DOCSLIB.ORG

Highly Hazardous Profits

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Highly Hazardous Profits A Public Eye Report – April 2019 Highly hazardous profits How Syngenta makes billions by selling toxic pesticides Executive Summary 3 1 Highly hazardous pesticides: a “major public health concern” 7 1.1 – The shifting geography of pesticide poisonings 8 1.2 – Reducing risks by phasing out the most toxic pesticides 10 1.3 – Highly hazardous pesticides – A contested definition 13 2 Syngenta – Making profits with highly hazardous pesticides 15 2.1 – A multibillion dollar market 16 2.2 – Lower incomes, higher toxicities 16 2.3 – Syngenta’s highly hazardous growth market 18 3 Brazil’s pesticide problem 21 3.1 – The world’s largest market for toxic pesticides 22 3.2 – Diving into Brazil’s contaminated drinking water 24 3.3 – The chronic health impacts of pesticides in Brazil 30 4 Conclusion and recommendations 33 Annexes 36 Endnotes 51 IMPRINT Highly hazardous profits. How Syngenta makes billions by selling toxic pesticides. A Public Eye Report, April 2019, 56 pages | Authors Laurent Gaberell and Carla Hoinkes | Editing Mary Louise Rapaud | Contributors Timo Kollbrunner, Christa Luginbühl and Géraldine Viret | Acknowledgments Fernando Bejarano, Medha Chandra, Peter Clausing, Susan Haffmans, Emily Marquez, Lars Neumeister, Fran Paula, Javier Souza, Murilo Souza, Baskut Tuncak, Alan Tygel and Meriel Watts | Publisher Raphaël de Riedmatten | Layout Karin Hutter, karinhutter.com | Cover picture © Fábio Erdos PUBLIC EYE Avenue Charles-Dickens 4, CH-1006 Lausanne | Phone +41 (0)21 620 03 03 Fax +41 (0)21 620 03 00 | contact@publiceye.ch | www.publiceye.ch | CP 10-10813-5 A Public Eye Report | April 2019 3 Executive Summary Research by Public Eye reveals that the most dangerous pesticides, known as “highly hazardous”, are used heavily in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), despite being – for the most part – banned in Switzerland and the European Union (EU). Public Eye’s in-depth probe into the opaque world of highly haz- ardous pesticides also reveals that the Swiss agrochemical giant, Syngenta, is one of the main responsible for the flood of such products into LMICs. This conclusion is based on our analysis of exclusive industry data, which lifts the lid on a ticking time bomb that dramatically endangers human health and the environ- ment. Our investigation in Brazil, the world’s largest user of pesticides, shows that millions are exposed to pesticides that present significant hazards to human health – including through drinking water. Scientists fear this could trigger an epi- demic of chronic diseases. The time has come to put an end to this dirty business. 4 HIGHLY HAZARDOUS PROFITS – How Syngenta makes billions by selling toxic pesticides Approximately three million tonnes of pesticides are applied that about 1.2 million tonnes of highly hazardous pesticides are worldwide every year, an amount that has been constantly in- used in these countries every year, representing a huge market creasing over the past three decades, especially in LMICs, which – some USD 13 billion. now account for over half of pesticide use. Concerns over the health impacts of pesticides are escalating. While farmers and rural residents are exposed most frequently and directly, resi- WARNING: HIGHLY HAZARDOUS BUSINESS MODEL dues of pesticides are found everywhere: in our food, our drink- ing water, in the rain and in the air. In short, no one remains Syngenta presents itself as an agricultural company that helps untouched by pesticide exposure. to feed the planet while protecting biodiversity and keeping farmers safe. The company’s public ambition is to be at the fore- front of the transition towards a more sustainable agriculture. EXPOSURE TO PESTICIDES: A TICKING TIME BOMB Our research reveals a very different reality: selling highly haz- ardous pesticides is at the core of Syngenta’s business model. Pesticides are poisons, designed to kill living organisms such as About one third of Syngenta’s pesticide portfolio – and half of pests and weeds. By their very nature, they can also affect hu- its best sellers – consists of substances listed as “highly hazard- mans and other non-target organisms. UN experts have recent- ous” by PAN. ly warned that