DOCSLIB.ORG

USDA Health Risk Assessment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
USDA Health Risk Assessment SERA TR-056-10-03b Chlorophacinone Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment Final Report Submitted to: Dr. Harold Thistle USDA Forest Service Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team 180 Canfield St. Morgantown, WV 26505 Email: [email protected] USDA Forest Service Contract: AG-3187-C-12-0009 USDA Forest Order Number: AG-3187-D-14-0144 SERA Internal Task No. 56-10 Submitted by: Patrick R. Durkin Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, Inc. 8125 Solomon Seal Manlius, New York 13104 E-Mail: [email protected] Home Page: www.sera-inc.com July 31, 2015 Table of Contents LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................................... vi LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................................... vi LIST OF APPENDICES ................................................................................................................ vi Note on 508 Compliance ............................................................................................................... vi ACRONYMS, ABBREVIATIONS, AND SYMBOLS ............................................................... vii COMMON UNIT CONVERSIONS AND ABBREVIATIONS .................................................... x CONVERSION OF SCIENTIFIC NOTATION ........................................................................... xi EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................... xii 1. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 1 1.1. Chemical Specific Information ............................................................................................ 1 1.2. General Information ............................................................................................................. 2 2. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION ...................................................................................................... 4 2.1. Overview .............................................................................................................................. 4 2.2. Chemical Description and Commercial Formulations ......................................................... 4 2.3. Application Methods ............................................................................................................ 6 2.4. Mixing and Application Rates ............................................................................................. 7 2.5. Use Statistics ........................................................................................................................ 8 3. HUMAN HEALTH .................................................................................................................. 10 3.1. HAZARD IDENTIFICATION ........................................................................................ 10 3.1.1. Overview ..................................................................................................................... 10 3.1.2. Mechanism of Action .................................................................................................. 11 3.1.3. Pharmacokinetics and Metabolism ............................................................................. 11 3.1.3.1. Metabolism .......................................................................................................... 11 3.1.3.2. Absorption............................................................................................................ 12 3.1.3.2.1. Oral Absorption ............................................................................................ 12 3.1.3.2.2. First-Order Dermal Absorption..................................................................... 12 3.1.3.2.3. Zero-Order Dermal Absorption .................................................................... 13 3.1.3.3. Excretion .............................................................................................................. 13 3.1.4. Acute Oral Toxicity .................................................................................................... 15 3.1.4.1. Experimental Mammals ....................................................................................... 15 3.1.4.1.1. Gavage Dosing .............................................................................................. 15 3.1.4.1.2. Dietary Exposures ......................................................................................... 16 3.1.4.2. Data on Humans ................................................................................................... 18 3.1.4.2.1. Poisonings ..................................................................................................... 18 3.1.4.2.2. Experimental ................................................................................................. 19 3.1.5. Subchronic or Chronic Systemic Toxic Effects .......................................................... 19 ii 3.1.6. Effects on Nervous System ......................................................................................... 20 3.1.7. Effects on Immune System ......................................................................................... 20 3.1.8. Effects on Endocrine System ...................................................................................... 21 3.1.9. Reproductive and Developmental Effects .................................................................. 21 3.1.9.1. Developmental Studies ........................................................................................ 