PESTICIDE
BRIEFS
CONTENTS
FOR 12/01/03
THE
LOCAL SCENE
1. APPLE CROP PROFILE
COMPLETED
2. CROP PROFILE FOR PEPPERS
IN PROGRESS
3. PICKLE PEST MANAGEMENT
STRATEGIC PLAN SLATED FOR 2005
4. SPINACH WORKSHOP
WILL BE HELD 1/5/04 IN HARRINGTON
5. PESTICIDE INFORMATION
NETWORK ADVISORY COMMITTEE HELD
NATIONAL
NEWS
VOLUNTARY CANCELLATIONS/AMENDMENTS
6. CREOSOTE AND ACID COPPER
CHROMATE USES
7. CERTAIN PESTICIDES
USES - PRODIAMINE, MALATHION,
CARBARYL,
BENFLURALIN, MCPA, PIPERONYL BUTOXIDE,
AND RESMETHRIN.
8. DIMETHOATE
9. FENRIDAZONE POTASSIUM
EPA POLICY CHANGES/NEW LABEL LANGUAGE
10. ATRAZINE RISK
MITIGATION MEASURES
11. AZM DRIFT LABEL
LANGUAGE
REPORTS & PUBLICATIONS
12. FEDERAL RUP LIST
AVAILABLE
13. IR-4 NEW CHEMISTRIES
LIST PUBLISHED
14. FARM FAMILY EXPOSURE
STUDY
NEW DEVELOPMENTS
15. MODIFIED CORN
CONSUMER ALERT
16. RAID RECALL
********************************************************************
THE LOCAL SCENE
1-3.
CROP PROFILE ON APPLES AVAILABLE. PEPPER NEXT.
PICKLE PMSP PLANNED
The Crop Profile for Delaware Apples is
available at: http://pestdata.ncsu.edu/cropprofiles/docs/DEapples.html
The next Crop Profile will be on green
peppers. A Pest Management Strategic Plan for pickles will be prepared
in early 2005. Growers and other interested parties are encouraged
to comment on commodities for Crop Profiles and PMSP’s. Contact Susan
Whitney King at: swhitney@udel.edu
.
RETURN TO TOP
4.
SPINACH WORKSHOP TO BE HELD 1/5/04
A Workshop will be held for spinach growers
and processors on January 5, 2004 as part of the Vegetable Growers meeting
in Harrington DE. The purpose of the Workshop will be to write a
Pest Management Strategic Plan (PMSP) for spinach in Delaware, New Jersey,
and eastern shore Maryland. The Strategic Plan will review control
measures for major pests, anticipate changes in pesticide registrations
and discuss possible alternatives for at-risk pesticides. Growers
and processors will identify critical priorities in research, extension
and regulation. The Workshop is open to all. For information, contact
Susan Whitney King at swhitney@udel.edu.
In preparation for the PMSP Workshop, a
spinach stakeholders meeting was held last December in Milford DE.
It was attended by 8 growers, 2 consultants, and 4 processor representatives.
University of Delaware Cooperative Extension specialists, Joanne Whalen,
Kate Everts, and Mark VanGesel presented results of field research.
WEED CONTROL
Dr. Mark VanGessel discussed University
of Delaware field trials with registered soil applied herbicides and promising
alternatives. He posed the questions, “Are there any other products
that would have a fit?” and, “How do weed problems change from spring to
fall?” Dr. VanGessel asked attendees to think into the future and
consider how much spinach would there be over the next 2-3 years.
He pointed out that we need to treat these fields early in spring and years
in advance to drive chickweed seed banks lower.
DISEASES
Dr. Kate Everts reported on a white rust
predictive model research project. The model for fungicide applications
is based on leaf wetness. Dr. Everts urged attendees to consider
the following questions:
“How many sprays can you apply and still
make a profit?”
“Would a model be useful or is the disease
control margin too small?”
“Are there other products that might provide
better control?”
“Are there other critical diseases that
need to be address? Rhizoctonia?”