pesticides have a “catastrophic impact” on the Based on exclusive data from Phillips McDougall, the lead- environment, human health and society as a whole, including an ing agribusiness intelligence company, Public Eye estimates estimated 25 million cases of acute poisoning resulting in that Basel-based Syngenta made some USD 3.9 billion by selling 220,000 deaths a year. They have expressed “grave concern” over highly hazardous pesticides in 2017 – over 40% of its pesticide the impact of chronic exposure to pesticides, including cancer, sales that year, with a volume of about 400,000 tonnes. About Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s diseases, hormone disruption, de- two thirds of those sales were made in LMICs. Brazil is the velopmental disorders, sterility and neurological health effects. company’s largest market, but it also sells its toxic pesticides in Argentina, China, Paraguay, Mexico, India, Vietnam, Philip- pines, Ecuador, Colombia, Kenya and Ghana, among others. Pesticides have a “catastrophic impact” on the environment, human health and SCANDALOUS DOUBLE STANDARDS society as a whole, including an estimated While the company boasts of providing “world-class science 25 million cases of acute poisoning resulting and innovative crop solutions” to farmers around the globe, the in 220,000 deaths a year. facts do not match the rhetoric. Since 2000, Syngenta has devel- oped only eight new molecules. Some of its toxic blockbusters – such as highly controversial paraquat, atrazine, lambda-cyha- It is now widely accepted that in order to reduce risks, pesti- lothrin or glyphosate – have been on the market for decades. cides that are acknowledged to present particularly high levels Fifty-one of the 120 pesticide active ingredients in Syngenta’s of acute or chronic hazards to health or the environment – the portfolio are not authorized for use in its home country, Swit- “highly hazardous pesticides” (HHPs) – must be taken off the zerland; sixteen of them were banned because of their impact market. This represents a paradigm shift from decades of think- on human health and the environment. But Syngenta continues ing that all risks associated with pesticides can be well-managed selling them in lower income countries, where standards are of- and reduced to an acceptable level, for example through training ten weaker and less strictly enforced. programmes promoting so-called ‘safe use'. In other words the old risk management approach is now seen as not sufficient when pesticides are intrinsically highly hazardous. However, de- Our research reveals that spite progress in recognising the dangers of HHPs, very little is known about the extent of their use and the companies behind selling highly hazardous pesticides this dirty business. is at the core of For this reason, Public Eye investigated the opaque business Syngenta’s business model. of highly hazardous pesticides over several months. Based on exclusive industry data and using the list of highly hazardous pesticides developed by the Pesticide Action Network (PAN), our report shines a light on the massive use of these dangerous Confronted with our findings, Syngenta said it does not substances in LMICs, and the central role played by Swiss- agree with the list that PAN has developed. The company indi- based agrochemical giant, Syngenta, in promoting their use. cated its support for regulating pesticides based on risks not Most – though not all – highly hazardous pesticides are no hazards, and stressed that it complies with all of the regulatory longer authorized for use in Switzerland and the EU. The situa- and safety standards of the countries where its products are tion is completely different in LMICs: our research suggests registered for sale. A Public Eye Report | April 2019 5 “Even more complete portfolio”: Syngenta advert in Rio Verde, Goiás, Brazil. | © Fábio Erdos/Panos Fernando Bejarano from PAN Mexico does not share that reached USD 1.6 billion in 2017. Our analysis indicates that view. He said: “Companies such as Syngenta have chosen to pro- most of that total comes from the sale of pesticides listed by mote profit over people and take advantage of weaker regulations PAN as “highly hazardous”, which in 2017 amounted to about in lower income countries to increase their