North Dakota State University
NDSU Extension Service

Volume 17, No. 4, November 1999

In this issue . . .

Pesticide Price Differentials Between Canada and the U.S.
Coordinator's Comments
N.D. Pesticide Control Board Articulates Policy on Certification Examination Procedures
New Certification Policies Adopted by the North Dakota Pesticide Control Board
Financial Responsibility and the 2000 Certification Year
The Pesticide Industry Enters the Classroom
Is It Snake Oil? The Dangers of Cavalier Pest Control
Planning Calendar for Pesticide Certification Trainings in the Year 2000

Pesticide Price Differentials Between Canada and the U.S.

Editors Note:The following summary was jointly prepared by the USDA Economic Research Service and Agriculture Canada. It was released in October of 1999. The full report may be found at: http://www.ridgetownc.uoguelph.ca/CoInfo/Research/Current/CurFrm.htm

Study Introduction

This study was initiated because of concerns raised by farmers in North Dakota and Minnesota that prices for identical pesticide products were higher in the U. S. than in Canada. About ten years ago Canadian farmers had expressed a similar concern and they were able to get a pesticide import program developed which allows individual growers to import U.S. pesticides into Canada. Legislation has been proposed in the U.S. to allow the importation of Canadian pesticides into the U.S. (S394 - A bill to amend the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act to permit a State to register a Canadian pesticide for distribution and use within that State, Feb. 1999). This difference in pesticide pricing between Canada and the U.S. for similar products has been reported at other national border crossing points e.g. Ontario vs. Great Lake States (McEwan, 1996).

In this period of low commodity prices, it is expected that farmers will be reducing costs of production wherever they can. Although pesticide expenditures are not high for the study crops in the Canadian/U.S. prairie area compared with some crops and areas, they are relatively high compared with per acre profits. A few dollars of extra cost can make the difference between a profitable and an unprofitable year. The crops focused on in this study are spring wheat, barley, canola and potatoes. The specific study area is comprised of the prairie provinces of Canada and the northern tier U.S. states of North Dakota and Minnesota. These two areas in general have similar climates and technology and represent the area where price differentials for pesticides are a concern among farmers.

The restriction in the movement of pesticides across country borders is one of the basic reasons we expect prices for similar pesticides to differ between dealers in the U. S. and those in Canada. However, there are other factors that contribute to the observed differences in price and pesticide availability. Different patent status of products, different costs to provide pesticide products in different locations, and a different willingness of growers to pay for products are sometimes involved. In addition, pesticide manufacturers consider the pest control demand from other locations, crops and substitute products in pricing their products.

This study compares pesticide prices between the U. S. and Canada, and examines reasons that pesticide prices might differ in the study crops and areas. The emphasis is on herbicides because these make up a large share of the total crop pesticide expenditures. Comparisons of pesticide use and pesticide expenditures per acre are for the most recent period (1996-1999), however data was examined over a longer term for comparing pesticide prices.

Even if prices of similar pesticide products differ between farmers in the U. S. and Canadian locations, this might not lead to cost of production differences. Farmers can choose different pesticide bundles and use non-chemical, pest management inputs when confronted with relatively expensive pesticide prices. In this study we have selected Manitoba and North Dakota from our study areas and have examined and compared pesticide expenditures per treated acre across these locations. Many herbicide product to product and weed program comparisons are performed and we estimate the change in pesticide expenditures per treated acre if all pesticide products could be purchased at the price found in the low-price location.

Summary of Findings

A summary of the main findings found from conducting the study are now presented.

1. There are differences in unit prices between North Dakota/Minnesota and Manitoba for some of the more frequently purchased pesticides. This finding is based on dealer surveys carried out over the 1993-1999 period and adjusting for chemical concentration and the exchange rate (Thomsen, 1999). Prices used in the comparison between Manitoba and North Dakota/Minnesota are averages across about 20 dealers, and represent a large share of the pesticides sold in the study area. Herbicides like Roundup Original, Liberty, Puma, and Buctril M have lower prices in Manitoba. However, products such as MCPA, Treflan, and Poast have slightly lower prices in North Dakota. Several of the widely used herbicides like 2,4-D and Banvel have similar prices on both sides of the border.
   
