Pesticide Information OfficeChemically Speaking; April 2002
EPA Issues Statement Regarding Aquatic Herbicide Use
On April 1, 2002, EPA issued a statement clarifying that it will use regulatory and enforcement authority under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act to prevent the misuse of herbicides in
agricultural irrigation systems. This statement is fully consistent with FIFRA and with the Clean Water Act, in which Congress specifically states, "The Administrator shall not require a (Clean Water Act) permit...for discharges composed entirely of return flows from irrigated agriculture." The statement confirms that lawful application of aquatic herbicides to ensure flow in an irrigation canal in a manner consistent with a federally-approved product label does not require a Clean Water Act permit. EPA's statement is intended to resolve a degree of confusion created by the case Headwaters, Inc. v. Talent Irrigation District which involved the misuse of an aquatic herbicide in an irrigation canal.
The Agency's statement confirms that the application of an aquatic herbicide to maintain an irrigation system, when done according to instructions contained on the product's EPA-approved label, is governed by FIFRA and is exempt from the requirement to obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit under the federal Clean Water Act. This statement is part of the Agency's ongoing effort to provide appropriate guidance to state and local partners, the regulated community and other stakeholders in a manner that will help ensure compliance with environmental laws. EPA will continue to work closely with States, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, irrigation districts, licensed pesticide applicators and grower representatives to ensure the proper use of pesticides according to approved label directions. To be clear, the statement addresses the issue of how the Clean Water Act irrigation return flow exemption applies in certain situations where there has been lawful use of an aquatic herbicide. In other circumstances where discharges are made into waters of the United States, FIFRA and the Clean Water Act may both be applicable and will be enforced. (EPA Office of Pesticide Programs Update, 4/1/02).
To Peel or Not to Peel
In the United Kingdom, independent scientists who advise the Food Standards Agency have concluded that washing fruit and vegetables
is not required as a protection against pesticide residues. But the Agency is stressing that washing them is still a sensible food hygiene measure. The Agency asked the independent Advisory Committee on Pesticides (ACP) to review existing food safety advice from the Chief Medical Officer (CMO) in relation to pesticide residues. It was worried that some consumers were being put off eating fruit and vegetables which are part of a healthy balanced diet - because they thought they were not safe to eat unless they were washed before eating. The ACP began reviewing the CMO advice at its meeting in October, 2001. It concluded that washing and peeling fruit and vegetables is not required as a protection against pesticide residues. According to the CMO, peeling is a matter of individual choice. The Agency supports the general advice that it is sensible to wash fruit and vegetables before eating to ensure that they are clean, but believes that as a matter of principle, safe use of a pesticide should not depend on such action by consumers.
In response to the statements, Friends of the Earth (FOE) proclaimed that advice by the Food Standards Agency that fresh fruit and vegetables no longer require washing is "irresponsible." Sandra Bell, campaigner for FOE, was quoted as saying, "We're not confident there has been any significant change since 1997, and we've looked at exactly the same papers as the advisory committee. And those papers actually found that safety levels set specifically for children are exceeded for a wide range of pesticides on fruit and vegetables that are eaten commonly by children. So we're not convinced at all that this peeling advice should go at this stage." Asked whether she believed the advice was irresponsible, Ms. Bell said: "We certainly do because the FSA should be protecting consumer health." (AgNet, 3/25/02 & 3/26/02)
Metolachlor Misgivings
In late March, the EPA granted Cedar Chemical Company a registration for the herbicide metolachlor. However, Syngenta, which produced metolachlor under the trade name Dual®, is upset with the Agency for a number of reasons, and believes the decision is incorrect from both environmental and legal standpoints.
