North Dakota State University
NDSU Extension Service
Volume 16, No. 1, January 1998
Pesticide
Perceptions
Denmark Considers Total Pesticide Ban
Pesticide Residues in Food and Cancer Risk
Report Issued
EPA Heightens Readability and Information on
Pesticide Labels
Pesticide Registration Through EPA
Transgenic Wheat
Two Companies Hit Monsanto For Its New
Herbicide-Resistant Corn
Specialist Warns Against Stretching Facts Too
Far in Water Quality Debate
In This Issue
Coordinator Comments
Law
IPM
Pest Control
Storage and Handling
Safety
Education
Pesticide Training
In response to calls from members of parliament to make the country totally organic by 2010, the Danish government is initiating an assessment of the impacts of a total pesticide ban in the country. The Danish Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is establishing a committee of experts to analyze how a ban would affect the country's economy, environment, health, employment and agricultural production. The committee, which will hold its first meeting in late 1997, will deliver a report to the Ministers of Environment and Energy by the end of 1998.
Officials from Denmark's EPA stated that the committee is not charged with making recommendations, only with assessing the feasibility of different plans, including total and partial bans. According to Nina Herskind of the Danish EPA, "the proposal does not automatically mean that Danish agriculture will go totally organic in the next few years, it is just one of the scenarios that we are seriously considering."
The committee of experts will include representatives from government, the food and chemical industry, labor and environmental, health and consumer organizations. It will be assisted by four sub-committees comprised of independent scientific experts. These will study the consequences of a pesticide ban on farming in general; economics and employment; environment and health; and legislative issues. The legislative committee will focus primarily on how such a policy would affect relationships with other European Union (EU) member states.
Jesper Lund-Larsen, and official with the Danish General Workers Union, which has been campaigning to phase out all pesticides, state, "I hope the committee will recommend a total pesticide phase out within a couple of years, and we are looking for the rest if the EU to do the same eventually."
The Danish EPA recently announced bans and severe restrictions on ten pesticides it considers "seriously damaging" to health, the environment or both. These include captan, deltamethrin, dichlorvos, diquat, fenarimol, quazatine, iprodione, thiram, trifluralin and vinclozolin. The restrictions will come into effect nest year following completion of reviews under the country's re-registration process. This will bring the total number of pesticide bans and severe restrictions in Denmark to approximately 30 since 1994, when Denmark banned atrazine, cyanazine, hexazinone, lindane, paraquat, propachlor and thiabendazole. Bans and severe restrictions on an additional 12 pesticides came into effect earlier this year. These included 2,4-D, dazomet, diazinon, dichlobenil, dichlorprop, dichlorprop-P, maleic hydrazide, MCPA, mecoprop, mecoprop-P, thiophanate-methyl and ziram. In addition, the Danish EPA announced in 1996 that approximately 100 agrochemicals considered to have estrogenic effects will be phased out before 2000.
In related news, the Danish agrochemical association (DAF) said recently that pesticide sales in the country fell by 32% in 1996. They stated that industry members had expected this decline because 1995 sales were artificially high due to advanced purchases in anticipation of new and higher taxes under the Danish Pesticide Act, which came into effect on January 1, 1996, and not because of increased usage.
(Source: Pesticides News 37, September 1997)
The National Cancer Institute of Canada (NCIC) published a paper in the November 15 issue of Cancer, the monthly journal of the American Cancer Society, titled: "Report of a Panel on the Relationship between Public Exposure to Pesticides and Cancer." The NCIC convened an ad hoc panel on pesticides and cancer to examine the possible contribution of pesticide exposure, particularly in the general population, to the development of human cancer.
The panel focused primarily on exposure in the general population and reviewed a range of studies that addressed issues related to dietary exposure as well as incidental home and garden uses. In Addition, the panel examined the regulatory framework that exists to safeguard the public from potentially carcinogenic pesticides and also reviewed some potential benefits of pesticide use, including the availability of an abundant and low cost supply of fresh fruits and vegetables as an important strategy in the overall mitigation of cancer risk. The panel concluded that it was not aware of any definitive evidence to suggest that synthetic pesticides contribute significantly to overall cancer mortality. The panel also concluded that it did not believe that any increased intake of pesticide residues associated with increased intake of fruits and vegetables poses any increased risk of cancer. The panel further concluded, among other things, that tobacco used continued to be the most important preventable cause of cancer and premature mortality and thus is an appropriate focus for cancer control strategy.
(Source: John Impson, USDA/CSREES, November 15, 1997)
In 1996, EPA began a Consumer Labeling Initiative, which has as its goal the improvement of consumer product labeling in. It focused primarily on pesticide products and conducted interview with users of household pesticides (both indoor and outdoor) and pesticide and non-pesticide cleaning agents. Based on received comments, the EPA has published several Pesticide Regulation (PR) Notices in 1997 that are changing pesticide labels. The label changes that will be seen are 1) telephone numbers and Internet addresses, 2) increased use of "common names," and 3) an adjustment in "inert ingredient listings.