   There are many reasons why pesticide prices vary between the two regions and they include: differences in patent expiry dates; differences in market size and costs; differences in pesticide demand (e.g. farmer preferences, willingness to pay); and differences in the number of substitute products available. Several products, which are widely used in other crops and locations, tend to have many pesticide alternatives and non-chemical pest controls. Consequently these products have similar prices in both study locations (e.g. Banvel and 2,4-D). This is consistent with the notion of less pricing power by pesticide sellers when there are many substitute products or practices. From a manufacturer's perspective, the U.S. and Canada represent two distinct markets for pesticide sales.
   
   
2. In general, availability of pesticides does not seem to be a problem for either region. There are examples of uneven registration between the two countries and there are more pesticides registered for canola in Canada than in the U.S. However, because of Section 18 registrations in North Dakota, there does not appear to be a major shortage of pesticides for canola production. Section 18 authorizes the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) to allow states to use a pesticide for an unregistered use for a limited time if EPA determines that emergency conditions exist. The canola acreage is expanding in North Dakota/Minnesota, but it is still much larger in Canada.
   
   
3. North Dakota farmers use different herbicides for weed protection when growing wheat, barley, canola and potatoes than Manitoba farmers. North Dakota farmers tend to use herbicides which are lower priced such as Banvel, MCPA and 2,4-D more frequently than producers in Manitoba. The exact reasons for North Dakota producers spending less on weed control are unclear. But possible explanations are: more use of non-chemical weed control; lower potential crop yield e.g. larger areas with a semi-arid climate causing variable yields; and relative prices of pesticides.
   
   
4. Pesticide bundles also vary between provinces and states. The most frequently used herbicides used in Manitoba are different from those used in Saskatchewan. Similarly, there are differences in the frequency of use of various pesticides between North Dakota and Minnesota. For example in the wheat crop, it is more common for farmers in Minnesota to use Roundup and Far Go than producers in North Dakota. In the 1996 North Dakota wheat crop, 2.5% of the treated acres received Roundup.
   
   
5. When herbicide expenditures were estimated on a per acre treated basis, North Dakota farmers were spending less than Manitoba producers. The per cent difference that Manitoba farmers were spending over North Dakota farmers by crop was: wheat - 202; barley - 169; canola - 41; and potatoes - 29. Herbicide products selected by Minnesota wheat growers tend to be more like those in Manitoba. Thus, it is anticipated that expenditures on a per acre treated basis are more similar to those in Manitoba.
   
   
6. Selected herbicide product to product and weed program comparisons showed Manitoba either the same price or less expensive than North Dakota. However, there were two herbicide combinations in which North Dakota was lower priced and they were: canola – Treflan and Poast; potatoes – Sencor and Poast.
   
   
7. North Dakota and Saskatchewan herbicide expenditures per treated acre align better than the comparison between North Dakota and Manitoba. Intuitively this makes sense given that both areas have similar yield potentials and likely use non-chemical weed control frequently. However, there was still a difference of US $3 - 4 on a per treated acre basis with North Dakota spending less in the three crops of wheat, barley and canola.
   
   
8. The simulated impact of purchasing lower priced pesticides in either Manitoba or North Dakota using existing herbicide market shares is small on a per treated acre basis (usually less than US$.50/acre). The one exception to this statement is for the study crop of potatoes which would see about a 19% drop in herbicide expenditures for North Dakota. The magnitudes of the changes in pesticide market shares that would occur with lower pesticide prices are unknown at this time, but the fact that farmers will buy more of any given product when its price falls is generally true.
   
   
9. From reviewing state and provincial cost of production budgets it can be seen that pesticides represent about 10 to 18% of the overall cost of production for the crops in question. Pesticides are just one of several inputs needed to grow a crop.
   
   Lower herbicide expenditures in North Dakota do not necessarily mean lower costs of production or higher profitability in crop production. North Dakota farmers may or may not have higher costs of wheat production than farmers in Manitoba because of higher land, labour and management costs associated with non-chemical weed control. Similarly, higher expenditures in Manitoba do not imply higher overall cost of production and less profitability.

Coordinator's Comments

In the last issue of the Pesticide Quarterly I referenced the fact that the North Dakota Pesticide Control Board (NDPCB) was weighing some decisions on changes to the certification program. In August the NDPCB met and agreed unanimously to adopt several new policies. They are enumerated in this issue of the Pesticide Quarterly.

Why the Change?

