DOCSLIB.ORG

Prohibited and Restricted Pesticides List Fair Trade USA® Agricultural Production Standard Version 1.1.0

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Prohibited and Restricted Pesticides List Fair Trade USA® Agricultural Production Standard Version 1.1.0 Version 1.1.0 Prohibited and Restricted Pesticides List Fair Trade USA® Agricultural Production Standard Version 1.1.0 Introduction Through the implementation of our standards, Fair Trade USA aims to promote sustainable livelihoods and safe working conditions, protection of the environment, and strong, transparent supply chains.. Our standards work to limit negative impacts on communities and the environment. All pesticides can be potentially hazardous to human health and the environment, both on the farm and in the community. They can negatively affect the long-term sustainability of agricultural livelihoods. The Fair Trade USA Agricultural Production Standard (APS) seeks to minimize these risks from pesticides by restricting the use of highly hazardous pesticides and enhancing the implementation of risk mitigation practices for lower risk pesticides. This approach allows greater flexibility for producers, while balancing controls on impacts to human and environmental health. This document lists the pesticides that are prohibited or restricted in the production of Fair Trade CertifiedTM products, as required in Objective 4.4.2 of the APS. It also includes additional rules for the use of restricted pesticides. Purpose The purpose of this document is to outline the rules which prohibit or restrict the use of hazardous pesticides in the production of Fair Trade Certified agricultural products. Scope • The Prohibited and Restricted Pesticides List (PRPL) applies to all crops certified against the Fair Trade USA Agricultural Production Standard (APS). • Restrictions outlined in this list apply to active ingredients in any pesticide used by parties included in the scope of the Certificate while handling Fair Trade Certified products. This includes any activity included in the scope of the APS Certificate, for instance in seed or field treatments, growing, post- harvest treatment, processing, storage, and/or transportation. • The use of active ingredients listed in the PRPL is only applicable to fields growing Fair Trade Certified crop. In these fields, intercrops must also comply with the PRPL. • Compliance with the PRPL is mandatory and is the responsibility of all managers of all sites included in the scope of the Certificate. Prohibited and Restricted Pesticides List May 2020 Page 1 of 17 Version 1.1.0 Terms and Definitions The following terms and definitions, cited from the Fair Trade USA Glossary, are key concepts for the understanding of this guidance document and are included here for reference: active ingredient: The chemical substance or component of a pesticide product that can kill, repel, attract, mitigate or otherwise control a pest (as opposed to inert ingredients such as water, solvents, emulsifiers, surfactants, clay and propellants). pesticide: Insecticides, fungicides, herbicides, disinfectants, and other substance or mixture of substances intended for preventing, destroying, or controlling any pest, including unwanted species of plants or animals causing harm during or otherwise interfering with the production, processing, storage, transport, or marketing of food or agricultural commodities. The term includes substances intended to be used as a plant growth regulator, defoliant, desiccant, or agent for thinning fruit or preventing the premature fall of fruit, and substances applied to crops either before or after harvest to protect the commodity from deterioration during storage and transport. Pesticides may be synthetic or naturally occurring, and include those approved for use in organic agriculture. References The following references are relevant for the understanding of this guidance document and can be downloaded from www.FairTradeCertified.org: • Agricultural Production Standard • Requirements for Certificate Scope