21 3.1.9.2. Reproduction Studies ........................................................................................... 22 3.1.10. Carcinogenicity and Mutagenicity ............................................................................ 22 3.1.11. Irritation and Sensitization (Effects on the Skin and Eyes) ...................................... 22 3.1.12. Systemic Toxic Effects from Dermal Exposure ....................................................... 23 3.1.13. Inhalation Exposure .................................................................................................. 24 3.1.14. Adjuvants and Other Ingredients .............................................................................. 24 3.1.15. Impurities and Metabolites ....................................................................................... 24 3.1.15.1. Metabolites ......................................................................................................... 24 3.1.15.2. Impurities ........................................................................................................... 24 3.1.16. Toxicological Interactions ........................................................................................ 25 3.2. EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT .......................................................................................... 26 3.2.1. Overview ..................................................................................................................... 26 3.2.2. Workers ....................................................................................................................... 26 3.2.2.1. General Exposures ............................................................................................... 26 3.2.2.2. Accidental Exposures........................................................................................... 27 3.2.2.2.1. Standard Accidental Exposure Scenarios ..................................................... 27 3.2.2.2.2. Poor Worker Hygiene ................................................................................... 28 3.2.3. General Public ........................................................................................................... 28 3.2.3.1. General Considerations ........................................................................................ 28 3.2.3.2. Consumption of Bait by a Child .......................................................................... 29 3.2.3.3. Dermal Exposure from Contaminated Vegetation ............................................... 29 3.2.3.4. Contaminated Water ............................................................................................ 29 3.2.3.4.1. Accidental Spill ............................................................................................. 29 3.2.3.4.2. Accidental Direct Spray/drift for a Pond or Stream ...................................... 30 3.2.3.4.3. GLEAMS Modeling...................................................................................... 30 3.2.3.4.4. Other Modeling Efforts ................................................................................. 31 3.2.3.4.5. Monitoring Data ............................................................................................ 31 3.2.3.4.6. Concentrations in Water Used for Risk Assessment .................................... 31 3.2.3.5. Oral Exposure from Contaminated Fish .............................................................. 32 3.2.3.6. Dermal Exposure from Swimming in Contaminated Water ................................ 33 3.2.3.7. Oral Exposure from Contaminated Vegetation.................................................... 33 3.3. DOSE-RESPONSE ASSESSMENT ................................................................................. 34 iii 3.3.1. Overview
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Cómo Citar El Artículo Número Completo Más Información Del
    Acta Pediátrica de México ISSN: 0186-2391 ISSN: 2395-8235 [email protected] Instituto Nacional de Pediatría México Avilés-Martínez, Karla Isis; Villalobos-Lizardi, José Carlos; López-Enríquez, Adriana Venta clandestina de rodenticidas, un problema de salud pública. Reporte de dos casos Acta Pediátrica de México, vol. 40, núm. 2, 2019, pp. 71-84 Instituto Nacional de Pediatría México Disponible en: https://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=423665708004 Cómo citar el artículo Número completo Sistema de Información Científica Redalyc Más información del artículo Red de Revistas Científicas de América Latina y el Caribe, España y Portugal Página de la revista en redalyc.org Proyecto académico sin fines de lucro, desarrollado bajo la iniciativa de acceso abierto CASO CLÍNICO DE INTERÉS ESPECIAL Acta Pediatr Mex. 2019 marzo-abril;40(2):71-84. Venta clandestina de rodenticidas, un problema de salud pública. Reporte de dos casos Clandestine sale of rodenticides, a health problem. Report of two cases Karla Isis Avilés-Martínez,1 José Carlos Villalobos-Lizardi,2 Adriana López-Enríquez3 Resumen ANTECEDENTES: La venta clandestina de rodenticidas es una manifestación de la pobreza y la exclusión social. Los rodenticidas adquiridos en estas circunstancias son accesibles porque tienen un canal de distribución eficiente. Su disponibilidad en casa, sin medidas de seguridad adecuadas y estrictas, representa un problema de salud potencialmente letal debido al contenido, falsificación, adulteración y etiquetado inadecuado o ausente. CASOS CLÍNICOS: Se reportan dos casos clínicos, no letales, de niños previamente sanos que ingirieron rodenticidas no etiquetados y obtenidos de la venta ilegal ambulante. El primer caso sufrió intoxicación por difetaliona (Clase Ia), rodenticida anticoagulante de segunda generación (en la bibliografía se reporta intoxicación en dos niños).
