PDP Pesticide History Years Each Pesticide Was Reported from 1991 - 2020
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
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, -
Propoxur United States Environmental Protection Agency
United States Prevention, Pesticides EPA738-R-97-009 Environmental Protection And Toxic Substances August 1997 Agency (7508W) Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) PROPOXUR UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES CERTIFIED MAIL Dear Registrant: I am pleased to announce that the Environmental Protection Agency has completed its reregistration eligibility review and decisions on the pesticide chemical case propoxur. The enclosed Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) contains the Agency's evaluation of the data base of this chemical, its conclusions of the potential human health and environmental risks of the current product uses, and its decisions and conditions under which these uses and products will be eligible for reregistration. The RED includes the data and labeling requirements for products for reregistration. It may also include requirements for additional data (generic) on the active ingredient to confirm the risk assessments. To assist you with a proper response, read the enclosed document entitled "Summary of Instructions for Responding to the RED." This summary also refers to other enclosed documents which include further instructions. You must follow all instructions and submit complete and timely responses. The first set of required responses is due 90 days from the receipt of this letter. The second set of required responses is due 8 months from the date of receipt of this letter. Complete and timely responses will avoid the Agency taking the enforcement action of suspension against your products. If you have questions on the product specific data requirements or wish to meet with the Agency, please contact the Special Review and Reregistration Division representative Bonnie Adler (703) 308-8523. -
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. -
Pesticide Residues in Food 2007 – Report, 2007 (E)
FAO Pesticide residues PLANT PRODUCTION in food 2007 AND PROTECTION PAPER Joint FAO/WHO Meeting on Pesticide Residues 191 Report of the Joint Meeting of the FAO Panel of Experts on Pesticide Residues in Food and the Environment and the WHO Core Assessment Group on Pesticide Residues Geneva, Switzerland, 18–27 September 2007 WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS Rome, 2007 The designations employed and the presentation of material in this information product do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) concerning the legal or development status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The mention of specific companies or products of manufacturers, whether or not these have been patented, does not imply that these have been endorsed or recommended by FAO in preference to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned. ISBN 978-92-5-105918-0 All rights reserved. Reproduction and dissemination of material in this information product for educational or other non-commercial purposes are authorized without any prior written permission from the copyright holders provided the source is fully acknowledged. Reproduction of material in this information product for resale or other commercial purposes is prohibited without written permission of the copyright holders. Applications for such permission should be addressed to: Chief Electronic -
2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic Acid
2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid IUPAC (2,4-dichlorophenoxy)acetic acid name 2,4-D Other hedonal names trinoxol Identifiers CAS [94-75-7] number SMILES OC(COC1=CC=C(Cl)C=C1Cl)=O ChemSpider 1441 ID Properties Molecular C H Cl O formula 8 6 2 3 Molar mass 221.04 g mol−1 Appearance white to yellow powder Melting point 140.5 °C (413.5 K) Boiling 160 °C (0.4 mm Hg) point Solubility in 900 mg/L (25 °C) water Related compounds Related 2,4,5-T, Dichlorprop compounds Except where noted otherwise, data are given for materials in their standard state (at 25 °C, 100 kPa) 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) is a common systemic herbicide used in the control of broadleaf weeds. It is the most widely used herbicide in the world, and the third most commonly used in North America.[1] 2,4-D is also an important synthetic auxin, often used in laboratories for plant research and as a supplement in plant cell culture media such as MS medium. History 2,4-D was developed during World War II by a British team at Rothamsted Experimental Station, under the leadership of Judah Hirsch Quastel, aiming to increase crop yields for a nation at war.[citation needed] When it was commercially released in 1946, it became the first successful selective herbicide and allowed for greatly enhanced weed control in wheat, maize (corn), rice, and similar cereal grass crop, because it only kills dicots, leaving behind monocots. Mechanism of herbicide action 2,4-D is a synthetic auxin, which is a class of plant growth regulators. -
Carpenter Ants and Control in Homes Page 1 of 6
