Coordinator's Comments

Well Done Everyone

A great big thank you to everyone for the outstanding effort in managing pests during the 1996 season. Thanks to the pesticide manufacturers, distributors, and dealers for the extra effort in providing product during this hectic season. Thanks to the applicators that made the the effort to do a careful and safe job everytime. Thank you to NDSU researchers and extension specialists and the North Dakota Department of Agriculture for their efforts in obtaining Special Local Needs registrations and Emergency Exemptions and thank you to EPA for their consideration and granting those pesticide uses.

Other efforts that need to be recognized include:

The incredible amount of effort that went into the orange wheat blossom midge research, demonstration, education and extension programs conducted by NDSU entomologists Drs. Phil Glogoza and Mike Weiss, NDSU Extension Service area extension specialists and county agents, along with consultants and pesticide representatives. According to preliminary information over 100 meetings and field demonstrations were held and several thousand growers and applicators were trained on scouting for wheat blossom midge, economic thresholds and pest management timing. Approximately 700,000 acres were treated. Many acres were not treated because economic thresholds were not exceeded, or the wheat growth stage was not susceptable at the time of infestation.

Some of the early reports indicate substantial yield differences in some fields that had both treated and untreated areas. Early reports also indicate that there were almost no accidents or incidents.

Anyone who promoted Project Safe Send and/or brought waste, banned, or unusable pesticides to the collection program. Promoters of Project Safe Send included the North Dakota Department of Agriculture, the NDSU Extension Service, especially county agents, the North Dakota Agricultural Association, pesticide retailers, distributors, and manufacturers. Over 175 tons of waste pesticides have been collected and disposed of through the Project Safe Send program. Contact Judy Carlson at the North Dakota Department of Agriculture, phone 701-328-4997, for more information.

To Ostlund Chemical Company, WestChem Agricultural Chemicals Inc. and Cenex/Land O' Lakes for conducting pesticide container collection programs and to those pesticide applicators who brought clean plastic pesticide containers to collection programs for recycling.

Food Quality Protection Act

The Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) that was signed into law on August 3 will cause sweeping changes to pesticide regulations. The changes should be good for both agriculture and the general public. The act will put many new challenges before the pesticide industry. Challenges that must be met. The act also places some serious opportunities before agriculture.

Please study the article under Law.

Being Led by Fear

A study was conducted to determine if people could be tricked into believing an environmental crisis existed without any facts whatsoever. Hundreds of people responded. See the article "Grassroots Action Versus Environmental Fear." It is important for you to help spread the word about pesticide benefits, risks, and what practices you do to make risks as minimal as possible. The communication of your knowledge and care to others is needed now more than ever.

Computer Pesticide Information Sources

There is an increasing number of high quality pesticide information sources becoming available via the world wide web. See articles under IPM, Weed Control and Safety. In order to compete successfully in business in the future you will need to become able to access this information. Periodically we will be listing some of the sites that contain useful information. If you have access to the internet or world wide web and would like a list of pesticide related websites, contact the NDSU Pesticide Programs Office at 701-231-7180.

Congratulations to Rudy Radke

Rudy Radke, agriculture diversification specialist with the NDSU Extension Service, was presented with the Distinguished Service Award from the National Association of County Agricultural Agents during their annual meeting in Nashville, TN.

Thanks to Extension Agents

I would like to thank the National Association of County Agricultural Agents for presenting me with the Achievement Award and the North Dakota Association of Extension Agents for selecting me to receive it. It's a pleasure to work with North Dakota's extension agents. They are a group of the smartest most caring people you will ever find.

Greg Dahl
Pesticide Programs Specialist

Pesticide Perceptions

Grassroots Action Versus Environmental Fear

Much has been written about an experiment conducted recently by Peter Sparber, a Washington, DC, business lobbyist. Sparber's experiment began with the theory that people can be tricked into believing an environmental crisis exists without any facts whatsoever. To prove this, Sparber sent a mailing from a fictitious group he called "Stop the Silent Killer Foundation." The letter, sent to individuals who support banning pesticides, claimed that dihydrogen oxide poses a significant threat to the environment and to human and animal health.

According to the letter, 4,100 Americans, many of them under the age of 10, died from excessive doses in dihydrogen oxide in 1991. The letter reported that dihydrogen oxide is a major contributor to injuries from falls and is a major cause of burns. Recipients were asked to write to The Dihydrogen Institute in Washington, DC, demanding an end to the production of dihydrogen oxide. Hundreds of people responded to the perceived threats in the letter, apparently unaware that dihydrogen oxide is nothing more than water.

The results of this experiment are alarming to anyone seeking reasonable reforms in our nation's environmental laws and regulatory structure. The experiment shows that Americans can be easily led by fear. What we also know is that while it's easy to create fear, it's difficult to put those fears to rest or to disprove negative statements.

Agriculture and natural resource organization do not rely on hot air or false rhetoric in their public relations battle. Instead they rely on their grassroots strength. Ed Grefe, who has written and lectured extensively on the topic of grassroots activity, says that agriculture organizations can use their grassroots membership to win support and to bring coalition members to their cause.

Grefe defines potential coalition members in four categories. First are family members who are emotionally committed to the cause. Second are friends, those who have an economic stake. Grefe believes that family and friends represent 5-10 percent of the potential voter base who will support your cause. Foes represent 5-10 percent on the opposite side. The rest of the public is what Grefe defines as "strangers." They have no apparent stake in the outcome of the issue. They represent the battle ground.

Grassroots, according to Grefe, is about winning the war for values. Many organizations, like the American Farm Bureau are well known for their grassroots strength. They rely on individual Americans not scare tactics and fear to motivate their members to action. And they're getting better and better at motivating their members to fight back against the skewed, distorted, and often non-existent evidence of environmental harm presented by politically motivated environmental groups.

(Source: Sherry Kiesling, North Dakota Farm Bureau News, via Farm & Ranch Guide September 13, 1996)

Careless Use of Pesticides Killed a Family of Songbirds

For the last two months I've watched a family of wrens in my back yard. They hauled little sticks, feathers and other materials and build a nice nest for the family to come. The little chicks hatched and it was a continuous struggle to keep them happy and fed.