A question was posed on aphid control using
White Rust products. There is a need to stop aphids from sticking
to spinach leaves when the aphids get an entomopathogen. Near the
end of the meeting, Dr. Everts asked if attendees wanted her White Rust
model now. The response was affirmative. Discussion was held
on varieties, resistence and susceptibility to disease.
INSECTS
Joanne Whalen discussed Beet Armyworm,
Web Worms, and the Green Peach Aphid. She reported on registered
pesticides and promising alternatives. Joanne asked if all growers
sprayed this year for aphids. The response was affirmative.
She then asked about the future: What was needed for insect pest
management? She asked growers to alert her to any other insect pests
in Delaware spinach. Discussion was held on weather forecasting.
Joanne asked if attendees would like UD to move in this vein. The response
was affirmative.
PESTICIDE REGISTRATIONS
UD Cooperative Extension Vegetable Specialist,
Ed Kee, stated that the federal government wants more documentation of
grower needs, especially for section 18's. He suggested a committee
be formed under the umbrella of the Vegetable Growers Association.
This committee would discuss three crops/year one day before the growers
meeting in January. For example: spinach, lima beans, and pickles
(as we are doing this year). When the committee discusses needs in
spinach, all spinach growers and processors would be invited to listen.
The committee would have representation from the major crops in Delaware.
Major points made
in discussion were:
(1) Growers can not afford to give up
on a crop after money has already been invested in it.
(2) Growers can not risk losing any old
chemistry – they may need to use old products again some day if current
products suddenly stop working.
(3) The University of Delaware needs input
from growers. EPA is looking for economic information. An educated
guess is better than nothing.
Final discussion was held on how to get
information to growers and processors. The conclusion was: (1) posting
to the web and (2) holding an annual spinach meeting separate from other
commodity meetings.
RETURN TO TOP
5.
PESTICIDE INFORMATION NETWORK ADVISORY COMMITTEE HELD
The Advisory Committee for the Delaware
Information Network for Pesticides and Alternative Strategies met on November
10, 2003 at the Research and Education Center in Georgetown. In attendance
were: Joanne Whalen, Mark VanGessel, Grier Stayton, and Susan Whitney King,
the Advisory Committee Chair.
King explained that the Delaware Network
is part of the Mid-Atlantic Network which operates in cooperation with
the Northeast Integrated Pest Management Center at Pennsylvania State University
and Cornell. Joanne Whalen, IPM Coordinator, initiated a discussion
on the make up of the Advisory Committee and stated that there is a need
to have advice from growers and others in the agricultural community.
Discussion center around how to obtain grower input. Suggestions
were to meet with County Extension Advisory Committees and/or commodity
organizations, such as the Vegetable Growers Association. Whalen
and King envisioned a joint presentation on the IPM Program, the Information
Network, the Pesticide Safety Education Program, the IR-4 Minor use Program,
and Urban Pest Control as a combined seamless package. Whalen and
King could then apply committee advice to the appropriate program.
A recommendation was made that King explore these possibilities.
Of course, there would still be a need to have a body of advisors with
which to communicate through e-mail on issues between meetings.
King, presented a progress report on 2003
Committee recommendations:
(1) Advisory Committee for Mid-Atlantic
Region. Action: This suggestion was
made to the Mid-Atlantic Information Network at our summer meeting.
It is being considered.
(2) DDA notify King of Sec 18's
& 24C’s. Action: Grier Stayton
has been doing this.
(3) On-line lesson for Pesticide
Safety Education Training on how to use Pesticide Briefs. Action:
Done
(4) Post Card “How to get info.”
Action:
Distributed to county offices.
(5) Add commodity group leaders
to Pesticide Briefs mailing list. Not
done. Need list of commodity groups & addresses.
(6) Re-design table of contents
for Pesticide Briefs. Action: Done.
Crop Profiles
A list of completed crop profiles was
presented: Apple, wheat, lima beans, snap beans, sweet corn, peaches,
green peas, potatoes, spinach, squash, watermelons. Discussion was
held on which commodity to cover next: Green Pepper, Carrot, another
commodity, or revise a previous Crop Profile. King pointed out that
if a previous crop is in jeopardy, that is justification for revising our
Crop Profile schedule. It was decided to continue with the current
schedule and write the next profile on peppers which might include hot
peppers.
