DOCSLIB.ORG

Chemical Trespass Pesticides in Our Bodies and Xcorporate Accountability

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Chemical Trespass Pesticides in Our Bodies and Xcorporate Accountability Chemical Trespass Pesticides in Our Bodies and XCorporate Accountability Kristin S. Schafer, Margaret Reeves, Skip Spitzer, Susan E. Kegley Pesticide Action Network North America May 2004 Chemical Trespass Pesticides in Our Bodies and Corporate Accountability Pesticide Action Network North America May 2004 Authors Kristin S. Schafer, Program Coordinator, Persistent Pesticides Margaret Reeves, PhD, Senior Scientist Skip Spitzer, Program Coordinator, Corporate Accountability Susan E. Kegley, PhD, Senior Scientist Acknowledgements This report reflects the efforts and expertise of many individuals both within Pesticide Action Network North America and among our partner organizations and institutions. Jessica Koll- meyer worked closely with the authors in researching and drafting the report, and Stephan Orme provided expertise on accessing and managing data. Monica Moore, Tanya Brown and Martha Olson Jarocki provided useful comments as the report was being developed and finalized, and Bob Sholtz helped strengthen our analytical approach to data analysis. Previous work of our colleague Marion Moses, M.D. cataloguing evidence of specific health effects of pesticides was invaluable in developing the health impacts discussion in this report. We also gratefully acknowledge the insights and suggestions provided by the reviewers of the report: Carol Dansereau, Michael DiBartolomeis, Joe DiGangi, Kim Hooper, Phil Howard, Sharyle Patton and Erika Schreder. Participation in the report’s review does not necessarily indicate endorsement by the reviewers or their organizations of the analyses, conclusions or recommendations presented. Thanks also go to Brenda J. Willoughby who formatted the report for publication, Mateo Rutherford and Roy Rojas of Berkeley Interpretation, Translation and Transcription Services (BITTS) who translated the Executive Summary into Spanish, and Cori Fay Traub, Martha Olson Jarocki, Travis Coan, Jessica Kollmeyer and Alexandra Latta for proofing and copy edit- ing. Major funding for this report was provided by Cedar Tree Foundation. Additional support came from the Clarence E. Heller Charitable Foundation, Mitchell Kapor Foundation and Panta Rhea Foundation; and from the Nicole Jae Ford Fund, established by her parents and friends in memory of Nicole Jae Ford who passed away at four months of age. 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. Copyright 2004 by Pesticide Action Network North America. Permission is granted to reproduce portions of this report, provided the publishing organization is acknowledged. Printed on recycled paper. Cover printed on 100% post-consumer recycled, non-de-inked paper. Contents Executive Summary ..................................................................................... 5 Government data reveal pesticide body burden .............................................. 5 Pesticide companies must be held accountable .............................................. 8 Real changes are needed to reduce pesticide body burdens ......................... 9 1. Pesticides in Our Bodies ................................................................... 11 CDC now monitors chemical residues in people ........................................... 11 Body burden data provide direct evidence of pesticide exposure .................. 12 Pesticide exposure is linked to chronic diseases ........................................... 13 CDC body burden data provide incentive for change .................................... 15 2. What CDC Body Burden Data Show .............................................. 19 Most people in the U.S. have many pesticides in their bodies ....................... 21 Many people in the U.S. are exposed to pesticides at dangerous levels ....... 22 Children carry the heaviest body burden of many harmful pesticides ........... 25 Mexican Americans carry higher body burdens of many pesticides .............. 27 Organochlorine pesticides in women put future generations at risk ............. 29 3. Corporate Responsibility for Pesticide Body Burdens .......... 30 Pesticide companies define pest management options ................................. 30 Pesticide companies use political influence to promote pesticide use .......... 30 Corporate responsibility is an efficient way to address harm ......................... 31 Most people support corporate accountability for products ........................... 31 4. Dow’s Responsibility for Chlorpyrifos Body Burdens ............ 33 Dow’s chlorpyrifos Pesticide Trespass Index and the right to know ............... 33 Dow’s chlorpyrifos: Producing and protecting a profitable hazard .................34 5. Preventing Pesticide Body Burdens .............................................. 37 Recommendations for corporations and government .................................... 38 What individuals can do ................................................................................. 39 Notes .................................................................................................................40 Appendix A Analytical Methods ..................................................................... 45 Appendix B Calculating Pesticide Exposure from Metabolites in Urine ........ 49 Appendix C Using Blood Concentrations of Pesticides and Metabolites to Assess Pesticide Exposure .................................................. 52 Appendix D Where Can I Learn More? ......................................................... 