sales.” And he stressed 100,000 tonnes at a market value we estimate at USD 1 billion. that people living in low and middle income countries “are pay- ing the price, in terms of health and environmental impacts”. In order to better understand the consequences for people in POISON IN THE WATER lower income countries, we decided to go to Brazil, the largest user of toxic pesticides and Syngenta’s largest growth market. “There is probably not a single citizen in this country without a certain level of pesticide exposure”, says Ada Cristina Pontes Aguiar, medical doctor and researcher at the Federal University BRAZIL, SYNGENTA’S LARGEST MARKET FOR of Ceará in Brazil. Our dive into Brazilian’s drinking water con- TOXIC PESTICIDES firms this assessment. Through a freedom of information re- quest, Public Eye accessed a government database of drinking Over the last two decades, Brazil has become an agricultural su- water monitoring from 2014–2017. perpower. The country is now the world’s second largest global Pesticide residues were found in 86% of drinking water sam- supplier of food and agricultural products, and the main export- ples tested. A total of 454 Brazilian municipalities, with a popu- er of soy, coffee, sugarcane and tobacco. Pesticide use has sky- lation of 33 million, detected pesticide residues in their drinking rocketed in Brazil over the last thirty years, and the country is water above the legal limits at least once during the four-year now the largest user worldwide, with some 540,000 tonnes of period.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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: pjj5@cornell.edu 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]
  • Genetically Modified Baculoviruses for Pest
    INSECT CONTROL BIOLOGICAL AND SYNTHETIC AGENTS This page intentionally left blank INSECT CONTROL BIOLOGICAL AND SYNTHETIC AGENTS EDITED BY LAWRENCE I. GILBERT SARJEET S. GILL Amsterdam • Boston • Heidelberg • London • New York • Oxford Paris • San Diego • San Francisco • Singapore • Sydney • Tokyo Academic Press is an imprint of Elsevier Academic Press, 32 Jamestown Road, London, NW1 7BU, UK 30 Corporate Drive, Suite 400, Burlington, MA 01803, USA 525 B Street, Suite 1800, San Diego, CA 92101-4495, USA ª 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved The chapters first appeared in Comprehensive Molecular Insect Science, edited by Lawrence I. Gilbert, Kostas Iatrou, and Sarjeet S. Gill (Elsevier, B.V. 2005). All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Permissions may be sought directly from Elsevier’s Rights Department in Oxford, UK: phone (þ44) 1865 843830, fax (þ44) 1865 853333, e-mail permissions@elsevier.com. Requests may also be completed on-line via the homepage (http://www.elsevier.com/locate/permissions). Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Insect control : biological and synthetic agents / editors-in-chief: Lawrence I. Gilbert, Sarjeet S. Gill. – 1st ed. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-0-12-381449-4 (alk. paper) 1. Insect pests–Control. 2. Insecticides. I. Gilbert, Lawrence I. (Lawrence Irwin), 1929- II. Gill, Sarjeet S. SB931.I42 2010 632’.7–dc22 2010010547 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library ISBN 978-0-12-381449-4 Cover Images: (Top Left) Important pest insect targeted by neonicotinoid insecticides: Sweet-potato whitefly, Bemisia tabaci; (Top Right) Control (bottom) and tebufenozide intoxicated by ingestion (top) larvae of the white tussock moth, from Chapter 4; (Bottom) Mode of action of Cry1A toxins, from Addendum A7.
    [Show full text]
  • US5264213.Pdf
    ||||||||||||||| US005264213A United States Patent (19) 11) Patent Number: 5,264,213 Shibahara et al. 45 Date of Patent: Nov. 23, 1993 (54) PROCESS FOR PREPARING HIGHLY 57-145,861, published Sep. 9, 1982 (Derwent Abstract ACTIVE WATER-DESPERSIBLE PESTC DES 82-8883i E/42). (75) Inventors: Tetsuya Shibahara, Hatano; Naohiko Shimazaki, et al., Japanese Patent Application Kondo, Atsugi; Jun Kato, Susono, all 59-212,462, published Dec. 1, 1984 (Derwent Abstract of Japan 85-015809/03). Haga, et al., Japanese Patent Application 60-193,960, 73) Assignee: Dowelanco, Indianapolis, Ind. published Oct. 2, 1985 (Derwent Abstract (21) Appl. No.: 377,026 85-285507/46). Haga, et al., Japanese Patent Application 62-155,248, (22 Filed: Jul. 7, 1989 published Jul. 10, 1987 (Derwent Abstract (30) Foreign Application Priority Data 87-231613/33). Jul. 8, 1988 (JP) Japan ................................ 