Pest Management
Strategic Plans
King stated that the lima bean PMSP was
completed last winter and that the joint PA/DE/MD mushroom PMSP is in progress
with PA as the lead. The Spinach Workshop has been scheduled for
1/5/04 in Harrington DE as part of the week long Vegetable Growers Meeting.
The insect section of the Spinach Plan is completed. Weeds and Disease
sections are in draft.
Discussion was held on which commodity
to choose for the 2005 PMSP. It was recommended that King find out
what other states are planning to do. It was decided to continue
with the current schedule and hold a Pickle Workshop in early 2005.
King would ask for time on the pickle growers meeting at the Vegetable
Growers Meeting in January ‘04 to jump start the PMSP.
Whalen suggested that King evaluate the
success of the lima PMSP. While researchers benefit from these Plans
when applying for federal grants, what do growers get out of them?
Mark VanGessel stated that he was able to network with the PictSweet researcher,
Steve Little, at the ‘03 Workshop. The result of that interaction
was the start of a new trial of Authority which has been used in Tennessee,
but not in Delaware.
Pesticide Briefs
Newsletter
King said that the goal of the Pesticide
Briefs newsletter is to promote informed regulatory decisions on registered
pesticides. She asked if Pesticide Briefs was meeting the needs of
growers, pesticide users, and extension agents/ specialists. Comments
from the attendees were, “Looks fine.” “Its Good, I use it!”
“I scan it for pertinent items.” “It is in a form I can do that.”
Grier Stayton requested King check the links to 24C’s and Section 18's.
Other recommendations were: Update mailing list annually, ask for list
of commodity associations from the county offices, send an e-mail to “Ag-All”
asking if University of Delaware researchers and staff wish to receive
Pesticide Briefs.
RETURN TO TOP
NATIONAL NEWS
VOLUNTARY CANCELLATIONS/AMENDMENTS
6.
CREOSOTE AND ACID COPPER CHROMATE USES – VOLUNTARY CANCELLATION REQUEST
– COMMENTS DUE 12/26/03
EPA has issued a notice of receipt of
requests by creosote and acid copperchromate wood preservative
products registrants to voluntarily cancel certain pesticide registrations
and/or to amend to terminate certain uses of affected products. Specifically,
the five registrants who are members of the Creosote Council III have requested
to cancel the registrations for their creosote non-pressure treatment end-use
products and/or to amend to terminate all non-pressure treatment uses of
other creosote products. The registrants are requesting that the cancellations
be made effective December 31, 2004. Public comments are due December
26, 2003. The Federal Register Notice can be found at: http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-PEST/2003/September/Day-29/p24560.htm
In addition, Osmose, Inc., the sole registrant
of Acid Copper Chromate, is requesting immediate cancellation of its product
without provisions for existing stocks. For the past two years, Osmose
has not sold or distributed this product. Prior to that time, although
the label did not contain such a restriction, the registrant limited its
sales and distribution of the product to one customer for the sole purpose
of treating wood that was used in water cooling towers.
EPA intends to issue orders granting these
requests to cancel certain products and to amend to terminate certain uses.
For further information, contact Connie Welch at 703-308-8218.
RETURN TO
TOP
7.
CERTAIN PESTICIDE USES DELETIONS – COMMENTS DUE 12/5/03 AND 5/3/04
EPA is issuing a notice of receipt of
request for amendments by registrants to delete uses in certain pesticide
registrations. These deletions will be effective on May 3, 2004,
or December 5, 2003 for product registrations. The active ingredients
are: prodiamine (Barricade 65WG Herbicide), malathion, carbaryl (Sevin),
benfluralin, MCPA, piperonyl butoxide, and resmethrin.
For the complete list of deleted uses, go to: http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-PEST/2003/November/Day-05/p27678.htm
Users of these products who desire continued
use on crops or sites being deleted should contact the applicable registrant
before the dates given above. EPA has authorized the registrants
to sell or distribute product under the previously approved labeling for
a period of 18 months after approval of the revision, unless other restrictions
have been imposed, as in special review actions.