55 Appendix E Glossary .....................................................................................56 Chemical Trespass Pesticides in Our Bodies and Corporate Accountability Executive Summary The human body is not designed to cope with Government data reveal synthetic pesticides. Yet we all carry a cocktail pesticide body burden of chemicals designed to kill insects, weeds and The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and other agricultural and household pests. Prevention (CDC) released its Second National Some of these pesticides are coursing through Report on Human Exposure to Environmental our systems at levels that can barely be detected Chemicals in January 2003. The report refl ects with the most sophisticated monitoring equip- the results of testing 9,282 people for the pres- ment. Others occur in concentrations refl ecting ence in their bodies of 116 chemicals, including exposure levels known to be unsafe. 34 pesticides. Many of the pesticides we carry in our bodies This report takes a closer look at what the CDC can cause cancer, disrupt our hormone systems, data tell us about the pesticides we all carry, or decrease fertility, cause birth defects or weaken our “pesticide body bur- our immune systems. These are just some of the den.” Analysis of these o one ever asked known detrimental effects of particular pesticides data tell us which groups us whether we of people carry the most N at very low levels of exposure. Almost nothing is wanted pesticides in known about the long-term impacts of multiple of which pesticides, and our bodies. chemicals in the body over long periods. whether the levels we’re exposed to are considered For decades, pesticide manufacturers have argued “safe” by U.S. authorities. We also review what is that applying pesticides in our homes and intro- known (and what is not known) about the long- ducing them into our environment is necessary term health effects of daily exposure to this mix and safe. When used correctly, they argue, pesti- of synthetic chemicals, who is responsible for the cides harm pests, not people. But the claim that pesticides are necessary is rapidly eroding in light of the grow- ing success of sustainable and organic agricultural production and alterna- Maggie Hallahan tive controls for household pests. And the safety argument is directly chal- lenged by the data analyzed in this report documenting the presence of pesticides in the bodies of men, wom- en and children throughout the U.S. Women and Mexican Americans have the highest body burden levels of several organochlorine pesticides measured by CDC. Chemical Trespass 5 pesticides in our bodies and what can and must be done to prevent and elimi- nate pesticide body burdens. Key find- ings of our analysis are outlined below. Many in the U.S. are exposed to pesticides at harmful levels Body burden data provide direct evidence of an individual’s exposure to pesticides. In many cases, pesticide ex- posure levels indicated by CDC’s body burden data were well above officially permitted thresholds established by government health and environmental agencies. Of the 13 pesticides in the evaluated set1 for which such “accept- able” exposure levels have been estab- lished, two—chlorpyrifos and methyl parathion—exceeded the thresholds dramatically. Chronic exposure to chlor- Figure A. Chlorpyrifos Exposure Above “Acceptable” Levels for Many. We compared levels between CDC’s three age categories of the pyrifos, an insecticide more commonly chlorpyrifos metabolite (3,5,6-Trichloro-2-pyridinol or TCP) measured in known by its commercial name Durs- urine. The cPAD refers to the chronic Population Adjusted Dose, the officially “acceptable” dose for children,3 and RfD refers to the Reference Dose, the ban, was furthest above the government officially “acceptable” dose for healthy adults (excluding pregnant or nursing safety threshold, with average2 levels women). See Section 2 and
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 Action Networknews
    30th Anniversary Edition Pesticide Action Network NEWS Advancing alternatives to pesticides worldwide • www.panna.org Year-end 2012 Cultivating the roots of health and justice Pesticide Action Network: The First 30 Years By 1982, the luster of industrial agriculture—the so-called “Green Revolution”—had faded in developing countries. The promised dramatic increases in yields from “miracle” hybrid grains that required high inputs of water, chemical fertilizers and pesticides failed to deliver and were revealed as campaigns to sell technology to people who couldn’t afford it. Local communities were losing control over their own food systems, and women and children shouldered more of the fieldwork—and bore the brunt of pesticide exposure. The global pesticide trade was, however, yielding dramatic profits for chemical companies as more and more farmers were trapped on a pesticide treadmill. That was the world when PAN was founded. In the years since, the world community has reassessed. When rice farming was collapsing in the 1980s due to pest resurgence from resistance to pesticides, Indonesia needed alternatives. A com- ifty years after Silent Spring and 30 years bination of community-scale peer-learning projects recaptured Fafter PAN’s founding, our struggle for health Indigenous farming knowledge and wove it into new ecological pest management. “Farmer Field Schools”—today adapted to and justice remains vital and more urgent than local needs in many countries—returned bountiful crops of rice ever. Challenging the global proliferation of while expenditures on agrichemicals were slashed. By 2002, more pesticides is about challenging corporate control, than a million Indonesian farmers had participated in field schools that became models for localized sustainable agriculture in other ensuring scientific integrity and defending basic countries.