63-168672 Haga, et al., Japanese Patent Application 62-155,249, published Jul. 10, 1987 (Derwent Abstract 51) Int. Cl........................ CO7C 127/22; A01N 9/20 87-231614/33). 52 U.S.C. .................................... 424/409; 514/351; Nagasaki, et al., Japanese Patent Application 514/522; 514/594; 546/300; 564/44 58) Field of Search .......................... 546/300; 564/44; 62-195,365, published Aug. 28, 1989 (Derwent Abstract 514/351, 522,554; 424/409 87-280996/40). (56) References Cited Primary Examiner-Lester L. Lee U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS Attorney, Agent, or Firm-D. Wendell Osborne 3,989,842 11/1976 Wellinger et al. 3,989,942 11/1976 Wellinga et al..................... 424/322 (57) ABSTRACT 4,139,636 2/1979 Sirrenberg et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Use Date Issued: September 2006 ______
    United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances (7505P) _______________________________________________________ Pesticide Fact Sheet Name of Chemical: Metofluthrin Reason for Issuance: New Chemical Nonfood Use Date Issued: September 2006 _______________________________________________________ Description of Chemical IUPAC name: 2,3,5,6-tetrafluoro-4-(methoxymethyl)benzyl (EZ)- (1RS,3RS;1RS,3SR)-2,2-dimethyl-3-prop-1- enylcyclopropanecarboxylate CAS name: [2,3,5,6-tetrafluoro-4-(methoxymethyl)phenyl]methyl 2,2-dimethyl-3-(1-propenyl)cyclopropanecarboxylate Common Name: Metofluthrin Empirical Formula: C18H20F4O3 EPA Chemical Code: 109709 Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) Number: 240494-70-6 Chemical Class: Pyrethroid ester Registration Status: New Chemical, nonfood use Pesticide Type: Insecticide repellent not applied to human skin U.S.Technical Registrant : Sumitomo Chemical Company, LTD. 1330 Dillon Hghts. Ave. Baltimore, MD 21228 Use Pattern and Formulations Currently there are two end use products being proposed for metofluthrin. DeckMate ™ Mosquito Repellent Strip is an impregnated paper strip (~3,528 cm2) containing 1.82 percent metofluthrin as the active ingredient. The product also contains Bitrex ™ to discourage oral exposure to children or animals. The product is for use on patios, campsites, decks, cabanas, and other outdoor areas. One strip is applied per 10 ft × 10 ft outdoor area. Indoors the application rate is two strips per 50 m3. There are approximately 200 mg of metofluthrin initially in the strip. The strips can provide up to one week of protection Metofluthrin evaporates readily and therefore requires no external heat. Norm 1- is a personal outdoor insect repellent product consisting of a holder containing a replaceable cartridge insert coated with up to 50 mg of metofluthrin.
    [Show full text]
  • Pesticide Resistance in Bed Bugs Everywhere!!!!!
    2/24/2018 Pesticide Resistance in Bed bugs were virtually eradicated from the U.S. in Bed Bugs the post WWII era due to DDT and other powerful Shujuan (Lucy) Li insecticides. University of Arizona Alvaro Romero New Mexico State University 2 By the 1960s, bed bugs had developed resistance Public housing Apartments to DDT, methoxychlor and analogues, BHC, Schools dieldrin and analogues , and pyrethrins ( Busvine 1958, Hospitals Nursing homes Cwilich & Mer 1957, Mallis and Miller 1964 ) . Homes Transportation Child care Medical facilities Hotels & motels Health care facilities Airports Movie theaters Department stores Products, vendors, or commercial services mentioned or pictured in this seminar are for Everywhere!!!!! illustrative purposes only and are not meant to be endorsements. 3 4 University of Arizona; Arizona Pest Management Center 1 2/24/2018 Possible reasons for treatment failure? Missed some Clutter Reintroduction Have you seen these after treatments? 5 6 Dose - response assays for field - collected strains Bed bugs survived direct insecticide sprays 99 deltamethrin 90 Ft. Dix F1 50 ) e l a c 10 s t CIN1 i b o 1.0 r p ( y t i l a t r 99 - cyhalothrin o m e 90 g a t n Resistance ratio (RR) at least 6,000 !!! e c Ft. Dix r 50 e P 10 CIN1 Suspend® ( Deltamethrin ) 1.0 10 -7 10 -6 10 -5 10 -4 10 -3 10 -2 10 -1 10 0 10 1 10 2 10 3 10 4 Treatment (mg active ingredient/cm 2 ) Products, vendors, or commercial services mentioned or pictured in this seminar are for illustrative purposes only and are not meant Romero et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Recommended Classification of Pesticides by Hazard and Guidelines to Classification 2019 Theinternational Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS) Was Established in 1980
