DOCSLIB.ORG

Disrupting the Balance: Ecological Impacts of Pesticides in California

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Disrupting the Balance: Ecological Impacts of Pesticides in California Disrupting the Balance Ecological Impacts of Pesticides in California by Susan Kegley, Ph.D., Staff Scientist Lars Neumeister, Program Assistant Timothy Martin, Research Assistant Pesticide Action Network One in a series of reports by Californians for Pesticide Reform Principal Authors Susan Kegley, Ph.D, Staff Scientist, Pesticide Action Network Lars Neumeister, Program Assistant, Pesticide Action Network Timothy Martin, Research Assistant Californians for Pesticide Reform web site: www.igc.org/cpr Californians for Pesticide Reform (CPR) is a coalition Pesticide Action Network of public interest organizations, including Pesticide Founded in 1982, Pesticide Action Network is an Action Network, committed to protecting public international coalition of over 400 citizens groups in health and the environment from pesticide prolifera- more than 60 countries working to oppose the misuse tion. CPRÕs mission is to 1) educate Californians of pesticides and to promote sustainable agriculture about environmental and health risks posed by pesti- and ecologically sound pest management. cides; 2) eliminate the use of the most dangerous pes- ticides in California; 3) promote sustainable pest 49 Powell Street, Suite 500 control solutions for our farms, communities, forests, San Francisco, CA 94102 homes and yards; and 4) hold government agencies ph: (415) 981-1771 accountable for protecting public health and Califor- fax: (415) 981-1991 niansÕ right to know about pesticide use and exposure. email: [email protected] web site: www.panna.org 49 Powell Street, Suite 530 San Francisco, CA 94102 ph: (415) 981-3939, 888-CPR-4880 (in California) fax: (415) 981-2727 email: [email protected] Other reports in the CPR series ¥ Rising Toxic Tide: Pesticide Use in California 1991-1995 Pesticide Action Network North America, 1997 ¥ Toxic Secrets: ÒInertÓ Ingredients in Pesticides 1987Ð1997 Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides, 1998 ¥ Failing Health: Pesticide Use in California Schools California Public Interest Research Group Charitable Trust, 1998 ¥ Poisoning the Air: Airborne Pesticides in California California Public Interest Research Group Charitable Trust, 1998 ¥ Toxic Fraud: Deceptive Advertising by Pest Control Companies in California California Public Interest Research Group Charitable Trust, 1998 Copyright © 1999 by Pesticide Action Network North America Regional Center. Permission is granted to reproduce any and all portions of this report, provided the title and publisher are acknowledged. The cover of this report is 100% post-consumer recycled and non-deinked, printed by Autumn Press. The inside pages were copied on recycled paper. Acknowledgments Many individuals contributed their comments, insights, experience, and hard work to this report. Ama Marston con- ducted research for Appendix 1. Chris Mari van Dyck graciously donated her time and expertise for the illustration of the striped bass life cycle on page 51. Rachel Goodwin illustrated the food web on page 38. Mr. E. J. OÕNeill of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service donated the cover photo of nestling gulls. The California Department of Fish and Game provided the cover photo of striped bass fishing. Many people provided valuable information for use in the report, including David Sedlak (University of California, Berkeley); Chris Foe (Central Valley Regional Water Qual- ity Control Board); Bill Jennings (DeltaKeeper); Victor DeVlaming (State Water Quality Control Board); Brian Mon- tague (U.S. EPA, Office of Pesticide Programs); Louie Hoelman (U.S. EPA, STORET); Wendell Wood (Oregon Natural Resources Council); John Anderson (Sierra Club); Jim Orsi and Lee Miller (California