    [Show full text]
  • Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
    1 Justin Augustine (CA Bar No. 235561) Jaclyn Lopez (CA Bar No. 258589) 2 Center for Biological Diversity 351 California Street, Suite 600 3 San Francisco, CA 94104 Tel: (415) 436-9682 4 Fax: (415) 436-9683 [email protected] 5 [email protected] 6 Collette L. Adkins Giese (MN Bar No. 035059X)* Center for Biological Diversity 8640 Coral Sea Street Northeast 7 Minneapolis, MN 55449-5600 Tel: (651) 955-3821 8 Fax: (415) 436-9683 [email protected] 9 Michael W. Graf (CA Bar No. 136172) 10 Law Offices 227 Behrens Street 11 El Cerrito, CA 94530 Tel: (510) 525-7222 12 Fax: (510) 525-1208 [email protected] 13 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Center for Biological Diversity and 14 Pesticide Action Network North America *Seeking admission pro hac vice 15 16 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 17 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 18 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 19 20 CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL ) 21 DIVERSITY, a non-profit organization; and ) Case No.__________________ PESTICIDE ACTION NETWORK ) 22 NORTH AMERICA, a non-profit ) organization; ) 23 ) Plaintiffs, ) COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY 24 ) AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF v. ) 25 ) ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ) 26 AGENCY; and LISA JACKSON, ) Administrator, U.S. EPA; ) 27 ) Defendants. ) 28 _____________________________________ ) Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief 1 1 INTRODUCTION 2 1. This action challenges the failure of Defendants Environmental Protection Agency and 3 Lisa Jackson, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator, (collectively “EPA”) to consult with the 4 United States Fish and Wildlife Service (“FWS”) and National Marine Fisheries Service (“NMFS”) 5 (collectively “Service”) pursuant to Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”), 16 U.S.C.
    [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]
  • Determination of Selected Priority Pesticides in High Water Fruits and Vegetables by Modified Quechers and GC-ECD with GC-MS/MS Confirmation
    molecules Article Determination of Selected Priority Pesticides in High Water Fruits and Vegetables by Modified QuEChERS and GC-ECD with GC-MS/MS Confirmation Maciej Tankiewicz Department of Environmental Toxicology, Faculty of Health Sciences with Subfaculty of Nursing and Institute of Maritime and Tropical Medicine, Medical University of Gda´nsk,D˛ebowaStr. 23A, 80-204 Gda´nsk,Poland; [email protected]; Tel.: +48-58-349-1937 Received: 21 December 2018; Accepted: 23 January 2019; Published: 24 January 2019 Abstract: A modified quick, easy, cheap, efficient, rugged and safe (QuEChERS) method coupled to gas chromatography with electron capture detector (GC-ECD) was developed for simultaneous determination of selected electronegative pesticides in fruits and vegetables with high water content. The chosen compounds are commonly detected in fruit and vegetable crops, and some of their metabolites have even been found in human urine. In addition, some of them are known or suspected carcinogens according to the International Agency for Research of Cancer. Extraction and clean up parameters were optimized, thus the original QuEChERS method was modified to decrease solvent usage, in accordance with ‘green chemistry’ principles. The proposed methodology was validated in terms of selectivity, specificity, linearity, precision and accuracy. The obtained limits of detection (LODs) for all investigated pesticides ranged from 5.6 µg·kg−1 to 15 µg·kg−1 and limits of quantification (LOQs) from 17 µg·kg−1 to 45 µg·kg−1. The obtained data demonstrated the good reproducibility and stability of the procedure in the tested concentration range up to 10 mg·kg−1, with relative standard deviations (RSDs) lower than 10%.