RETURN TO
TOP
8.
DIMETHOATE VOLUNTARY CANCELLATIONS REQUESTED
EPA has published a Federal Register notice
announcing its receipt of requests from several registrants to modify their
dimethoate
technical pesticide product labels to remove certain crop uses to address
dietary risks. The five dimethoate registrants, Cheminova, Inc., BASF,
Gowan, Drexel, and Microflo, have asked to delete dimethoate uses on apples,
grapes, cabbage, collards, spinach, and head lettuce because
these uses significantly contribute to the potential dietary risks associated
with human consumption of those crops. The registrants also asked to delete
uses on broccoli raab, fennel, tomatillo, lespedeza, and trefoil, which
they have chosen not to support for reregistration.
The Delaware IPM Coordinator, Joanne Whalen,
and the Delaware Pesticide Information Network Liasion, Susan Whitney King,
submitted the following comment to the EPA docket: “Spinach is the
crop that could be impacted in DE. Dimethoate is used for a resistance
management tool for aphids in spinach. There may be data that says dimethoate
is not working; however, it has helped to reduce populations, especially
in fresh market spinach. Our Crop Consultant, Mr. Luke McConnell, feels
it would be an important use to maintain.”
Dimethoate is a systemic organophosphate
(OP) insecticide registered for use on a variety of fruits, vegetables,
grains, and ornamentals, and in forestry. EPA is reviewing dimethoate to
determine whether it is eligible for reregistration and to make tolerance
reassessment decisions. Dimethoate also is included in the Agency’s cumulative
assessment of the OP pesticides. The apple and grape uses of dimethoate
were identified as significant contributors to potential dietary risk in
the OP cumulative risk assessment. Dimethoate human health and ecological
effects risk assessments and related documents are available on EPA’s website
at: http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/op/dimethoate.htm
. In the March 13, 2002, Federal Register, EPA published a cancellation
order removing all dimethoate residential uses and certain agricultural
uses. A dimethoate Interim Reregistration Eligibility Decision (IRED)
document currently under development will reflect these cancellations.
The dimethoate Federal Register notice is available on EPA’s website at:
http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-PEST/2003/September/Day-10/p22937.htm
RETURN TO TOP
9.
FENRIDAZONE POTASSIUM CANCELLED
EPA has announced a cancellation order
requested by Monsanto Company for their registration of the pesticide product
fenridazone
potassium, a growth regulator (Hybrex 21C) used on wheat.
Any distribution, sale, or use of canceled fenridazone potassium products
is permitted only in accordance with the terms of the existing stocks provisions
of this cancellation order. Monsanto states that there should be no products
in the channels of trade. The cancellations are effective November
5, 2003. The complete text of the order can be found at:
http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-PEST/2003/November/Day-05/p27852.htm
RETURN TO TOP
EPA POLICY CHANGES/NEW LABEL LANGUAGE
10.
ATRAZINE -- RISK MITIGATION WITHIN SENSITIVE WATERSHEDS. COMMENTS
DUE 2/5/04
In January 2003, EPA issued an “Interim
Re-registration Eligibility Decision” (IRED) for the widely-used pesticide
atrazine,
culminating a multi-year assessment. Specific risk mitigation measures
were described for potential human health concerns, however the document
committed to future development of measures for mitigating ecological risks.
As a follow-up, an addendum to the January document was recently released.
The addendum discusses ecological monitoring and risk mitigation within
sensitive watersheds, the most current scientific information regarding
potential effects of atrazine on amphibians and recent scientific work
about the potential association between atrazine exposure and the incidence
of prostate and other cancers.
Specifically to target monitoring of ecologically
vulnerable watersheds, the manufacturers of atrazine are required to monitor
residue levels in 40 indicator watersheds that are representative of watersheds
that may be vulnerable to contamination where atrazine is regularly used.