The chicks grew rapidly and would have been out of the nest and on their own now, but they all died, thanks to a careless neighbor that sprayed his yard with too much pesticide. It's bad enough to kill birds but these same pesticides will also kill dogs, cats, and people.

We should all be more careful and make sure we apply all these chemicals in a safe and responsible manner. I miss the wrens.

(Source: Letter to the editor, Fargo Forum, 7/31/96)

Law

Illegal Use of Pesticide and Mail Fraud Charges Lodged Against Indiana Applicator

An Indiana pesticide applicator was charged by the Justice Department with three counts of mail fraud and one of illegal use of a pesticide for treating ponds, lakes, and other bodies of water to control unwanted vegetation. The pesticide was identified as Karmex, which contained diuron, which is not registered for aquatic applications.

DOJ said the defendant, Carl Klene, 39 whose home is in Las Vegas, Nev., has filed a request to transfer the matter to Las Vegas and has said he will enter guilty pleas. DOJ's description of the illegal activities included:

"The information alleges that Klene entered into three-year contracts with his customers and represented that only pesticides approved for aquatic use by the EPA would be used. Klene made two applications per year during the contract period. However, by using Karmex, Klene killed all vegetation, not just unwanted vegetation, during the first application. As a result, when subsequent applications were made during the contract period, only water was applied."

Assistant U.S. Attorney Kathleen Sweeney said Klene faces a prison term of up to five years on each of the mail fraud counts and a fine of up to $250,000 on each of these counts, as well as a one-year prison term and fine of up to $100,000 on the pesticide count.

(Source: P&TCN Vol. 24, No. 42, August 14, 1996)

Food Quality Protection Act of 1996

The Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) was recently passed by the House of Representatives and the Senate and signed into law by President Clinton on August 3.

The act repealed the Delaney Clause, an action that has been recognized as being necessary by many groups, scientists and regulators including the EPA. The act contains many changes to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and some changes to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). While streamlining and improving the tolerance setting and registration process for pesticide registrants and pesticide users, the FQPA strengthens many parts of the pesticide regulatory process and provides new protections for consumers, infants, and children. A brief summary of the most important changes follows:

1. EPA will need to reevaluate tolerances as part of the pesticide reregistration requirements.

2. The FQPA reauthorizes the EPA pesticide reregistration program and increases the user fees necessary for funding this program. EPA will be required to review pesticide registrations periodically. The goal is to be every 15 years.

3. Nitrogen stabilizers have been included in the definition of pesticides.

4. States may establish minimum requirements for the training of maintenance applicators and service technicians. Maintenance applicators would be persons who use or supervise the use of structural or lawn pest control pesticides such as janitors, general maintenance workers, sanitary workers, or grounds maintenance workers. Service technicians include persons who use or supervise the use of pesticides for the purpose of providing structural pest control or lawn pest control on the property of another for a fee.

5. The minor crop protection pesticide problem is addressed by:

A. Minor use is defined as a use of a pesticide on an animal, on a commercial crop or site, or for the protection of public health where the total U. S. acreage is less than 300,000 acres as determined by the Secretary of Agriculture or where the EPA administrator in consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture determines based on information supplied by an applicant for registration or registrant that the use does not provide sufficient economic incentive to support the initial or continuing registration of a pesticide for a minor use and there is insufficient efficacious alternative registered pesticides available for the use, the alternatives to the pesticide use pose greater risks to the environment or human health, the minor use pesticide plays or will play a significant part in managing pest resistance, or the minor use pesticides plays or will play a significant part in an integrated pest management program. The minor use may not cause an unreasonable adverse affect on the environment.

B. The FQPA extends the registrant's period of exclusive data use by one additional year for every three minor uses registered, up to a total of three additional years for all minor uses.

C. The FQPA allows EPA the ability to grant data package extensions and data waivers where necessary.

D. The FQPA grants authority to the Secretary of Agriculture to establish a minor use grant program for the development of data to support minor use pesticide registrations and reregistrations.. The program will establish a minor use pesticide data revolving fund established in the U. S. Treasury. $10 million is authorized to be appropriated to this fund. Applicants for funding must provide at least 50% of the funding for minor use registration data projects.

6. Changes have been made to the labeling and registration requirements for antimicrobial pesticides. Changes include allowing labeling statements on efficacy, setting goals to reduce time needed to review registration application, ensuring that the registration process is sufficient to maintain antimicrobial pesticide efficacy and meet product performance standards.

7. The FQPA allows EPA to waive registration fees for certain public health pesticides. Requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to develop data on public health.

8. The FQPA expidites the registration of reduced risk pesticides.

9. The FQPA requires the collection of data to assure the health of infants and children. Information required to be collected includes data on food consumption patterns of infants and children, data on pesticide residues in foods most likely consumed by infants and children, and information on pesticide use on major crops and crops of dietary significance such as fruits and vegetables.

10. USDA in cooperation with EPA is to implement research, demonstration, and education programs to support the adoption of integrated pest management (IPM). IPM is defined as a sustainable approach to managing pests by combining biological, cultural, physical, and chemical tools in a way that minimizes economic, health, and environmental risks. USDA and EPA are to make IPM information widely available to pesticide users and to Federal agencies. Federal agencies are to use IPM techniques in carrying out pest management activities, and promote IPM through procurement and regulatory policies.

11. FQPA replaces the complex tolerance setting process that includes the Delaney clause with a process where EPA is to set a single strong health based standard for food residues in food. The new standard is "a reasonable certanty of no harm." EPA is to consider many health factors when setting tolerances such as extra protection for infants and children, potential estrogenic or other endocrinic effects, other potential sources of pesticide exposure and exposure to pesticides with the same mode of action. All existing tolerances will have to be reviewed within 10 years to insure that they meet the new standards.

12. Establishes national uniformity for pesticide tolerances by prohibiting states from setting pesticide tolerances that differ from national tolerances. FQPA does allow states to petition EPA for exemptions bases on state-specific situations.