Department of Fish and Game); Byron Buck (California Urban Water Agencies); Linda Lyon, Elaine Snyder-Conn, and Sam Johnson (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service); Pierre Mineau (Canadian Fish and Wildlife Service); Charles Kratzer, Neil Dubrovsky, Jack Barbash, and Joe Domagalski (U.S. Geological Survey); Peggy Lehman and Lauren Buffaloe (Cali- fornia Department of Water Resources); Jeff Miller (AQUA-Science); Peter Moyle (University of California, Davis); Frank Zalom (University of California Statewide IPM Program); Mary OÕBrien; and Rolf Ono. We would especially like to thank our internal reviewers for editing and proofreading multiple drafts of the manuscript: Monica Moore, Ellen Hickey, Amy S. Cohen, Steve Scholl-Buckwald, and Karen deMoor (Pesticide Action Network); David Chat- field, Joan Clayburgh, Kelly Campbell, and Michele Wright (Californians for Pesticide Reform); and Zev Ross (Envi- ronmental Working Group). Thanks to Brian Cohen (Green Info Network), Martin Bourque (Food First), James Liebman (U.S. EPA, Region IX), and Mark Liebman (Vividata) for assistance with the California Pesticide Use Reporting data, GIS mapping work, and graphics presentation. Thanks to Brenda J. Willoughby for assistance with layout and graphics, and the cover. Californians for Pesticide Reform (CPR) is a joint project of its member organizations, and CPR is funded by these groups and through grants to these groups. This report was supported by The California Endowment, The California Wellness Foundation, Clarence E. Heller Charitable Foundation, Columbia Foundation, Charles Stewart Mott Foun- dation, Foundation for Deep Ecology, The Pew Charitable Trusts, Richard and Rhoda Goldman Fund, Tides Center and Turner Foundation. The authors alone bear responsibility for any factual errors. The recommendations are those of Pesticide Action Net- work North America and Californians for Pesticide Reform. The views expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of our funders. We gratefully acknowledge the following people who provided technical review of draft chapters of this manuscript, noting that their review does not necessarily constitute an endorsement of the policy recommendations or final find- ings of the report. John Anderson, Ph.D. (Chapter 2) Professor of Entomology (Emeritus) University of California, Berkeley, andÊ Klamath Basin Issue Coordinator Oregon Chapter, Sierra Club Chuck Benbrook, Ph.D. (Chapters 4 and 5) Food and Agricultural Policy Consultant Benbrook Consulting Services Paul Feder (Chapter 3) Environmental Scientist U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9 Christopher Foe, Ph.D. (Chapter 3) Environmental Scientist Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board Charles R. Kratzer, D.Env., P.E.(Chapter 3) Hydrologist U.S. Geological Survey, Western Regional District James Liebman, Ph.D. (all) Life Scientist U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9 Linda Lyon (Chapter 2) Environmental Contaminants Specialist U.S. Fish And Wildlife Service Jeff Miller, Ph.D. (all) AQUA-Science Pierre Mineau, Ph.D. (Chapter 2) Head, Pesticide Division Canadian Wildlife Service Frederick W. Plapp, Ph.D. (all) Professor of Insecticide Toxicology (Emeritus) Texas A&M University William Quarles, Ph.D. (Chapter 4) Co-Director Bio-Integral Resource Center David Sedlak, Ph.D. (Chapter 3) Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering University of California, Berkeley Stefan Seum (Chapters 3 and 6) Environmental Planner Port of Oakland Michael Smolen, Ph.D. (all) Senior Scientist World Wildlife Fund Wendell Wood (Chapter 2) Southern Oregon Field Representative Oregon Natural Resources Council Table of Contents Executive Summary 1 Map 1: Regional Maps Presented in this Report 6 Introduction 7 1: Pesticide Basics 9 Classification of Pesticide Hazards to Animals and Plants 9 Types of Pesticides 