Under the APS 1. Compliance with Local and National Laws All Fair Trade Certified producers are expected to comply with all local and national laws and regulations. Only pesticides that have been legally approved for use in agriculture in the country of use may be used. The requirements in the PRPL may be more restrictive, less restrictive, or equivalent to applicable laws governing the use of pesticides in any given location. In the case that an applicable law or regulation is stricter than the Fair Trade USA PRPL requirement, the law will prevail. In the case that the Fair Trade USA requirement is stricter, the requirements of the PRPL will prevail. 2. Structure of the List The Fair Trade USA Prohibited and Restricted Pesticides List is divided into two parts: the Red List and the Yellow List. The Red List details the active ingredients that are currently prohibited for use on Fair Trade Certified crops. Any pesticides containing these active ingredients must not be used while handling Fair Trade Certified products. This includes any activity included in the scope of the APS Certificate, for instance in seed or field treatments, growing, post-harvest treatment, processing, storage, and/or transportation. The Yellow List details the active ingredients whose use on Fair Trade Certified crops is permitted only when certain conditions are satisfied, including the implementation of robust mitigation Prohibited and Restricted Pesticides List May 2020 Page 2 of 17 Version 1.1.0 practices. By emphasizing the proper use of these pesticides, rather than expanding our list of prohibited ingredients, we aim to encourage a more holistic approach to pesticide management that will reduce overall risk. 3. Red List of Prohibited Pesticides The active ingredients included in the Red List are found in the most persistent and highly hazardous pesticides. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) International Code of Conduct on Pesticide Management defines Highly Hazardous Pesticides as “pesticides that are acknowledged to present particularly high levels of acute or chronic hazards to health or environment according to internationally accepted classification systems such as WHO or GHS or their listing in relevant binding international agreements or conventions. In addition, pesticides that appear to cause severe or irreversible harm to health or the environment under conditions of use in a country may be considered to be and treated as highly hazardous.”1 3.1. Methodology of the Red List The Red List is based on the substances included in the following internationally recognized lists: • Stockholm Convention, Persistent Organic Pollutants2 (POP), which accumulate along the food chain and can move long distances in the atmosphere causing environmental pollution; and/or • Rotterdam Convention on Prior Informed Consent3 (PIC), which includes chemicals which have been banned in two or more signatory countries because of health or environmental risks; and/or • Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer4 (Mont. Prot); and/or • WHO Recommended Classification of Pesticides by Hazard, 2009, Class Ia (Extremely hazardous).5 (WHO Ia) as these active ingredients pose extreme acute health risks. These active ingredients have also been prohibited by a consortium of other reputable sustainability standards6. 3.2. Table of Red List Active Ingredients The table below lists all the active ingredients prohibited by Fair Trade USA. Substances are identified by their common chemical name and CAS Registry Number, which is a unique numerical identifier assigned by Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) to every chemical substance described in the open scientific literature. For each substance, the international convention(s) or list(s) that reference it are indicated. 