EPA believes that, although the label should be the principal source of user information on a pesticide product, users should have as many sources of information about pesticides as possible. EPA is aware that users may not fully understand labels, or may have additional questions or concerns after reading the label.
PR Notice 97-4 encourages chemical companies to include a company telephone number or toll-free hotline number on the pesticide label. If a number is included, it should include a phrase or statement indicating the kinds of information the numbers should be used for. Chemical companies may also include on the label the National Pesticide Telecommunications Network number (1-800-858-7378) and/or an Internet address to obtain additional medical and consumer information. Registrants are reminded that individual product claims on a company web page must not exceed those approved by the Agency in connection with the product's registration.
The EPA expanded the use of common names for active ingredients for pesticides in PR Notice 97-5. EPA will permit the use of common names approved by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) in the label ingredients statement without the accompanying scientific chemical names. It will also permit the use of other approved common names (listed in this PR Notice) without the accompanying scientific chemical name.
According to the EPA, an increased use of common names will promote user understanding or chemical based products, provide a ready reference for persons without technical or scientific background, and can foster informed choice in purchasing and using products, both pesticide and non-pesticide.
The terms "active ingredient" and "inert ingredient" have been defined in FIFRA since 1947 and pesticide labeling regulations require that the ingredients statement use the terms "Active ingredients" and "Inert ingredients" as the headings for the ingredients statement information. An active ingredient is one that prevents, destroys, repels or mitigates a pest, and each active ingredient must be identified by name on the label together with its percentage by weight. An inert ingredient is simply any ingredient in the product that is not pesticidal or active. Unless an inert ingredient is determined to be highly toxic, it is not required to be identified by name or percentage on the label, but the total percentage of such ingredients must be declared. Neither FIFRA nor the regulations define the term "inert ingredient" on the basis of toxicity, hazard or risk to humans, non-target species, of the environment.
Most "inert" ingredients are not know to pose health or environmental concerns. However, EPA has long know and acknowledged that some inert ingredients are not benign to human health or the environment. The "inert" ingredients in some products may be more toxic or pose greater risks than the active ingredient. Since 1987. EPA has been actively evaluating new and existing inert ingredients for their toxicity before allowing their use in pesticide products.
Effective immediately, EPA will permit and encourages registrants and applicants for registration to substitute the neutral term "Other ingredients" as the heading for the "Inert Ingredients" on their pesticide labels and in other materials describing the pesticide product.
(Source: EPA web site at http://www/epa.gov/docs/opppmsdl/PR_Notices/index.html for Pesticide Regulation notices)
The only long-term solution for pesticide registration in minor use crops is to obtain full Section 3 federal labeling. This is driven mainly by the chemical companies but grower group support is essential to expedite action.
Labeling pesticides on crops occurs through three avenues:
After submission has been made to the EPA, an 18 month review period precedes action. Chemical manufacturers are required to be working toward a Section 3 federal registration as a condition for Section 18 label.
Section 24(c) is a state issued by the North Dakota Department of Agriculture. Requirements prior to Section 24(c) labeling is that a residue tolerance must be set by EPA and efficacy data must demonstrate adequate control of the pest(s). This method of registration would be preferable to a Section 18 in that yearly application to the EPA would not need be necessary.
Section 18 labels begin as a Specific Exemption. A package is compiled by the NDSU Extension Service and the North Dakota Department of Agriculture with information supplied by the chemical manufacturer. In the package, the emergency nature is defined. Section 18 specific and crisis exemption can be used ONLY when an EMERGENCY condition exists or is imminent.
Wording is very precise that the Section 18 labeling process b used under non-routine conditions and should not be used just because a new or minor use crop is grown where few pesticides are registered. The package must contain an explanation of the amount of economic loss to growers before the Section 18 is granted. It must also describe how all other alternative options will not adequately control the pest.
Section 18 Crisis exemption can be issued by the North Dakota Department of Agriculture and may override the Section 18 specific exemption. However, the EMERGENCY must be demonstrated and the label can be in effect for a maximum of 15 days. Section 18 specific exemptions can last for a longer duration of time than a Section 18 crisis exemption. In some situations the specific exemption may be granted by the EPA during the crisis exemption period allowing longer use of the pesticide.
(Submitted by: Richard Zollinger, NDSU Extension Weed Specialist)
Novartis Seeds, Inc., Golden Valley, Minn., has laid claim to the first U.S. patent for transgenic wheat. The patent covers technology that allows scientists and plant breeders to insert new genetic traits into wheat by genetically modifying the crop. Novartis Seeds, Inc., was created by the merger of Ciba Seeds and Northrup King Company earlier this year. Officials with the new company have already announced a plan to broadly license intellectual property rights for transgenic wheat.