Syngenta requested three years ago that the EPA cancel their registration for metolachlor when it decided to pursue isomer-resolved chemistry, leading to the registration of s-metolachlor, which is considered a "reduced risk" pesticide. Despite the fact the EPA did not receive any registration-related fees from Syngenta, the metolachlor registration was maintained in active status, which paved the way for Cedar to seek a "me too" registration. Earlier in March, a federal judge denied Syngenta's request that EPA be prevented from granting a generic registration. An EPA-prepared release stated that the decision "is expected to result in added competition within the metolachlor market, likely bring prices of both products down, potentially saving American Farmers millions of dollars annually."
Syngenta is not the only group which is upset with the EPA. State officials, grower organizations, non-governmental organizations, and even an employee of the EPA are critical of the decision. The National Cotton Council (NCC) requested in February that EPA honor its original agreement with the registrant, which was acting in good faith when it did not petition to renew registration of metolachlor. The NCC is concerned the EPA's actions will weaken the goals of the Reduced Risk Initiative. Additionally, the Center for Regulatory Effectiveness told EPA it was obligated under the Data Quality Act to afford the public an opportunity to comment on the company's request. Finally, an EPA microbiologist stated in a memo that if s-metolachlor does not replace metolachlor in the U.S., it is unlikely manufacturers will invest in any future development of products aimed at reducing risks that pesticides pose to the environment. (Pesticide & Toxic Chemical News, Vol. 30, No. 22 & Chemical Regulation Reporter, Vol. 26, No. 12).
Pesticide Registrations and Actions
On February 26, the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS) accepted for registration a new product containing diflubenzuron, as well as amended labels for existing products. Now, four Uniroyal Micromite® products (80WGS, 4L, 80WG, and 25WS) can be applied by ground or air on citrus, up to three times per year. However, for ground applications, the material must not be applied within 100 feet of estuarine/marine bodies of water. For aerial applications, the material must not be applied within 1,000 feet of estuarine/marine bodies of water. (FDACS letter of 2/26/02).
Acramite® miticide (bifenazate) from Uniroyal Chemical, was registered in Florida effective March 7, 2002 for mite control on cotton, strawberry, and other crops (peach, nectarine, plum). (FDACS PREC Agenda, 4/4/02).
Phantom® insecticide/termiticide (chlorfenapyr) from BASF Corporation, was registered in Florida effective March 7, 2002 for control of subterranean termites in post-construction soil treatment around structures. (FDACS PREC Agenda, 4/4/02).
On March 28, FDACS approved a conditional registration, effective immediately, for Dow AgroSciences' Gavel (67% mancozeb + 8% zoxamide) 75 DF (EPA Reg. No. 62719-441) for tomato and cucurbits. These new uses were conditionally approved prior to the May meeting of the Pesticide Registration Evaluation Committee so as to give growers a necessary tool to prevent late blight in tomatoes in SW Florida. The use of Gavel 75 DF, in rotation with other fungicides, may prevent or delay the development of resistance in the late blight organism. For more information, call Mike Aerts at FFVA at 407-894-1351. (FFAA Florida Focus, 4/1/02).
The EPA has issued a Section 18 specific exemption for the use of Topsin M® WSB (thiophanate-methyl) fungicide for control of post-bloom fruit drop on citrus in Florida (EPA Registrations 4581-408, 4581-377, or 73545-8). The exemption extends from 2/22/02 through 2/22/03. Regulations associated with this exemption include a crop maximum of six pounds of product of thiophanate methyl and benomyl (example: 3 pounds of benomyl and 3 pounds of thiophanate-methyl) per acre and the restricted entry interval (REI) has been extended from 12 hours to 48 hours. A maximum of 762,400 acres may be treated. (FDACS letter of 3/5/02).
The Division of Plant Industry has been issued an Experimental Use Permit to use GF-120 Naturalyte Fruit Fly Bait (spinosad) for evaluation of alternatives to malathion in bait sprays for control and eradication of Mediterranean and Caribbean fruit flies along with the evaluation of different spray equipment. The EUP is authorized through 12/31/02. (FDACS letter of 3/12/02).
