OBJECTIONS
     Comments objecting to certain provisions of the EPA proposal to 
revise the applicator certification regulation drew objections from a 
Cooperative Extension Service (CES) official and the North Concho 
Veterinary Clinic, Inc., San Angelo, Tex. The clinic urged the agency to 
retain the exemption from certification for veterinarians using 
restricted use pesticides.
     Burton R. Evans, Extension Entomologist, CES, University of 
Georgia, had a number of problems with the proposal, including: There 
should only be two, not three, levels of supervision; states should 
decide what private applicator categories are required, not EPA; present 
commercial applicator categories should be retained and states should 
create new subcategories as needed, and the five-year recertification 
period should be retained for both private and commercial applicators.
     He concluded with a complaint about inadequate EPA funding for 
Extension. Evans said, "If inadequate funding continues, EPA should not 
express indignation if states are slow to respond. When the master keeps 
piling the load on the mule, and beats him when he doesn't move fast 
enough, there comes a point when the mule balks."
     -- Pesticide & Toxic Chemical News, 2/20/91
EPA GROUNDWATER RESTRICTED USE CRITERIA OPTIONS' AND IMPACTS NOTED
     The options in the groundwater restricted use criteria proposal, 
expected to be issued by EPA shortly, would have significantly different 
regulatory impacts, according to an addendum to the Regulatory Impact 
Analysis (RIA) for the proposal.
     Option 1 criteria for selecting pesticides for restricted use 
classification include: "measured persistence and mobility of an 
ingredient of the pesticide product, or detection of the ingredient in 
groundwater at least three times in distinct locations."
     Option 2 criteria contain, "measured persistence and mobility of an 
ingredient, and whether the ingredient was found either: a) in three or 
more counties at levels greater than 10% of the Maximum Contaminant 
Level (MCL), or if no MCL has been established, above 10% of the 
lifetime Health Advisory Level; or b) in at least 25 different wells in 
four or more states."
     The addendum said that under this option, "EPA estimates that 10 
pesticides would be classified as restricted use pesticides (RUPs) due 
to implementation of these criteria. These data indicate that 14 fewer 
pesticides would be restricted under Option 2 than under Option 1. This 
results in a 58% reduction in the number of RUPs under Option 2." It 
continued:
       "Despite the rather dramatic decrease in the number of pesticides
   affected under Option 2, the agency does not expect a proportionate
   decrease in regulatory costs or benefits. Based on an interim data
   base, we have determined that many of the major use pesticides
   affected under Option 1 will also be affected under Option 2.
       "For example, the agency believes that Option 2 will continue to
   identify the following pesticides as candidates for restricted use
   classification: alachlor, aldicarb, atrazine and carbofuran. These
   pesticides are widely used on many crops in several parts of the
   country, and therefore should account for a disproportionate amount
   of the regulatory impacts. Most of the costs associated with
   training, record keeping and operating the training courses (which
   are the major cost components) could be attributed to the
   classification of these major use chemicals.
       "EPA cannot estimate quantitatively (based on available data) the
   extent to which costs and benefits will be affected under Option 2
   versus Option 1. However, EPA feels relatively confident that they
   will not decrease proportionately with the reduction in affected
   pesticides (i.e., 58%). In addition, the agency believes that the
   criteria specified under Option 1 are more preventive than the
   criteria under Option 2, and may result in greater risk reduction in
   the future. This is because Option 1 does not require the agency to
   wait for more extensive data which indicate that there is (or may
   soon be) a contamination problem before it can identify the pesticide
   as a candidate for restricted use classification."
     The addendum noted that the following 27 pesticides have been found 
in well samples in four or more states and/or have been detected in 25 
or more locations based on 1988 data: 1,2-D; 2,4,5-T; 2,4-D; alachlor; 
aldicarb; aldrin; atrazine; bromocil; carbofuran; chlordane; cyanazine; 
DBC; DDT; dacthal; dicamba; dieldrin; dinoseb; EDB; endosulfan; 
heptachlor; lindane; metolachlor; metribuzin; PCP; picloram; simazine, 
and trifluralin.