13. FQPA requires that within two years EPA in consultation with USDA and HHS will publish and distribute to large retail grocers for public display "Consumer Right to Know" information that includes a discussion of risks and benefits of pesticide chemical residues in or on food purchased by consumers, which foods have tolerances for pesticide residues based upon benefits considerations, and information on ways to reduce dietary exposure to pesticide residue.

(Submitted by Greg Dahl, Pesticide Program Specialist)

EPA Withdraws Delaney-Related Revocation Actions For Pesticide Tolerances

In accord with provisions of the recently enacted Food Quality Protection Act, EPA is withdrawing final and proposed rules revoking tolerances (maximum allowable levels) for pesticide residues in processed food or animal feed that were based on the Delaney clause provisions of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). The new law amends FFDCA to establish a single, health-based standard for pesticide residues in all types of foods, replacing the Delaney clause as it applied to some residues in ready-to-eat processed foods. EPA is also withdrawing final and proposed rules revoking processed food and animal feed tolerances based on the agency's interpretation of which foods are "ready-to-eat," since the new law does not require such a determination. Finally, EPA is also withdrawing proposed rules revoking raw food tolerances which were based on the premise (known as the "coordination policy") that if a processed food tolerance were required but could not be established due to the Delaney clause, the corresponding raw food tolerance should also not be allowed.

These withdrawal actions involve tolerance revocations that have not yet taken effect, and pesticide residues consistent with the previously established tolerances will remain lawful until EPA modifies or revokes them in accordance with the new law. EPA will be reassessing these tolerances, and all other tolerances in effect as of Aug. 3, to ensure that they meet the new law's standard of a "reasonable certainty of no harm," including special consideration of potential effects on infants and children. For carcinogens in food, the "reasonable certainty of no harm" is a "negligible risk" standard. Tolerance revocations which have already taken effect will not be reinstated unless new petitions are submitted to EPA that demonstrate that the tolerances meet the stringent standards of the new law.

The Agency is developing guidance on how decisions will be made under the new standards. The l958 Delaney clause of the Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act prohibited the approval of food or feed tolerances for pesticide residues in ready-to-eat processed food or animal feed if the pesticide were found to induce cancer in man or animals, regardless of the level of risk. A decision in l992 by the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that EPA was required to follow a strict, legal interpretation of the Delaney clause. Subsequent to the decision, EPA began a process of revoking all tolerances that were not consistent with the Delaney clause.

The following final revocation actions which were based on the Delaney clause are being withdrawn: ethylene oxide in ground spices; mancozeb in bran of oats; propargite in dried figs and dried tea; propylene oxide in cocoa, gums, processed nutmeats (except peanuts), and processed spices; benomyl in tomato products and raisins; dichlorvos (DDVP) on bagged and packaged processed foods; dicofol in dried tea; acephate in food handling establishments; iprodione in dried ginseng and raisins; and triadimefon in milled fractions of wheat. The final revocation action for imazalil in citrus oil, based on ready-to-eat grounds, is also being withdrawn. All these final revocation actions had been stayed.

The following proposed revocation actions which were based on the Delaney clause are being withdrawn: simazine in sugarcane molasses; and tetrachlorvinphos in feed of beef, dairy cattle, and horses. The proposed revocation actions, based on ready-to-eat grounds, are being withdrawn: acephate in cottonseed hulls; benomyl in dried citrus pulp and rice hulls, diflubenzuron in soybean hulls; imazalil in dried citrus pulp; iprodione in rice bran and rice hulls; mancozeb in milled wheat fractions; and thiodicarb in soybean hulls.

Finally, EPA is withdrawing the following proposed raw food Delaney-related tolerance revocations actions: dicofol in apples, grapes, and plums; mancozeb in oats and wheat; propargite in apples and figs; simazine in sugarcane; and triadimefon in wheat. Today's announced actions are expected to be published in the Federal Register within the next 10 days.

(EPA Press Release, September 20)

North Dakota Department of Agriculture Update

The North Dakota Department of Agriculture has received 52 ag and non-ag follow-up complaints during the current year. This compares with 59 complaints during 1995. There are 43 ag related complaints and nine non-ag related complaints.

Fifteen of the ag related complaints were ground applications and 23 were aerial applications. Three complaints were associated with improper container or pesticide disposal and six were reported because of human exposure. The balance of the complaints were reported because of pesticide drift onto crops, trees, gardens, and sensitive areas.

(Submitted by: Gerald Thompson, Assistant Pesticide Director, North Dakota Department of Agriculture.)

IPM

IPM Information Sources

A number of sources on integrated pest management information are available for the asking. Some are in print, some are on the Internet. For example, IPMnet is a global IPM information service available on the World Wide Web. IPMnet's Web page and computer server are administered by R. E. Stinner of North Carolina State Univ., e-mail: <CIPM@ncsu.edu>. Contact this e-mail address if you are interested. This service provides information on: meetings around the nation and world that relate to pest management; recent publications on all aspects of pest management; research reviews; positions available; and special sections relating to various aspects of pest management. A recent example was a paper on "The Ethics of Biocontrol: Unanswered Questions."

Another source of IPM information is the National Foundation for IPM Education. It publishes the IPM Monitor quarterly. The telephone number to contact is: (512) 834-8762. FAX is (512) 339-6302. Their spring 1996 issue had an interview with USDA Deputy Secretary, Richard Rominger, a family farmer from California. A few highlights of his comments about IPM from the IPM Monitor include:

Q: There are many different interpretations of IPM. How would you best describe IPM?
A: "My definition of IPM is to take a look at the whole picture, meaning that if growers want to adopt IPM, they should use all the techniques that are available and look at every possible solution."

Q: What do you consider are the main benefits and limitations of IPM?
A: "The benefits are that farmers can save money and be more confident that they're implementing practices that are safer for the environment. Disadvantages or frustrations may be that we don't have enough information and we need more alternatives. Thus, we're encouraging more research."

Q: What IPM techniques have been implemented on your farm?
A: "We started with simple things like scouting fields and only using a treatment when thresholds were exceeded on insects. More recently, we've gone to resistant varieties, planting at certain times of the year to avoid the major weed species, using biological pesticides and releasing beneficial insects."

