North Dakota State University
NDSU Extension Service
Volume 15, No. 4 -- October 1997
Law
EPA and USDA Coordinate Efforts to Focus on
Minor Use
New Financial Responsibility Requirement for
Commercial Pesticide Applicators
EPA Proposes Changes To Worker Protection
Standard For Agricultural Pesticides
Department of Agriculture Investigating
Off-label Complaint
EPA Letter to Pest Control Operators
Insect Control
Stored Grain Advisor Software
Disease Control
State Label for Seven Day Pre Harvest
Interval for Super Tin on Potatoes
Folicur Receives Crisis Exemption for
Control of Sunflower Rust
Sclerotinia on Canola
In This Issue
Coordinator's Comments
Pesticide Perceptions
Weed Control
Equipment
Safety
Training
In compliance with the l996 Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA), EPA and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) are taking a new approach to "minor use" pesticides. In particular, the two agencies will work more closely with the minor-use grower organizations and the registrants of the minor-use pesticide products. Minor use pesticides are those products used on agricultural crops or sites, livestock, or for protection of public health where: the total acreage in the United States is less than 300,000 acres, or, the use does not provide sufficient economic incentive to the registrants to generate the data required by EPA to support initial or continuing registration. Approximately 70 percent of all pesticide products are for minor use crops. Under the new program, EPA has set up a team of representatives from each division in the pesticide program who reports to the Director. The minor use team has three primary goals: l) obtaining and using the best available data on the amount of residues of a pesticide product on a given crop, 2) working more closely with the minor use grower community early in the regulatory process, and 3) promoting the use of safer pesticides for minor uses by urging manufacturers to research and expediting registrations for these pesticides. At USDA, a new Office of Pest Management is being created. The new office will centralize all current activities for pest management at USDA including the National Agricultural Pesticide Impact Assessment Program. The new office will be charged with integrating and coordinating pesticide issues across several existing Department programs including pesticide use surveys, minor use registration data development, pesticide residue data on food, food consumption surveys, the pest management activities program and integrated pest management. EPA's minor use team will coordinate with the new USDA office to meet the objectives of the FQPA on minor use issues.
(EPA Press Advisory, September 12, 1997)
The North Dakota Pesticide Control Board will require commercial applicators to demonstrate proof of financial responsibility beginning on January 1, 1998. Commercial applicators will need to provide proof of financial responsibility before a commercial applicator certificate can be issued or renewed starting January 1, 1998. The law requires that minimum financial responsibility must be demonstrated annually in the amount of $100,000. The financial responsibility can be demonstrated by a notarized letter from an officer of a financial institution or from a certified public accountant attesting to the existence of net assets equal to at least $100,000, a performance bond, or a general liability policy. The performance bond or insurance policy must contain a provision requiring the issuing company to notify the Commissioner of Agriculture at least ten days before the effective date of cancellation, termination or modification of the bond or insurance policy. The Commissioner of Agriculture must immediately request the suspension of the certificate of a person who fails to maintain the minimum financial responsibility requirements. Employees of commercial pesticide application businesses are not required to meet the financial requirements separately if the business documents compliance with the minimum financial requirements. Ranchers that must obtain a commercial applicators certificate to control noxious weeds on leased Federal lands as a conditions of the Federal lease are exempt from the financial responsibility requirement.
Demonstration of financial responsibility will need to be sent to:
NDSU Pesticide Programs office
Box 5051
Fargo, ND 58105
If the proof of financial responsibility is demonstrated for a business, a listing of the businesses commercial applicator employees will be helpful and should speed up the processing of certificates.
