North Dakota State University
NDSU Extension Service
Volume 17, No. 3, August 1999
Requiring Prescriptions for High-Risk Pesticides
Coordinators Comments
Project Safe Send Brings in 80 Tons of Waste Products
Pesticide Applicators May Expose Other Family Members
Re-Registration Eligibility Decision for Aluminum and Magnesium
Phosphide Extended
"Recognition and Management of Pesticide Poisonings"
Manual Released
North Dakota Pesticide Training and Certification Website Launch a
Success
Aldicarb as a Cause of Food Poisoning – Louisiana 1998
North Dakota Legislative Council Establishes Interim Crop
Harmonization Committee
Memorandum of Understanding Signed Between U.S. and Canada on Good
Laboratory Practices
Editors Note:
The following article discusses some of the issues involved in requiring prescription use for certain high risk pesticide. This is a summary of a report that was released by the Council for Agricultural Science and Technology (CAST) in October of 1998. This proposal for prescriptive use of certain pesticides has been incorporated into the U.S. EPA's Certification and Training Assessment Group Report which will be issued this August.
What is the feasibility of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) prescribing high-risk pesticides that are needed for certain important minor crops? The Council for Agricultural Science and Technology (CAST), an international consortium of 36 scientific and professional societies, released an issue paper, "Feasibility of Prescription Pesticide Use in the United States," in which 10 eminent scientists and legal experts discuss this interesting concept.
Chemical exposure has been a major concern of the general public for many years. This concern has resulted in regulation of food additives, drugs, cosmetics, and pesticides. In 1996, Congress enacted the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA), which established a health-based standard for all pesticide residues in food and from many sources. Under this new law, all existing pesticide tolerances will be reassessed in a process that is scheduled to be completed by August 2006.
This could result in cancellation of some pesticide registrations important to production of several crops. Some scientists are asking: To be able to continue production of these important crops, would a model similar to that used by the medical profession be applicable? Could relatively low-risk chemicals be self prescribed and high-risk chemicals be prescribed only by trained and licensed professionals?
"In modern agriculture, pesticides are used to protect animal health and to
enhance plant production," states Dr. Harold D. Coble, professor of crop science at
North Carolina State University, Raleigh, currently at the CSREES in Washington, D.C., and
chair of the recently released CAST issue paper Feasibility of Prescription Pesticide
Use in the United States. "Unfortunately,
the increases in modern agricultural productivity have been accompanied by some unintended
social and environmental consequences including documented cases of pest resistance and
pesticide-induced pest outbreaks and public concern for environmental contamination, human
exposure, and residues on food."
Pesticides are legally classified as economic poisons and are defined as substances used for controlling, preventing, destroying, or mitigating any pest. Pesticides include inorganic products like sulfur, natural botanical products like pyrethrum, and biological products such as Bacillus thuringiensis and Trichoderma harzianum, which occur in nature but also are produced commercially for pest control. During the 1950s, entomologists working in pest control initiated the concept of integrated control, intended primarily to reconcile the use of insecticides with biological controls. At its highest level today, Integrated Pest Management incorporates knowledge of interactions among pests, the crop, and the environment within the context of a social, political, and economic matrix.
The public seems to have confidence in the regulation and use of pharmaceutical drugs. Medicines posing less risk to consumers are available over-the-counter and can be self-prescribed. In contrast, those posing a greater risk must be prescribed by physicians.
"Implementation of a program that allows for pesticide use by prescription would require the cooperative and parallel development of efforts within the regulated (users and suppliers) and regulatory (federal and state) communities," Coble says.
The CAST authors discuss many of the innovative regulatory imple-mentation methods needed for such a program. They include possible prescribers and their functions, legal issues, public education, program oversight, and potential impacts.
The authors conclude that prescription use could be a mechanism by which certain valuable but high-risk pesticide uses could be maintained while addressing the public's concern for safe use of those products. However, it should be understood that prescription pesticide use will require a new level of infrastructure in terms of personnel qualified to issue prescriptions. Such an infrastructure would take time to put in place and considerable resources to maintain. Careful analysis of the costs of prescription use should made before such a step is taken.