1 http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/agphome/documents/Pests_Pesticides/Code/CODE_2014Sep_ENG.pdf 2 Read more about the Stockholm Convention: http://chm.pops.int/ 3 Read more about the Rotterdam Convention: http://www.pic.int/ 4 Read more about the Montreal Protocol: http://www.unido.org/montreal-protocol.html 5 Read more about WHO Classifications: http://www.who.int/ipcs/publications/pesticides_hazard_2009.pdf 6 http://www.isealalliance.org/online-community/news/iseal-members-make-significant-pesticides-commitment Prohibited and Restricted Pesticides List May 2020 Page 3 of 17 Version 1.1.0 Table 1: Red List of Prohibited Pesticides Mont. WHO Prohibited Active Ingredients CAS no. POP PIC Prot. Ia 2,4,5-T and its salts and esters 93-76-5 X Alachlor 15972-60-8 X Aldicarb 116-06-3 X X Aldrin 309-00-2 X X Alpha-BHC; Alpha-HCH 319-84-6 X Azinphos-methyl 86-50-0 X Beta hexachlorocyclohexane 319-85-7 X Binapacryl 485-31-4 X † Brodifacoum 56073-10-0 X † Bromadiolone 28772-56-7 X Bromethalin 63333-35-7 X Calcium cyanide 592-01-8 X Captafol 2425-06-1 X X Chlordane 57-74-9 X X Chlordecone 143-50-0 X Chlordimeform 6164-98-3 X Chlorethoxyphos 54593-83-8 X Chlormephos 24934-91-6 X Chlorobenzilate 510-15-6 X Chlorophacinone 3691-35-8 X DDT 50-29-3 X X Dieldrin 60-57-1 X X Difenacoum 56073-07-5 X Difethialone 104653-34-1 X Dinoseb and its salts and esters 88-85-7 X Diphacinone 82-66-6 X Disulfoton 298-04-4 X DNOC (Dinitro-ortho-cresol) and its salts* Group X Prohibited and Restricted Pesticides List May 2020 Page 4 of 17 Version 1.1.0 Mont. WHO Prohibited Active Ingredients CAS no. POP PIC Prot. Ia Dustable powder formulations containing a combination 137-26-8, of benomyl at or above 7%, carbofuran at or above 10% 1563-66-2, X and thiram at or above 15% 17804-35-2 EDB (1,2-dibromoethane) 106-93-4 X Endosulfan (Technical endosulfan and its related 115-29-7 X X isomers) Endrin 72-20-8 X EPN 2104-64-5 X Ethoprophos; Ethoprop 13194-48-4 X Ethylene dichloride 106-93-4 X Ethylene oxide 75-21-8 X Flocoumafen† 90035-08-8 X Fluoroacetamide 640-19-7 X HCH (mixed isomers) 608-73-1 X Heptachlor 76-44-8 X X Hexabromobiphenyl 36355-01-8 X 25637-99-4, Hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD) X 3194-55-6 68631-49-2, Hexabromodiphenyl ether and heptabromodiphenyl 207122-15-4, X ether 446255-22-7, 207122-16-5 Hexachlorobenzene (HCB) 118-74-1 X X X Hexachlorobutadiene 87-68-3 X Lindane (gamma-HCH) 58-89-9 X X Mercury and its compounds* Group X X Methamidophos 10265-92-6 X Methyl bromide 74-83-9 X Mevinphos 7786-34-7 X Mirex 2385-85-5 X Monocrotophos 6923-22-4 X Parathion 56-38-2 X X Prohibited and Restricted Pesticides List May 2020 Page 5 of 17 Version 1.1.0 Mont.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Restricted Use Product Summary Report
    Page 1 of 17 Restricted Use Product Summary Report (January 19, 2016) Percent Active Registration # Name Company # Company Name Active Ingredient(s) Ingredient 4‐152 BONIDE ORCHARD MOUSE BAIT 4 BONIDE PRODUCTS, INC. 2 Zinc phosphide (Zn3P2) 70‐223 RIGO EXOTHERM TERMIL 70 VALUE GARDENS SUPPLY, LLC 20 Chlorothalonil 100‐497 AATREX 4L HERBICIDE 100 SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, LLC 42.6 Atrazine 100‐585 AATREX NINE‐O HERBICIDE 100 SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, LLC 88.2 Atrazine 100‐669 CURACRON 8E INSECTICIDE‐MITICIDE 100 SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, LLC 73 Profenofos 100‐817 BICEP II MAGNUM HERBICIDE 100 SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, LLC 33; 26.1 Atrazine; S‐Metolachlor 100‐827 BICEP LITE II MAGNUM HERBICIDE 100 SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, LLC 28.1; 35.8 Atrazine; S‐Metolachlor 100‐886 BICEP MAGNUM 100 SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, LLC 33.7; 26.1 Atrazine; S‐Metolachlor 100‐898 AGRI‐MEK 0.15 EC MITICIDE/INSECTICIDE 100 SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, LLC 2 Abamectin 100‐903 DENIM INSECTICIDE 100 SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, LLC 2.15 Emamectin benzoate 100‐904 PROCLAIM INSECTICIDE 100 SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, LLC 5 Emamectin benzoate 100‐998 KARATE 1EC 100 SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, LLC 13.1 lambda‐Cyhalothrin 100‐1075 FORCE 3G INSECTICIDE 100 SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, LLC 3 Tefluthrin Acetochlor; Carbamothioic acid, dipropyl‐ 100‐1083 DOUBLEPLAY SELECTIVE HERBICIDE 100 SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, LLC 16.9; 67.8 , S‐ethyl ester 100‐1086 KARATE EC‐W INSECTICIDE 100 SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, LLC 13.1 lambda‐Cyhalothrin 100‐1088 SCIMITAR GC INSECTICIDE 100 SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION,