Responding to requests from workers and growers, EPA is proposing two changes to the Worker Protection Standard (WPS) for agricultural pesticides: to allow pesticide handlers and field workers entering a pesticide treated area to wear separable, disposable, glove liners made from absorbent materials under their chemical resistant gloves, and to delete the requirement that pilots wear chemical resistant gloves when entering or exiting aircraft used to apply pesticides. EPA has been made aware that in hot and cold weather, unlined chemical resistant gloves are causing severe discomfort and dermal health problems for agricultural workers. As a result, workers are not always wearing the required chemical resistant gloves. EPA believes that the risk to workers from not wearing protective gloves is greater than wearing protective gloves with disposable absorbent liners that are regularly replaced. Based on new data from the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, the agency also believes that chemical resistant gloves do not add any appreciable protection against the minimal pesticide residues that pilots encounter around the cockpit of an aircraft. The data show that pesticide residues around the cockpit do not exist or are minimal. All other provisions of the WPS regarding glove liners and chemical resistant gloves are unaffected by this proposal. The proposed actions are the result of EPA's continuing commitment to identify and address practical concerns raised by agricultural employers and agricultural workers and handlers. The WPS applies to workers performing hand labor activities in fields treated with pesticides workers in or on farms, forests, nurseries and greenhouses where pesticides are used, and pesticide handlers who mix, load, apply or otherwise handle pesticides. EPA's proposed actions were published in the Federal Register on Sept. 9. Comments on the proposals must be received by Oct. 9. and should be send to: Public Response Section, Office of Pesticide Programs (7506C), U.S. EPA, 401 MN St. S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460. Comments may also be submitted electronically:
(Submitted by: Barry Coleman, Pesticide Director, ND Dept. of Ag.)
The North Dakota Department of Agriculture received a complaint recently about the off-label use of Broadstrike on dry beans. The complaint alleged that the pesticide was applied in the spring to combat nightshade. The investigation revealed that Broadstrike may have been illegally applied on up to 1400 acres of dry beans.
The department has been in contact with the Food and Drug Administration in Minneapolis concerning residues in the harvested commodity.
Any use of a pesticide on a crop for which it is not labeled is a violation of FIFRA and can result in large fines and a crop that has to be destroyed. It can also endanger public health and ruin the reputation of agriculture. One has to ask the question, "What right does a producer have to unilaterally decide whether to possibly expose an unknowing public to a health hazard in their food?" Think about it. This is the kind of action that invites public backlash against agricultural practices and the public has every right to be upset.
The department reiterates that applicators making illegal applications of pesticides in this nature will face fines and possible commodity seizure. Department field staff have been instructed to randomly check for off-label applications to certain field crops.
(Submitted by Barry Coleman, Pesticide Director, ND Dept. of Ag.)
In the last several years there have been multiple incidents involving the misuse of agricultural pesticides, particularly methyl parathion, in homes, businesses, and institutions. The individuals who unlawfully applied these pesticides were not licensed or certified to make commercial applications. These incidents have not only jeopardized countless lives and cost millions of dollars to clean up, but threaten to tarnish the reputation of the professional pest control industry.
To date, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is aware of illegal methyl parathion applications in Alabama, Arkansas, Illinois, Michigan, Mississippi, New York, Ohio, and Tennessee. Apartment complexes, single family homes, churches, and day care centers are some of the places where methyl parathion has been misused. State and Federal enforcement actions have been initiated against numerous applicators. Sadly, other unscrupulous applicators may still be in business throughout the United States.
EPA, along with our state partners, is aggressively attacking this problem at both the potential point of pesticide diversion from the agricultural sector and the potential point of misuse in communities at risk. Yet, we recognize that we cannot detect and apprehend every unscrupulous applicator without support from professional associations and business and community groups. Therefore, we are requesting public cooperation in identifying these unscrupulous applicators and ensuring that they are brought to justice. As part of this effort, we are developing materials to provide professional, trade, and community organizations with information on what has happened and how they can assist us. No professional organization is more familiar with pest control business practices within local communities than yours, and we welcome the opportunity to broaden our discussions with your membership.
In discussing mutual concerns about this problem, your national association has forwarded several ideas. We are working with our state lead pesticide agencies and exploring the feasibility of implementing your ideas. Meanwhile, if you have any suspicions that someone is misusing agricultural pesticides, we urge you to report this information to your state lead pesticide agency or EPA regional office, immediately. Working together, we can prevent potentially tragic misuse of agricultural chemicals in homes, and also protect the professional reputation of your members who follow the label and the law every day.
Steven A. Herman
Assistant Administrator
Office of Enforcement and Compliance AssuranceLynn R. Goldman, MD
Assistant Administrator
Office of Prevention, Pesticides And Toxic Substances
(Submitted by: Barry Coleman, Pesticide Director ND Dept. of Ag.)
