DOCSLIB.ORG

2010 – 2011 Pilot Study Pesticide Residue Testing of Organic Produce

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
2010 – 2011 Pilot Study Pesticide Residue Testing of Organic Produce United States Department of Agriculture Agricultural Marketing Service 2010 – 2011 Pilot Study Pesticide Residue Testing of Organic Produce USDA National Organic Program USDA Science and Technology Programs November 2012 2010 – 2011 Pilot Study Pesticide Residue Testing of Organic Produce Contents Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................................1 Figure ES1 – Overview of Results by Sample for All Commodities .........................................................................1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................2 Materials and Methods ..............................................................................................................................................2 Results ........................................................................................................................................................................4 Discussion ...................................................................................................................................................................5 Limitations ..................................................................................................................................................................7 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................................................8 References ..................................................................................................................................................................8 Tables and Figures ......................................................................................................................................................9 Figure 1 – Distribution of Organic Commodity Samples Collected per State.........................................................9 Figure 2 – Origin of Organic Commodities .......................................................................................................... 10 Table 1 – Production Volume in 2008 and Number of Samples by Organic Commodity ................................... 11 Table 2 – The Number of Samples by Organic Commodity and Source of Production ....................................... 11 Table 3 – The Number of Samples and Operations by Certifying Agent and Source of Production ................... 12 Table 4 – The Number of Samples by Certifying Agent and Organic Commodity ............................................... 13 Table 5 – The Number of Samples Analyzed and Summary of Results by Organic Commodity ......................... 14 Table 6 – The Number of Samples Analyzed and Results by Organic Commodity.............................................. 14 Appendix A .............................................................................................................................................................. 15 Listing of Pesticides by the Type of Pesticide ...................................................................................................... 15 Appendix B ............................................................................................................................................................... 20 Laboratory Procedures and Methods.................................................................................................................. 20 Table B1 – Optimized Sample Size ...................................................................................................................... 23 Appendix C ............................................................................................................................................................... 24 Distribution of Pesticide Residues in Organic Commodities ............................................................................... 24 Table C1 – Apples, Distribution of Results for Each Detected Pesticide ............................................................. 25 Table C2 – Bell Peppers, Distribution of Results for Each Detected Pesticide .................................................... 26 Table C3 – Broccoli, Distribution of Results for Each Detected Pesticide ........................................................... 28 Table C4 – Potatoes, Distribution of Results for Each Detected Pesticide .......................................................... 29 Table C5 – Strawberries, Distribution of Results for Each Detected Pesticide.................................................... 30 Table C6 – Tomatoes, Distribution of Results for Each Detected Pesticide ........................................................ 31 Executive Summary The Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 established national standards for the production and handling of organic agricultural products. The Act authorized the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) to create the National Organic Program. This program is responsible for developing the USDA organic regulations and ensuring that organic farms and business comply with them. USDA accredits third-party certifying agents to certify organic farms and processing facilities, allowing them to sell, label, and represent their products as organic. The majority of pest control materials permitted in organic agriculture are naturally derived from a plant (e.g., pyrethrum), microorganism (e.g., Bacillus thuringiensis), or other natural sources. Organic standards prohibit the use of most synthetic substances—including most pesticides used in conventional agriculture—for at least 3 years prior to the harvest of an organic crop. Synthetic pest control materials allowed in organic crop production include elemental sulfur, insecticidal soap, horticultural oils, and copper hydroxide. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) establishes the maximum allowed levels of pesticides, or EPA tolerances, which may be present on foods. Although most EPA-registered pesticides are prohibited in organic production, there can be inadvertent or indirect contact from neighboring conventional farms or shared handling facilities. As long as the operator hasn’t directly applied prohibited pesticides and has documented efforts to minimize exposure to them, the USDA organic regulations allow residues of prohibited pesticides up to 5 percent of the EPA tolerance. In 2010, the National Organic Program worked with the USDA Agricultural Marketing Service’s Science and Technology Program to evaluate pesticide residues on USDA organic produce. The study involved 571 domestic and foreign fruit and vegetable samples bearing the USDA organic seal, which were obtained from retail establishments across the United States. Using sensitive equipment, an accredited Government laboratory tested each sample for approximately 200 pesticides typically used in conventional crop production. Of these 571 samples, 96 percent were compliant with USDA organic regulations (see Figure ES1). This means that the produce either had no detected residues (57 percent) or had residues less than 5 percent of the EPA tolerance (39 percent). Four percent of the tested samples contained residues above 5 percent of the EPA tolerance and were in violation of the USDA organic regulations. The findings suggest that some of the samples in violation were mislabeled conventional products, while others were organic products that hadn’t been adequately protected from prohibited pesticides. The National Organic Program is working with certifying agents to provide additional scrutiny in these areas. Overall, the pilot study demonstrated that it can serve as a model for future pesticide residue Figure ES1 – Overview of Results by testing projects of organic produce. It should be Sample for All Commodities noted that the pilot study did not measure pesticide levels in all types of USDA organic 21 NoNo Detected Detected products; it only analyzed 571 samples across 6 ResiduesResidues select commodities. Organic certifying agents are encouraged to use the methods described in this Allowed report when conducting required periodic residue Allowed, Low Level 326 Residues (< 5% testing of organic products. Since certifying agents 224 Residues EPA Tolerance) will be testing samples most likely to contain ( < 5% EPA Tolerance) prohibited substances (and not selecting products UnacceptableUnacceptable at random), it will not be possible to draw overall Residues Residues (> 5% conclusions from these results. ( > 5% EPA EPA Tolerance) Tolerance) 1 Introduction In December 2000, the USDA National Organic Program published national standards for the production and handling of USDA organic products. The regulations describe the allowed and prohibited methods, practices, and substances for organic crops, livestock, and processed products. These regulations also require that certifying agents test organic products when there is reason to believe they have been contaminated with prohibited substances, including synthetic pesticides. The EPA establishes the maximum allowed levels of pesticides, or EPA tolerances, which may be present on foods. Although many of these pesticides are prohibited in organic production, there can be inadvertent indirect contact from neighboring conventional farms or shared handling facilities. To recognize that inadvertent or unavoidable contact
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Potential Spray Drift Damage: What Steps to Take?
    [email protected] • (479) 575-7646 www.nationalaglawcenter.org An Agricultural Law Research Publication Potential Spray Drift Damage: What Steps to Take? by Tiffany Dowell Lashmet Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Service This material is based upon work supported by the National Agricultural Library, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. An Agricultural & Food Law Consortium Project Potential Spray Drift Damage: What Steps to Take? Tiffany Dowell Lashmet Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Service As many farmers know all too well, applications of various pesticides can result in drift and cause damage to neighboring property owners. In recent years, incidences of spray drift damage have been frequent and well-publicized. In the event a farmer discovers damage to his or her own crop, it is important for the injured producer to know some steps to take. Document, Document, Document First and foremost, any farmer who suspects possible injury from drift should document all potential evidence, including taking photographs or samples of damaged crops or foliage, keeping a log of spray applications made by neighboring landowners, noting any custom applicators applying pesticide in the area, documenting environmental conditions like wind speed, direction, and temperatures, and getting statements from any witnesses who might have seen recent pesticide applications. Photographs should be taken continually for several days, as the full extent of damage may not occur for several weeks after application. The more documentation a landowner has, the better his chances of recovery will be; whether it is from the offender, the offender’s insurance or potentially even the injured party’s insurance.
    [Show full text]
  • Rachel Carson for SILENT SPRING
    Silent Spring THE EXPLOSIVE BESTSELLER THE WHOLE WORLD IS TALKING ABOUT RACHEL CARSON Author of THE SEA AROUND US SILENT SPRING, winner of 8 awards*, is the history making bestseller that stunned the world with its terrifying revelation about our contaminated planet. No science- fiction nightmare can equal the power of this authentic and chilling portrait of the un-seen destroyers which have already begun to change the shape of life as we know it. “Silent Spring is a devastating attack on human carelessness, greed and irresponsibility. It should be read by every American who does not want it to be the epitaph of a world not very far beyond us in time.” --- Saturday Review *Awards received by Rachel Carson for SI LENT SPRING: • The Schweitzer Medal (Animal Welfare Institute) • The Constance Lindsay Skinner Achievement Award for merit in the realm of books (Women’s National Book Association) • Award for Distinguished Service (New England Outdoor Writers Association) • Conservation Award for 1962 (Rod and Gun Editors of Metropolitan Manhattan) • Conservationist of the Year (National Wildlife Federation) • 1963 Achievement Award (Albert Einstein College of Medicine --- Women’s Division) • Annual Founders Award (Isaak Walton League) • Citation (International and U.S. Councils of Women) Silent Spring ( By Rachel Carson ) • “I recommend SILENT SPRING above all other books.” --- N. J. Berrill author of MAN’S EMERGING MIND • "Certain to be history-making in its influence upon thought and public policy all over the world." --Book-of-the-Month Club News • "Miss Carson is a scientist and is not given to tossing serious charges around carelessly.