    [Show full text]
  • Chem7988.Pdf
    This article was originally published in a journal published by Elsevier, and the attached copy is provided by Elsevier for the author’s benefit and for the benefit of the author’s institution, for non-commercial research and educational use including without limitation use in instruction at your institution, sending it to specific colleagues that you know, and providing a copy to your institution’s administrator. All other uses, reproduction and distribution, including without limitation commercial reprints, selling or licensing copies or access, or posting on open internet sites, your personal or institution’s website or repository, are prohibited. For exceptions, permission may be sought for such use through Elsevier’s permissions site at: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/permissionusematerial Chemosphere 67 (2007) 2184–2191 www.elsevier.com/locate/chemosphere Assessment of pesticide contamination in three Mississippi Delta oxbow lakes using Hyalella azteca M.T. Moore *, R.E. Lizotte Jr., S.S. Knight, S. Smith Jr., C.M. Cooper USDA-ARS National Sedimentation Laboratory, P.O. Box 1157, Oxford, MS 38655, United States Received 8 September 2006; received in revised form 27 November 2006; accepted 8 December 2006 Available online 26 January 2007 Abstract Three oxbow lakes in northwestern Mississippi, USA, an area of intensive agriculture, were assessed for biological impairment from historic and current-use pesticide contamination using the amphipod, Hyalella azteca. Surface water and sediment samples from three sites in each lake were collected from Deep Hollow, Beasley, and Thighman Lakes from September 2000 to February 2001. Samples were analyzed for 17 historic and current-use pesticides and selected metabolites.
    [Show full text]
  • "U/^ ((*.U \ BIBLIOTHEEK STARINGGEBOUW Volatilization of Tri-Allate, Ethoprophos and Parathion Measured with Four Methods After Spraying on a Sandy Soil
    "u/^ ((*.u \ BIBLIOTHEEK STARINGGEBOUW Volatilization of tri-allate, ethoprophos and parathion measured with four methods after spraying on a sandy soil G. Bor F. van den Berg J.H. Smelt R.A. Smidt A.E. van de Peppel-Groen M. Leistra Report 104 DLO Winand Staring Centre, Wageningen (The Netherlands), 1995 1 h FEB. 1998 0000' ABSTRACT Bor, G., F. van den Berg, J.H. Smelt, R.A. Smidt, A.E. van de Peppel-Groen, M. Leistra, 1995. Volatilization of tri-allate, ethoprophos and parathion measured withfour methods after spraying on a sandy soil. Wageningen (The Netherlands), DLO Winand Staring Centre. Report 104. 62 pp.; 9 Figs; 6 Tables; 14 Refs; 3 Annex. At about eleven times after application of tri-allate, ethoprophos and parathion to a sandy soil, their rates of volatilization were determined with the aerodynamic method (AD),th e Bowen-ratio method (BR), the theoretical-profile method (TP) and the Box method (B). The volatilization was highest for tri-allate and lowest for parathion. On the first day after application, the volatilization rate decreased sharply,bu tthereafte r the decreasewa smor egradual .Th edifference s involatilizatio n rate asdetermine d withth eAD ,B R andT Pmethod s werecomparativel y small.Th erate sdetermine d with the Box method were mostly lower than those determined with the other methods. Keywords: aerodynamic method, air quality, air sampling, Bowen ratio method, Box method, field experiment, gas chromatography, pesticide, polystyrene, theoretical-profile method, XAD ISSN 0927-4537 ©1995 DLO Winand Staring Centre for Integrated Land, Soil and Water Research (SC-DLO) P.O.