The complete report can be found at the CAST web site URL:
The report may also be obtained by contacting:
The Council for Agricultural Science and Technology
4420 West Lincoln Way
Ames, IA 50014-3447 USA
Phone: (515) 292-2125
Fax: (515) 292-4512
Summer is the time that we in the pesticide program office get geared up for another training and certification season. This coming year will inevitably bring changes. Over the next several years, North Dakota will be adopting portions of EPA's Certification and Training Advisory Group's recommendations. (CTAG is calling for sweeping changes in how applicators are trained and certified to sell and use pesticides.) This promises to be a long process, but we need to begin somewhere, so the year 2000 training season will be our starting point.
In response to CTAG's preliminary report, the NDSU Pesticide Program Advisory Committee met in July to recommend changes in our certification program. Those recommendations will be offered, discussed, no doubt modified, and possibly approved by the North Dakota Pesticide Control Board at its summer meeting on August 31 in Fargo. A public news release will be made by the North Dakota Department of Agriculture announcing exact times and locations. The public is welcome at this meeting.
The results of the Pesticide Control Board's decisions will be announced in the October issue of the Pesticide Quarterly. This issue will be an important one for all certified applicators and dealers, but especially for those whose certification must be renewed in the year 2000. Watch for it and read it carefully.
Have a safe and successful harvest,
Andrew A. Thostenson
Pesticide Program Specialist
The North Dakota Department of Agriculture (NDDA) collected nearly 80 tons of unusable pesticides during July through the 1999 Project Safe Send program. "This is the second biggest annual collection we've ever had," said Commissioner of Agriculture Roger Johnson. "I think it demonstrates both the effectiveness of Project Safe Send and a continued need for the program."
This year, 321 people brought in 158,938 pounds of pesticides to 16 collection sites. The chemicals were put into barrels by Care Environmental Corp and then shipped to Ohio where they will be sorted before incineration at federally-approved facilities. Chemicals collected include DDT, chlordane, Paris Green and compounds containing mercury, arsenic and cyanide.
Since the first Project Safe Send collection in 1992, more than 400 tons — 813,325 pounds — of unusable pesticides have been collected, shipped out of state and destroyed through the state-sponsored program. Johnson said the record collection of 167,319 pounds was in 1997, following the Red River flood. The Environmental Protection Agency had provided additional funds allowing NDDA to conduct collections that year.
Authorized by the North Dakota Legislature and open to all North Dakota residents, Project Safe Send is especially targeted to farmers, ranchers, pesticide dealers and applicators. The program is free to participants and is funded by the state with product registration fees paid by pesticide manufacturers.
Source: the American Journal of Industrial Medicine; December 1998
Unlike many other occupations, family farms are different in that the workplace is often at the same location as the worker's home. Therefore, families of farmers have unusual opportunities for potential indirect exposure to occupational hazards, such as pesticides, regardless of whether they themselves are engaged in the daily operations. Additionally, family members may assist in farm duties and, thus, have the potential for direct pesticide exposure.
The National Cancer Institute and the National Institute of Environmental Sciences conducted an Agricultural Health Study in which all people applying for private pesticide applicator licenses in North Carolina and Iowa from 1994-96 participated. The study included an extensive questionnaire assessment of exposures and health. One questionnaire was administered at enrollment. Applicators were then given a supplemental questionnaire that queried many items relevant to indirect household exposure to complete and return.
Applicators were also given a take-home questionnaire for their spouse to complete that included additional items on indirect exposures as well as items relating to farm work carried out by the spouse that might lead to direct exposure. The final take-home questionnaire included information about children. A total of nearly 26,800 applicators supplied completed surveys, and this included information on more than 18,800 children.
Results suggest that members of households of licensed private applicators have several types of potential opportunities for indirect exposure. Many homes (21%) and wells were located within 50 yards of pesticide mixing areas, and 48 percent of homes were within 100 yards of the nearest field or orchard where pesticides were applied. Proximity of homes to areas of pesticide use has been shown to be related to pesticide residue levels in household dust and yard soil. In addition, there was the opportunity for potential indirect exposure via pesticides inadvertently carried into the home on the applicators themselves and on their clothing.