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluation of Tebuconazole, Triclosan, Methylparaben and Ethylparaben According to the Danish Proposal for Criteria for Endocrine Disrupters
    Downloaded from orbit.dtu.dk on: Sep 26, 2021 Evaluation of tebuconazole, triclosan, methylparaben and ethylparaben according to the Danish proposal for criteria for endocrine disrupters Hass, Ulla; Christiansen, Sofie; Petersen, Marta Axelstad; Boberg, Julie; Andersson, Anna-Maria ; Skakkebæk, Niels Erik ; Bay, Katrine ; Holbech, Henrik ; Lund Kinnberg, Karin ; Bjerregaard, Poul Publication date: 2012 Document Version Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record Link back to DTU Orbit Citation (APA): Hass, U., Christiansen, S., Petersen, M. A., Boberg, J., Andersson, A-M., Skakkebæk, N. E., Bay, K., Holbech, H., Lund Kinnberg, K., & Bjerregaard, P. (2012). Evaluation of tebuconazole, triclosan, methylparaben and ethylparaben according to the Danish proposal for criteria for endocrine disrupters. Danish Centre on Endocrine Disrupters. General rights Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will
    [Show full text]
  • Alternative Herbicides in Turfgrass and Organic Agriculture
    1 Volume XXXII, Number 5/6, May/June 2010 Alternative Herbicides in Turfgrass and Organic Agriculture By William Quarles Photo courtesy of Marrone Bio Innovations number of alternative herbi- cides have been developed A and are now either commer- cially available, or waiting for EPA approval. Major markets for these herbicides include the turfgrass industry and organic agriculture. Demand for “green” herbicides in turfgrass is being driven both by environmental concerns and regula- tory action. For instance, a number of provinces in Canada have banned cosmetic application of chemical pesticides such as 2,4-D for broadleaf weed control on lawns. Cultural methods can relieve some weed pressures, but alternative herbicides can make weed manage- ment less labor intensive (Abu- Dieyeh and Watson 2009; Hashman 2011; Bailey et al. 2010; Boyetchko et al. 2009). In organic agriculture, weeds are Alternative herbicides can be effective. Pictured here is an irrigation chan- the number one pest management nel that has been treated with GreenMatch®, a reduced risk herbicide con- problem and conventional synthetic taining d-limonene. herbicides cannot be used. Current organic options include hand weed- commonly used lawn herbicides— weeds is to ignore or tolerate them. ing, cultivation, mulching and flam- 2,4-D, dicamba, and MCPP. About Some “weeds” are even aesthetically ing (Quarles 2004; Sivesind et al. 77% of the Canadian population is pleasing and break up the monoto- 2009). Alternative herbicides can benefiting from reduced exposure to ny of a “perfect” lawn. When lawn reduce or eliminate costs of hand synthetic lawn and garden pesti- weeds reach levels where they can- weeding (Evans and Bellinder 2009; cides (Ottawa 2010).
    [Show full text]
  • FAO Manual on the Submission and Evaluation of Pesticide Residues Data
    ISSNISSN 0259-2517 1020-055X 225 ESTUDIO FAOFAO Biotecnología agrícola INVESTIGACIÓNPLANT YPRODUCTION TECNOLOGIA Submission and evaluation of pesticide residues data for estima para países en desarrollo AND PROTECTION PAPER8 Resultados de un foro electrónico 225 Submission and evaluation En esta publicación se presenta un informe sobre las primeras seis conferencias mediante correo electrónico The firstorganizadas version of por this el manualForo electrónico on the submissionde la FAO sobre and la evaluation biotecnología of pesticideen la alimentación residues y datala agricultura, for of pesticide residues data estimationcelebradas of maximum entre marzo residue de 2000 levels y mayo in de food 2001. and Todas feed las was conferencias printed by contaron FAO in con1997 un as moderador, a working duraron documentaproximadamente with the dos aim meses of consolidating y se centraron the en proceduresla biotecnología used agrícola by the en FAO los Panelpaíses ofen experts desarrollo. on Las cuatro pesticideprimeras residues. conferencias The trataron FAO Manual de la idoneidad was revised para in los 2002 países and en indesarrollo 2009 incorporated de las biotecnologías additional actualmente for the estimation of informationdisponibles from enthe los JMPR sectores Report agrícola, of 1997-2009. pesquero, forestalSince then y ganadero. there have Las otras been dos many conferencias developments trataron in de las the scientificrepercusiones evaluation de process la biotecnología of the Joint agrícola Meeting sobre onel hambre Pesticide y la Residues seguridad (JMPR), alimentaria administered en los países by en FAO anddesarrollo the Wor y lasld Healthconsecuencias Organization. de los derechos The present de propiedad manual intelectual incorporates en la all alimentación relevant information y la agricultura en maximum residue levels and principles that are currently used by the JMPResos to países.