    [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]
  • Authorisation of Anticoagulant Rodenticides in Germany FAQ on Environmental Risks, Risk Mitigation Measures and Best Practice
    background // december 2019 Authorisation of Anticoagulant Rodenticides in Germany FAQ on Environmental Risks, Risk Mitigation Measures and Best Practice For our environment Imprint Publisher: Image sources: German Environment Agency Front page: Fotolia/tomatito26 Section IV 1.2 Biocides Page 3: UBA/Agnes Kalle & Susanne Hein Section IV 1.4 Health Pests and their Control Page 7: Alex Yeung PO Box 14 06 Page 8: Taton Moïse/Unsplash 06813 Dessau-Roßlau Page 10: autark – Photocase Tel.: +49 340-2103-0 Page 11: UBA/Figure 1 [email protected] Page 12: Fotolia/silvioheidler/Figure A Internet: www.umweltbundesamt.de/en Page 12: Fotolia/Jolanta Mayerberg/Figure B Page 12: Fotolia/Erni/Figure C /umweltbundesamt.de Page 12: Fotolia/Hans and Crista Ede/Figure D /umweltbundesamt Page 12: Fotolia/Sergey Ryzhkov/Figure E /umweltbundesamt Page 12: Fotolia/phototrip.cz/Figure F /umweltbundesamt Page 14: Fotolia/Loveleen/Silhouette of a rat Page 17: Photocase/marsj/Mouse in building Authors: Page 17: UBA/Erik Schmolz/Bait station Juliane Fischer, Anton Friesen, Anke Geduhn, Susanne Page 17: Fotolia/SB/Rat burrow in open area Hein, Stefanie Jacob, Barbara Jahn, Agnes Kalle, Anja Page 18: Mella/Photocase Kehrer, Ingrid Nöh, Eleonora Petersohn, Caroline Page 20: Fotolia/fotocejen/Barn owl Riedhammer, Ricarda Rissel, Annika Schlötelburg, Erik Page 21: Fotolia/Stefan/Kestrel Schmolz, Beatrice Schwarz-Schulz, Christiane Stahr, Ute Page 21: Fotolia/Romuald/Stoat Trauer-Kizilelma, Kristina Wege, Stefanie Wieck Page 22: Fotolia/Valeriy Kirsanov/Red fox Page
    [Show full text]
  • Sound Management of Pesticides and Diagnosis and Treatment Of
    * Revision of the“IPCS - Multilevel Course on the Safe Use of Pesticides and on the Diagnosis and Treatment of Presticide Poisoning, 1994” © World Health Organization 2006 All rights reserved. The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the World Health Organization concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Dotted lines on maps represent approximate border lines for which there may not yet be full agreement. The mention of specific companies or of certain manufacturers’ products does not imply that they are endorsed or recommended by the World Health Organization in preference to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned. Errors and omissions excepted, the names of proprietary products are distinguished by initial capital letters. All reasonable precautions have been taken by the World Health Organization to verify the information contained in this publication. However, the published material is being distributed without warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied. The responsibility for the interpretation and use of the material lies with the reader. In no event shall the World Health Organization be liable for damages arising from its use. CONTENTS Preface Acknowledgement Part I. Overview 1. Introduction 1.1 Background 1.2 Objectives 2. Overview of the resource tool 2.1 Moduledescription 2.2 Training levels 2.3 Visual aids 2.4 Informationsources 3. Using the resource tool 3.1 Introduction 3.2 Training trainers 3.2.1 Organizational aspects 3.2.2 Coordinator’s preparation 3.2.3 Selection of participants 3.2.4 Before training trainers 3.2.5 Specimen module 3.3 Trainers 3.3.1 Trainer preparation 3.3.2 Selection of participants 3.3.3 Organizational aspects 3.3.4 Before a course 4.
    [Show full text]
  • Report on the Human Health Risk Assessment for the Lord Howe Island’S Proposed Rodent Eradication Program NSW Chief Scientist & Engineer
    Report on the Human Health Risk Assessment for the Lord Howe Island’s proposed Rodent Eradication Program NSW Chief Scientist & Engineer July 2017 www.chiefscientist.nsw.gov.au/reports/independent-review-of-the-lord-howe-island-rodent- eradication-project The Hon. Gabrielle Upton MP Minister for the Environment Minister for Local Government Minister for Heritage 52 Martin Place SYDNEY NSW 2000 Dear Minister, Report – Independent Human Health Risk Assessment for the Lord Howe Island’s proposed Rodent Eradication Program In June 2016, your predecessor wrote requesting that I assist the Lord Howe Island Board in undertaking an independent Human Health Risk Assessment for the Lord Howe Island’s proposed Rodent Eradication Program in line with the Terms of Reference (see Appendix 1). As planned, an Expert Panel was convened and a suitable firm procured (Ramboll Environ Pty. Ltd.) to undertake the Human Health Risk Assessment, with input and review of the Expert Panel. The purpose of this report is to provide you with an overview of the process, the finding of the Human Health Risk Assessment and some observations and recommendations. The report of Ramboll’s is included as Appendix 2 of this report. I understand that the Human Health Risk Assessment is important for the Lord Howe Island community. During discussion between the Lord Howe Island Board (the Board) and my office, the Board has expressed an interest in representatives from the Expert Panel and the Office of the Chief Scientist & Engineer attending the island to participate in a community engagement event, discussing the outcomes of the Human health Risk Assessment.