If monitoring indicates an exceedance of a level of concern in a watershed,
the company will work to remediate the watershed consistent with the Clean
Water Act’s total maximum daily load (TMDL) program and appropriate requirements
under the federal pesticide law. If this remediation is not sufficient,
EPA may take further action to mitigate risks from atrazine and will consider
as appropriate, benefits of atrazine use in the particular watershed. This
innovative and protective approach was jointly developed by EPA, atrazine
manufacturers, USDA, and grower groups to provide an early alert system
in watersheds where atrazine may be a concern. This model approach may
in turn be used to address similar concerns in other watersheds.
Since issuing the IRED, EPA has carefully
evaluated and received scientific peer review of studies regarding possible
developmental effects on amphibians exposed to low doses of atrazine. These
data do not provide evidence to show that atrazine produces a consistent,
reproducible effect on amphibian development. An independent science peer
review panel convened in June supported the Agency’s conclusions and recommended
that more data be generated to evaluate this potential relationship. Generation
of this data is underway. Based on the available scientific work on the
potential association between atrazine and cancer, the Agency does not
find any studies that would lead the Agency to conclude that potential
cancer risk is likely from exposure to atrazine. However, EPA will continue
to review new studies on this issue and plans to convene another independent
Scientific Advisory Panel concerning atrazine and its potential association
with carcinogenic effects.
EPA’s is confident that their work on atrazine
is based on a thorough review of an extensive body of the best available
scientific data and studies, has been subject to participation by the public
and stakeholders, and has undergone independent scientific peer review.
Atrazine is used on a variety of crops and nonagricultural applications.
It is being reviewed as part of EPA’s ongoing program to evaluate older
pesticides to ensure that they meet current health and environmental safety
standards, including the health protective measures, called for in the
Food Quality Protection Act. Extensive information on EPA’s review
of atrazine is available at: http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/reregistration/atrazine
EPA is inviting public comment on this
addendum to the Interim Reregistration Eligibility Decision (IRED) for
the herbicide atrazine. Concurrent with the release of the revised
Atrazine IRED, the Agency also published its revised draft aquatic life
criteria document for atrazine and is seeking views reflecting the latest
scientific knowledge. Both Federal Register notices with instructions on
how to submit comments are available on EPA’ s Web site at: http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-PEST/2003/November/Day-07/p28101.htm
The notices can be read and comments submitted
through EPA's online public docket, EDOCKET, at: http://cascade.epa.gov/RightSite/dk_public_home.htm
. EPA is accepting public comments on the atrazine IRED addendum
and scientific views on the draft aquatic life criteria document until
February 5, 2004.
RETURN TO TOP
11.
AZINPHOS-METHYL (GUTHION) – NEW LABEL DIRECTIONS FOR 2004 GROWING SEASON
- DRIFT CONTROL
EPA has reached agreement on labeling
for Azinphos-methyl (AZM) products as part of AZM’s reregistration.
Drift control language will begin to appear on the market during the 2004
use season.
REQUIREMENTS FOR
REDUCING SPRAY DRIFT
Do not apply under circumstances where
possible drift to unprotected persons or to food, forage, or other plantings
that might be damaged or crops thereof rendered unfit for sale, use or
consumption can occur.
1. Use the largest droplet size consistent
with acceptable efficacy. Formation of very small droplets may be minimized
by appropriate nozzle selection, by orienting nozzles away from the air
stream as much as possible and by avoiding excessive spray boom pressure.
For groundboom and aerial applications, use medium or coarser spray nozzles
according to ASAE 572 definition for standard nozzles or a volume mean
diameter (VMD) of 300 microns or greater for spinning atomizer nozzles.
2. Make aerial or ground applications when
the wind velocity favors on-target product deposition. Apply only when
the wind speed is less than or equal to 10 mph. For all non-aerial applications,
wind speed must be measured adjacent to the application site on the upwind
side, immediately prior to application.
3. Do not make aerial or ground applications
into areas of temperature inversions. Inversions are characterized by stable
air and increasing temperatures with increasing distance above the ground.