These changes were not made in a vacuum and were not arrived at absent significant discussion and debate. For years the NDPCB and the North Dakota Pesticide Certification Advisory Committee (industry, extension personnel, and regulators) has grappled with the issue of the integrity of the certification system. The system has been called into question because there has been no assurance that an applicator who takes an exam has done so on his own, and in the case of a home-study test, has even authored the exam. These two concerns have been raised by our surrounding states, by the U.S. EPA in their annual reviews of our program, by our own industry, and through observations of test results here at NDSU.

Faced with these questions and having to respond to the U.S. EPA's Certification and Training Assessment Group's final report, the NDPCB decided that now was the time to raise the bar and demonstrate that North Dakota has a solid certification program that is meeting or exceeding national standards and goals.

Recertification in the Year 2000

Changes always bring confusion, so I have listed some points to consider that should help you through this coming year's certification process:

• It is essential that you carefully read this issue of the Pesticide Quarterly. In it you will find a discussion of the changes that the NDPCB has instituted, and you will again find an explanation of the Financial Responsibility law and how to comply with it.
• If you need to recertify in the year 2000, watch your mail for an official notice from the NDSU Extension Pesticide Program about your certification status. Notices will be mailed before the end of the year.
• If you need to be recertified in your third or sixth year in the Ag Pest, Fumigation, Research & Demonstration, Rights-of-Way, or Seed Treatment categories, begin making plans now to attend a recertification training event to avoid taking a monitored exam. Home-study courses or take-home exams will no longer be an option.
• If you need to be recertified in your ninth year in the Ag Pest, Fumigation, Research & Demonstration, Rights-of-Way, or Seed Treatment categories, begin making plans now to attend an initial certification training event to brush up on the basics and to take a monitored exam. These initial trainings are specifically designed to prepare you to pass your exams.
• Look for the January 2000 issue of the Pesticide Quarterly. It will be posted the last week of December, and it will be in your hands the first week of the new year. In it you will find dates, times, locations, and pre-registration forms for 2000 training opportunities.
• If you have access to the World Wide Web, point your browser to the North Dakota Pesticide Training and Certification page. There you will find training calendars, pre-registration forms, requests for materials forms, and you can check your certification status on our search engine. The URL is:

http://www.ag.ndsu.nodak.edu/aginfo/pesticid/pesticid.htm

We in the NDSU Extension Pesticide Program are gearing up for the 2000 training season, and we are enthusiastic about the challenges that lie ahead. We will do everything that we can to make your training experience relevant and useful, and we will work aggressively to process your requests and certifications in a timely and efficient manner.

Best regards,
Andrew A. Thostenson,
Pesticide Program Specialist

N.D. Pesticide Control Board Articulates Policy on Certification Examination Procedures

In response to nagging concerns about the integrity of exams submitted for pesticide certification, the North Dakota Pesticide Control Board (NDPCB) approved a policy statement on testing procedures. In a August 31, 1999, letter to pesticide applicators, Roger Johnson, Chairman of the NDPCB and the North Dakota Commissioner of Agriculture communicated the following:

Private and Commercial pesticide certification exams are designed to be used as a method for evaluating an individual's ability to competently sell, buy, and/or use pesticides in a safe and legal manner. Therefore, you are expected to work independently to complete your exam. Assistance from other test takers or coaching from individuals not affiliated with the NDSU Extension Service Pesticide Program or the North Dakota Department of Agriculture is not acceptable.

When you apply for certification you are stating that the materials you submit are represented to be a true and accurate representation of your own effort. If you collaborate with others during the course of your examination you are in violation of the law as stated in the North Dakota Century Code:

The above policy letter will now be included in all requests for training materials and testing packets distributed by the NDSU Pesticide Program Office.

New Certification Policies Adopted by the North Dakota Pesticide Control Board

The North Dakota Pesticide Control Board (NDPCB), which oversees pesticide use issues under the North Dakota Pesticide Act, met on August 31, 1999, in Fargo. At that meeting, the NDPCB voted unanimously to adopt the following changes to the certification process beginning with the year 2000:

• Home-study or take-home tests as a means to obtain recertification for commercial applicators will be discontinued with the exception of minor use categories. (See Commercial Pesticide Applicator Certification Options Table).
• Home-study or take-home tests as a means to obtain initial certification or recertification for private pesticide applicators will be discontinued. (See Private Pesticide Applicator Certification Options Table).
• A fee increase for private and commercial pesticide applicator certifications of $3.00 to cover increased publication expenses was endorsed.