    [Show full text]
  • The Evaluation of Alternative Toxins to Sodium Monofluoroacetate (1080) for Possum Control
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by UNL | Libraries University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Proceedings of the Fifteenth Vertebrate Pest Vertebrate Pest Conference Proceedings Conference 1992 collection March 1992 THE EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE TOXINS TO SODIUM MONOFLUOROACETATE (1080) FOR POSSUM CONTROL Charles T. Eason Forest Research Institute, P.O. Box 31-011, Christchurch, New Zealand Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/vpc15 Part of the Environmental Health and Protection Commons Eason, Charles T., "THE EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE TOXINS TO SODIUM MONOFLUOROACETATE (1080) FOR POSSUM CONTROL" (1992). Proceedings of the Fifteenth Vertebrate Pest Conference 1992. 24. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/vpc15/24 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Vertebrate Pest Conference Proceedings collection at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Proceedings of the Fifteenth Vertebrate Pest Conference 1992 by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. THE EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE TOXINS TO SODIUM MONOFLUOROACETATE (1080) FOR POSSUM CONTROL CHARLES T. EASON, Forest Research Institute, P.O. Box 31-011, Christchurch, New Zealand ABSTRACT: Possum control in New Zealand is dependent on the use of sodium monofluroacetate (1080) and cyanide. Although 1080 is highly effective, its use is restricted to government staff. Cyanide is available for a wider group of licensed operators, but cyanide "shyness" reduces its effectiveness. An acute toxicity programme has been set up to identify non- anticoagulant toxins that could be used safely by farmers. Dose-ranging studies showed that possums are susceptible to cholecalciferol, calciferol, gliftor, alpha-chloralose, and nicotine, but not to bromethalin.
    [Show full text]
  • RRAC Guidelines on Anticoagulant Rodenticide Resistance Management Editor: Rodenticide Resistance Action Committee (RRAC) of Croplife International Aim
    RRAC guidelines on Anticoagulant Rodenticide Resistance Management Editor: Rodenticide Resistance Action Committee (RRAC) of CropLife International Aim This document provides guidance to advisors, national authorities, professionals, practitioners and others on the nature of anticoagulant resistance in rodents, the identification of anticoagulant resistance, strategies for rodenticide application that will avoid the development of resistance and the management of resistance where it occurs. The Rodenticide Resistance Action Committee (RRAC) is a working group within the framework of CropLife International. Participating companies include: Bayer CropScience, BASF, LiphaTech S. A., PelGar, Rentokil Initial, Syngenta and Zapi. Senior technical specialists, with specific expertise in rodenticides, represent their companies on this committee. The RRAC is grateful to the following co-authors: Stefan Endepols, Alan Buckle, Charlie Eason, Hans-Joachim Pelz, Adrian Meyer, Philippe Berny, Kristof Baert and Colin Prescott. Photos provided by Stefan Endepols. Contents 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 2 2. Classification and history of rodenticide compounds ..............................................................................................3 3. Mode of action of anticoagulant rodenticides, resistance mechanisms, and resistance mutations ......................................................................................................6
    [Show full text]
  • Pharmacokinetics of Pancreatic Polypeptide in Man
    Gut: first published as 10.1136/gut.19.10.907 on 1 October 1978. Downloaded from Gut, 1978, 19, 907-909 Pharmacokinetics of pancreatic polypeptide in man T. E. ADRIAN, G. R. GREENBERG, H. S. BESTERMAN, AND S. R. BLOOM From the Department ofMedicine, Royal Postgraduate Medical School, Hammersmith Hospital, London SUMMARY Pure bovine pancreatic polypeptide (PP) was infused into 23 healthy subjects at doses of 1, 3, and 5 pmol/kg/min over 60 minutes and plasma PP was measured by radioimmunoassay. During the infusions mean plasma levels of 203 + 34, 575 + 73, and 930 ± 48 pmol/l respectively were achieved. Mean disappearance half time on stopping the infusion was 6-9 + 0 3 min (mean + SEM). The metabolic clearance rate was 5-1 + 0-2 ml/kg/min (mean + SEM) and the apparent volume of distribution was calculated to be 51 ± 3 ml/kg (mean ± SEM). This study provides for the first time pharmacokinetic data for PP in man. Pancreatic polypeptide (PP) is a recently discovered syringe ram pump for a basal period of 30 minutes. hormonal 36 amino acid peptide localised in an BPP was then added to the infusion at nominal endocrine cell of the mammalian and avian pancreas doses of 1 (n = 6), 3 (n = 9), and 5 (n = 8) pmol/ (Kimmel et al., 1968; Lin and Chance, 1972). PP cir- kg/min. culates in plasma and levels rise substantially on the Blood samples were collected in chilled tubes with ingestion of a meal and remain raised for several 10 units heparin and 400 KIU aprotinin (Trasylol) hours (Adrian et al., 1976; Floyd et al., 1976; per ml, centrifuged, and the plasma frozen within 15 Schwartz et al., 1976).