On April 2, 2002, the EPA announced an opportunity for public comment on the Agency's determination as to whether the class of pesticides commonly referred to as "the triazines" share a common mechanism of toxicity. Under the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA), EPA is required to consider the cumulative effects of pesticides that affect the body through the same key pathways when establishing, modifying, revoking, or deciding to leave a tolerance in place. Identifying pesticides and other substances that share a common mechanism of toxicity is the first step of the cumulative risk assessment process. EPA has concluded that the following triazine-containing pesticides should be included in a common mechanism group and thus considered by means of cumulative risk assessment: atrazine, simazine, propazine, and the degradants diaminochlorotriazine, desethyl-s-atrazine, and desisopropyl-s-atrazine. The Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) of EPA made this common mechanism of toxicity determination based on evidence that these pesticides act in the same manner to produce consequent effects on reproductive functions and reproductive development. Interested parties have until June 2, 2002, to submit comments. (OPP Update, 3/18/02).
On March 18, 2002, EPA published a rule which proposes to revoke a total of 60 tolerances and exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of the insecticide allethrin. The 60 tolerances and tolerance exemptions are proposed for revocation because there are no registered uses on those associated commodities for allethrin. Many food use registrations for allethrin were canceled in 1989 and 1991 due to non-payment of maintenance fees. (OPP Update 3/18/02).
There was recently a controversy over mixed stands of forage crops in Vermont which were treated with insecticide. The insecticide was labeled for alfalfa, but not for grasses. The stand included these two types of plant (i.e., it was not 100 percent alfalfa). EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assistance clarified the confusion by reiterating that all components of a mixed stand must have a tolerance and be identified on the label as a use site. (AAPSE listserv, 3/28/02).
In a letter addressed March 15, the Bayer Corporation requested the voluntary cancellation of all uses of fenamiphos (Nemacur®) effective May 31, 2005. Bayer additionally agreed that the 180-day comment period can be waived. The cancellation date will be the last date that Bayer can manufacture/sell/distribute fenamiphos. However, dealers will be able to continue selling and users can continue using the product as long as they remain in the channels of trade, without limitation. Additionally, the EPA will calculate a cap for Nemacur® production based on an average of Bayer's last five years of production data. (Bayer letter of 3/15/02).
In Minnesota, companion legislative bills MN HB3576 and SF2676 would further regulate aquatic weed control in that state and require proof that chemicals are the best alternative. Prior regulator site inspection would be required for approval along with a permit fee, pre-notification, and posting. This bill would make it difficult if not impossible to properly manage aquatic weeds including noxious and invasive species in the state. (CropLife America Spotlight, 3/8/02).
The same watchdog group that challenged Environmental Working Group's tax-exempt status because of lobbying activities is also going after PETA. The Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise filed a complaint March 4 with the U.S. IRS, charging that the animal rights organization "induces or encourages the commission of unlawful acts." Another watchdog group, the Center for Consumer Freedoms, earlier alleged that PETA provides funds for certain activities and legal support of the eco-terrorist group Earth Liberation Front. (CropLife America Spotlight, 3/8/02).
A meeting was convened in February at the Risk Sciences Institute (RSI) of the International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI) to discuss progress in preparing: 1) a science background document on what is known about the mechanism(s) by which peroxisome proliferating chemicals induce toxicity and b) a general framework for the evaluation of the relevance of toxicities observed in laboratory animals to potential human risks. The latter effort is an extension of the framework for evaluating the mode of action for chemicals found to induce a tumor response in rodents, as described in the proposed revisions to the Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment. ILSI-RSI has proposed to convene a workshop in June and to hold a workshop at the 2003 Society of Toxicology meeting to discuss the findings of the workgroups. (USDA OPMP Newest News, 3/8/02).