Mist or fog may indicate the presence of an inversion in humid areas. Where
permissible by local regulations, the applicator may detect the presence
of an inversion by producing smoke and observing a smoke layer near the
ground surface.
4. Low humidity and high temperatures increase
the evaporation rate of spray droplets and therefore the likelihood of
increased spray drift. Avoid spraying during conditions of low humidity
and/or high temperatures.
5. All aerial and ground application equipment
must be properly maintained and calibrated using appropriate carriers.
6. For ground boom applications, apply
with nozzle height no more than 4 feet above the ground or crop canopy.
7. For airblast applications, turn off
outward pointing nozzles at row ends and when spraying the outer two rows.
To minimize spray loss over the top in orchard applications, spray must
be directed into the canopy.
8. For ground-boom, chemigation, orchard
or other airblast applications, do not apply within 25 feet of permanent
water bodies (rivers, natural ponds, lakes, streams, reservoirs, marshes,
estuaries, or commercial fish ponds).
9. For aerial application to potatoes,
do not apply within 150 feet of permanent water bodies (aquatic buffer
zone).
10. For aerial application to crops other
than potatoes, do not apply within 50 feet of permanent water bodies (aquatic
buffer zone).
11. For aerial applications, release spray
at the lowest height consistent with efficacy and flight safety. If the
application includes an aquatic buffer zone, do not release spray at a
height greater than 10 feet above the ground or crop canopy.
12. For aerial applications, the spray
boom should be mounted on the aircraft so as to minimize drift caused by
wing tip vortices. The minimum practical boom length should be used and
must not exceed 75% of the wingspan or 90% of rotor blade diameter. Use
upwind swath displacement.
EPA states that:
• The approved language implements significant
worker and ecological risk reduction measures outlined in the Interim Reregistration
Eligibility Decision (IRED) issued in October 2002.
• EPA has worked with USDA and stakeholders
to develop clear, enforceable labeling to inform users and to address potential
risks associated with pesticide spray drifting off the target crops.
• The labels, including the language related
to spray drift, were developed to address several specific risk concerns
with AZM, and are not intended to represent a generic approach to managing
spray drift risks. This decision is limited to AZM products.
• EPA will continue its consideration
of a broader, more generic approach to drift related labeling.
• EPA is committed to finding the right
balance of language that provides: appropriate protection to people (farm
workers, residents of nearby homes) and the environment; state enforcement
officials with the ability to carry our their responsibilities; and, applicators
with a clear message of expectations for controlling off-target drift.
• Product-specific labeling for drift
control (e.g., buffer zones or other requirements) may be necessary for
certain pesticides, particularly those with a high risk for phytotoxicity
to other crops or native vegetation or toxicity to wildlife or other sensitive
areas.
• EPA continues to listen to interested
parties: applicator and grower organizations; the pesticide industry; environmental
and farm worker organizations; USDA and extension; state and tribal government;
and the general public.
• EPA fully intends to work with stakeholders
to develop a spray drift policy that not only ensures protection of people
and unintended crops and lands but ensures clear guidance is provided for
enforcement purposes as well as to preserve agricultural grower needs.
RETURN TO TOP
REPORTS & PUBLICATIONS
12.
FEDERAL RUP LIST AVAILABLE
The list of “Federally Registered Restricted
use Pesticides” is available on line at: http://www.ianr.unl.edu/pubs/pesticides/ec2500.htm.
This list is prepared annually by Dr. Larry Schultz, University of Nebraska.
RETURN TO TOP
13.
IR-4 NEW CHEMISTRIES LIST PUBLISHED
The latest list of new Pest Control Products/
Transition Solutions has been release by IR-4 headquarters. It can
be found at: http://ir4.rutgers.edu/newchemistry.pdf
. This list contains brief descriptions of numerous new pest control
materials that have been introduced over the past several years.
Additionally, it contains information on some “older” crop protection chemicals
that are believed to have room for new uses. Many of these pest control
tools offer great promise to fill the pest management voids expected from
the cancellation of pesticides/ pesticide uses associated with FQPA.