    [Show full text]
  • COMBINED LIST of Particularly Hazardous Substances
    COMBINED LIST of Particularly Hazardous Substances revised 2/4/2021 IARC list 1 are Carcinogenic to humans list compiled by Hector Acuna, UCSB IARC list Group 2A Probably carcinogenic to humans IARC list Group 2B Possibly carcinogenic to humans If any of the chemicals listed below are used in your research then complete a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for the product as described in the Chemical Hygiene Plan. Prop 65 known to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity Material(s) not on the list does not preclude one from completing an SOP. Other extremely toxic chemicals KNOWN Carcinogens from National Toxicology Program (NTP) or other high hazards will require the development of an SOP. Red= added in 2020 or status change Reasonably Anticipated NTP EPA Haz list COMBINED LIST of Particularly Hazardous Substances CAS Source from where the material is listed. 6,9-Methano-2,4,3-benzodioxathiepin, 6,7,8,9,10,10- hexachloro-1,5,5a,6,9,9a-hexahydro-, 3-oxide Acutely Toxic Methanimidamide, N,N-dimethyl-N'-[2-methyl-4-[[(methylamino)carbonyl]oxy]phenyl]- Acutely Toxic 1-(2-Chloroethyl)-3-(4-methylcyclohexyl)-1-nitrosourea (Methyl-CCNU) Prop 65 KNOWN Carcinogens NTP 1-(2-Chloroethyl)-3-cyclohexyl-1-nitrosourea (CCNU) IARC list Group 2A Reasonably Anticipated NTP 1-(2-Chloroethyl)-3-cyclohexyl-1-nitrosourea (CCNU) (Lomustine) Prop 65 1-(o-Chlorophenyl)thiourea Acutely Toxic 1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane IARC list Group 2B 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane Prop 65 IARC list Group 2B 1,1-Dichloro-2,2-bis(p -chloropheny)ethylene (DDE) Prop 65 1,1-Dichloroethane
    [Show full text]
  • Chemicals Implicated in Colony Collapse Disorder
    Chemicals Implicated While research is underway to determine the cause of Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD), pesticides have emerged as one of the prime suspects. Recent bans in Europe attest to the growing concerns surrounding pesticide use and honeybee decline. Neonicotinoids Neonicotinoids are a relatively new class of insecticides that share a common mode of action that affect the central nervous system of insects, resulting in paralysis and death. They include imidacloprid, acetamiprid, clothianidin, dinotefuran, nithiazine, thiacloprid and thiamethoxam. According to the EPA, uncertainties have been identified since their initial registration regarding the potential environmental fate and effects of neonicotinoid pesticides, particularly as they relate to pollinators. Studies conducted in the late 1990s suggest that neonicotinic residues can accumulate in pollen and nectar of treated plants and represent a potential risk to pollinators. There is major concern that neonicotinoid pesticides may play a role in recent pollinator declines. Neonicotinoids can also be persistent in the environment, and when used as seed treatments, translocate to residues in pollen and nectar of treated plants. The potential for these residues to affect bees and other pollinators remain uncertain. Despite these uncertainties, neonicotinoids are beginning to dominate the market place, putting pollinators at risk. The case of the neonicotinoids exemplifies two critical problems with current registration procedures and risk assessment methods for pesticides: the reliance on industry-funded science that contradicts peer-reviewed studies and the insufficiency of current risk assessment procedures to account for sublethal effects of pesticides. • Imidacloprid Used in agriculture as foliar and seed treatments, for indoor and outdoor insect control, home gardening and pet products, imidacloprid is the most popular neonicotinoid, first registered in 1994 under the trade names Merit®, Admire®, Advantage TM.