Cornell researchers have developed a fibrous barrier that could help reduce reliance on insecticides for crops such as onion and cabbage. The researcher described the material as a type of cotton candy structure - but with only about one percent of the fiber. This provides a barrier that can be strategically placed to interfere with insect behavior. In untreated fields, cabbage maggot can destroy up to 90 percent of the crop and onion maggot can destroy up to 40 percent of the crop. By placing fiber near the base of onion plants, the number of eggs laid was reduced by almost 90 percent. (Pesticide & Toxic Chemical News, February 25, 2002).
Farmers, nurseries, pest control operators, and golf courses are invited to bring canceled, suspended, and unusable pesticides for free disposal to newly announced Operation Cleansweep sites. The following southern Florida collection events have been added to the schedule:
Broward/Miami-Dade/Monroe - May 14, 2002 - Location: pending.
Martin/Palm Beach/St. Lucie - May 15, 2002 - Location: Martin County Landfill, 9101 SW Busch St., Palm City. Contact - Polly Kratman (772) 221-1440.
Brevard/Indian River/Orange/Osceola/ Seminole/St. Lucie - May 16, 2002 - Location: Indian River County Landfill, 1325 74th Ave. SW, Vero Beach. Contact - Mike Frey (561) 770-5113. (Department of Environmental Protection website, 3/29/02).
A March 19 report from the White House Office of Information, Regulatory Affairs (part of the Office of Management and Budget) estimated regulatory costs and benefits to the U.S. economy. The report states that such regulations cost the nation from $520 to $620 billion annually while generating benefits of only one-half to two-thirds that expenditure. The draft released by OIRA head John Graham, former Harvard risk expert, also calls for public input on how to improve benefits and curb regulatory and paperwork burdens. (CropLife America Spotlight, 3/22/02).
On March 6, members of the U.S. Geological Survey Toxic Substances Hydrology Program briefed several scientists from EPA, FDA, and USDA on a surface water monitoring study which was scheduled for publication in the March 15 issue of Environmental Science & Technology. This paper summarizes the results of a two-year monitoring study of 139 vulnerable streams in 30 states in which 95 emerging pollutants were analyzed, including human and veterinary drugs, steroids and hormones, detergent metabolites, plasticizers, insecticides, and fire retardants. The USGS study showed that 80% of the samples included at least one of the 95 compounds. The insect repellent DEET was found in over 70% of streams tested, the antimicrobial triclosan in nearly 60%, and the organophosphate diazinon in over 20% of samples. When insecticides were detected they were found in low concentrations, while disinfectants were found at higher concentrations. Access the news release and report at: http://www.usgs.gov. (USDA OPMP Newest News, 3/15/02 & CropLife America Spotlight, 3/22/02).
Broward County has sued the State of Florida over the citrus canker law giving the Department of Agriculture the authority to resume the cutting of canker-exposed citrus trees. The lawsuit, filed in Broward Circuit Court, asks for a temporary injunction on cutting uninfected trees, issuing any immediate final orders notifying residents of plans to cut trees, and searching property without a warrant. A number of residents and municipalities -- Plantation, Fort Lauderdale, Pompano Beach, Coral Springs, Davie, Hollywood, and Boca Raton -- joined the suit. Miami-Dade County is also expected to join the suit. (FFAA Florida Focus, 4/1/02).
Florida Commissioner of Agriculture and Consumer Services Charles H. Bronson announced last week the start of the tree payment program for property owners who have lost citrus trees during the citrus canker eradication program. Property owners get a cash payment of $55 for each citrus tree removed as part of the eradication program, after the first tree. For the first tree, property owners receive a $100 voucher redeemable at Wal-Mart garden centers for non-citrus trees, plants and other garden related items. (FFAA Florida Focus, 4/1/02).