    The WHO Recommended Classi cation of Pesticides by Hazard and Guidelines to Classi cation 2019 cation Hazard of Pesticides by and Guidelines to Classi The WHO Recommended Classi The WHO Recommended Classi cation of Pesticides by Hazard and Guidelines to Classi cation 2019 The WHO Recommended Classification of Pesticides by Hazard and Guidelines to Classification 2019 TheInternational Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS) was established in 1980. The overall objectives of the IPCS are to establish the scientific basis for assessment of the risk to human health and the environment from exposure to chemicals, through international peer review processes, as a prerequisite for the promotion of chemical safety, and to provide technical assistance in strengthening national capacities for the sound management of chemicals. This publication was developed in the IOMC context. The contents do not necessarily reflect the views or stated policies of individual IOMC Participating Organizations. The Inter-Organization Programme for the Sound Management of Chemicals (IOMC) was established in 1995 following recommendations made by the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development to strengthen cooperation and increase international coordination in the field of chemical safety. The Participating Organizations are: FAO, ILO, UNDP, UNEP, UNIDO, UNITAR, WHO, World Bank and OECD. The purpose of the IOMC is to promote coordination of the policies and activities pursued by the Participating Organizations, jointly or separately, to achieve the sound management of chemicals in relation to human health and the environment. WHO recommended classification of pesticides by hazard and guidelines to classification, 2019 edition ISBN 978-92-4-000566-2 (electronic version) ISBN 978-92-4-000567-9 (print version) ISSN 1684-1042 © World Health Organization 2020 Some rights reserved.
    [Show full text]
  • Application of ACQUITY TQD for the Analysis of Pesticide Residues
    [ application application note note ] ] APPLICATION OF ACQUIT Y TQD FOR THE ANALYSIS OF PESTICIDE RESIduES IN Baby FOOD James Morphet and Peter Hancock Waters Corporation, Manchester, UK OVERVIEW This application note assesses the suitability of the Waters® ACQUITY™ TQD for tandem quadrupole-based analysis of pesticide residue in baby food. Polarity switching, differing dwell times and ion ratio robustness will also be assessed. INTRODUCTION The European Union residue monitoring program, 2005-2007, establishes the need to cover 55 active ingredients in various foods, Figure 1. The Waters ACQUITY TQD with the TQ Detector. including baby foods1, 2. Twenty of these pesticides are suitable for multi-residue LC/MS analysis; only one has a negative polarity in electrospray mode, normally requiring two injections (one in each EXPERIMENTAL polarity ion mode). Consequently compounds with negative polarity 3 are often excluded from monitoring programs. Ideally, these should The sample extraction method has been previously reported . be determined in a single analysis with polarity switching. Extracts of blank baby food matrix in acetonitrile were provided along with mixtures of the compounds in acetonitrile by the Central Chemists analyzing pesticide residues are under increasing pres- Science Laboratory (CSL), York, UK. Extracts for injection were sure to broaden the range of pesticides determined in a single prepared by spiking the compounds into the baby food matrix. The analysis: to improve limits of detection, precision and quantitation; supernatant was analyzed on the ACQUITY TQD following dilution to increase confidence in the validity of residue data; to provide with water (1:9) v/v. faster methods and to reduce usage of hazardous solvents while maintaining or reducing costs.