The NDPCB also approved of a request by the U.S. EPA to establish a new certification category for commercial applicators to cover the use of Metam-Sodium. This category would be designed for the sale and use of Metam-Sodium which is a tree root destroying chemical used to clear sewer systems. Very little Metam-Sodium is used in North Dakota; nonetheless, the U.S. EPA asked that the category be established to bring the state into uniformity with the federal Food, Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act.

Adoption of a new category requires initiation of formal rule making process with hearings under the North Dakota Pesticide Act. The NDPCB will initiate this process. Completion of this rule making process will take many months and will not be completed until late in the 2000 calendar year. (This category will not impact the industry until the 2001 training season.)

Commercial Pesticide Applicator
Certification options beginning with the year 2000

Private Pesticide Applicator
Certification options beginning with the year 2000

Financial Responsibility and the 2000 Certification Year

In 1997 the North Dakota Legislature implemented a Financial Responsibility (FR) requirement for all commercial pesticide applicators. The 1999 North Dakota Legislature modified this law and allowed additional exemptions for certain applicators certified in the Rights-of-Way category. With the exception of this minor change, the FR law remains basically the same.

Since its inception, the FR law has been frustrating for both applicators and those who have been charged with administering it. The North Dakota Pesticide Control Board has discussed and made numerous attempts at streamlining the administration of the law. Unfortunately, any substantial changes have been prevented by the language of the law. Essentially, consultations with the North Dakota Attorney General have resulted in no room to maneuver in terms of implementing the law. So, the NDSU Extension Pesticide Program will require the following documents from all applicators, dealers, and consultants who are certified in a commercial category in the year 2000:

• Anyone who holds a commercial certification, regardless of the category, must submit proof of FR, OR SUBMIT A COMPLETED WAIVER stating why they should be exempted from the law.
• If you claim that your employer provides your FR, you must have your employer submit a letter attesting to that fact, and the employer must submit documents demonstrating proof of FR as well.
• If you submit a copy of an insurance policy, be aware that virtually all policies have an expiration date (usually six months from the date of issuance). If you do not send us a new copy of your insurance policy before the expiration date, you may have your certification suspended by the Commissioner of Agriculture. In some situations, you may have to send us two to four documents per year to stay in compliance if insurance expiration dates are involved.
• General liability insurance policies are acceptable forms of proof of FR. These policies do not need to cover pesticide misapplication and/or drift. However, they should cover you for other general liabilities that may incur while carrying out your job as an applicator. The law is intentionally vague in this regard, but it is clear that you do not need pesticide misapplication and/or drift coverage.
• We will not accept general automotive vehicle liability policies as proof of FR unless you can demonstrate that that vehicle is directly used in the application of pesticides.

All commercially certified applicators, dealers, and consultants will receive notice via U.S. Mail before January 1, 2000 that they must submit proof of FR or request and exemption.

The text of the FR law as amended by the 1999 North Dakota Legislature is as follows:

4-35-09.1 Proof of Financial Responsibility — Exceptions.

1. A commercial pesticide applicator certificate may not be issued or renewed unless the applicant furnishes proof of financial responsibility as provided in this section. Minimum financial responsibility must be demonstrated annually in the amount of one hundred thousand dollars, and may 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 one hundred thousand dollars, performance bond, or a general liability insurance 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 other modification of the bond or insurance policy. The commissioner of agriculture must immediately request the suspension of the certification of a person who fails to maintain the minimum financial responsibility, standards of this section. If there is any recovery against the certificate holder, the holder must demonstrate continued compliance with the minimum standards of this section. An employee of a commercial pesticide application business is not required to meet these standards separately if the business documents compliance with the minimum financial responsibility standards of this section. An application for reinstatement of a suspended certificate under this section must be accompanied by proof of satisfaction of any judgment previously rendered.

2. This section does not apply to:

1. A rancher who is required to obtain a commercial pesticide applicator certificate for controlling noxious weeds on the leased federal acreage as a condition of a federal grasslands lease.
2. A grazing association and its members if either the association or any member is required to obtain a commercial pesticide applicator certificate for controlling noxious weeds on the leased federal acreage as a condition of a federal grasslands lease.
3. A person required to be certified in the right-of-way category.
4. An applicator who holds a commercial pesticide certificate and is controlling noxious weeds on grassland, land producing tame hay, or other lands not devoted to the production of an annual crop.