    [Show full text]
  • COMBINED LIST of Particularly Hazardous Substances
    COMBINED LIST of Particularly Hazardous Substances revised 2/4/2021 IARC list 1 are Carcinogenic to humans list compiled by Hector Acuna, UCSB IARC list Group 2A Probably carcinogenic to humans IARC list Group 2B Possibly carcinogenic to humans If any of the chemicals listed below are used in your research then complete a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for the product as described in the Chemical Hygiene Plan. Prop 65 known to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity Material(s) not on the list does not preclude one from completing an SOP. Other extremely toxic chemicals KNOWN Carcinogens from National Toxicology Program (NTP) or other high hazards will require the development of an SOP. Red= added in 2020 or status change Reasonably Anticipated NTP EPA Haz list COMBINED LIST of Particularly Hazardous Substances CAS Source from where the material is listed. 6,9-Methano-2,4,3-benzodioxathiepin, 6,7,8,9,10,10- hexachloro-1,5,5a,6,9,9a-hexahydro-, 3-oxide Acutely Toxic Methanimidamide, N,N-dimethyl-N'-[2-methyl-4-[[(methylamino)carbonyl]oxy]phenyl]- Acutely Toxic 1-(2-Chloroethyl)-3-(4-methylcyclohexyl)-1-nitrosourea (Methyl-CCNU) Prop 65 KNOWN Carcinogens NTP 1-(2-Chloroethyl)-3-cyclohexyl-1-nitrosourea (CCNU) IARC list Group 2A Reasonably Anticipated NTP 1-(2-Chloroethyl)-3-cyclohexyl-1-nitrosourea (CCNU) (Lomustine) Prop 65 1-(o-Chlorophenyl)thiourea Acutely Toxic 1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane IARC list Group 2B 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane Prop 65 IARC list Group 2B 1,1-Dichloro-2,2-bis(p -chloropheny)ethylene (DDE) Prop 65 1,1-Dichloroethane
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Integrated Pest Management Plan 2021-22
    Denair Unified School District INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT PLAN Contacts Denair Unified School District 3460 Lester Rd., Denair, CA Mark Hodges (209) 632-7514 Ext 1215 [email protected] District IPM Coordinator Phone Number e-mail address IPM Statement It is the goal of Denair Unified School District to implement IPM by focusing on long-term prevention or suppression of pests through accurate pest identification, by frequent monitoring for pest presence, by applying appropriate action levels, and by making the habitat less conducive to pests using sanitation and mechanical and physical controls. Pesticides that are effective will be used in a manner that minimizes risks to people, property, and the environment, and only after other options have been shown ineffective. Pest Management Objectives: • Focus on long-term pest prevention using minimal pesticides. • Elimination of significant threats caused by pests to the health and safety of students, staff and the public. • Prevention of loss or damage to structures or property by pests. • Protection of environmental quality inside and outside buildings, in playgrounds and athletic areas, and throughout the Denair Unified School District facilities. IPM Team In addition to the IPM Coordinator, other individuals who are involved in purchasing, making IPM decisions, applying pesticides, and complying with the Healthy Schools Act requirements, include: Name Role Mark Hodges Making IPM Decisions Jerri Pierce Recordkeeping, and Making IPM Decisions Daniel Meza Applying Pesticides, Recordkeeping,
    [Show full text]
  • Standard Practices for Pesticide Applicators
    Standard Practices for Pesticide Applicators 10/09 Printed in Canada BK35 About WorkSafeBC WorkSafeBC (the Workers’ Compensation Board) is an independent provincial statutory agency governed by a Board of Directors. It is funded by insurance premiums paid by registered employers and by investment returns. In administering the Workers Compensation Act, WorkSafeBC remains separate and distinct from government; however, it is accountable to the public through government in its role of protecting and maintaining the overall well-being of the workers’ compensation system. WorkSafeBC was born out of a compromise between B.C.’s workers and employers in 1917 where workers gave up the right to sue their employers or fellow workers for injuries on the job in return for a no-fault insurance program fully paid for by employers. WorkSafeBC is committed to a safe and healthy workplace, and to providing return-to-work rehabilitation and legislated compensation benefits to workers injured as a result of their employment. WorkSafeBC Prevention Information Line The WorkSafeBC Prevention Information Line can answer your questions about workplace health and safety, worker and employer responsibilities, and reporting a workplace accident or incident. The Prevention Information Line accepts anonymous calls. Phone 604 276-3100 in the Lower Mainland, or call 1 888 621-7233 (621-SAFE) toll-free in British Columbia. To report after-hours and weekend accidents and emergencies, call 604 273-7711 in the Lower Mainland, or call 1 866 922-4357 (WCB-HELP) toll-free in British Columbia. Standard Practices for Pesticide Applicators WorkSafeBC Publications Many publications are available on the WorkSafeBC web site.