Q: Do you agree that farmers are the "original environmentalists"?
A: " I think most farmers have a deep feeling for their land and for their crops and want to do the best job they can. They know that they need to do the right things in order to be able to farm year after year."

(Submitted by: Dr. Marcia McMullen, NDSU Extension Plant Pathologist/IPM Coordinator)

Weed Control

Assure II Minor Crop Use Update

A federal label has recently been issued for Assure II on dry beans, snap beans, dry peas, and succulent peas. Labeling allowing application on several mustard crops, including canola and crambe, is expected within the next 30 days. DuPont has now labeled Assure II for the entire crop group of Legume Vegetables (Succulent and Dried): Crop Group 6 category.

Table 1.Crop group 6: legume vegetables (succulent or dried).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commodities and related crop subgroups

Bean (Lupinus spp.)
includes grain lupin, sweet lupin, white lupin, and white sweet lupin

Bean (Phaseolus spp.)
includes field bean, kidney bean, lima bean, navy bean, pinto bean, runner bean, snap bean, tepary bean, wax bean

Bean (Vigna spp.)
includes adzuki bean, asparagus bean, blackeyed pea, catjang, Chinese longbean, cowpea, Crowder pea, moth bean, mung bean, rice bean, southern pea, urd bean, yardlong bean

Broad bean (fava bean) (Vicia faba)

Chickpea (garbanzo bean) (Cicer arietinum)

Guar (Cyamopsis tetragonoloba)

Jackbean (Canavalia ensiformis)

Lablab bean (hyacinth bean) (Lablab purpureus)

Lentil (Lens esculenta)

Pea (Pisum spp.)
includes dwarf pea, edible-pod pea, English pea, field pea, garden pea, green pea, snow pea, sugar snap pea

Pigeon pea (Cajanus cajan)

Sword bean (Canavalia gladiata)

---

Adjuvant Use With Selected Herbicides

Many adjuvant manufacturers have produced surfactant plus fertilizer blends at concentrations specified on certain herbicide labels. This reduces confusion, time required to get the information from labels, and hundreds of choices for adjuvant selection. However, it is important to follow label directions when tankmixing more than one herbicide or other practices. Many of these adjuvants have performed well in NDSU field trials. Below are names of herbicides and adjuvants specifically formulated to be used with each product.

Roundup (Not Roundup Ultra): Class Act (Cenex), Sensation (Rosens), Dispatch AMS and Flame (Loveland).

Accent: Class APM-28 (Cenex), Impressive (Rosens), Dispatch 2N (Loveland).

Pursuit: Class prefer 28 (Cenex), Impressive (Rosens), Choice Extra (Loveland).

Herbicide Resistance Video

The Western Society of Weed Science has developed a 15 minute video, "Understanding Herbicide Resistance," that gives a brief history of herbicide resistance weeds in the U.S., discusses how resistant problems develop, and outlines management strategies to delay the development of herbicide resistance weed problems. The video can be ordered for $15.00 from Charlotte Eberlein, Aberdeen R&E Center, PO Box AA, Aberdeen, ID 83210. Please make checks payable to: Western Society of Weed Science (WSWS). Eberleins email is ceberl@uidaho.edu.

Will Herbicide Resistant Crops Create Herbicide Resistant Weeds?

Canola is an important crop in Canada and the northern great plains. Due to the lack of herbicides registered for use in canola, development of herbicide tolerant canola varieties appears useful. Unfortunately, wild mustard is an important weed infesting canola, and with the exception of Muster herbicide (only labeled in Canada) it is very difficult to selectively remove wild mustard from canola. One reason is the close botanical relationship canola and wild mustard share -- they both are in the Brassicaceae family.

Unusual wild mustard populations have been expressed in Canada through continuous use of herbicides of a particular mode of action. For example, wild mustard populations have been documented as resistant to ALS herbicides (sulfonylurea, imidazolinone - Pursuit, etc, and triazolopyrimidine sulfanilide - Broadstrike), and other populations have been documented as resistant to the growth regulator type herbicides (2,4-D, MCPA, Banvel, Tordon, Stinger). Some years ago an atrazine-resistant canola was developed and used only to a limited extent because yields were less than non-resistant varieties. In summary, it appears that at least canola and wild mustard are genetically variable and mutations allowing expression of many different traits easily occur either through human manipulation or random events.

AgrEvo plans to soon release canola varieties resistant to Liberty herbicide, a nonselective, non-residual herbicide. Monsanto will also release varieties tolerant to Roundup. The simplicity in weeds control makes these alternative very attractable, but the question needs to be asked, can the resistant gene from canola escape to its weedy relatives?

In early March, the media reported that the gene that makes canola resistant to glufosinate (Liberty, ex. Liberty Link Corn) had moved from the crop into wild mustard under field conditions. Environmental groups were quick to use this as evidence that we are moving the wrong direction with this new weed management tool, namely biotechnology, to develop herbicide resistant crops. Is this a threat that we need to be concerned about?

The work was done in Denmark and was reported as "Scientific Correspondence" in the journal Nature (1996, vol 380, page 31). Therefore, there is not a full paper with complete details of what was done. Both the crop and wild mustard were grown in field trials, and the progeny contained fertile seed of interspecific hybrids (resulting from the cross-pollination of each species) on each parent. These interspecific hybrids were fertile and produced about 450 seeds each. Four thousand of these seeds were grown, and they analyzed 44 that looked like wild mustard and they found they had a 2n number of 20 (as does wild mustard; canola has a 2n number of 38) and highly fertile pollen, both characteristics of wild mustard. These plants derived from crosses with canola were crossed with true wild mustard, and 42% of the seed produced was tolerant to glufosinate. They also encountered glufosinate resistant plants in the field the next year. These came from seed that shed before all the plants were harvested the year before.