    [Show full text]
  • 4C Pesticide Lists
    4C PESTICIDE LISTS Version 4.0 II 4C PESTICIDE LISTS Copyright notice © 2020 4C Services GmbH This document is protected by copyright. It is freely available from the 4C website or upon request. No part of this copyrighted document may be changed or amended. The document may not be duplicated or copied in any form or by any means for commercial purpose without permission of 4C Services. Document Title: 4C Pesticide Lists Version 4.0 Valid from: 01 July 2020 III Content List of Tables ........................................................................................................................ IV Abbreviations ....................................................................................................................... IV 4C PESTICIDE LISTS 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 5 2 Selection Criteria Used for the 4C Pesticide Lists .......................................................... 5 3 4C Red List Pesticides: 4C Code of Conduct Requirements and Actions to be Promoted .................................. 6 4 4C Yellow List Pesticides: 4C Code of Conduct Requirements and Actions to be Promoted .................................. 7 © 4C Services GmbH IV List of Tables Table 1: 4C list of unacceptable pesticides ............................................................................ 8 Table 2: 4C red pesticide list ................................................................................................. 9 Table
    [Show full text]
  • Pesticide Action Network Europe
    PESTICIDE ACTION NETWORK EUROPE PESTICIDE TAXATION IPM CAMPAIGN VOICES OF PESTICIDES BEES PESTICIDE FREE TOWNS SUPD GLYPHOSATE DEVELOP- MENTS COURT CASES ENDOCRINE DISRUPTORS AGRI- HUMAN CULTURE HEALTH POLICY NATURE VOICES 2015PAN TOWNS EUROPE ACTIVITY REPORT WHO WE ARE 3 WHAT WE DO 5 PAN EUROPE & THE SUSTAINABLE USE DIRECTIVE 9 INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT 11 PESTICIDE FREE TOWNs 13 BEEs 15 ENDOCRINE DISRUPTING CHEMICALs 17 FURTHER THREATS (GLYPHOSATE, ETC.) 19 COURT CASEs 21 VAT & PESTICIDE TAXATION 23 PESTICIDE SALE 2011-2013 – BASELINE YEAR 2011=100 TONS OF PESTICIDES SOLD IN 2011–2013 WHO WE ARE Pesticide Action Network (PAN) was founded in 1982 and is a network of over 600 non- governmental organisations, institutions and individuals in over 60 countries worldwide working to minimise the negative effects and replace the use of harmful pesticides with eco- logically sound alternatives. Its projects and campaigns are coordinated by five autonomous Regional Centres. PAN Europe is the regional centre in Europe. Located in Brussels, it was founded in 1987 and brings together 34 consumer, public health, and environmental organisations, trades unions, women’s groups and farmer associations from across 21 European countries. PAN Europe’s vision is of a world in which high agricultural productivity is achieved by truly sustainable agricultural production systems in which agrochemical inputs and environmental damage are minimised, and where local people control local production using local varieties. WHY THE FIGHT ON PESTICIDES IS IMPORTANT All of us are exposed directly or indirectly to pesticides and other agrochemicals- farm workers and their families most of all, but every consumer will be exposed to dozens of different pesti- cides every day through food and the environment.
    [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]
  • Multiresidue Analysis of Pesticides in Avocado with Agilent Bond Elut EMR—Lipid by GC/MS/MS
    Multiresidue Analysis of Pesticides in Avocado with Agilent Bond Elut EMR—Lipid by GC/MS/MS Application Note Food Testing and Agriculture Authors Abstract Limian Zhao and Derick Lucas Agilent Bond Elut Enhanced Matrix Removal—Lipid (EMR—Lipid) is the next Agilent Technologies, Inc. generation of sample preparation products, and is used in convenient, dispersive solid phase extraction (dSPE) for highly selective matrix removal without impacting analyte recovery, especially for high-fat samples. This study demonstrates the application of this novel product for the analysis of 23 GC-amenable pesticides in avocado by GC/MS/MS. The procedure involves a QuEChERS AOAC extraction followed by EMR—Lipid dSPE and polish salts. EMR—Lipid provides far superior matrix removal by weight, GC/MS full scan, and matrix effect determination when compared to C18/PSA and zirconia-based sorbents. Furthermore, less matrix is introduced into the analytical flow path. The data also demonstrate dramatically improved reproducibility for the analytes over 100 injections relative to C18/PSA and especially zirconia, which experience significant response deviations. EMR—Lipid is highly selective for lipids and does not negatively affect analyte recovery. Analyte recoveries are high and precision is outstanding. This work demonstrates that EMR—Lipid dSPE fits into a QuEChERS workflow and delivers fast, robust, and effective sample preparation with the most complete matrix removal available for multiresidue analysis of pesticides in avocado. Introduction removal sorbents. However, it does not target all lipid classes Pesticide residue analysis in food commodities is routine for and can retain analytes of interest [6,7]. Samples high in lipid many laboratories that use the Quick, Easy, Cheap, Effective, content may also require cleanup using solid phase extraction Rugged, and Safe (QuEChERS) method [1,2].
    [Show full text]