DOCSLIB.ORG

Jeff Blair Reported That the Purpose of the Agenda Item Was to Tee-Up A

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Jeff Blair Reported That the Purpose of the Agenda Item Was to Tee-Up A INFORMATION DATA ANALYSIS NEEDS AGENDA TOPIC INTRODUCTION Jeff Blair reported that the purpose of the agenda item was to tee-up a discussion at the September meeting and to ensure members understand the topic and have time to prepare comments in advance of the meeting. Jeff explained that the Council is being asked to consider whether from their individual perspectives there is any type of information or data they believe should be provided to the Council relevant to their scope and charge. The agenda item was suggested by Joe Gaudino (chair) and he provided written comments explaining his thoughts regarding the topic. Following are Joe’s comments: During our previous meeting I asked that we add an agenda item so that the council members could consider identifying key metrics that could be useful in fulfilling the mission of the council. My thought was to identify several key metrics that provide important perspective on the overall progress, or deficiencies, in the field of pesticide management. These metrics could then be tracked by the council over time and might be included in the annual report. The metrics or questions could address a variety of subjects such as (note- Mr. Gaudino’s questions are indicated in bold type. FDACS responses are italicized): 1. The efficacy of pesticide use a. Are pesticides keeping up with the threats and challenges presented in agriculture and other areas? • http://agrochemicals.iupac.org/index.php?option=com_sobi2&sobi2Task=sobi2 Details&catid=3&sobi2Id=31 • http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=9598#toc • http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13147 b. What constraints limit the efficacy of pesticide use? Is the product efficacious in the first place? Application methods, weather, timing of application, etc. b. Can we measure trends relative to the problem of pesticide resistance? IFAS would likely have information on this. http://www.irac-online.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/Resistance-The-Facts.pdf (The above link will work if you paste it into the internet address line.) 2. The safety of pesticides a. What pesticides have been removed from the market as a result of safety concerns? All of the older, original organochlorine pesticides and many organophosphates have been removed from the market. However, the significant restriction or removal of the uses of fenamiphos, spirotetramat, methyl iodide, methyl bromide, MSMA, endosulfan and aldicarb were higher profile and potentially more impacting. It should be noted that the reasoning and process under which these products were restricted/canceled varied significantly. On a more general note, the EPA re-reviews all pesticide active ingredients on a 15-year cycle to incorporate the latest available data into the risk assessment and to make sure a pesticide continues to meet today’s standard for acceptable risk. This is the main mechanism for taking regulatory action on a registered pesticide. The outcomes of these registration reviews are posted on the federal docket. FDACS routinely reviews the docket for regulatory actions on pesticide active ingredients, and if appropriate, can submit commentary to the EPA during the public comment period. Certain databases (e.g., NPIRS, NSPIRS) can be searched for the registration status of individual active ingredients. However, there is not a readily available comprehensive list of active ingredients that have been cancelled due to health and safety or environmental concerns. Specific formulations (brands) are often cancelled while the active ingredient remains active in other brands. Also, for active ingredients, specific uses are continually added or deleted. There are numerous reasons for an active ingredient being cancelled. Unless otherwise noted, the following are examples of active ingredients that have had all uses cancelled in the U.S. as a result of health and safety or environmental concerns: Reregistration Update for PPDC– October 78, 2008: AZM, cyanazine, fenamiphos, fenthion, mevinphos, molinate, zineb http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/ppdc/2008/oct2008/reregistration-update.pdf Restricted Use Products (RUP) Report (EPA, 2002): Acrolein, acrylonitrile, allyl alcohol, alachlor, avitrol, calcium cyanide, chlordane, chlorfenvinphos, clofentezine, coal tar creosote, creosote