The authors concluded, "The occurrence of fertile, transgenic weed-like plants after just two generations of hybridization and back crossing suggests a possible rapid spread of genes from oilseed rape (canola) to the weedy relative Brassica capestris (wild mustard), and this should be taken into account when considering the consequences of transferring new traits into oilseed rape." Crossing between species of Brassica is well known. The Canadians used wild mustard resistant to atrazine to produce atrazine-resistant canola nearly 15 years ago. These varieties were not adopted because the yield of these varieties was less than that of normal canola. In Denmark, the same phenomenon has happened in reverse and spontaneously. This is not surprising to those who know the genetics of Brassicas and this is a sizable group. The Bt gene has also been introduced into canola and the possible implications of this gene "escaping" into wild species of this genus is thoroughly assessed before field testing is permitted.

The key point to remember is that the risk of herbicide-resistant crops resulting in weeds resistant to this herbicide by gene transfer is totally a case-by-case situation. Farmers who plant glufosinate-resistant canola obviously plan to treat the entire field so wild mustard will be killed in the process. Wild mustard that appears after this treatment will not likely flower at the same time as canola, if ever. Wild mustard in adjacent sites will be where the risk may be the greatest. Canola is primarily a self-pollinated plant by wind, and bees can carry pollen to other plants. If the gene appears in wild mustard, farmers are back to where they were before glufosinate-resistant canola was developed.

Many other herbicide-resistant crops are being developed. Crops being investigated and/or developed for tolerance to glufosinate are canola, corn, soybean, sugarbeet, and sugarbeet. Those tolerant to glyphosate (Roundup) are soybean (already approved for use), corn, cotton, tobacco, tomato, potato, sugarbeet, wheat, and more. Except for canola, we have no known risks of crops crossing with important weeds. In some cases the industry has decided not to develop herbicide-resistant crops, because the risk of transfer to weeds is too great. Sorghum is a good example for the mid-west. Development of glyphosate-resistant sorghum would mean the resistant gene could move into shattercane and johnsongrass within only a few seasons. Sunflower is an important crop grown in the northern great plains. If a glyphosate-resistant sunflower were developed, the resistant gene could transfer to its weedy relative, common sunflower and several other plants in the Composite family. Thus, there may be risks to consider as herbicide-resistant crops are introduced, but the fear of the gene moving into weeds is seldom one of them.

Adapted from Wisconsin Crop Manager (1996, pg 63).

The following information was presented at the 1996 Leafy Spurge meetings in Brandon, MB by members of perennial weed science group at NDSU).

Update on Leafy Spurge Control With Herbicides

Plateau (Imazameth), which is also known as Cadre, has received a lot of attention as a new herbicide for leafy spurge control. Imazameth has provided good leafy spurge control with acceptable grass tolerance for warm-season species in Nebraska. However, cool-season grass injury was severe when imazameth was evaluated in North Dakota. Leafy spurge control in June 1996 increased as application rate increased and averaged 80 to 100% when imazameth was applied from 0.125 to 0.5 lb ai/A, respectively, on 18 Sept 1995. Unfortunately, grass injury to cool-season species ranged from 10 to 65%. Imazameth is currently being evaluated at lower rates, alone and with additives, and as a spring applied treatment in an effort to obtain good leafy spurge control with minimal grass injury in North Dakota. This compound may become another tool in the effort to control leafy spurge. However, it will be several years before this compound is granted a label for use in pasture.

Landmaster BW at 54 fl oz/A will provide 70 to 90% leafy spurge control after one treatment but can cause severe grass injury with repeated applications. A series of experiments was established at three locations to compare cost and efficacy of Landmaster BW as part of a long-term management program for leafy spurge control. The initial treatments of Landmaster BW or Tordon plus 2,4-D were applied in late June of 1993 and were retreated with the same or an alternate treatment in 1994 and 1995. Visual evaluations were taken annually from 1993 to 1996. Landmaster BW provided 75% leafy spurge control 12 months after treatment (MAT) compared to 30% for Tordon plus 2,4-D. All treatments provided similar control when annually applied for 3 years but the total treatment cost was variable. Landmaster BW applied three consecutive years provided 73% control with only 10% grass injury and cost $27/A. Landmaster BW applied in 1993 and 1995 with Tordon plus 2,4-D applied in 1994 averaged 80% control and cost $31/A. Three annual applications of Tordon plus 2,4-D provided 70% control and cost $40/A. There was no significant grass injury for any treatment. Application costs were not included in the treatment cost, because one application occurred each year.

Tordon is one of the most effective herbicides for leafy spurge control. Previous research at NDSU has shown that Tordon plus 2,4-D at 1 pt plus 1 qt/A will provide approximately 85% control or better after 3 to 5 years of annual treatment. Tordon alone at 2 to 4 qt/A will provide acceptable leafy spurge control for 18 to 24 months in North Dakota. Recently at field tours and educational meetings land managers have expressed concern that Tordon now provides less leafy spurge control than they have come to expect. To determine if leafy spurge was becoming resistant or tolerant to Tordon, the average leafy spurge control with Tordon and Tordon plus 2,4-D treatments applied from 1963 to 1982 (historical) was compared to the same treatments applied from 1983 to 1995 (present). The average control was less with present day treatments for every Tordon treatment regardless of application rate, if applied alone or with 2,4-D, or in the spring or fall. For example, Tordon at 1 qt/A alone historically averaged 85% control 12 months after treatment compared to an average of 55% control with the present day treatments. Also, Tordon at 2 qt/A provided 88 and 68% control when the historical average was compared to the present treatment average, respectively.

The reason for the better control observed with the historical compared to present treatments may be due to the plant becoming resistant to Tordon, or the more susceptible plants have been controlled and only the most vigorous plants remain, or the personnel conducting the evaluation have become more demanding. To determine if control indeed was decreasing with time, the average control from 1984 to 1988 was compared to the average control of the same treatments applied from 1991 to 1995. The same personnel conducted the evaluations in both time periods. The average control was similar to slightly better from 1991 to 1995 compared to treatments applied from 1984 to 1988. If leafy spurge control with Tordon was declining with time, the control observed from 1984 to 1988 should have been better than that from 1991 to 1995. Thus, it is not likely leafy spurge has become resistant to Tordon, or that only the most vigorous or tolerant plants remain. It is likely the expectations of control with Tordon have increased and historical evaluators tended to rate control higher than present researchers.