    [Show full text]
  • Justification for the Renewal of the Approvals for the Anticoagulant
    Justification for the renewal of the approvals for the anticoagulant rodenticides brodifacoum, bromadiolone, chlorophacinone, coumatetralyl, difenacoum, difethialone, flocoumafen and warfarin Rodent control is essential, and in many cases a legal requirement, to prevent disease transmission, consumption and contamination of food and feedingstuffs, structural damage and to remove social abhorrence. Currently, the anticoagulant rodenticides (also referred to as AVKs) are the dominant and most effective substances for rodent control. Therefore, the current AVK active substances approved for PT 14 will continue to be essential for efficient and effective rodent control in order to maintain good public hygiene and protect public health. The original evaluations for first approval at EU level recognised the need of the AVKs. The corresponding Assessment Reports for the AVKs acknowledged this when they concluded that: According to the Annex I inclusion criteria referred to in Article 10 of the Directive and TNsG on Annex I inclusion, AVKs should not be included in Annex I. However, in the decision making also benefits of using the active substance in the biocidal products have to be considered (Paragraph 96 in Annex VI of the Directive). It is concluded that AVKs are needed as rodenticides for human hygiene and public health reasons. In this exceptional case the benefit should take precedence over the risks and AVKs should be included in Annex I. [The text above is a generalised extract based on the conclusions of the Assessment Reports of the AVKs] All of the AVKs meet one of the exclusion criteria under Article 5(1) of the Biocidal Products Regulation (BPR), which prohibits their approval unless one or more of the derogations provided for in Article 5(2) are met.
    [Show full text]
  • Secondary Poisoning of Foxes and Buzzards
    Pergamon Chemosphere, Vol. 35, No. 8, pp. 1817-1829, 1997 © 1997 Elsevier Science Ltd All rights reserved. Printed in Great Britain PII: S0045-6535(97)00242-7 0045-6535197 $17.00+0.00 FIELD EVIDENCE OF SECONDARY POISONING OF FOXES (Vulpes vulpes) AND BUZZARDS (Buteo buteo) BY BROMADIOLONE, A 4-YEAR SURVEY Philippe J. Berny*, Thierry Buronfosse*, Florence Buronfosse**, Franqois Lamarque °and Guy Lorgue* * D6pt.SBFA - Laboratoire de Toxicologie - ENVL - BP-83 - 69280 Marcy l'Etoile (France) ** CNITV - ENVL - BP-83 - 69280 Marcy l'Etoile (France) ° ONC - Domaine de St Benotst - 78160 Auffargis (France) (Received in USA 17 February 1997; accepted 21 March 1997) Abstract This paper presents the result of a 4 year survey in France (1991-1994) based on the activity of a wildlife disease surveillance network (SAGIR). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the detrimental effects of anticoagulant (Ac) rodenticides in non-target wild animals. Ac poisoning accounted for a very limited number of the identified causes of death (1-3%) in most species. Predators (mainly foxes and buzzards) were potentially exposed to anticoagulant compounds (especially bromadiolone) via contaminated prey in some instances. The liver concentrations of bromadiolone residues were elevated and species-specific diagnostic values were determined. These values were quite similar to those reported in the litterature when secondary anticoagulant poisoning was experimentally assessed. ©1997 Elsevier Science Ltd Introduction This study reports anticoagulant (Ac) poisoning in wildlife. The Toxicology Laboratory of the Veterinary school in Lyon is involved in a unique nation-wide network for wildlife diseases surveillance (see material and methods). Ac poisoning is seldom described or investigated in wild animals, despite extensive use of rodenticides in the fields.
    [Show full text]
  • Hazardous Materials List
    Hazardous Materials List Version: 1.12.2016 v 1.4 All agrochemicals, especially pesticides, can be potentially hazardous in some form or other to human and animal health as well as to the environment and therefore should be used only under caution. Fairtrade International recommends the use of other methods like proper choice of crops and varieties, suitable cultivation practices and biological material for pest, before a chemical pesticide is used for pest control. The Hazardous Materials List (HML) is divided in three lists: the Red List, the Orange List and the Yellow List. Red List: The Red List is a ‘prohibited’ list and includes materials that must not be used on Fairtrade products. Orange List: The Orange List is a ‘restricted’ List and includes materials that may be used under conditions specified in this document thus restricting their use. The use of materials in this list will be monitored by Fairtrade International. Operators should be aware that some of these materials are to be phased out by 30 June 2020 or by 30 June 2022 as indicated in the list. The other materials in the list may eventually be prohibited and are encouraged to abandon their use. Yellow List: The Yellow List is a ‘flagged’ list and includes materials which are flagged for being hazardous and should be used under extreme caution. Fairtrade International will be monitoring the classification of these materials by international bodies like PAN, WHO and FAO, and materials may be prohibited in the future. Operators are encouraged to abandon their use. Classification of materials in the HML The Hazardous Materials List includes materials that are identified as Highly Hazardous as defined in the Code of Conduct on Pesticide Management adopted by FAO and WHO in 2013.
    [Show full text]