    [Show full text]
  • INDEX to PESTICIDE TYPES and FAMILIES and PART 180 TOLERANCE INFORMATION of PESTICIDE CHEMICALS in FOOD and FEED COMMODITIES
    US Environmental Protection Agency Office of Pesticide Programs INDEX to PESTICIDE TYPES and FAMILIES and PART 180 TOLERANCE INFORMATION of PESTICIDE CHEMICALS in FOOD and FEED COMMODITIES Note: Pesticide tolerance information is updated in the Code of Federal Regulations on a weekly basis. EPA plans to update these indexes biannually. These indexes are current as of the date indicated in the pdf file. For the latest information on pesticide tolerances, please check the electronic Code of Federal Regulations (eCFR) at http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_07/40cfrv23_07.html 1 40 CFR Type Family Common name CAS Number PC code 180.163 Acaricide bridged diphenyl Dicofol (1,1-Bis(chlorophenyl)-2,2,2-trichloroethanol) 115-32-2 10501 180.198 Acaricide phosphonate Trichlorfon 52-68-6 57901 180.259 Acaricide sulfite ester Propargite 2312-35-8 97601 180.446 Acaricide tetrazine Clofentezine 74115-24-5 125501 180.448 Acaricide thiazolidine Hexythiazox 78587-05-0 128849 180.517 Acaricide phenylpyrazole Fipronil 120068-37-3 129121 180.566 Acaricide pyrazole Fenpyroximate 134098-61-6 129131 180.572 Acaricide carbazate Bifenazate 149877-41-8 586 180.593 Acaricide unclassified Etoxazole 153233-91-1 107091 180.599 Acaricide unclassified Acequinocyl 57960-19-7 6329 180.341 Acaricide, fungicide dinitrophenol Dinocap (2, 4-Dinitro-6-octylphenyl crotonate and 2,6-dinitro-4- 39300-45-3 36001 octylphenyl crotonate} 180.111 Acaricide, insecticide organophosphorus Malathion 121-75-5 57701 180.182 Acaricide, insecticide cyclodiene Endosulfan 115-29-7 79401
    [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 [email protected]. 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]
  • (12) United States Patent (10) Patent No.: US 8,852,618 B2 Clough (45) Date of Patent: Oct
    USOO8852618B2 (12) United States Patent (10) Patent No.: US 8,852,618 B2 Clough (45) Date of Patent: Oct. 7, 2014 (54) INSECTICIDAL MIXTURE CONTAINING CA 2429218 A1 6, 2002 GAMMA-CYHALOTHRN CH 689326 A5 4f1995 EP O237227 A1 9, 1987 EP 0771526 A2 5, 1997 (75) Inventor: Martin Stephen Clough, Bracknell EP O988788 A1 3f2000 (GB) FR 272O230 A1 12/1995 JP 63. 126805 A2 5, 1988 (73) Assignee: Syngenta Limited, Guildford (GB) JP 63126805 A2 5, 1988 JP 63126805 5, 1998 c - r WO WO 86 O7525 A1 12, 1986 (*) Notice: Subject to any disclaimer, the term of this WO WO 93 03618 A2 3, 1993 patent is extended or adjusted under 35 WO WO95 229O2 A1 8/1995 U.S.C. 154(b) by 824 days. WO WO9533380 A1 12, 1995 WO WO 96 16543 A2 6, 1996 (21) Appl. No.: 12/633,063 WO WO97 06687 A1 2/1997 WO WO974O692 A1 11, 1997 (22) Filed: Dec.a V88, 2009 WO WOOOO2453 A1 1, 2000 OTHER PUBLICATIONS (65) Prior Publication Data US 201O/OO81714 A1 Apr. 1, 2010 Canadian Office Action (Applin. No. 2,452,515 filed: Jul. 10, 2002) mailing date Oct. 1, 2010 (pp. 1-2). Related U.S. Application Data Allen et al. Transgenic & Conventional Insect & Weed Control Sys tems; Proceedings of the Beltwide Cotton Conference, vol. 2, 1065 (62) Division of application No. 10/484.745, filed as 1068 (1999), USA. application No. PCT/GB02/03181 on Jul. 10, 2002, Anonymous; Pesticide Mixtures for Control of Insect and Acarid now Pat. No.
    [Show full text]