10 Insecticides 10 ¥ Organochlorine Insecticides 11 ¥ Organophosphate and Carbamate Insecticides 12 ¥ Pyrethroid Insecticides 12 Herbicides 13 Fungicides 15 Pesticides in the Environment 16 Release: How Pesticides Are Introduced Into the Environment 16 Transport: Pesticides Do Not Always Stay Where They Are Applied 17 Fate: Pesticides Are Transformed in the Environment 19 Regulation: A Legacy of Ineffective Environmental Protection 19 2: Effects of Pesticides on Birds 21 Routes of Exposure 21 Problem Pesticides for Birds 22 Organophosphates and Carbamates Cause Many Bird Kills 22 ¥ Mechanism of Toxicity 23 ¥ Carbofuran and Diazinon Are Responsible for Most Bird Kills 23 ¥ Sublethal Exposures 24 Organochlorines Cause Acute Poisoning and Impair Reproduction 25 ¥ Evidence of Organochlorine Contamination 25 ¥ Exposures to Organochlorines Cause Reproductive Failures 27 Documenting Bird Kills 28 Pesticides and the Pacific Flyway: Klamath Basin Case Study 30 Pesticide Use Results in Bird Kills 31 Regulation of Pesticide Use in the Klamath Basin National Wildlife Refuges 32 ¥ Policies Fail to Prevent Use of Toxic Pesticides in National Wildlife Refuges 34 ¥ Integrated Pest Management on the Klamath Basin Refuges 35 3: Effects of Pesticides on Aquatic Animals and Plants 37 Routes of Exposure 37 Multiple Pesticides Are Commonly Found in California Surface Waters 39 Central Valley Surface Waters Contain Multiple Pesticides 39 Urban Runoff Contributes Significant Amounts of Pesticides to Surface Waters 42 Effects of Pesticides on Phytoplankton 46 Effects of Pesticides on Zooplankton 46 Effects of Pesticides on Fish 48 Evidence of Acute Toxicity to Fish 48 Sublethal Effects of Pesticides on Fish 52 ¥ Evidence of Chronic Toxicity to Fish 52 ¥ Evidence of Endocrine Disruption in Fish 53 Toxic Pesticide Pulses Occur Regularly in California Waterways 54 Runoff from Orchards Causes Water Toxicity 55 ¥ Diazinon 55 ¥ Ziram 59 Rice Pesticides Impact Fisheries 61 ¥ Fish Kills From Rice Pesticides Were Common
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Bmps) for Wildland Stewardship
    Best Management Practices (BMPs) for Wildland Stewardship Protecting Wildlife When Using Herbicides for Invasive Plant Management California Invasive Plant Council & Pesticide Research Institute ontrolling invasive plants is often a high priority when protecting wildlife habitat, and those working to protect Cwildlife from invasive plants want to be sure their approach is safe for wildlife. This manual of Best Management Practices focuses on how land managers can best protect wildlife when using herbicides to control invasive plants. While any invasive plant control method can potentially impact wildlife, chemical control methods are the focus of this report. The toxicology information presented shows data on herbicides most commonly used for invasive plant management in California natural areas. The Best Management Practices are drawn from methods used by experienced land managers. Along with providing guidance for land managers, this document is designed to inform the interested public about how herbicides are used to control invasive plants in natural areas. ©2015 California Invasive Plant Council Available at www.cal-ipc.org Cite this report as: Cal-IPC. 2015. Best Management Practices for Wildland Stewardship: Protecting Wildlife When Using Herbicides for Invasive Plant Management. Cal-IPC Publication 2015-1. California Invasive Plant Council, Berkeley, CA. Available: www.cal-ipc.org Cover photos: Large photo: American goldfinch by Gary Kramer, USFWS Top small photo: Herbicide applicator by Jim Dempsey, California State Parks Bottom small photo: Pacific tree frog by Sandy DeSimone, Audubon Starr Ranch Contents 1. Introduction . 1 Wildland Stewardship, Invasive Plant Management and Wildlife . 1 The Importance of Best Management Practices . 3 2. Invasive Plant Management and Wildlife .