Carpenter Ants and Control in Homes Page 1 of 6 Carpenter Ants and Control in Homes Fact Sheet No. 31 Revised May 2000 Dr. Jay B Karren, Extension Entomologist Alan H. Roe, Insect Diagnostician Introduction Carpenter ants are members of the insect order Hymenoptera, which includes bees, wasps, sawflies, and other ants. Carpenter ants can be occasional pests in the home and are noted particularly for the damage they can cause when nesting in wood. In Utah they are more of a nuisance rather than a major structural pest. Carpenter ants, along with a number of other ant species, utilize cavities in wood, particularly stumps and logs in decayed condition, as nesting sites. They are most abundant in forests and can be easily found under loose bark of dead trees, stumps, or fallen logs. Homeowners may bring them into their homes when they transport infested logs from forests to use as firewood. Description Carpenter ants include species that are among the largest ants found in the United States. They are social insects with a complex and well-defined caste system. The worker ants are sterile females and may occur in different sizes (majors and minors). Members of the reproductive caste (fertile males and females) are usually winged prior to mating. All ants develop from eggs deposited by a fertilized female (queen). The eggs hatch into grub-like larvae (immatures) which are fed and cared for by the workers. When fully grown, the larvae spin a cocoon and enter the pupal stage. The pupal stage is a period of transformation from the larva to adult. -
488 Subpart A—Organic Pesticide Chemicals Manufacturing
§ 455.11 40 CFR Ch. I (7–1–12 Edition) chemical products and be considered a this subpart are applicable to dis- ‘‘stand-alone’’ PFPR facility. charges resulting from the manufac- ture of the following organic active in- [43 FR 17776, Apr. 25, 1978, as amended at 50 FR 40701, Oct. 4, 1985; 51 FR 44911, Dec. 15, gredients: Aldrin, BHC, Captan, 1986; 58 FR 50689, Sept. 28, 1993; 61 FR 57548, Chlordane, DDD, DDE, DDT, Dichloran, Nov. 6, 1996] Dieldrin, Endosulfan, Endrin, Hepta- chlor, Lindane, Methoxychlor, Mirex, Subpart A—Organic Pesticide PCNB, Toxaphene, Trifluralin, Chemicals Manufacturing Azinphos Methyl, Demeton-O, Demeton-S, Diazinon, Disulfoton, Mal- Subcategory athion, Parathion Methyl, Parathion Ethyl, Aminocarb, Carbaryl, SOURCE: 43 FR 44846, Sept. 29, 1978, unless Methiocarb, Mexacarbate, Propoxur, otherwise noted. Barban, Chlorpropham, Diuron, Fenuron, Fenuron-TCA, Linuron, § 455.11 Compliance date for pretreatment standards for existing Monuron, Monuron-TCA, Neubron, sources (PSES). Propham, Swep, 2,4-D, Dicamba, Silvex, 2,4,5-T, Siduron, Perthane, and All discharges subject to Dicofol. pretreatment standards for existing (c) The intermediates used to manu- sources (PSES) in subparts A and B of facture the active ingredients and ac- this part must comply with the stand- tive ingredients used solely in experi- ards no later than September 28, 1993. mental pesticides are excluded from [61 FR 57549, Nov. 6, 1996] coverage in this subpart. Insecticidal pathogenic organisms such as Bacillus § 455.20 Applicability; description of thuringiensis, insect growth hormones, the organic pesticide chemicals plant extracts such as pyrethrins; sex manufacturing subcategory. attractants and botanicals such as Ro- (a) For the purpose of calculating and tenone are also excluded from BPT applying effluent limitations for COD, coverage in this subpart. -
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. -
Herbicide Mode of Action Table High Resistance Risk
Herbicide Mode of Action Table High resistance risk Chemical family Active constituent (first registered trade name) GROUP 1 Inhibition of acetyl co-enzyme A carboxylase (ACC’ase inhibitors) clodinafop (Topik®), cyhalofop (Agixa®*, Barnstorm®), diclofop (Cheetah® Gold* Decision®*, Hoegrass®), Aryloxyphenoxy- fenoxaprop (Cheetah®, Gold*, Wildcat®), fluazifop propionates (FOPs) (Fusilade®), haloxyfop (Verdict®), propaquizafop (Shogun®), quizalofop (Targa®) Cyclohexanediones (DIMs) butroxydim (Factor®*), clethodim (Select®), profoxydim (Aura®), sethoxydim (Cheetah® Gold*, Decision®*), tralkoxydim (Achieve®) Phenylpyrazoles (DENs) pinoxaden (Axial®) GROUP 2 Inhibition of acetolactate synthase (ALS inhibitors), acetohydroxyacid synthase (AHAS) Imidazolinones (IMIs) imazamox (Intervix®*, Raptor®), imazapic (Bobcat I-Maxx®*, Flame®, Midas®*, OnDuty®*), imazapyr (Arsenal Xpress®*, Intervix®*, Lightning®*, Midas®* OnDuty®*), imazethapyr (Lightning®*, Spinnaker®) Pyrimidinyl–thio- bispyribac (Nominee®), pyrithiobac (Staple®) benzoates Sulfonylureas (SUs) azimsulfuron (Gulliver®), bensulfuron (Londax®), chlorsulfuron (Glean®), ethoxysulfuron (Hero®), foramsulfuron (Tribute®), halosulfuron (Sempra®), iodosulfuron (Hussar®), mesosulfuron (Atlantis®), metsulfuron (Ally®, Harmony®* M, Stinger®*, Trounce®*, Ultimate Brushweed®* Herbicide), prosulfuron (Casper®*), rimsulfuron (Titus®), sulfometuron (Oust®, Eucmix Pre Plant®*, Trimac Plus®*), sulfosulfuron (Monza®), thifensulfuron (Harmony®* M), triasulfuron (Logran®, Logran® B-Power®*), tribenuron (Express®), -
Comments of Teresa Homan with Attachments