    [Show full text]
  • Historical Perspectives on Apple Production: Fruit Tree Pest Management, Regulation and New Insecticidal Chemistries
    Historical Perspectives on Apple Production: Fruit Tree Pest Management, Regulation and New Insecticidal Chemistries. Peter Jentsch Extension Associate Department of Entomology Cornell University's Hudson Valley Lab 3357 Rt. 9W; PO box 727 Highland, NY 12528 email: [email protected] Phone 845-691-7151 Mobile: 845-417-7465 http://www.nysaes.cornell.edu/ent/faculty/jentsch/ 2 Historical Perspectives on Fruit Production: Fruit Tree Pest Management, Regulation and New Chemistries. by Peter Jentsch I. Historical Use of Pesticides in Apple Production Overview of Apple Production and Pest Management Prior to 1940 Synthetic Pesticide Development and Use II. Influences Changing the Pest Management Profile in Apple Production Chemical Residues in Early Insect Management Historical Chemical Regulation Recent Regulation Developments Changing Pest Management Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 The Science Behind The Methodology Pesticide Revisions – Requirements For New Registrations III. Resistance of Insect Pests to Insecticides Resistance Pest Management Strategies IV. Reduced Risk Chemistries: New Modes of Action and the Insecticide Treadmill Fermentation Microbial Products Bt’s, Abamectins, Spinosads Juvenile Hormone Analogs Formamidines, Juvenile Hormone Analogs And Mimics Insect Growth Regulators Azadirachtin, Thiadiazine Neonicotinyls Major Reduced Risk Materials: Carboxamides, Carboxylic Acid Esters, Granulosis Viruses, Diphenyloxazolines, Insecticidal Soaps, Benzoyl Urea Growth Regulators, Tetronic Acids, Oxadiazenes , Particle Films, Phenoxypyrazoles, Pyridazinones, Spinosads, Tetrazines , Organotins, Quinolines. 3 I Historical Use of Pesticides in Apple Production Overview of Apple Production and Pest Management Prior to 1940 The apple has a rather ominous origin. Its inception is framed in the biblical text regarding the genesis of mankind. The backdrop appears to be the turbulent setting of what many scholars believe to be present day Iraq.
    [Show full text]
  • Integrated Pest Management Plan 2021-22
    Denair Unified School District INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT PLAN Contacts Denair Unified School District 3460 Lester Rd., Denair, CA Mark Hodges (209) 632-7514 Ext 1215 [email protected] District IPM Coordinator Phone Number e-mail address IPM Statement It is the goal of Denair Unified School District to implement IPM by focusing on long-term prevention or suppression of pests through accurate pest identification, by frequent monitoring for pest presence, by applying appropriate action levels, and by making the habitat less conducive to pests using sanitation and mechanical and physical controls. Pesticides that are effective will be used in a manner that minimizes risks to people, property, and the environment, and only after other options have been shown ineffective. Pest Management Objectives: • Focus on long-term pest prevention using minimal pesticides. • Elimination of significant threats caused by pests to the health and safety of students, staff and the public. • Prevention of loss or damage to structures or property by pests. • Protection of environmental quality inside and outside buildings, in playgrounds and athletic areas, and throughout the Denair Unified School District facilities. IPM Team In addition to the IPM Coordinator, other individuals who are involved in purchasing, making IPM decisions, applying pesticides, and complying with the Healthy Schools Act requirements, include: Name Role Mark Hodges Making IPM Decisions Jerri Pierce Recordkeeping, and Making IPM Decisions Daniel Meza Applying Pesticides, Recordkeeping,