    [Show full text]
  • Impact of Pesticide Use on Health in Developing Countries
    Impact of pesticide use on health in developing countries Proceedings of a symposium held in Ottawa, Canada, 1 7-20 September 1990 IDRC CRDI International Development Research Centre Centre de recherches pour le devetoppement international 1 March 1993 Dear Reader/Librarian, IDRC is a public corporation created by the Canadian parliament in 1970 to help developing countries find viable solutions to their problems through research. At the 1992 Earth Summit, IDRC's mandate was broadened to emphasize sustainable development issues. As part of IDRC's strengthened commitment to global action and harüony, we are pleased to send you a complimentary copy of our most recent publication: The impact of pesticide use on health in developing countries (March 1993, 352 pages, 0-88936-560-1, $17.95). The first part of this book presents a brief survey of the global situation and the results of twelve epidemiological studies carried out by researchers from Africa, Latin America, Asia and the Middle East. These focus on poisonings resulting from organophosphates, herbicides, and pyrethroids. The second part illustrates the role of the process of development, production, spraying techniques and legislation in protecting the health of workers. A discussion of the benefits and modalities of access to pertinent information for the prevention of pesticide poisonings is provided in the third section. Finally, in the fourth section, consideration is given to the advantages and disadvantages of certain alternatives to the use of synthetic pesticides in agriculture and public health, such as botanical pesticides and integrated pest management strategies. We hope this book is a valuable addition to your collection.
    [Show full text]
  • Consortium for International Crop Protection Pest Management & Related Environmental Protection Project*
    CONSORTIUM FOR INTERNATIONAL CROP PROTECTION PEST MANAGEMENT & RELATED ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PROJECT* ANNUAL REPORT TO AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT OCTOBER 1983 - SEPIEMBER 1984 Ray F. Smith, University of California, Executive Director Member Institutions: Cornell University North Carolina State University Oregon State University Texas A&M University University of California University of Florida University of Hawaii University of Illinois University of Maryland University of Miami, Florida University of Minnesota Purdue University University of Puerto Rico U. S. Department of Agriculture * Contract No. AID/DSAN-C-0252 Project No. 931-0930 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Introduction .......................................................... 1 Response to USAID Mission Requests for Technical Assistance ....................................... 6 Sudan ............................................... 7 Niger .......... ............................ ..... ..... 20 Thailand ........ ............................ .... ..... 23 Bolivia......................... ................. 28 Ecuador .............................................. 31 Belize ......................................... 35 Caribbean................. ....................... 40 Kenya........................................... 51 Grenada ..... ..................................... 54 Mexico ........... ....... .................... .. 58 Program Evaluation or Design .......................................... 62 Cameroon .................................................... 63 Central
    [Show full text]
  • Pesticide Toxicology, PPP-40
    PPP-40 PURDUE PESTICIDE PROGRAMS Purdue University Cooperative Extension Service PESTICIDE TOXICOLOGY Evaluating Safety and Risk Fred Whitford, Coordinator, Purdue Pesticide Programs Tom Fuhremann, Director of Agricultural Toxicology and Risk Assessment, Monsanto K.S. Rao, Global Product Registration Manager, Dow AgroSciences Gail Arce, Toxicologist, Elf Atochem James E. Klaunig, Professor and Director of Toxicology, Indiana University School of Medicine Edited by Arlene Blessing, Purdue Pesticide Programs TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE Public Debate About Pesticides and Human Health ........................................................................ 3 The Science of Toxicology ................................................................................................................. 4 Pesticide and Animal Interaction ................................................................................................... 5 Effect of the Chemical on the Animal ............................................................................................6 Effect of the Animal on the Chemical ............................................................................................7 The Relationship Between Dose and Response .......................................................................... 10 Describing Adverse Toxicological Effects...................................................................................... 14 Animal Testing Crucial to Safety Evaluation ...................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Acknowledgements
    Acknowledgements We would like to thank those involved in creating Planning a Drift Catcher Project and Organizing a Drift Campaign, including: Jeff Conant from the Hesperian Foundation; Mateo Rutherford and Roy Rojas of BITTS for translation; Brenda J. Willoughby (Pesticide Action Network North America) for layout; and contributors Andrea Wilson and Tracey Brieger (Californians for Pesticide Reform) and Katherine Mills, Susan Kegley, Tanya Brown, Kelly Campbell and Christine Riordan (Pesticide Action Network North America). Major funding for this guide and development of the Drift Catcher was provided by the Cedar Tree Foundation. Additional support was provided by grants to Pesticide Action Network North America and/or Californians for Pesticide Reform by the Beldon Fund, The California Endowment, The California Wellness Foundation, Columbia Foundation, Nathan Cummings Foundation, David B. Gold Foundation, Richard and Rhoda Goldman Foundation, Clarence E. Heller Charitable Foundation, David H. Klein, Jr. Foundation and John Merck Fund. The authors bear responsibility for any factual errors. Recommendations and views expressed are those of Pesticide Action Network North America, and do not necessarily represent the views of our funders and supporters. © 2012 by Pesticide Action Network North America. Permission is granted to reproduce portions of this report, provided the title and publishing organizations—Pesticide Action Network and Californians for Pesticide Reform—are acknowledged. Our sincerest thanks to the Hesperian Foundation for providing many of the images used in these materials. Copyright © 2003 by the Hesperian Foundation. The Hesperian Foundation encourages others to copy, reproduce, or adapt to meet local needs any or all of this pamphlet provided that what is reproduced is distributed free or at cost—not for profit.