The Pesticide Industry Enters the Classroom

Editors Note:What follows is an article about how the environmental activist community views industry's efforts to educate consumers and children about pesticide issues. The author is John Borowski, an environmental science teacher from Salem, Oregon. This article was published in the Fall 1999 issue of the Journal of Pesticide Reform, Norwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides, Eugene, Oregon.

In her classic book about the hazards of pesticides, Silent Spring, Rachel Carson posed a question that is possibly more timely today than ever. "Have we fallen into a mesmerized state that makes us accept as inevitable that which is inferior or detrimental, as though having lost the will or the vision to demand that which is good?"

Multinational corporations have used a double approach to convince the public that environmental organizations are "Chicken Littles" pontificating global woe in a time of technological wonder.

The first strategy is to saturate the news and print media with counter claims that refute current science. Case in point: Theo Colborn's claims in her book Our Stolen Future, that hormone disrupters such as pesticides are playing hormonal havoc in nature, have come under serious attack. For example, in the July 21, 1997 issue of the FASEB Journal (Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology), Bruce Ames and Lois Gold attempt to debunk many of Colborn's premises.

The second strategy, actually a page out of the environmentalists' own play book, is to reach lots of children. As an environmental teacher of nineteen years, I've watched this strategy evolve into a tremendous public relations bonanza, well funded and skillfully marketed.

The ramifications are staggering. Fifty million young people are now in public schools, all soon to be consumers and voters. The time to shape their beliefs is now. These materials are professional, obviously expensive to produce, and often they are free to educators. Corporations realize that schools are desperate for materials, and what better way to fill this niche but to provide readings, labs, and quizzes, all touting the corporate view of pesticides.

One great example is Agriculture and The Environment, published by the American Farm Bureau. Well organized, the booklet includes activities, questions, and readings. I was particularly struck by the "Basic Understanding" sections: "The quality and abundance of our food supply is due to modern agricultural practices which include the use of pesticides," and "Chemicals are chemicals, whether they are naturally occurring or manufactured."

I've noticed a pattern with these publications: down play the risks, accentuate the old reliable phrases (media scare, safest food supplies, 99.99% of the carcinogenic substances we consume in our diet are natural substances) and create confusion about reliable data. While the Farm Bureau is entitled to its opinion, if corporations flood our schools with these freebies, how will children receive a counterpoint?

This spring, a student brought me an article about the hazards of atrazine. This herbicide, heavily used on corn, apparently is being widely found in rainwater, wells, and rivers. Concerns range from toxicity to aquatic organisms to reproductive problems in wildlife. More sinister is that atrazine is being linked to two forms of human cancer. When I checked my data against the Farm Bureau information, I found discrepancies. According to the Farm Bureau, it is not linked to any risk of cancer. The key point here is the use of repetition. Concerns are dismissed as zealous, heavy handed regulatory action, and environmentalists with an agenda.

This approach is also seen in "Impacts of Eliminating Organophosphates and Carbamate under the Food Quality Protection Act," produced by the Agriculture and Food Policy Center at Texas A&M University. The executive summary reads like a nightmare: "If you want to eliminate these organophosphates the results include reduced yields, increase of imports with their questionable use of pesticides, increased pest resistance, and reduced consumption of fruits and vegetables."

This generation of young voters is being counted on to address and solve some of the most pressing ecological issues facing humankind. Such a task demands that they have access to credible scientific data. Many teachers do not delve into these special topics and feel less fluent in issues such as genetically altered food or the chemistry of organophosphates. This creates a void for corporate American to fill with science that is more suited to fill the needs of a three month profit report rather than the well being of a community, its children, and its resources.

The environmental community had better go on the offensive. The largest environmental groups should fund those grassroots groups that are willing to develop and promote sound science materials for teachers and their students. The prospect of losing a generation to corporate science is a thought that makes me shudder.