    [Show full text]
  • Restricted Use Chemicals by Product Name 09/14/2016
    Plant Health - Pesticide and Fertilizer Section 8995 E. Main St. , Reynoldsburg, Ohio 43068 Phone: Phone (614) 728-6396Fax: Fax (614) 728-4221 Governor: John R. Kasich Lt. Governor: Mary Taylor www.agri.ohio.gov [email protected] Director: David T. Daniels Page 1 of 33 Restricted Use Chemicals by Product Name 09/14/2016 Registered Thru: 6/30/2017 12:00:00 AM Product_name Active_Ingredients Company_Name EPA_Number Private Commercial AATREX 4L HERBICIDE INC Atrazine (ANSI) SYNGENTA CROP 100-497 1, 3, 4, 7 2C, 4A, 6A PROTECTION LLC AATREX NINE-O HERBICIDE INC Atrazine (ANSI) SYNGENTA CROP 100-585 1, 3, 4, 7 2C, 4A, 5, 6A, 8 PROTECTION LLC ABACUS AGRICULTURAL MITICIDE/ INSECTICIDE Abamectin ROTAM NORTH 83100-4-83979 3 1, 2A, 2B AMERICA INC ABACUS V Abamectin ROTAM NORTH 83100-32-83979 3 1, 2B, 2C AMERICA INC ABAMECTIN 0.15EC SELECT Abamectin PRIME SOURCE, LLC 89442-20 None None ABAMEX MITICIDE-INSECTICIDE Abamectin (ANSI) NUFARM AMERICAS 228-734 3 2A, 2B INC 228 ABBA 0.15 MAKHTESHIM-AGAN OF 66222-191 None None NORTH AMER INC ABBA 0.15 EC MITICIDE INSECTICIDE Abamectin MAKHTESHIM-AGAN OF 66222-139 3 1, 2A NORTH AMER INC ABBA ULTRA MITICIDE INSECTICIDE Abamectin (ANSI) MAKHTESHIM-AGAN OF 66222-226 3 2B NORTH AMER INC ACELLUS AZT Acetochlor; Atrazine GROWMARK INC 62719-671-534 1, 2 2C ACELLUS AZT LITE Acetochlor; Atrazine GROWMARK INC 62719-670-534 1, 2 2C ACETO BIFENTHRIN 2 EC Bifenthrin ACETO AGRICULTURAL 2749-556 1, 3 2A, 2B CHEMICALS CORP ACURON HERBICIDE Atrazine; S-metolachlor; Mesotrione; SYNGENTA CROP 100-1466 1, 2 2C Bicyclopyrone
    [Show full text]
  • First Evidence of Anticoagulant Rodenticides in Fish in German
    Environmental Science and Pollution Research https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-018-1385-8 ADVANCEMENTS IN CHEMICAL METHODS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH First evidence of anticoagulant rodenticides in fish and suspended particulate matter: spatial and temporal distribution in German freshwater aquatic systems Matthias Kotthoff1 & Heinz Rüdel2 & Heinrich Jürling1 & Kevin Severin1 & Stephan Hennecke1 & Anton Friesen3 & Jan Koschorreck3 Received: 27 September 2017 /Accepted: 24 January 2018 # The Author(s) 2018. This article is an open access publication Abstract Anticoagulant rodenticides (ARs) have been used for decades for rodent control worldwide. Research on the exposure of the environment and accumulation of these active substances in biota has been focused on terrestrial food webs, but few data are available on the impact of ARs on aquatic systems and water organisms. To fill this gap, we analyzed liver samples of bream (Abramis brama) and co-located suspended particulate matter (SPM) from the German Environmental Specimen Bank (ESB). An appropriate method was developed for the determination of eight different ARs, including first- and second-generation ARs, in fish liver and SPM. Applying this method to bream liver samples from 17 and 18 sampling locations of the years 2011 and 2015, respectively, five ARs were found at levels above limits of quantifications (LOQs, 0.2 to 2 μgkg−1). For 2015, brodifacoum was detected in 88% of the samples with a maximum concentration of 12.5 μgkg−1. Moreover, difenacoum, bromadiolone, difethialone, and flocoumafen were detected in some samples above LOQ. In contrast, no first generation AR was detected in the ESB samples. In SPM, only bromadiolone could be detected in 56% of the samples at levels up to 9.24 μgkg−1.A temporal trend analysis of bream liver from two sampling locations over a period of up to 23 years revealed a significant trend for brodifacoum at one of the sampling locations.