(Submitted by: Richard K. Zollinger, Extension Weed Specialist)
Monsanto Co. has hit two stumbling blocks in its efforts to market a corn variety genetically engineered to be resistant to Roundup, a herbicide also manufactured by the company.
Rhone-Poulenc Agrochimie of Lyon, France, is suing Monsanto and DeKalb Genetics Corp. of Dekalb, Ill., claiming it was the first to develop the glyphosate-tolerant gene used to create Roundup Ready corn, which is set for release in 1998.
In a related matter, Pioneer Hi-Bred International, considered the world's largest agricultural genetics company, has decided it will not offer Roundup Ready corn because, it said, Monsanto's terms for producing the variety were too restrictive.
In the lawsuit, Rhone-Poulenc, a subsidiary of Rhone-Poulenc S.A., said it provided glyphosate-tolerant genes to DeKalb, but never granted rights to Monsanto, nor did it authorize DeKalb to sell or transfer the genes for use by a third party.
The suit, filed in U.S. District Court in North Carolina, seeks to establish Rhone-Poulenc's ownership and prohibit Monsanto's use of the technology without a license.
Meanwhile, Pioneer officially walked away from the herbicide-resistant corn last week, claiming the corn did not offer enough benefit to warrant the cost or restrictions Monsanto was demanding.
"One trait, especially resistance to a herbicide, should never be the sole criteria for hybrid selection," said Charles S. Johnson, chairman, president and chief executive officer of Pioneer in Des Moines, Iowa.
Pioneer said there was benefit to glyphosate resistance corn. But Monsanto would have required Pioneer to charge customers a "technology fee" for using the corn, and would have controlled any other genetic alterations done with the Roundup Ready variety, Pioneer said
(Source: Milling & Baking News, November, 18, 1997)
Clean, pure water is a good thing. That's something no one will disagree with. But broaden the discussion to "how" and the issue gets muddy.
"At times rhetoric is accepted as reality even though the facts are inconclusive," says Bruce Seelig, a water quality expert with the North Dakota State University Extension Service. Recent debate over global warming at the environmental summit in Japan illustrates how even a widely known theory like global warming remains unproven to many scientists, Seelig says. Water resource problems and their solutions are like that — complex, and difficult and expensive to study. Research on processes such as water contamination often looks at only one piece of a very large pie, he says. And because such research is expensive and long-term, it's tempting to stretch results too far to meet the goal of improving local water management. That can lead to conclusions, decisions and actions supported by incomplete evidence.
Water quality studies frequently have that problem because they cover such large regions, he says. "Acquiring data over large areas is extremely expensive and time- consuming. As a result, a variety of assumptions are often used to generate data indirectly rather than acquiring actual measurements. Along with those assumptions, averages or other statistical methods are generally used to express the data from these studies." "The large-scale regional studies are important because they help define regional trends and differences so we can better direct our research and management activities," Seelig notes. "But these studies generally aren't complete enough or specific enough to define local conditions that affect the relationships between environmental factors." To explain local cause and effect relationships, you need accurate measurements and comparisons of local conditions, he says. Such studies are conducted on very small areas, fields or plots, but provide the necessary linkage with local management.
"We need to be able to use the results from both regional studies and field studies to help us accomplish effective natural resource management locally that together will have a positive regional effect," he explains. NDSU and the North Dakota Department of Agriculture are doing just that in a system designed to identify areas with high potential for groundwater contamination from pesticides.
The system uses North Dakota Geological Survey information and USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service county soil surveys combined with results from research to help identify areas of potential groundwater contamination. The most appropriate management practices then can be directed to each area of different contamination potential. The assessment program was introduced this summer to producers in Barnes, Cass, Ransom, Richland and Sargent counties. Seelig and other specialists demonstrated how local fields related to the regional scale in terms of potential contamination of local aquifers and how specific management practices can reduce the potential for contamination.
In McIntosh County, extension specialists added computer technology to the assessment system. A computerized county soil survey was matched to the assessment process. As a result, producers can look at any field and the computer tells them how susceptible the aquifer below is to pesticide contamination.
"It's a fast and easy way for farmers to evaluate their management practices and adjust them to minimize the risk to water resources," Seelig says. As additional county soil maps are computerized in North Dakota, the aquifer protection program can be extended to these areas.
"The assessment process is not a substitute for continued groundwater monitoring or research that helps explain contaminant movement and fate under various environmental conditions," Seelig notes. "It does, however, provide a good working model that links local data to regional data and may help us evaluate the effects of local management on regional environmental conditions."
(Source: Bruce Seelig, NDSU Water Quality Specialist)
[ In This Issue /
Coordinator Comments ]
[ Law ]
[ IPM / Pest Control ]
[ Storage and Handling / Safety ]
[ Education / Pesticide Training ]
Volume 16, No. 1 -- January 1998
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 format for
persons with disabilities upon request 701/231-7881.
North Dakota State University
NDSU Extension Service