Teresa Homan Watertown, SD 57201 I am a landowner in Deuel County, South Dakota. Our land boarders the Deuel Harvest Wind Project in Deuel county, Docket # EL 18-053. There are 112 towers cited in the project, with 9 towers within a mile of our property. We have spent over three decades developing this property to enhance wildlife and for the enjoyment of our family. Can you imagine how we felt when we found we have a population of eastern bluebirds? We have yellow warblers, which by the way feed on the web worms that form in our trees. We have orioles, cedar waxwings, brown thrashers, rose breasted grosbeaks, gold finches, purple finches, robins, blue jays, nuthatches, eastern kingbirds, bitterns, dark eyed juncos, red winged blackbirds, morning doves, owls, cow birds, northern mocking birds, grey cat birds, wood thrushes, tufted titmouse, king fishers, indigo buntings, scarlet tanagers, bobolinks, meadowlarks, many woodpeckers, turkeys, turkey vultures, even humming birds and bald eagles. There are more, just to numerous to list. Many of these birds we have seen for the first time in our lives on this property in the past 1 O years. Not only are these birds beautiful and fun to watch, they have their purpose in the ecosystem. We also see northern long eared bats, that are on the endangered list in South Dakota. These birds are making a come back after the use of insecticides that nearly wiped out many. In the 1940's the insecticide DDT was introduced for public use, it is now banned from sale. In 1976 the herbicide Roundup was introduced to the public. -
Comparison of Acute Noaels and Benchmark Doses for Female Brain Cholinesterase Inhibition
Supplemental Material for: February 5-8, 2002 SAP 25 January 2002 Comparison of Acute NOAELs and Benchmark Doses for Female Brain Cholinesterase Inhibition In cumulative risk assessment, it is important to characterize both the time frame for exposure (e.g., What is the exposure duration?) and for the toxic effect (e.g., What are the time to peak effects and the time to recovery?). In the Preliminary Cumulative Risk Assessment of the Organophoshate Pesticides (OPs) relative potency factors (RPFs) for 29 chemicals and points of departure (PODs) and the index chemical were determined based on whole brain cholinesterase (ChE) data from toxicity studies of 21 days and longer. The Office of Pesticide Programs has argued that the use of steady state data for relative potency determination generates relative potency factors (RPFs) that are reproducible and reflect less variability than RPFs derived from single-dose or short-term studies where the extent of inhibition changes rapidly immediately following dosing. OPP has posed a question to the FIFRA SAP for the February 5-8, 2002 review concerning how best to evaluate risk, taking into account the temporal characteristics of the hazard endpoint (i.e., cholinesterase inhibition) and the temporal characteristics of the exposure patterns for the food, drinking water, and residential/nonoccupational pathways. In order to facilitate the panel discussion, a table listing the available single dose toxicity studies performed with OPs has been made. Most of the studies are acute neurotoxicity (ACN) studies (OPPT Guideline 870.6200, OPP Guideline 81-8) administered by gavage. Acute lethality studies were not included. Dose levels, no- observed-adverse-effect levels (NOAELs), and no-observed-adverse-effect levels (LOAELs) for female brain ChE are also listed in the table. -
Aminopyralid Ecological Risk Assessment Final
Aminopyralid Ecological Risk Assessment Final U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Washington, D.C. December 2015 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The United States Department of the Interior (USDOI) Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administers about 247.9 million acres in 17 western states in the continental United States (U.S.) and Alaska. One of the BLM’s highest priorities is to promote ecosystem health, and one of the greatest obstacles to achieving this goal is the rapid expansion of invasive plants (including noxious weeds and other plants not native to an area) across public lands. These invasive plants can dominate and often cause permanent damage to natural plant communities. If not eradicated or controlled, invasive plants will jeopardize the health of public lands and the activities that occur on them. Herbicides are one method employed by the BLM to control these plants. In 2007, the BLM published the Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides on Bureau of Land Management Lands in 17 Western States Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (17-States PEIS). The Record of Decision (ROD) for the 17-States PEIS allowed the BLM to use 18 herbicide active ingredients available for a full range of vegetation treatments in 17 western states. In the ROD, the BLM also identified a protocol for identifying, evaluating, and using new herbicide active ingredients. Under the protocol, the BLM would not be allowed to use a new herbicide active ingredient until the agency 1) assessed the hazards and risks from using the new herbicide active ingredient, and 2) prepared an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) under the National Environmental Policy Act to assess the impacts of using new herbicide active ingredient on the natural, cultural, and social environment.