    [Show full text]
  • Carbaryl Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment Revised Final Report
    SERA TR-052-01-05a Carbaryl Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment Revised Final Report Submitted to: Paul Mistretta, COR USDA/Forest Service, Southern Region 1720 Peachtree RD, NW Atlanta, Georgia 30309 USDA Forest Service Contract: AG-3187-C-06-0010 USDA Forest Order Number: AG-43ZP-D-06-0009 SERA Internal Task No. 52-01 Submitted by: Patrick R. Durkin and Cynthia King Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, Inc. 5100 Highbridge St., 42C Fayetteville, New York 13066-0950 Fax: (315) 637-0445 E-Mail: [email protected] Home Page: www.sera-inc.com February 9, 2008 Table of Contents Table of Contents............................................................................................................................ ii List of Figures................................................................................................................................. v List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. v List of Attachments........................................................................................................................ vi List of Appendices ......................................................................................................................... vi COMMON UNIT CONVERSIONS AND ABBREVIATIONS................................................... ix CONVERSION OF SCIENTIFIC NOTATION ............................................................................ x EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Spray Drift of Pesticides
    G1773 Spray Drift of Pesticides Robert N. Klein, Extension Cropping Systems Specialist; Larry Schulze, Extension Pesticide Education Specialist; and Clyde L. Ogg, Extension Pesticide Educator Table I. Effect of droplet size on drift potential (Ross and This NebGuide discusses conditions that cause Lembi, 1985) particle drift, and methods private and commercial applicators may employ to reduce drift potential from Diameter, microns Time to fall 10 feet in still air pesticide spray applications. 1 (Fog) 28 hours 10 (Fog) 17 minutes Spray drift of pesticides away from the target is an im­ 100 (Mist) 11 seconds portant and costly problem facing both commercial and private 200 (Fine Spray) 4 seconds applicators. Drift causes many problems including: 400 (Coarse Spray) 2 seconds 1,000 (Coarse Spray) 1 second 1) damage to susceptible off­target sites, 2) a lower rate than intended, which can reduce the ef­ fectiveness of the pesticide and waste pesticide and acting upon the emerging droplets. These forces — gravity money, and and air resistance — greatly influence the speed and move­ 3) environmental contamination, such as water pollution ment of spray droplets. and illegal pesticide residues. Droplet speed is reduced by air resistance, which breaks up the droplets. After their initial speed slows, the droplets Drift occurs by two methods; vapor drift and particle continue to fall under the gravitational pull. drift. This NebGuide focuses mainly on conditions that cause With lower boom heights, the initial speed may be great particle drift, and methods to reduce the drift potential of enough that the droplet reaches the target before drift occurs.