Some of these new products have been classified by EPA as reduced risk
for one or more uses while others have characteristics that make them more
desirable than some of the existing products. Several of the pest
control materials have been registered by EPA for certain crops, while
others have their initial registration pending. In most cases, the
usefulness of these new tools on minor crops is still unknown.
RETURN TO TOP
14.
FARM FAMILY EXPOSURE STUDY
A farm family pesticide exposure study
was conducted in Minnesota and South Carolina by Dr. John Acquavella, an
epidemiologist with Monsanto in St. Louis, MO. The goals of the study
were to quantify real world exposures for farmers, spouses, and their children
and make recommendations to help minimize exposure for farm families.
Dr. Acquavella presented the results of his research at the National Pesticide
Applicator Certification and Safety Education Workshop in Honolulu, Hawaii
this August.
The test chemicals were: 2,4-D, chlorpyrifos
and
glyphosate. Dr. Acquavella measured these pesticides and their
metabolites in the urine of the test subjects. In each study, only
the grower made the pesticide applications. Neither spouses nor children
applied pesticides, however some children were reported to have “helped”
their fathers in the application. The results showed that 100% of
spouses and 100% of children had detects for chlorpyrifos, but the quantity
was low. More than 50% of children and spouses had detects for 2,4-D.
From 4-12% of spouses and children had detects for glyphosate. When
questioned as to why children were allowed to “help” their fathers, applicators
responded that a farm is a dangerous place for children and the fathers
wanted to keep their children in sight. Dr. Acquavella concluded
that, for children, exposure to pesticides could be minimized by avoiding
mixing areas and fields during times of pesticide related activities.
For more info, go to: http://www.farmfamilyexposure.org/
RETURN TO TOP
NEW DEVELOPMENTS
15.
MODIFIED CORN VARIETY CONTROLS MOTHS AND BEETLES
Following a thorough evaluation, a new
Monsanto corn variety has been approved for use. The product, called
YieldGard
Plus, is the first genetically engineered crop that has the ability
to control two different insect groups. The corn produces two different
Bacillus thuringiensis (or Bt) proteins, enabling it to protect from leaf
and stalk damage caused by insects such as the European corn borer, and
from root damage caused by the corn rootworm. EPA evaluates these
types of crops, called plant incorporated-protectants under the Agency’s
pesticide regulatory authorities. This new variety of corn was produced
by traditional breeding of previously-approved plant incorporated-protectants.
The previous varieties are “MON 810” (YieldGard) and “MON 863” (YieldGard
Rootworm), and the associated Bt proteins are Cry3Bb1 and Cry1Ab. EPA carefully
evaluated data regarding this new “stacked” product, and considered the
public comments submitted during its review process in reaching a decision
about this registration. More information on EPA’s biotechnology regulatory
program can be found at: http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/biopesticides
.
RETURN TO TOP
CONSUMER ALERT
16.
RAID CONSUMER ALERT: Insecticide Voluntary Recovery Effort Underway – Consumers
Urged to Follow Manufacturer’s Instructions for Disposal and Full Value
Replacement
EPA has been informed by S.C. Johnson
Company that they are recovering two specific lots of Raid® Flying
Insect Killer due to their unacceptable performance. While there have
been no reports of injury or damage to property, tests show that the aerosol
cans may not spray an appropriate amount of the insecticide and therefore
reduce its effectiveness. The company also believes that some cans in
question could develop leaks over time. EPA encourages consumers who
have aerosol cans of Raid® Flying Insect Killer (EPA Registration Number
4822-513) marked with lot numbers 225 or 226 on the bottom of the can to
call the S.C. Johnson Hotline at 1-800-294-3632 for disposal instructions
and full value replacement coupons. All other lot numbers of Raid®
Flying Insect Killer and other Raid® products are not involved in this
voluntary recovery, and consumers may continue using those products according
to label instructions. You may review the manufacturer’s announcement at:
http://www.scjohnson.com/family/fam_pre_pre_news.asp?art_id=109
(English)
http://www.scjohnson.com/family/fam_pre_pre_news.asp?art_id=110
(Spanish)