Rod Lym, Professor Weed Science.

Effect of Fall Applied Tordon + 2,4-D on Aphthona nigriscutis Population

Aphthona nigriscutis has reduced the density of leafy spurge at many locations. However, there are locations where A. nigriscutis has not established or is found at densities too low to be effective. Therefore, it may be necessary to integrate biological and chemical control to reduce leafy spurge to satisfactory levels. The objective of this experiment was to determine the effect of Tordon and 2,4-D fall-applied in the field on A. nigriscutis population.

Experiments were conducted at two locations, Chaffee and Fort Ransom, N.D. Approximately 350 A. nigriscutis adults were released on June 22, 1995. An additional 100 A. nigriscutis adults were released on July 14, 1995. The herbicides Tordon plus 2,4-D at 1 qt + 1 qt/A were applied on four dates, August 15, September 1, and 15, and October 1.

The effect of Tordon and 2,4-D on A. nigriscutis population was estimated by counting the number of adults emerging from soil cores harvested October 30, 1995 and May 28, 1996 and adults collected in the field in June and July 1996.

Leafy spurge density averaged less than 1 stem/0.25 m2 on June 5, 1996 regardless of herbicide application date or location. The number of A. nigriscutis adults emerging from soil cores obtained in fall and spring was similar regardless of herbicide application date or location. An average of 2 A. nigriscutis adults were recovered from each soil core harvested in the fall compared to only 1 per core from spring harvested samples, which indicates overwintering mortality. Peak field emergence of A. nigriscutis adults averaged 33/4.5 m2 on July 10 at Chaffee and 7/4.5 m2 on July 18 at Ft. Ransom. The number of A. nigriscutis collected in the field was similar regardless of herbicide application date at each location.

Jeff A. Nelson, Weed Science Graduate Research Assistant.

Aphthona Spp. Flea Beetle Movement Along Railroad Right-of-Ways

Leafy spurge is often found in long narrow corridors such as railroad rights-of-way where it is difficult to treat. Two experiments were conducted to determine the establishment, population increase, and movement of Aphthona species flea beetles on a railroad right-of-way.

A. nigriscutis was released on June 28, 1993 in a dense stand of leafy spurge along a 2.5 mile stretch of the Burlington Northern railroad right-of-way near Buffalo, N.D. There were five treatments consisting of 100, 200, 300, 400, and 500 adult insects distributed per release point. Release points were 260 feet apart and replicated three times. Stem density and adult flea beetle population were monitored in the spring and summer, respectively, at the release point and at distances 10, 25, and 40 feet in a semi-circle pattern from the release point.

A. nigriscutis flea beetles were found in all treatments each year after release and leafy spurge stem density began to decline in 1995. The stem density decreased from an average of 18 stems/0.25 m2 in 1993 to 7 stems/0.25 m2 in 1996. The greatest stem density decrease was 72% when 500 beetles/treatment were released. This decrease occurred 10 feet from the release point for all treatments where beetle populations were the highest. A. nigriscutis populations in the 300 and 400 insects/release point treatments averaged 8 beetles/m2 compared to 2 beetles/m2 for all other treatments.

A similar experiment was established on July 10, 1995 with A. czwalinae along the Red River Valley and Western railroad right-of-way near Lisbon, N.D. The number of insects used was increased to 500, 1000, 1500, and 2000 adults per treatment. Release points were 150 feet apart and replicated four times. Stem density and adult flea beetle population were monitored in the spring and summer, respectively, at the release point and at distances of 10, 30, and 50 feet in a circular pattern around the release point.

A. czwalinae were found at all release sites in 1996. The average stem density in the 2000 insects/release point declined from 21 stems/m2 to 15 stems/m2 1 year following release while stem density in all other treatments was unchanged. Flea beetles will establish on industrial sites such as railroad right-of-ways. The larger the number of insects released the more rapid the leafy spurge stem density declined.

Katheryn M. Christianson, Research Specialist

Assure II Labeling

Assure II is now labeled for use on canola and crambe. The label was approved by EPA on July 31.

Diseases Associated With Exposure to Certain Herbicide Agents (Prostate Cancer and Acute and Subacute Peripheral Neuropathy)

The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is proposing to amend its adjudication regulations concerning presumptive service connection for certain diseases for which there is no record of the disease during service. This proposed amendment is necessary to implement a decision of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs under the authority granted by the Agent Orange Act of 1991 that there is a positive association between exposure to herbicides used in the Republic of Vietnam during the Vietnam Warera and the subsequent development of prostate cancer and acute and subacute peripheral neuropathy. The intended effect of this proposed amendment is to establish presumptive service connection for those conditions based on herbicide exposure.

EPA Terminates Special Review of Cyanazine Pesticide

EPA has terminated its special review of the pesticide cyanazine, as proposed in March 1996, based on voluntary actions by the manufacturers to first reduce cyanazine usage and then cancel all cyanazine registrations, effective Dec. 31, 1999. These actions, agreed to by the agency in 1995, will result in the complete phase-out of one of the five most widely used pesticides in the United States. EPA believes the voluntary phase-out is a sound way to reduce risk to human health and the environment because it will gradually eliminate cyanazine from the market while allowing time for growers to find alternatives. EPA placed cyanazine (along with atrazine and simazine) in special review in November 1994, after determining long-term exposure to this pesticide may pose a risk to public health. The special review of atrazine and simazine will continue. An estimated 23-36 million pounds of cyanazine are used annually in the United States, primarily in corn fields to control broadleaf weeds and grasses. DuPont Agricultural Products of Wilmington, Del., and Griffin Corp. of Valdosta, Ga., are the manufacturers of cyanazine. The special review notice will be published in the Federal Register the week of July 22.

Restricted Entry Periods Lowered

The EPA announced that the restricted entry intervals (REI) for 108 pesticides have been reduced to four hours. The restricted entry intervals are associated with Worker Protection Standard for Agricultural Pesticides. The REI is the time that must pass after an agricultural pesticide application and before reentry of a treated area. The products were previously listed with 12-hour REI's.