     The Regulatory Impact Analysis noted EPA's estimate that 87,100 
farmers will require training due to the proposed rule. The opportunity 
cost of time to train and certify 87,100 would be $8.46 million. EPA 
said that it was probable that some farmers would decide not to take the 
certification training, opting instead to use substitute general use 
pesticides and/or hire commercial applicators. Approximately 6,500 
commercial applicators would need to be certified to apply the 
pesticides restricted under the groundwater criteria. This opportunity 
cost of time would be $1.3 million. Also, the analysis stated:
       "The average level contamination (per well) is 8.98 ug/liter, and
   7.55 ug/liter for atrazine and alachlor, respectively. Based on these
   data and assumptions regarding water consumption (2 liters per day),
   EPA calculated the level of risks borne by the exposed/affected
   population (i.e., people drinking water from wells that have been
   contaminated due to misuse or point source discharges):
       "The results indicate that lifetime risks due to ingestion of 
   water contaminated by atrazine due to the above factors are 5.64 x 
   10-5. Similarly, risk due to alachlor contamination are 1.73 x 10-5
   .... Based on these risk estimates, the agency has determined the
   number of cancer cases that could be avoided due to implementation of
   the proposed rule. These estimates depend on the number of people
   that would be exposed to the above level of pesticide contamination
   in absence of the proposed rule....  (T)he agency believes that
   certification and training will reduce the amount of contamination,
   and (subsequently) the number of people who drink groundwater
   contaminated at the above levels. In light of this, the agency has
   estimated that seven cancer cases would be avoided if the proposed
   rule prevents 124,000 people from being exposed to atrazine
   contaminated water (at 8.98 ug/liter)....
       "(I)f an additional 405,600 people were no longer exposed to
   alachlor contamination (7.55 ug/liter), another seven cancer cases
   could be avoided, making the rule more cost effective."
     -- Pesticide & Toxic Chemical News, 2/20/91
KIMM TELLS MUSHROOM GROWERS HOW TO SAVE MINOR USES
     Victor J. Kimm, EPA's Deputy Assistant / Administrator for 
Pesticides and Toxic Substances detailed ways to help save minor use 
registrations at the Feb. 19 North American Mushroom Conference in San 
Antonio, Tex. 
     He warned growers that pesticide use in the U.S. and the world 
would change significantly because of increased public concern about 
food safety and expanded trade in commodities, which will mean that:
1.  The number of pesticide products and legal uses is likely to decline 
in the next few years.
2.  Pesticide usage in the future will be managed more carefully and 
with greater reliance on biological controls and integrated pest 
management and greater reliance on conservative practices generally 
known as sustainable agriculture.
3.  There will likely be enhanced international debate on how we conduct 
risk assessments and set allowable tolerances (See separate story)."
     Kimm discussed minor use policies, including IR-4, which has 
"developed a plan for an expanded program to develop residue data in 
support of reregistration for 1,000 food uses over the next seven years. 
To carry out this plan IR-4 will need approximately $12 million per 
year." (Current funding in 1991 is at $3 million.)
     -- Pesticide & Toxic Chemical News, 2/20/91
INTERREGIONAL RESEARCH PROJECT NO. 4, 1990 ANNUAL REPORT
     There are presently a total of 4980 minor use food requests on 
record with IR-4, an increase of 925 over that reported last year.  Of 
these requests, 1672 are characterized as researchable projects with 
1218 representing requests for new uses and 454 representing undefended 
reregistration needs.  During 1990, the four IR-4 Regions and USDA-ARS 
scheduled research on 210 food-use projects, from which residue samples 
for 161 projects went to state and USDA-ARS cooperating laboratories; 
samples for 49 projects went to private analytical laboratories 
including agrichemical companies.  With the completion of 1990 and prior 
research projects, data requirements should be satisfied for an 
additional 193 minor use needs.  Protocols for 294 field projects and 
114 laboratory projects were prepared or revised.  Overall, research 
trials were conducted on 94 separate food commodities.
     IR-4 Headquarters prepared 76 regulatory packages during the 1990 
calendar year.  These included 49 new tolerance petitions, 26 
reregistration petitions, and 1 crop definition petition.  In addition, 
7 major amendments were made to petitions during the year in response to 
EPA requests for additional residue data.  During 1990, IR-4 
Headquarters petition submissions resulted in pesticide actions 
representing 96 pesticide/commodity tolerances, including 1 crop 
definition.