    [Show full text]
  • Fate of Pyriproxyfen in Soils and Plants
    toxics Review Fate of Pyriproxyfen in Soils and Plants James Devillers CTIS, 3 Chemin de la Gravière, 69140 Rillieux-La-Pape, France; j.devillers@ctis.fr Received: 17 February 2020; Accepted: 10 March 2020; Published: 13 March 2020 Abstract: Since the 1990s, the insect growth regulator pyriproxyfen has been widely used worldwide as a larvicide in vector control and in agriculture to fight a very large number of pests. Due to its widespread use it is of first importance to know how pyriproxyfen behaves in the terrestrial ecosystems. This was the goal of this work to establish the fate profile of pyriproxyfen in soils and plants. Thus, in soil, pyriproxyfen photodegrades slowly but its aerobic degradation is fast. The insecticide presents a high tendency to adsorb onto soils and it is not subject to leaching into groundwater. On the contrary its two main metabolites (40-OH-Pyr and PYPAC) show a different fate in soil. When sprayed to plants, pyriproxyfen behaves as a translaminar insecticide. Its half-life in plants ranges from less than one week to about three weeks. The review ends by showing how the fate profile of pyriproxyfen in soils and plants influences the adverse effects of the molecule on non-target organisms. Keywords: pyriproxyfen; soil; plant; metabolites; insect growth regulator; endocrine disruptor; terrestrial ecosystems 1. Introduction The behavior of pesticides in soils is under the dependence of physical, chemical, and biological processes including volatilization, sorption–desorption, aerobic and anaerobic degradation, uptake and release by plants, run-off, and leaching. These various complex processes control the transport of pesticides within the soil and their transfer from the soil to the other environmental compartments [1–3].
    [Show full text]
  • Free of Analytes Matrixes
    FREE OF ANALYTES MATRIXES Matrix: Green beans Description: Green beans in plastic container sealed with pressure lid and screw cap. Approximated weight: 50g Date of analysis: May 2019 Analyzed analytes: Pesticides residues (See annex). Results: There was no presence of any of the target analytes (See annex) above the quantification limit. NOTES The material has been kept in temperature-controlled freezer and is sent frozen. Upon receive store in freezer until analysis. The test material has been analyzed by the TestQual’s collaborator laboratory accredited for the analysis of the annexed pesticides, therefore ensuring the lack of pesticides in concentrations higher than the limit of quantification of the laboratory: 10µg/Kg The list of the analyzed pesticides is the one TestQual works with regularly in our proficiency test of pesticides residues. You can check the full list of analytes in the protocol or request the documentation using the contact data on our website: http://testqual.com/contacto/?lng=en Page 1 / 3 ANNEX 2-Phenylphenol Carbendazim Dichlormid Fenazaquin 3,5-Dichloroaniline Carbophenothion Dichlobenil Fenbuconazole 3-Hydroxy-carbofuran Carbofuran Diclobutrazol Fenbutatin oxide 4,4-Dichlorobenzophenone Chlorantraniliprole Dichlofluanid Fenchlorphos Abamectin Chlorbromuron Diclofop-methyl Fenhexamid Acephate Chlorfenapyr Dicloran Fenitrothion Acetamiprid Chlorfenvinphos Dicrotophos Fenoxycarb Acetochlor Chlormephos Dieldrin Fenpropathrin Aclonifen Chloroneb Diethofencarb Fenpropimorph Acrinathrin Chloropropylate Difenoconazole
    [Show full text]
  • 1 of 3 GC+LC-USA
    Updated: 07/18/2016 1 of 3 GC+LC-USA Limit of Quantitation (LOQ): 0.010 mg/kg (ppm) Sample Types: Low Fat Content Samples Minimum Sample Size: 100 grams (~1/4 pound). Certain products require more for better sample representation. Instrument: GC-MS/MS and LC-MS/MS Turnaround: 24-48 hours Accreditation: Part of AGQ USA's ISO/IEC 17025 Accreditation Scope 4,4'-Dichlorobenzophenone Bupirimate Cyantraniliprole Diflufenican Abamectin Buprofezin Cyazofamid Dimethoate Acephate Butachlor Cycloate Dimethoate (Sum) Acequinocyl Butocarboxim Cycloxydim Dimethomorph Acetamiprid Butralin Cyflufenamid Diniconazole Acetochlor Cadusafos