Another route of potential exposure was the fact that 79 percent of applicators indicated that they usually washed up or showered in an in-house bathroom after mixing pesticides, whereas 5 percent used an outside shower and 16 percent used another area outside the home. The laundry is yet another mechanism of possible exposure. The most common practice, used by 81 percent of respondents, was to wash clothes worn when mixing or applying pesticides separately in the machine used for all laundry. Another 2 percent always wore disposable clothing, and 4 percent sent the work clothes out to be laundered or washed it in a machine used only for this purpose. The remaining 13 percent mixed clothes worn when mixing or applying pesticides in with the other wash.
Work boots were another route of bringing pesticides into the house. Typical habits show that 38 percent of respondents who had been working in the fields usually did NOT take their boots off before entering the house. A total of 93 percent reported that there was a wipe mat by the door used by family members working in the fields.
The data showed that spouses and children of licensed private applicators frequently engage in farming activities, thus potentially directly exposing themselves to pesticides. Approximately 50 percent of wives did some work in the fields, and 40 percent reported having mixed or applied pesticides (66 percent of these performed both duties, 3 percent only mixed, and 31 percent only applied). The vast majority of older boys and more than half of the older girls also participated in farm activities.
The consequences of families being exposed to pesticides in these manners are uncertain but could be potentially serious. The extent of these opportunities for family member exposure makes additional studies of their health important. The Agricultural Health Study includes follow-up plans for continuing formal contact with the applicators and their families. Passive follow-up is also planned through cancer registries and death certificates.
Somewhat conversely, however, was a study released in October 1998 suggesting that
farmers have
a lower standardized mortality rate, are healthier, and have a lower rate of accessing
health care than other occupational groups and the general population. The study assessed
the health status of more than 1,200 male farmers matched against 1,100 non-farmers from
the national population. Results of the physician-administered examinations included:
Interpretation of these data shows that the differences between farmers and non-farmers were independent of the urban-rural factor and could not be explained by traditional determinants of health and health care utilization.
EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs has extended its schedule for completing the ongoing re-registration review of the fumigants Aluminum and Magnesium Phosphide (or phosphine). This extension will allow more time for stakeholder involvement, public input, and complete consideration of alternative ways to reduce risks from these important pesticides. According to the recently revised schedule, the Agency plans to:
Through a draft Aluminum and Magnesium Phosphide Re-registration Eligibility Decision (RED) document, released in December 1998 for 60 days of public comment, EPA invited public input on how to reduce the risks associated with these pesticides, used primarily to control insects and rodents in facilities where raw agricultural and processed food commodities are stored.
The Agency proposed 15 risk reduction measures to increase the level of protection to bystanders and pesticide applicators from exposure to the highly toxic phosphine gas which is created when these pesticides are used. Many comments were received questioning the feasibility of the proposed measures.
Since few, if any, viable alternatives exist for fumigation to control pests in stored products, EPA is continuing to seek extensive stakeholder and public involvement in developing workable ways to reduce risks. Using input from this first comment period, EPA initially planned to release a revised risk mitigation proposal for discussion at a series of public meetings this spring. EPA is extending this schedule because of its need to further consider the more than 600 comments received on the initial proposal.
In addition, EPA is working with USDA's Phosphine Task Force, NIOSH, OSHA, and a coalition of industry groups and user organizations to identify feasible risk mitigation measures before releasing a new proposal.
EPA invites all interested individuals and groups to participate in the ongoing stakeholder process for Aluminum and Magnesium Phosphide. For additional information, contact Mark Hartman in the Office of Pesticide Programs, telephone 703-308-0734, e-mail Hartman.Mark@epa.gov
EPA has released the fifth edition of the manual "Recognition and Management of Pesticide Poisonings" which provides healthcare professionals with information on the health hazards of pesticides and recommendations for managing poisonings and injuries. (See picture at right.) This new updated manual contains current information on pesticides and what to do in case of a pesticide poisoning. The manual has been essential to health care professionals both nationally and internationally in diagnosing and treating pesticide poisoning incidences.
The fifth edition introduces a new chapter on the importance of medical professionals conducting complete patient histories to help ensure proper diagnosis and treatment. Another new area explored in this edition is on disinfectants.
While this publication is designed for healthcare professionals, it is written in a clear and concise manner which would make it an excellent resource for pesticide applicators and pesticide dealers as well. The NDSU Pesticide Program is distributing this manual to all North Dakota Extension Service offices.