     The IR-4 Project funded 401 ornamental research projects in 1990 
and prepared registration packages containing 238 reports on five 
pesticides.  These were submitted to registrants for review and 
labelling.  Also during 1990, IR-4 data were used to support 110 new 
ornamental registrations for seven pesticides.
     IR-4 provided funding to aid in the completion of the safety 
testing required to register the Codling Moth Granulosis Virus (CMGV).  
It plans to submit a petition to EPA requesting a full exemption of CMGV 
from the requirement of a tolerance in 1991.
     The IR-4 Animal Drug Program has cleared 15 drug uses for minor 
animal species since the program was initiated in 1982.  Eight 
additional Public Master Files are currently under review at FDA-CVM and 
three additional projects have been recently completed.
     Continued excellent cooperation with federal research agencies was 
again evidenced in 1990.  Of the research noted above, the USDA-ARS 
minor use program conducted field trials on 72 food projects, analyzed 
residue samples from 24 projects, and researched 225 ornamental 
projects.  Additionally, the USDI Fish and Wildlife Service scientists 
cooperated in two minor animal clearance projects.
     -- IR-4 Executive Summary, 1/25/91
CANCELLATION OF FLOWABLE CARBOFURAN BEING CONSIDERED BY EPA
     Cancellation of flowable carbofuran uses is being considered by 
EPA. The agency is likely do this without putting this formulation 
through special review. The granular and flowable regulatory decisions 
may be issued at about the same time this spring, an agency official 
said this week.
An OPP carbofuran paper prepared for a briefing for Linda Fisher, EPA's 
Assistant Administrator for Pesticides and Toxic Substances, noted that 
flowable carbofuran has "been implicated in many bird kills and there 
are field studies available to indicate that
under normal use conditions, flowable carbofuran kills birds.
     -- Pesticide & Toxic Chemical News, 2/20/91
CAN IVOMEC BE USED ON DAIRY ANIMALS?
     Many dairy farmers have questions as to whether and when they may 
use ivermectin (Ivomec) for control of internal and external parasites.  
In particular, farmers often ask whether this drug can be used on bred 
heifers and dry cows.  Because no tolerances have been set and no 
withdrawal time determined for dairy animals, the answer to both of 
these questions is "no".  The product label is very explicit:  "Do not 
use in female dairy cattle of breeding age".  Given the very narrow 
window of permissible use in dairy herds, it is probably best to advise 
dairy farmers to avoid using it altogether.
     -- Chris Geden, Dept. of Entomology, Cornell University for "Dairy 
Agent Update", January 1991.
NYS DEPT. OF AGR. & MKTS. FOOD LAB. January REPORT
     Personnel in the Food Laboratory tested 2,579 food and beverage 
samples during January for the following agencies:
     Number of
     Samples            Agency
     ___________        ____________________
          135           New York State Liquor Authority
          706           Department of Agriculture and Markets
                        Food Inspection Services
        1,738           Milk Control
       ______
Total   2,579
     Results of pesticide residue testing concluded that a sample of New 
York wine, produced in Dutchess County, contained 0.26 ppm Methiocarb 
and metabolites.  The compound is normally used as a bird repellent.  A 
tolerance has not been approved for grapes.  Pesticide residues were not 
detected in 73 percent of the other milk and food samples.  A special 
project during the month included refinement and application of a method 
for carbamate pesticides in milk using a new gas chromatograph.
     -- NYS Agr. & Mkts., January 1991
IMIDAN 50-WP Label Expanded
     The Gowan Company has announced the addition of several key crops 
to the existing IMIDAN 50-WP label.  These registrations now allow 
Imidan to be utilized on a wide range of crops.  The expanded 
registrations include alfalfa, citrus, grapes, corn, cotton, peas, and 
potatoes.  They join the following previously registered crops:  
almonds, apples, apricots, blueberries, cherries (tart), nectarines, 
peaches, pears, pecans, plums, prunes and deciduous shade trees, 
ornamental trees and woody evergreens.
     -- Gowan Company Letter
WGS/3/91

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