    [Show full text]
  • Country Situation on Persistent Organic Pollutants (Pops) in India
    3.7 International POPs Elimination Project Fostering Active and Efficient Civil Society Participation in Preparation for Implementation of the Stockholm Convention Country Situation on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) in India Toxics Link India March 2006 H-2 (Ground Floor), Jungpura Extension New Delhi 110014, INDIA T: +91-(0)11-24328006, 24320711 F: +91-(0)11-24321747 E: [email protected] I: www.toxicslink.org About the International POPs Elimination Project On May 1, 2004, the International POPs Elimination Network (IPEN http://www.ipen.org) began a global NGO project called the International POPs Elimination Project (IPEP) in partnership with the United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) and the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP). The Global Environment Facility (GEF) provided core funding for the project. IPEP has three principal objectives: • Encourage and enable NGOs in 40 developing and transitional countries to engage in activities that provide concrete and immediate contributions to country efforts in preparing for the implementation of the Stockholm Convention; • Enhance the skills and knowledge of NGOs to help build their capacity as effective stakeholders in the Convention implementation process; • Help establish regional and national NGO coordination and capacity in all regions of the world in support of longer term efforts to achieve chemical safety. IPEP will support preparation of reports on country situation, hotspots, policy briefs, and regional activities. Three principal types of activities
    [Show full text]
  • Research on Pest Control and Pesticide Reduction in Sweden, Denmark and the Netherlands
    Research on pest control and pesticide reduction in Sweden, Denmark and the Netherlands - ongoing work and new ideas for the future Fredrik Fogelberg Dept. Agricultural Engineering Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences 2001 Contents Introduction 5 Aims and limitations of the report 5 What's the problem ? 5 Pesticide use in Sweden 6 Insecticides 6 Fungicides 6 Herbicides 7 Agriculture without pesticides - a possible future ? 7 Alternatives to conventional insecticides 8 Fungi control without conventional fungicides 9 Non-chemical weed control 9 Mechanical methods 10 Weed harrowing 10 Row cultivation 10 In-row weeding 10 Thermal weed control 11 Freezing 11 Flame weeding 11 Hot water 11 Steam 12 Electromagnetic methods 12 Electricity and electroporation 12 Microwave radiation 13 Laser 13 UV-light 14 Other techniques for weed control 14 Watercutting 14 Solrization 14 Cropping techniques 15 Allelopathy 15 Pesticide research in some European countries 16 Sweden 16 Denmark 18 The Netherlands 19 Can pesticides be reduced in future agriculture ? 22 Strategies for pesticide reduction 22 New techniques for future agriculture 23 Recommendations for future research 24 Near future (1-5 years) 24 In the longer perspective (5-10 years) 25 Concluding remarks 25 References 26 Personal Communication 31 Introduction During the last decade society has experienced a growing interest in organic farming partly due to the public debate about environmental degradation and contamination of soil and water. The drawbacks with pesticide use has been recognised and a wide range of projects have been initiated to identify and minimise the negative impact of pesticides (eg Kreuger, 1999). Representatives from science and society have pointed out that a sustainable development of the society and particular the agricultural sector, cannot be based on use of high amounts of agrochemicals.
    [Show full text]
  • Radiotracer Studies of Fungicide Residues in Food Plants Iaea, Vienna, 1990 Iaea-Tecdoc-554 Issn 1011-4289
    IAEA-TECDOC-554 RADIOTRACER STUDIES OF FUNGICIDE RESIDUES FOON I D PUNTS PROCEEDING FINAA F SO L RESEARCH CO-ORDINATION MEETING ORGANIZED BY THE JOINT FAO/IAEA DIVISION OF NUCLEAR TECHNIQUES IN FOOD AND AGRICULTURE AND HEL ANKARADN I , 13-17 MARCH 1989 ATECHNICAL DOCUMENT ISSUED BY THE INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, VIENNA, 1989 RADIOTRACER STUDIES OF FUNGICIDE RESIDUES IN FOOD PLANTS IAEA, VIENNA, 1990 IAEA-TECDOC-554 ISSN 1011-4289 Printe IAEe th Austrin Ay i d b a April 1990 The IAEA does not normally maintain stocks of reports in this series. However, microfiche copie f thesso e reportobtainee b n sca d from INIS Clearinghouse International Atomic Energy Agency Wagramerstrasse5 0 10 P.Ox Bo . A-1400 Vienna, Austria Orders shoul accompaniee db prepaymeny db f Austriao t n Schillings 100,- in the form of a cheque or in the form of IAEA microfiche service coupons orderee whicb y hdma separately fro e INImth S Clearinghouse. FOREWORD Growing world population and food demand have dictated the introduction of intensive agricultural practice n increasina sf o involvin e us g e rangth g e of pesticide chemicals considerabla o t d . le Thi s seha increas foon ei d crop production. However, wit e increasinhth agriculturaf o e gus l chemicaln so crops, there is a major concern from a toxicological standpoint. Such use must not result in the retention of appreciable (and potentially toxic) residue foon so d products. Even when pesticid e conformeus currentlo st y adopted standards of good management practice, undesirable side effects may occu d couldan r timest ,a , conceivably endanger public health o ensurT .