Many of the products on the four-hour REI list are biological insecticides such as BT. Other products such as DuPont's Ally, Excort, Oust, and Finesse herbciides are now included. Other four-hour REI products include Monsanto's Roundup Frypak and Roundup WSD, Rohm & Haas' Confirm insecticide, Sandoz' Apex 5E and Enstar II, Valent's Bolero 8EC herbicide, and more. Several oil sprays have also recieved the four-hour REI.

A complete list of the 108 pesticides with the four-hour REI is in the UNL Pesticide Educational Resources Home Page (http://ianrwww.unl.edu/ianr/pat/ephome.html) under the Pesticide Laws and Regulation section. The active ingredients, trade name, company name, and EPA registration number are provided for each entry. Always follow the REI on the product label.

Suggestions For Revision of 1996 North Dakota Weed Control Guide Sought

Later this fall the 1996 North Dakota Weed Control Guide will be revised. If you have any ideas or suggestions to make it better, please contact myself or any one from the NDSU Weed Science Group.

(Submitted by: Richard K. Zollinger, NDSU Extension Weed Specialist)

Equipment

Don't Be a Drifter

With the high cost of pesticides and consumers' growing concerns about hazards, accurate application -- with a minimum of off-target drift -- has never been more important.

Here are eight drift-control parameters to watch for in the field.

1. Nozzle type and size. The spray nozzle tip is one of the most important -- and least expensive -- components of any spray system. It meters the amount of material to be applied, determines its distribution, and configures the droplet size of the spray discharge.

There is no general purpose tip. Each type determines the initial droplet size of the spray, producing a characteristics distribution pattern that produces superior results when properly matched with the product being applied.

Safety

Pesticide Poisoning from Sulfotepp Fumigant

Pesticide fumigants that eradicate pests but do not damage flowers or foliage can be used to protect market-ready florals. During November 1995, a pesticide applicator worker in Texas became ill during fumigation despite wearing the personal protective equipment (PPE) recommended on the fumigant product label. This report summarizes the results of the case investigation by the Texas Department of Health (TDH) and CDC's National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) and a survey of growers about pesticide use. The findings indicate that the recommended PPE may be inadequate to protect workers using sulfotepp fumigants from pesticide poisoning.

Case investigation

On November 30, 1995, the Environmental and Occupational Epidemiology Program at TDH was notified by the Texas Poison Center Network of a 32-year-old man who had visited an emergency department (ED) because of symptoms consistent with acute pesticide poisoning, including headache, nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, cough, slight dizziness, sweating, fatigue, abdominal pain, anxiety, muscle aches, chest tightness, drowsiness, restlessness, shortness of breath, and excessive salivation. The patient was a pesticide applicator employed at a greenhouse and had applied sulfotepp fumigants (Plantfume 103 and Fulex)* the previous night. Sulfotepp, a highly toxic organophosphate pesticide and cholinesterase inhibitor, is used in greenhouses to control aphids, spider mites, thrips, and whiteflies; sulfotepp does not damage delicate flowers or foliage (1).

The patient reported onset of symptoms shortly after igniting the sulfotepp fumigant canisters in the first of four interconnected greenhouses where chrysanthemums, poinsettias, and other plants were grown. Despite feeling ill and smelling the chemical, he and three other workers completed fumigating all four greenhouses. He did not seek medical care until the following day. Physical examination at the ED was unremarkable, and he was released without treatment.

The patient was a licensed pesticide applicator and had been employed at the greenhouse for two years. Although he had applied other fumigants in the past, this was the first time he had applied sulfotepp and the first time the chemical was used in this greenhouse. During the application, he wore the PPE recommended on the product label, including a laminated full-body suit, rubber boots, nitrile gloves, and a full-face air-purifying respirator equipped with a pesticide prefilter and organic vapor cartridge. He had undergone a qualitative (smoke) respirator fit test in November, and no leakage was detected. A qualitative fit test conducted after the incident indicated an adequate fit.

On December 3, TDH and NIOSH interviewed the other applicators, inspected the PPE, and observed the next fumigant application at the greenhouse. All three applicators reported wearing the label-recommended equipment, and two of these three workers reported nausea and detecting the odor of the chemical during application on November 30; however, they did not vomit or seek medical care.

During the second application, unopened canisters of Plantfume 103 and Fulex were set out in a grid-like fashion within each greenhouse. In accordance with the label instructions, a total of 80 canisters were set out (one canister per 20,000 cubic feet). The internal air circulation system and the exhaust ventilation system were turned off. The internal air circulation system had not been turned off during the previous application because the applicators misinterpreted the instructions. To avoid the smoke, the workers ignited the canisters as they exited each greenhouse, but each canister rapidly generated smoke. After the final canister was ignited, the workers moved to a shipping area not being treated with the fumigant, removed their PPE, and left the facility. The time necessary to complete the application was approximately 45 minutes and, even though all product label instructions were followed, the index patient again reported some symptoms.

Par survey of growers

During December, TDH conducted a telephone survey of greenhouse operators in Texas to assess the prevalence of greenhouse fumigant use and the occurrence of possibly related adverse health effects among workers. TDH contacted 413 Texas companies listed under Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code 5193 (nursery stock for florists and the same SIC code as the greenhouse) and identified 53 companies with greenhouses in which plants were grown. All 53 companies participated in the survey.

Of these, 43 (81%) reported ever using fumigants, and 30 (70%) of the 43 reported using sulfotepp. Of the 43 companies using any type of fumigant, 33 (77%) reported that workers used respirators during fumigant application, including five that used respirators with an independent supply of compressed air. Three (7%) companies reported that at least one worker had become ill during the application of fumigants, none of which contained sulfotepp; none of the workers sought medical care for their illness. At two of these three companies, workers wore all label-recommended PPE during the fumigant application; at the third company, workers did not use PPE during the application.

Reported by: T Willis, D Salzman, P Schnitzer, PhD, Environmental and Occupational Epidemiology Program; DM Simpson, MD, State Epidemiologist, Texas Dept of Health. Div of Surveillance, Hazard Evaluations, and Field Studies, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health; Div of Applied Public Health Training (proposed), Epidemiology Program Office, CDC.