On March 12, representatives from the EPA OPP Registration Division (RD) held a pre-registration teleconference with an Israeli-based pesticide company to discuss the registration requirements for a new methyl bromide alternative cocktail. The proposed end-use product would be a triple-active ingredient product containing two currently U.S.-registered active ingredients and one new chemical. Interestingly, the new chemical in the formulation is exempted from tolerance when used as an inert and is also a common dietary supplement with both pharmaceutical and non-pharmaceutical uses. Screening of the new chemical will occur through the Inert Ingredient Focus Group in an attempt to streamline some of the registration data requirements. Company representatives were extremely appreciative of the Agency's efforts to hold the meeting via teleconference. Given the current security issues in Israel, the company representatives were not able to get a flight from Israel to the U.S. and were therefore "bunkered" at their facility in Israel. (USDA OPMP Newest News, 3/15/02).
On March 13, representatives from the EPA RD met with the Assistant Director of California Department of Pesticide Regulation to discuss the possibility of a concurrent review for the new methyl bromide alternative, iodomethane. This new compound, proposed for registration by Arvesta Corporation, has been granted expedited review status by EPA given its potential to significantly displace the use of methyl bromide. The registrant has granted both agencies permission to discuss all issues associated with the pending registration applications. Participants also explored the possibility of some work-sharing on this compound, particularly in the area of environmental fate assessment. (USDA OPMP Newest News, 3/15/02).
On March 15, representatives from the OPP and the Office of Air and Radiation met to discuss the next steps in the roll-out of the methyl bromide critical use exemption (CUE) process. Now that the application and information collection request forms are with the Office of Management and Budget for approval, the group has identified several other steps that need to be in place before the Agency receives applications from user groups. These steps include: developing adequate systems for tracking applications and process milestones; developing systems for analyzing data submitted in support of applications for exemption; identifying and putting in place resources to support the technical reviews to be conducted by the Biological and Economic Analysis Division; setting dates for upcoming workshops to assist users in completing applications; and, continuing to develop ways to integrate state lead agencies into the review process. (USDA OPMP Newest News, 3/15/02).
The Council for Agricultural Science and Technology (CAST) announced the release of an Issue Paper entitled Invasive Species: Impacts on Agricultural Production, Natural Resources, and the Environment. The meeting was attended by members of other federal agencies with invasive species concerns, non-governmental organizations, and local university scientists. The purpose of the issue paper is to provide policy makers and others concerned with invasive species with a nine-point guide on the prioritization of means to reduce the impact of invasive, non-native pests. In conjunction with the release, CAST also announced the creation of a web-based directory of visuals to assist in the identification of these pests. It has been estimated that invasive pest species cause approximately $137 billion annual economic damage and are the second leading cause of species endangerment. The complete paper, including the nine-point program and the list of invasive species visuals are available at http//:www.cast-science.org. (USDA OPMP Newest News, 3/15/02).
Nearly three decades after farm labor leader Cesar Chavez pushed to outlaw the short-handled hoe in the fields, farm worker advocates are trying to ban hand weeding. California Assemblyman Paul Koretz has introduced a bill aimed at closing a loophole
that allows farmers to skirt the 1975 law that banned the hoe. The deputy director of the California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation, which sponsored the bill, was quoted as saying, "Hand weeding is even more dangerous. The worker is 6 to 12 inches to the ground and it causes more damage to the worker's back." The legislation would exempt row crops too fragile for hoes, such as strawberries. However, farmers fear it will be applied to all crops. A farm adviser for the University of California was cited as saying he's not sure how lawmakers can prohibit a useful practice without harming the industry, adding, "If they end up banning hand-pulling of weeds, we have to use the hoe; the hoe will hurt the plant, which means reduced yields and reduced income to the farmer." The legislation is supported by a report from the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health that has found hand weeding may contribute to back, shoulder, wrist and hand injuries. And in a 1993 memo, the Division's medical unit further criticized the practice for exposing workers to pesticides and fecal matter in soil. (AP, 3/29/02 via AgNet).
This home page is maintained by the Pesticide Information Office
Mark Mossler
Pest Management Information
SpecialistO. Norman Nesheim
Pesticide Information CoordinatorCreated April 2002
![[FSHN Home Page]](03cmsp02%20files/fshnhm2.gif)