The manual is available through EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs — Health Effects Division, 401 M. Street, SW (7509C), Washington, DC 20460, Telephone: (703) 305-7886.
The manual is available on line through the National Telecommunications Network web site at the following URL:
In June the North Dakota Legislative Council Established a 1999-2000 Interim Crop Harmonization Committee to examine two major pesticide issues: barriers to the registration of pesticides in North Dakota and evaluating the feasibility of resolving pesticide misapplication claims through mediation. Formal descriptions of the two studies are as follows:
The committee will also receive at least two reports during the 1999-2000 interim from the Agriculture Commissioner regarding the efforts to develop a single uniform process for the joint North American labeling of crop protection products.
The Crop Harmonization Committee will be Chaired by District 15 Representative Eugene Nicholas (Republican), Address: 214 14th Street, Cando, ND 58324-6609, Telephone: 701-968-3149, E-Mail: enichola@state.nd.us
Source: Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, April 9, 1999
Editors Note:
The following article clearly illustrates the reasons why pesticides should always be stored in their original container and never be used in a manner inconsistent with their labeling.
Cholinesterase-inhibiting pesticides (i.e., organic phosphates and carbamates), widely used in agriculture, can cause illness if they contaminate food or drinking water. Aldicarb, a regulated carbamate pesticide, is highly toxic, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requires applicators to be trained and certified.
This report describes a food borne outbreak of aldicarb poisoning that occurred when improperly stored and labeled aldicarb was used mistakenly in food preparation.
On July 19, 1998, 20 employees attended a company lunch prepared from homemade foods. Shortly after eating, several persons developed neurologic and gastrointestinal symptoms. Ten visited a hospital emergency department, and two were hospitalized. On July 20, a hospital infection-control nurse reported the incident to the Louisiana Office of Public Health, which then investigated the outbreak.
Investigators interviewed all 20 lunch participants about illness and foods eaten during the meal; 14 (70%) reported gastrointestinal or neurologic symptoms. The most common gastrointestinal symptoms were abdominal cramps 13 (93%), nausea 13 (93%), and diarrhea 12 (86%). Neurologic symptoms included dizziness 13 (93%), sweating 12 (86%), muscle fasciculation 12 (86%), eye twitching eight (57%), and blurred vision six (43%). Illness lasted a median of 4 hours (range: 1-8 hours).
Median time between ingestion of food and onset of symptoms was 45 minutes (range: 40 minutes-3 hours). The heart rate of one of the two persons hospitalized was 20 beats per minute on arrival at the emergency department, but his heart rate increased after treatment with atropine. The second person was hospitalized for an increased and irregular heart beat that responded to treatment with digitalis.
The lunch consisted of pork roast, boiled rice, cabbage salad, biscuits, and soft drinks. Only the cabbage salad was associated with illness. Of the 16 persons who ate the cabbage salad, 14 became ill (attack rate: 88%); the four persons who had not eaten the cabbage salad did not develop symptoms (attack rate: 0%, p=0.003, Fisher's exact test).
The employee who prepared the cabbage salad reported mixing two 1-lb bags of precut, prepackaged cabbage in a bowl with vinegar and ground black pepper. The black pepper came from a can labeled "black pepper" that he had found 6 weeks before the lunch in the truck of a deceased relative. This black pepper had not been used by the employee for food preparation before the company lunch.
The cabbage salad was prepared the night before the lunch and stored in the refrigerator until it was brought to work and served at approximately 11 a.m.
The contents of the black pepper container were tested for organophosphate and carbamate pesticides. High-performance liquid chromatography identified the granules in the container as 13.7% aldicarb, the registered pesticide was determined to be TEMIK 15G. A 6-g portion of cabbage salad contained 272.6 parts per million (ppm) of aldicarb.
The deceased owner of the pepper can had been a crawfish farmer. After its investigation, the Louisiana Department of Agriculture and Forestry believed the crawfish farmer had used aldicarb on bait to prevent destruction of his crawfish nets, ponds, and levees by wild dogs and raccoons. The source of the TEMIK 15G could not be determined despite the department's extensive trace back effort.
