|
|
|
June 2002
|
Pesticide
Potpourri
|
-
Bayer's acquisition of Aventis' agrichemical
units was finalized on June 4. The new company
name is now Bayer CropScience, and it will be
comprised of three business groups: crop
protection, bioscience, and environmental
science. The operations of the two former
companies will continue in parallel during the
integration process. (Bayer CropScience Press
Release, 6/5/02).
|
-
 As expected, Syngenta Crop
Protection has filed a
lawsuit against the EPA in
late April in response to the
agency granting
registrations for metolachlor
to three competing companies (see April's Chemically Speaking). The company maintains
that EPA's granting of the registrations violated
FIFRA's exclusive use protections, constituted
an "arbitrary and capricious agency action" in
violation of the Administrative Procedure Act,
and was an unconstitutional deprivation of
Syngenta's rights to the due process guarantee of
equal protection under the law. The suit seeks to
force the EPA to cancel the registrations, block it
from issuing anymore, and enjoin the competing
companies from using/transferring their
registrations, or from manufacturing,
distributing, and selling metolachlor. (Chemical
Regulation Reporter, Vol. 26, No. 18).
|
-
 Within the last year, the
USDA's National
Agricultural Statistics
Survey has released
chemical usage data for
2000 vegetables, 2000
nursery and floriculture, 2001 dairy cattle and
dairy facilities, and 2001 field crops. For
information regarding obtaining these reports,
please contact the Pesticide Information Office.
|
-
At a Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee
meeting in mid-May, the EPA proposed three
reforms to the Section 18 process. The first is
that individual states would have the ability to
"re-certify" the emergency situation for up to two
years following initial EPA authorization. There
would also be an exemption for resistance
management. In that case, an emergency
exemption would be allowed for an alternative to
be used in conjunction with the registered
pesticide where there is documented scientific
evidence that resistance has or is developing,
even though significant economic loss may not
yet be evident. The last reform is that of a tiered
set of criteria that would be used to simplify the
determination of significant economic loss. The
reforms are expected to be published in the Federal Register this summer for comment and
applied on an interim basis for the 2003 growing
season. (IR-4 News Briefs, June, 2002).
|
-
 Of more than 1,000 grocery
shoppers polled by the
Food Marketing Institute in
its 2002 "Trends" survey,
64 percent identified
"residues from pesticides"
and 33 percent named
"foods produced by biotechnology" as a "serious
health threat." Top concern among a list of 10,
however, was "bacteria or germs" and "product
tampering" followed by pesticides.
Biotechnology ranked number nine on the list
followed by irradiation. (CropLife America
Spotlight, May 17, 2002).
|
-
 Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) introduced his long-anticipated legislative
proposals on biotechnology in
the form of five bills on May
22. The first is a consumer
right-to-know measure to mandate labeling of
biotech foods. The second would establish a
food safety review regimen for such foods. The
third and fourth proposals would offer forms of
liability protection to non-biotech growers, and
the final bill of the package would unveil "real
solutions to world hunger" via "several new
initiatives and protections to help developing
nations resolve their hunger challenges." (CropLife America Spotlight, 5/31/02).
|
-
 A U.S. government report on
FDA's biotech food
evaluation process concluded
that such food products do
not present unique health
risks compared to
conventional foods.
However, the General Accounting Office report,
"Genetically Modified Foods: Experts View
Regimen of Safety Tests as Adequate,"
recommends that FDA increase transparency of
its evaluation process by explaining assessment
decision rationales and by randomly checking
biotech provider raw data assessments to verify
summary data submissions. The report can be
accessed at http://www.gao.gov/. (CropLife
America Spotlight, 5/31/02).
|
-
 The new six-year farm bill
was signed by President Bush
on May 13, and it contains
some important incentive
programs aimed at helping farmers: reduce
air/water/soil impacts, protect wildlife habitat,
and defend farmland from development. Some
of the major environmental provisions of the bill
include: a conservation security program to
reward farmers for applying conservation
practices to working land rather than idle land
($2 billion); an environmental quality incentives
program to fund producers who comply with
soil/water/air, and wildlife habitat regulations
($9 billion); a conservation reserve program
which provides money to farmers who set aside
sensitive lands ($1.52 billion); a grassland
reserve program to protect prairies by purchasing
development rights from ranchers ($254 million);
a wetlands reserve program to pay farmers who
preserve wetlands ($1.5 billion); a wildlife
habitat incentives program to pay farmers who
create and protect wildlife habitat on their
property ($700 million); and a farmland
protection program which provides matching
funds for states, local governments, and
organizations to buy farmers' development rights
and prevent sprawl ($985 million). (USDA
OPMP Newest News, 5/27/02).
|
-
 From a description of microbial
biopesticides (MB) including
mode of action and spectrum of
control, to a global listing of MB
manufacturers and suppliers, a
new website offers a wide range
of useful information and pertinent links. The
"Database of Microbial Biopesticides"
(http://ippc.orst.edu/biocontrol/biopesticides)
was developed at Oregon State University and
includes environmental risk assessment of MBs
plus brief discussions on a variety of MB-related
aspects. (IPMnet News, #102).
|
-
 MCricket v2.0 is a major
revision of the University
of Florida's
knowledgebase on mole
crickets. The
knowledgebase provides information on all ten
species found in the United States and covers
distribution, description, life cycle, and damage.
It also includes an identification key for these
species that makes heavy use of graphics and
photographs. A separate control section lists
information on damage for various crops (turf,
pasture, vegetables), and chemical and biological
control methods. (UF Extension Release,
6/2/02).
|
-
 Florida's approach to
restoring the water
quality of impaired
water bodies has been
fully upheld by a legal
decision supporting the
validity of the state's Impaired Waters Rule.
Administrative Law Judge Stuart Lerner ruled
against a challenge brought by a group of
litigants who charged that the rule was contrary
to state and federal law. This case involved
whether Florida's Impaired Waters Rule (Chapter
62-303, FAC) was consistent with a 1999 state
law mandating the creation and implementation
of a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL)
program in Florida. Judge Lerner ruled in favor
of the Florida Department of Environmental
Protection, finding that the rule establishes a
valid science-based process to identify impaired
waters and that DEP followed all statutory
rulemaking requirements. DEP can now proceed
with plans to develop a more science-based
impaired waters list [known as a 303(d) list]
enabling DEP to focus its limited restoration
resources on those waters that are truly impaired.
Other waters will be identified as potentially
impaired and monitored to verify impairment
before listing these waters on the state's 303(d)
list. (FFAA Focus, Vol. 1, No. 18).
|
-
 On May 31, U.S.
officials were cited as
saying that
Zimbabwe, facing
severe food
shortages, turned
away a U.S. donation
of 10,000 tons of
corn because it wasn't certified as free from
genetic modification. The U.S. Embassy was
cited as saying in a statement that the food was
diverted instead to neighboring Zambia,
Mozambique and Malawi, adding, "Zimbabwe
did not waive its requirement that entering
commodities must be certified as entirely non-GMO," or not of genetically modified origin.
(Wall Street Journal, 5/31/02 via Agnet).
|
|
Back to Menu
|
Pesticide Information
Office Main Menu
|
 |