Cyfluthrin Dinocap Acrinathrin Captafol Cymoxanil Dinotefuran Alachlor Captan Cyproconazole Diphenylamine Aldicarb Captan (Sum) Cyprodinil Disulfoton Aldicarb (Sum) Carbaryl Cyromazine Disulfoton (Sum) Aldicarb-sulfone Carbofuran DDD-o,p Disulfoton-sulfone Aldicarb-sulfoxide Carbofuran-3-hydroxy DDD-p,p +DDT-o,p Disulfoton-sulfoxide Aldrin Carbophenothion DDE-o,p Ditalimfos Ametryn Carbosulfan DDE-p,p Diuron Amitraz Carboxine DDT (Sum) Dodemorph Atrazine Carfentrazone-ethyl DDT-p,p Dodine Azadirachtin Chinomethionat DEET Emamectin Benzoate Azamethiphos Chlorantraniliprole Deltamethrin Endosulfan (A+B+Sulf) Azinphos-ethyl Chlordane Demeton Endosulfan Alfa Azinphos-methyl Chlordane Trans Demeton-S-methyl-sulfone Endosulfan Beta Azoxystrobin Chlorfenapyr Desmedipham Endosulfan Sulfate Benalaxyl Chlorfenson Diafenturion Endrin Ben-Carb-TPM (Sum) Chlorfenvinphos Dialifos EPN Bendiocarb Chlorfluazuron Diazinon Epoxiconazole
    [Show full text]
  • NMP-Free Formulations of Neonicotinoids
    (19) & (11) EP 2 266 400 A1 (12) EUROPEAN PATENT APPLICATION (43) Date of publication: (51) Int Cl.: 29.12.2010 Bulletin 2010/52 A01N 43/40 (2006.01) A01N 43/86 (2006.01) A01N 47/40 (2006.01) A01N 51/00 (2006.01) (2006.01) (2006.01) (21) Application number: 09305544.0 A01P 7/00 A01N 25/02 (22) Date of filing: 15.06.2009 (84) Designated Contracting States: (72) Inventors: AT BE BG CH CY CZ DE DK EE ES FI FR GB GR • Gasse, Jean-Jacques HR HU IE IS IT LI LT LU LV MC MK MT NL NO PL 27600 Saint-Aubin-Sur-Gaillon (FR) PT RO SE SI SK TR • Duchamp, Guillaume Designated Extension States: 92230 Gennevilliers (FR) AL BA RS • Cantero, Maria 92230 Gennevilliers (FR) (71) Applicant: NUFARM 92233 Gennevelliers (FR) (74) Representative: Cabinet Plasseraud 52, rue de la Victoire 75440 Paris Cedex 09 (FR) (54) NMP-free formulations of neonicotinoids (57) The invention relates to NMP-free liquid formulation comprising at least one nicotinoid and at least one aprotic polar component selected from the group comprising the compounds of formula I, II or III below, and mixtures thereof, wherein R1 and R2 independently represent H or an alkyl group having less than 5 carbons, preferably a methyl group, and n represents an integer ranging from 0 to 5, and to their applications. EP 2 266 400 A1 Printed by Jouve, 75001 PARIS (FR) EP 2 266 400 A1 Description Technical Field of the invention 5 [0001] The invention relates to novel liquid formulations of neonicotinoids and to their use for treating plants, for protecting plants from pests and/or for controlling pests infestation.
    [Show full text]
  • Report 27 Quantitative Determination of Pesticide
    EURL for Cereals and Feeding stuff National Food Institute Technical University of Denmark Validation Report 27 Determination of pesticide residues in fish feed by GC-MS/MS (modified QuEChERS method) Mette Erecius Poulsen Susan Strange Herrmann December 2017 Page 2 of 26 CONTENT: 1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 3 2. Principle of analysis......................................................................................................................... 3 3. Validation design ............................................................................................................................. 4 4. Chromatograms and calibration curves .......................................................................................... 4 5. Validation parameters...................................................................................................................... 4 6. Criteria for the acceptance of validation results ............................................................................. 5 7. Results and conclusion ..................................................................................................................... 5 9. References ........................................................................................................................................ 6 Appendix 1. MRM transitions for GC-MS/MS. ...................................................................................
    [Show full text]