Is It Snake Oil? The Dangers of Cavalier Pest Control

Dr. Catherine Daniels,
Pesticide Coordinator,
Washington State University
Pesticide Information Center.
She can be reached at (509) 372-7495 or cdaniels@tricity.wsu.edu

A lovely irony is blooming. On one side groups are pushing for quick availability of safer, less-toxic chemistries to control pests, and on the other side groups are pushing for tighter regulation on products to prevent potential damage to humans and the environment. Can you guess the names of those groups? One side is represented by university scientists and state regulators, the other side is represented by consumers. But which group is on which side?

When is a "Master Gardener" NOT a Master Gardener?

In an August 24, 1999, article in USA Today, the battle lines were neatly described. Consumers are voting with their pocketbooks for what they believe are safer, less-toxic chemistries by supporting Public Broadcasting Station (PBS) affiliates that carry Jerry Baker, the self-described "America's Master Gardener." Among other things, his advice to home gardeners is to use "tonics" made from such things as chewing tobacco, human urine, birth control pills, mouthwash, molasses, detergent, and beer. What are his qualifications for dispensing such advice? He has television presence and he is a "superstar" on PBS fundraising drives. Never mind that he is not part of the university Cooperative Extension-based Master Gardener programs, which have dispensed science-based information since their inception in 1971.

Is Baker a problem, from a scientific perspective? Scientists in Ohio thought so, when they petitioned their local PBS station in Columbus to remove Baker's show, citing examples of improper and illegal recommendations for pesticide use given by Baker during the shows. Their complaints were rebuffed by the station.

Pseudo-Science: Does It Really Hurt Anybody?

Some interesting examples of Baker's recommendations given in the USA Today article included frequent shampooing of lawns and plants to improve photosynthesis and the inclusion of a tablespoon of bourbon with a plant fertilizer. These recommendations fall into the "snake oil" category: they likely won't hurt the plants, but the benefits are dubious. (Unless perhaps you give the plant the fertilizer and you take the tablespoon of bourbon yourself. At least you might feel better about the plant afterward.) Other examples of Baker's recommendations are not so funny. To kill bugs, use a chewing-tobacco-and-water mixture. To kill suckers growing on trees, Baker recommends using "any good weed killer" with dish soap, vinegar, and gin. After pruning flowering trees, Baker recommends sealing the wounds with latex paint, antiseptic mouthwash, and an insecticide such as Sevin or Dursban. What's wrong with those three recommendations? (1) Nicotine is a lethal human poison; (2) Roundup (a "good weed killer") can severely damage trees; (3) using Sevin around blooming plants is an extremely irresponsible action that leads to bee kills, exactly the type of environmental damage that consumers profess to abhor.

Everyone has heard stereotypical comments about academics, from the stuffy "ivory tower mentality" to the more impertinent "egghead." While Baker was not quoted using any of those comments, he did say "the redwood trees grew just fine before we had garden centers and people with academic certificates. I can't worry about what the competition says." It should be news to scientists and regulators that they are "the competition" for consumers' attention and welfare. Odds are that scientists and regulators believe they are working for the consumer, primarily toward guaranteeing that marketplace products are safe to humans and the environment when used as stated, that those products consistently meet stated efficacy claims, and that each lists its active ingredients on the label.

Is Jerry "Master Gardener" Baker the only perpetrator of egregious recommendations? Of course not. Should we "egghead" academics in our "ivory towers" be concerned? I think so.

"Minimum Risk:" Says Who?

The marketplace is full of labels classified as "minimum risk;" as such, they require no Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) registration number and are loosely called 25(b) products. (See Federal Register of March 6, 1996, 61 FR 9976.) University scientists and state regulators are concerned that labels are in the market with illegal ingredient statements, few or no guidelines for the use of personnel protective equipment, and no assurance that the product has had even a cursory efficacy review before entering the marketplace. These labels give the consumer the impression that the product is non-toxic, encouraging by default unnecessary human and environmental exposure. Indeed, concern is high enough among these scientists and regulators that they have drafted a letter to EPA through the American Association of Pesticide Safety Educators, requesting that the 25(b) regulations be revisited with an eye toward tightening them.

Consumers are usually the first to demand tighter regulations to protect the unwary from being bilked by snake oil salesmen. They are often the first to demand greater protection of humans and the environment from unnecessary pesticide exposure. But that seems only to be the case when the bugs are in someone else's backyard.

Planning Calendar for Pesticide Certification Trainings in the Year 2000

Initial – Certification Trainings

 

Recertification – Certification Trainings

Pesticide Quarterly, Volume 17, No. 4, November 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 Service