    [Show full text]
  • Proceedings Iomc
    UNITED NATIONS ENVIRONMENT PROGRAMME Chemicals PROCEEDINGS of the Regional Workshop on the Management of Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) Hanoi, Vietnam, 16-19 March 1999 INTER-ORGANIZATION PROGRAMME FOR THE SOUND MANAGEMENT OF CHEMICALS IOMC A cooperative agreement among UNEP, ILO, FAO, WHO, UNIDO, UNITAR and OECD PROCEEDINGS of the Regional Workshop on the Management of Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) Hanoi, Vietnam, 16-19 March 1999 CONTENTS Introduction................................................................................................................................1 Programme of the Meeting.........................................................................................................2 List of Participants......................................................................................................................9 Working Group 1 Report..........................................................................................................23 Working Group 2 Report..........................................................................................................25 Dr. Pham Khoi Nguyen, Vice-Minister, MOSTE, Vietnam Opening Statement....................................................................................................................29 Presentations 1. Mr. J. Willis, Director, UNEP/Chemicals, Switzerland Global Action on POPs: Objectives and Strategy......................................................31 2. Mr. J. Willis, Director, UNEP/Chemicals, Switzerland Progress in
    [Show full text]
  • Persistence of Chlorpyrifos and Fenpropathrin Alone and in Combination with Fertilizers in Soil and Their Effect on Soil Microbes
    Pak. J. Bot., 36(4): 863-870, 2004. PERSISTENCE OF CHLORPYRIFOS AND FENPROPATHRIN ALONE AND IN COMBINATION WITH FERTILIZERS IN SOIL AND THEIR EFFECT ON SOIL MICROBES SHAHIDA AKHTAR, SYEDA TALAT SHAHEEN GILANI AND NUSRAT HASAN Pesticide Research Institute, Southern-Zone Agricultural Research Centre, Pakistan Agricultural Research Council, Karachi University Campus, Karachi-75270, Pakistan Abstract The study was designed to determine the persistence of chlorpyrifos (an organophosphate) and fenpropathrin (pyrethroid) pesticide alone and in combination with synthetic fertilizers viz., Urea, DAP, SOP and Foliar fertilizer Polydol with tap/hard water. All the fertilizers were added @ 1% to the soil collected from vegetable growing area of Memon Goth, Karachi and insecticide fortification was done @ 100 ppm and 1000 ppm. Results indicated that the addition of fertilizers had no effect on the persistence of OP and pyrethroid pesticides. Similarly, the changes observed in the pH both with tap and hard water had no effect on the persistence. The 2-months study showed 100% persistence of both the pesticides. Introduction Pesticide formulations, mostly organic in nature, are likely to be degraded after application to plant/soil. The degradation/persistence of pesticide formulations depends upon a number of variables like temperature, moisture, acidity, adjuvants and structure of the compounds etc. Due to the introduction of high yielding varieties and new technologies, the soil is continuously being depleted in major nutrients as well as trace elements. To overcome this deficiency, chemical fertilizers are applied along with pesticide formulations if they are compatible and advantageous. Widespread use of pesticides over the past 30 years has resulted in the imbalance of the natural biological system, (Agnihotri et al., 1981).
    [Show full text]