    [Show full text]
  • Pharmacokinetics of Anticoagulant Rodenticides in Target and Non-Target Organisms Katherine Horak U.S
    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln USDA National Wildlife Research Center - Staff U.S. Department of Agriculture: Animal and Plant Publications Health Inspection Service 2018 Pharmacokinetics of Anticoagulant Rodenticides in Target and Non-target Organisms Katherine Horak U.S. Department of Agriculture, [email protected] Penny M. Fisher Landcare Research Brian M. Hopkins Landcare Research Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/icwdm_usdanwrc Part of the Life Sciences Commons Horak, Katherine; Fisher, Penny M.; and Hopkins, Brian M., "Pharmacokinetics of Anticoagulant Rodenticides in Target and Non- target Organisms" (2018). USDA National Wildlife Research Center - Staff Publications. 2091. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/icwdm_usdanwrc/2091 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the U.S. Department of Agriculture: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in USDA National Wildlife Research Center - Staff ubP lications by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. Chapter 4 Pharmacokinetics of Anticoagulant Rodenticides in Target and Non-target Organisms Katherine E. Horak, Penny M. Fisher, and Brian Hopkins 1 Introduction The concentration of a compound at the site of action is a determinant of its toxicity. This principle is affected by a variety of factors including the chemical properties of the compound (pKa, lipophilicity, molecular size), receptor binding affinity, route of exposure, and physiological properties of the organism. Many compounds have to undergo chemical changes, biotransformation, into more toxic or less toxic forms. Because of all of these variables, predicting toxic effects and performing risk assess- ments of compounds based solely on dose are less accurate than those that include data on absorption, distribution, metabolism (biotransformation), and excretion of the compound.
    [Show full text]
  • Phytotoxicity of Some Organophosphate Insecticides to Oughly with Air Dry, Sieved Soil, to Pro­ Duce Rates of 37.5, 75 and ISO Mg Aj
    Plant Protection Quarterly VoI.7(1} 1992 23 -------------------------------- ties of each pesticide were shaken thor­ Phytotoxicity of some organophosphate insecticides to oughly with air dry, sieved soil, to pro­ duce rates of 37.5, 75 and ISO mg aj. L-' onions and carrots during germination and emergence soil. Each pot constituted one plot. If it is assumed that in a field situation, P.J. Sinclair, New South Wales Agriculture, Horticultural Research and band-in-furrow treatment would treat a Advisory Station, Griffith, New South Wales 2680, Australia. strip 50 mm wide by 20 mm deep, the rates tested would correspond to 37.5, 75 R.J. Neeson and P.A. Williams, New South Wales Agriculture, Agricultural and 150 mg a.i. m" row, or 0.5,1.0 and 2.0 institute, Yanco, New South Wales 2703, Australia. kg a.i. ha" at a row spacing of 75 cm. The low and medium rates are then compara­ Summary ble to ra tes used in the field by Getzin The phytotoxicity of some commonly phytotoxicity from carbofuran applied to (1973), Thompson et al. (1981) and used insecticides to onions (Allium cepa) onions as a seed dressing. Chlorpyrifos is Goodyer et al. (1989) . and carrots (Daucus carota) during es­ generally non-phytotoxic at recom­ Daily counts of emerged seedlings were tablishment was assessed in pot trials. mended rates and methods of application, made at 7 to 18 days and at 21 days after Terbufos, ethoprophos, phoxirn and but some crops are especially sensitive to first watering. These data were used to de­ carbofuran (all 10% a.L granular fonnu­ it during the seedling stage or if the termine the total number of seedlings lations) and chlorpyrifos (25% a.i.
    [Show full text]
  • Validation Report 28
    EURL for Cereals and Feeding stuff National Food Institute Technical University of Denmark Validation Report 28 Determination of pesticide residues in hay by LC-MS/MS and GC-MS/MS (QuEChERS method) Susan Strange Herrmann Mette Erecius Poulsen February 2018 Page 2 of 67 CONTENT: 1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 3 2. Principle of analysis......................................................................................................................... 3 3. Validation design ............................................................................................................................. 4 4. Calibration curves............................................................................................................................ 4 5. Validation parameters...................................................................................................................... 4 6. Criteria for the acceptance of validation results ............................................................................. 5 7. Results and conclusion ..................................................................................................................... 6 9. References ........................................................................................................................................ 6 Appendix 1a. GCMSMS transitions used for validation of pesticides in Hay ....................................
    [Show full text]