Aldicarb is classified as a restricted-use pesticide and can be sold to and applied by trained certified applicators only. Applicators are required to wear personal protective equipment (i.e., coveralls, waterproof gloves, chemical-resistant footwear and headgear, and protective eyewear). In cases of aldicarb poisoning, atropine sulfate is the antidote of choice and can be supplemented by treatment of symptoms and rapid removal of the toxicant (e.g., by induced vomiting).
The 272.6 ppm of aldicarb found in a 6-g cabbage salad sample was enough to be toxic to humans. Each person who had eaten the salad would have consumed approximately 17 mg of aldicarb if equal amounts of salad had been eaten. A 150-lb (70-kg) adult would have ingested 0.2 mg of aldicarb per kg of body weight, nearly 10 times the lowest observed effect level for sub clinical blood cholinesterase depression (0.025 mg per kg body weight). Blood levels as low as 0.0011 mg per kg body weight have been associated with poisoning in humans.
In addition, cabbage and vinegar, both acidic substances, are less effective than alkaline substances at breaking down aldicarb to less toxic chemical compounds.
In addition to occupational exposures, aldicarb poisoning has resulted from unintentional or suicidal ingestion of aldicarb illegally used as a rodenticide and from eating contaminated watermelons and cucumbers.
The largest pesticide-related food borne outbreak in the United States occurred in 1985 when 1373 persons reported becoming ill after eating watermelons grown in soil treated with aldicarb; 78% of these persons had probable or possible pesticide-related illnesses.
The median amount of aldicarb sulfoxide eaten per person in that outbreak was approximately 0.027 mg per kg body weight. Aldicarb residues have been detected in ground water and drinking water wells, but studies of the clinical implications of these exposures have been inconclusive.
EPA has developed tolerance levels for aldicarb residues on food or animal feed and a maximum contaminant level for aldicarb in drinking water (0.003 mg/L).
Nonprofessional pesticide users and certified applicators should be alert to the adverse effects of pesticides on human health and to the risks involved in distributing pesticides to non-certified persons.
In addition, the public should be reminded to store pesticides and other hazardous chemicals exclusively in containers that are clearly and correctly labeled and secured by safety caps.
Finally, health-care providers and public health officials should keep in mind that food poisoning might result from pesticide or other chemical contamination as well as from infectious organisms.
In April we launched our website with little fanfare and soon discovered that many people had found our site and were putting it to good use. This in itself was not very remarkable, but when we added new features or made changes that caused some surfers short term difficulty in accessing some of our information, we heard from them and quickly discovered how essential our site had become to them. We were both surprised and heartened by the reception it has received from pesticide applicators and dealers as well as from educators and state regulators. Thank you!
If you have not been to our website and do not know what all the fuss is about, point your web browser to the following URL:
Some of the major features of the site are:
Over the next several months we will be posting training opportunities for the year 2000 training season, and we will be developing an online registration for those trainings. Over the long term we want to make all our training materials available over the web and perhaps offer some form of web-based certification training.
For those of you not online, this website has already brought tangible benefits to you indirectly. Some examples are listed below:
If you have not been to our website before, take the tour. If you are not online yet, realize that this effort has indirect benefits for you as well.
Editors Note:
This is tangible evidence that the pesticide regulatory agencies are moving towards harmonization of pesticide rules between Canada and the US.
June, 1999 — The US EPA and Canada's Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) have agreed upon a formal memorandum of understanding (MOU) on good laboratory practices (GLP). The agreement provides a framework for mutual acceptance of pesticide studies conducted in Canada and the United States that are used in support of pesticide registration in both countries.
GLP is an internationally-recognized quality system which covers the organizational processes and conditions under which non-clinical human health and environmental safety studies are conducted. In keeping with the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Council Acts on mutual acceptance of data and on GLP compliance monitoring, this MOU establishes mutual recognition of each country's GLP requirements and associated compliance program.
The agreement is to be fully implemented after the completion of joint inspection and program evaluation activities aimed at confirming the compatibility of US and Canadian programs. A final exchange of letters confirming compatibility is expected by the end of the year 2000. The Standards Council of Canada administers the Canadian GLP compliance monitoring program for pesticides. Compliance in the US is assessed through the ongoing programs of the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. This agreement is one of an increasing number of new initiatives undertaken by PMRA and the EPA in support of a more harmonized and cooperative approach to pesticide registration in both countries.
Pesticide Quarterly - Volume 17, No. 3, August 1999
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 Services