Editorial Note

Although pesticide use in the United States has doubled since the 1960s (2), the health effects of pesticide use on agricultural workers has not been well documented. In Texas, where occupationally related acute pesticide poisoning is a reportable condition, 247 cases were reported during 1986-1994. However, during 1989-1990, only 20% of cases were reported (TDH, unpublished data, 1991).

The findings of the TDH investigation indicate that the acute illness among workers in this report most likely was associated with exposure to the sulfotepp fumigant and underscore the importance of reporting pesticide poisonings. Exposure occurred even though the workers followed the pesticide label instructions and properly used all recommended PPE during the second application. Because there was no evidence of oral or dermal contact with the chemical and workers smelled the chemical, inhalation was the most likely route of exposure. Other factors potentially associated with exposure may have included the technique employed in igniting the canisters and operation of the internal air-circulation system during the first application, which may have increased dispersion of the fumigant throughout the greenhouse.

The sulfotepp label instructions state that applicators and other handlers must use "a respirator with either an organic vapor-removing cartridge with a prefilter approved for pesticides (approval prefix TC-23C) or a canister approved for pesticides (approval prefix TC-14G)" (3,4). In general, such filters do not provide adequate protection against the high ambient chemical concentration and small particle size characteristic of fumigants. In addition, a single type of filter may not be appropriate for all types and forms of pesticides and, in July 1995, NIOSH discontinued certifying cartridges specifically for use with pesticides.** The survey findings in this report indicated that many greenhouses use fumigants, most workers use only a respirator, and other greenhouse workers had become ill during fumigant applications, despite the use of label-recommended PPE.

Neither the product distributor nor the formulators of Plantfume 103 and Fulex had received reports of illness related to these products; however, neither maintained surveillance for potentially related problems or illnesses. During 1985-1992, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) received 23 reports of illness in persons occupationally exposed to sulfotepp (EPA, unpublished data, 1996); 70% of these persons were referred to health-care facilities, and 7% were hospitalized.

As a result of this investigation, TDH and NIOSH recommended to EPA that sulfotepp fumigant labels be amended to indicate the appropriate respiratory protection. Label instructions for other pesticide fumigants also may need to be reviewed for appropriateness. In addition, advertising material and labels for pesticide prefilters, cartridges, and canisters should clearly state they are not for use with fumigants. Professional associations and licensing and regulatory agencies should provide applicators with educational materials regarding the safe use of pesticide fumigants, including appropriate PPE, efficient fumigant application procedures, and less toxic pest-control options. Employers should implement comprehensive PPE programs, including selection of appropriate respirators by qualified staff using NIOSH-recommended procedures (5).

References:

1. Plant Products Corporation. Plantfume 103 -- plantfume tedion dithio and nicotine smoke generators [Supplemental product information]. Vero Beach, Florida: Plant Products Corporation.
2. Ridgway RL, Tinney JC, MacGregor JT, Starler NJ. Pesticide use in agriculture. Environ Hlth Perspect 1978;27:103-12.
3. Plant Products Corporation. Supplemental labeling for Plantfume 103 smoke generator. Vero Beach, Florida: Plant Products Corporation.
4. Fuller System, Inc. Supplemental labeling for Fulex dithio insecticidal smoke fumigant. Woburn, Massachusetts: Fuller System, Inc.
5. NIOSH. NIOSH guide to industrial respiratory protection. Cincinnati: US Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, CDC, 1987; DHHS publication no. (NIOSH)87-116.

*Use of trade names and commercial sources is for identifcation only and does not imply endorsement by the Public Health Service or the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

**42 CFR 84.

(Source: The Newsgroup of the UC Agricultural Health and Safety Center at Davis. The URL for their home page on the World Wide Web is http://www-ch.ucdavis.edu/)

Training

The recertification meetings that have been scheduled at this time are listed below. Some additional meetings will be scheduled.

AG-Pest, Right-of-Way, Seed Treatment, Aerial, and Research & Demonstration

December 3-4, 1996
Fargo -- Fargo Dome
(in conjunction with NDAA Ag Expo)
(recertification only; must attend both days)

February 21, 1997
Prairie Satellite System
(recertification only)

March 3-4, 1997
Bismarck -- Radisson -- Aerial
(recertification only; must attend both days)

March 14, 1997
Prairie Satellite System
(recertification only)

Ornamental & Turf

January 21, 1997
Doublewood Inn -- Fargo
(in conjunction with the NCTGA Conference)

Home, Institutional and Industrial, Public Health

The South Dakota Cooperative Extension Service, the North Dakota Extension Service, the South Dakota Department of Agriculture, and the North Dakota Department of Agriculture are conducting recertification training for the home, institutional and industrial, and public health categories from 9:00am to 4:00pm CT on November 7, 1996. This training program has been approved as meeting the recertification training requirements for recertification in North Dakota.

The fees for the training program are $35.00 for preregistrations, or $50.00 at the door.

Preregistration is strongly encouraged because seating is limited at most of the locations.

The recertification meeting sites are listed below.

Noon meals and coffee breaks will be provided at the facilities.

November 7, 1996

South Dakota State University
8th & Medary - Pugsley Center
Room 214
Brookings, SD

Southeast Vo-Tech Institute
2301 Career Place
(off Russell St. Exit I-19)
Building #1, Room 205
Sioux Falls, SD

Rapid City Regional Hospital
353 Fairmont Blvd. Main Entrance,
West Wing
RDT Studio
Rapid City, SD

Capitol Building - Lower Level
Enter from Broadway Avenue
(north entrance) and follow signs
Pierre, SD

Northern State University
Memorial Union Bldg., Room 123A
12th Avenue SE & Washington St.
Aberdeen, SD

North Dakota State University
Industrial Ag Communication Center (IACC)
Room 422
1320 Albrecht Boulevard
Fargo, ND

To preregister or for more information contact:
NDSU Pesticide Programs
North Dakota State University
Box 5051
Loftsgard Hall Room 166
Fargo, ND
(701) 231-7180

Volume 14, No. 4 -- October 1996

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 upon request to people with disabilities (701) 231-7881.

North Dakota State University
NDSU Extension Service