There is a software package available on the Internet designed as a decision support system for stored grain management. It helps farmers make decisions about managing insect pests in stored wheat. The software does this by predicting the likelihood of insect infestation, and by recommending appropriate preventive and remedial action. it also provides advice on how to sample grain bins for insects and walks you through the identification of insect pests of stored wheat when found, but identity is unknown.
The author of the package is Dr. Paul Flinn, USDA-ARS, Grain Marketing and Production Research Center, Manhattan, KS.
The website for downloading the software is:
http://bru/usgmrl.ksu.edu/flinn/index/html
(Submitted by: Phil Glogoza, NDSU Extension Entomologist)
The Griffin Corp. has obtained a state label (Section 24c) in North Dakota and Minnesota for a 7-day pre-harvest interval (PHI) for Super Tin on potato. Previously, the PHI (time before harvest that a product can be applied) was 21 days. Griffin has a request before the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for a change in the federal label from a 21 day PHI to a 7 day PHI. State labels were requested in several states where potato producers would be impacted by late season late blight and subsequent tuber infection if the 7 day PHI were not available. Super Tin can be applied at the normal rates (2.5-3.75 oz/A with a limit of 15 oz/A total product during a season) up to 7 days before harvest. Super Tin may be applied in combination with a vine desiccant. Super Tin may not be applied after application of any vine desiccant.
The North Dakota Department of Agriculture declared a crisis exemption (section 18) on July 31 for the use of Folicur on sunflower for rust control. Rust was increasing rapidly in Bottineau County and some other northern counties, primarily Nelson, Ramsey and Cavalier.
Folicur should be applied at 4 fl oz per acre, and a manufacturer-approved surfactant should be used with it. Up to 8 fl oz per acre is approved with repeat applications at 14 day intervals, if needed. Use a minimum of 20 gal/A water for ground application or 5 gal/A for aerial application. Folicur may be applied up to 50 days before harvest; in North Dakota this is about the time of ray petal wilt. This exemption for the use of Folicur expires on Sept. 1, 1997.
Research in Israel indicates that 3% severity on the upper four leaves prior to ray petal wilt will result in an economic loss. Although Folicur has about 2 days of post-infection or curative activity, it is most effective when used as a protectant fungicide. It is locally systemic and reduces spore production in established pustules.
Weather conditions in July favored the development of Sclerotinia stem rot on canola. Many growers wanted to spray for Sclerotinia, but no product is registered for use on canola in the U.S. A section 18 for the use of Benlate on canola was written for both North Dakota and Minnesota, but the request was denied by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The agency apparently agreed with us that there was an emergency, but indicated that the risk cup for Benlate was full. This is an important concept under the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA); if the risk cup is full, it may be virtually impossible for EPA to establish a time limited tolerance, which is required under FQPA before a section 18 is approved. EPA indicated it was willing to grant a section 18 for some other product until they found that our other options were the other products registered in Canada: Ronilan and Rovral. EPA had as many problems with the concept of establishing a time limited tolerance for these products as for Benlate.
Looking to the future, we are continuing to try to get Benlate registered under the IR-4 minor use program. Samples are awaiting analysis from residue trials in North Dakota and two other states as well as a processing trial in North Dakota. Both IR-4 and DuPont (the manufacturer) seem to believe that registration is still possible. However, we are also gathering Canadian data on other products that may be registered in Canada; we hope that any new products registered might be registered simultaneously in both countries.
(Submitted by Art Lamey, Extension Plant Pathologist)
[ In This Issue /
Coordinator's Comments ]
[ Pesticide Perceptions ]
[ Weed Control ]
[ Equipment / Safety / Training ]
ND Pesticide Quarterly, Vol. 15, No. 4 -- October 1997
NDSU Extension Service, North Dakota State University of
Agriculture and Applied Science, and U.S. Department of
Agriculture cooperating. Sharon D. Anderson, Director, Fargo,
North Dakota. Distributed in furtherance of the Acts of Congress
of May 8 and June 30, 1914. We offer our programs and facilities
to all persons regardless of race, color, national origin,
religion, sex, disability, age, Vietnam era veterans status, or
sexual orientation; and are an equal opportunity employer.
This publication will be made available in alternative formats
for people with disabilities upon request, 701/231-7881.
North Dakota State University
NDSU Extension Service