oil, cyanazine, demeton, diallate, dichloropropene, diclofop methyl, diflubenzuron, dodemorph, ethion, ethyl parathion, hydrocyanic acid, isazofos, lambda cyhalothrin, magnesium phosphide, methyl bromide, methyl parathion, meviphos, monocrotophos, sodium pentachlorophenate, sulfotepp, TEPP, toxaphene. http://www.epa.gov/opprd001/rup/rupdec02.htm Status of Pesticides in Special Review (EPA, 2000): Sodium arsenite, strobane, trysben, DDD (TDE; dichlorodiphenyl dichlorothane) , DDT (dichlorodiphenyl trichloroethane), mirex, cadmium, captafol, cyanazine, DBCP (dibromochloropropane), dinoseb, EPN (ethyl (p-nitrophenyl)thiobenzene phosphonate), lead arsenate, calcium arsenate, sodium arsenite, sodium fluoroacetate, 2,4,5-T/Silvex, 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol (TCP), benzene, chlordane, chlordimeform, cyhexatin, heptachlor, mercury, mevinphos, monocrotophos, nitrofen (TOK), sporocidin, tributyl tins, zineb, BHC, chloranil, methazole, OMPA (Octamethylpyrophosphoramide), perthane, phenarsazine chloride, pronamide, ronnel, safrole, diallate. http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/special_review/ http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/docs/sr00status.pdf Cancelled “Level 1 Pesticides” (EPA, 2000): Aldrin, dieldrin, chlordane, p,p-dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT), mirex, and toxaphene http://www.epa.gov/pbt/pubs/pestaction.htm Recognition and Management of Pesticide Poisonings (EPA, 1999): Hexachlorobenzene, terpene polychlorinates, chlordimeform, cyhexatin, Sodium fluosilicate (sodium silico fluoride), 2,4,5-T, dinosulfon, dinoterb acetate, dinoterb salts, dinoterbon, dibromochloropropane (DBCP): http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/safety/healthcare/handbook/handbook.pdf EPA Rainbow Report, 1998: http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/Rainbow/98rainbo.pdf Economic Impacts of Cancelled Pesticides (EPA, 1980): DDT, Aldrin/ dieldrin, chlordane, heptachlor, mercury, kepone, chlorobenzilate, endrin, DBCP, 2,4,5-T/ Silvex http://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyNET.exe/9100CCCM.TXT?ZyActionD=ZyDocument& Client=EPA&Index=1976+Thru+1980&Docs=&Query=FNAME%3D9100CCC M.TXT%20or%20(%20T%20or%20cancellation)&Time=&EndTime=&SearchM ethod=1&TocRestrict=n&Toc=&TocEntry=&QField=&QFieldYear=&QFieldM onth=&QFieldDay=&UseQField=&IntQFieldOp=1&ExtQFieldOp=1&XmlQue ry=&File=D%3A%5Czyfiles%5CIndex%20Data%5C76thru80%5CTxt%5C0000 0014%5C9100CCCM.txt&User=ANONYMOUS&Password=anonymous&SortM ethod=h%7C- &MaximumDocuments=10&FuzzyDegree=0&ImageQuality=r75g8/r75g8/x150y 150g16/i425&Display=p%7Cf&DefSeekPage=x&SearchBack=ZyActionL&Back =ZyActionS&BackDesc=Results%20page&MaximumPages=1&ZyEntry=1&See kPage=x&ZyPURL# Suspended and Cancelled Pesticides (EPA, 1979): Copper arsenate, BHC, Chloranil, DDD, Kepone (chlordecane), Mirex, OMPA, PCB’s, Phenarzide chloride, Polychlorinated Terphenyls, Safrole, Strobane, Thallium sulfate, and Vinyl chloride. http://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyNET.exe/20015G5I.TXT?ZyActionD=ZyDocument&C lient=EPA&Index=1976+Thru+1980&Docs=&Query=FNAME%3D20015G5I.T XT%20or%20(%20%20(%20cancelled%20pesticides%20))&Time=&EndTime= &SearchMethod=1&TocRestrict=n&Toc=&TocEntry=&QField=&QFieldYear= &QFieldMonth=&QFieldDay=&UseQField=&IntQFieldOp=1&ExtQFieldOp= 1&XmlQuery=&File=D%3A%5Czyfiles%5CIndex%20Data%5C76thru80%5CT xt%5C00000009%5C20015G5I.txt&User=ANONYMOUS&Password=anonymou s&SortMethod=h%7C- &MaximumDocuments=10&FuzzyDegree=0&ImageQuality=r75g8/r75g8/x150y 150g16/i425&Display=p%7Cf&DefSeekPage=x&SearchBack=ZyActionL&Back =ZyActionS&BackDesc=Results%20page&MaximumPages=1&ZyEntry=1&See kPage=x&ZyPURL# Arsenicals Arsenic Acid: http://water.epa.gov/drink/info/arsenic/upload/2005_11_10_arsenic_occurrence. pdf Sodium arsenate, potassium dichromate, sodium pyroarsenate, sodium chromate, ammonium arsenate http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/reregistration/REDs/cca_red.pdf DSMA, CAMA, cacodylic acid and its sodium salt: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2009-09-30/html/E9-23319.htm Azinphos methyl: http://www.epa.gov/oppfead1/cb/csb_page/updates/2008/cancel-azinphos.htm https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2008/02/20/E8-3112/azinphos-methyl- product-cancellation-order-and-amendments-to-terminate-uses Benomyl: http://www.epa.gov/EPA-PEST/2003/September/Day-29/p24560.htm Carbofuran: http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/reregistration/carbofuran/carbofuran_noic.htm Clofencet: http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/registration_review/clofencet/ Dicofol: http://www.epa.gov/oppfead1/cb/csb_page/updates/2011/vc-dicofol.html Difenzoquat: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0787- 0009;oldLink=false Disulfoton: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2009-09-23/html/E9-22921.htm Ethyl parathion: http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-PEST/2007/November/Day-16/p22374.htm Ethylene dibromide (EDB): http://www.epa.gov/aboutepa/history/topics/legal/02.html Fenvalerate: http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-PEST/2008/July/Day-09/p15314.htm Iodomethane: http://www.panna.org/sites/default/files/MIDASPress3-20-12FINAL_1.pdf Lindane: http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/REDs/factsheets/lindane_fs_addendum.htm Methamidophos: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2009-09-23/html/E9-22921.htm Methoxychlor: http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/REDs/methoxychlor_red.htm Methyl Bromide (all uses except post-harvest): https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2011/05/20/2011-12478/methyl-bromide- cancellation-order-for-registration-amendments-to-terminate-certain-soil-uses Methyl
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Michigan Hop Management Guide 2018
    2018 Michigan Hop Management Guide This material is based upon work supported by the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, U.S. Department of Agriculture, under Agreement No. 2015-09785. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the view of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2 Table of Contents Growth Stages………………………………………………………………………………………3 Weed Management………………………………………………………………………….4-5 Herbicides………………..……………………………………………………………………….6-7 Fungicides……………………………..………………………………………………………….8-9 Insecticides…………………………..………………………………………………………10-11 Miticides…………………………………………………………………………………………….12 Pesticide Toxicity to Beneficial Insects…………………………………………..13-14 Nutrient Management Considerations…………………………………………15-19 Scouting Calendar………………………………………………………………………………20 Information presented here does not supersede the label directions. To protect yourself, others, and the environment, always read the label before applying any pesticide. Although efforts have been made to check the accuracy of information presented, it is the responsibility of the person using this information to verify that it is correct by reading the corresponding pesticide label in its entirety before using the product. The information presented here is intended as a guide for Michigan hop growers in selecting pesticides and is for educational purposes only. Labels can and do change. For current label and MSDS information, visit one of the following free online databases: greenbook.net, cdms.com, and agrian.com The efficacies of products listed have not been evaluated on hop in Michigan. Reference to commercial products or trade names does not imply endorsement by Michigan State University Extension or bias against those not mentioned. This information was compiled by Erin Lizotte and Dr. Robert Sirrine with assistance from Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Identifying the Cause of Sediment Toxicity in Agricultural Sediments: the Role of Pyrethroids and Nine Seldom-Measured Hydrophobic Pesticides ⇑ Donald P
    Chemosphere 90 (2013) 958–964 Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect Chemosphere journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/chemosphere Identifying the cause of sediment toxicity in agricultural sediments: The role of pyrethroids and nine seldom-measured hydrophobic pesticides ⇑ Donald P. Weston a, , Yuping Ding b, Minghua Zhang c, Michael J. Lydy b a Department of Integrative Biology, University of California, 1005 Valley Life Sciences Bldg., Berkeley, CA 94720-3140, USA b Fisheries and Illinois Aquaculture Center and Department of Zoology, Southern Illinois University, 171 Life Sciences II, Carbondale, IL 62901, USA c Department of Land, Air, and Water Resources, University of California, Davis, CA 95616, USA highlights " Monitoring fails to test for many agricultural pesticides used in any given area. " Nine seldom-analyzed pesticides (e.g., abamectin) were tested for in sediments. " One-quarter of the sediment samples were toxic to the amphipod, Hyalella azteca. " The seldom-analyzed pesticides may have contributed to toxicity in a few samples. " Pyrethroid insecticides were responsible for the vast majority of toxicity. article info abstract Article history: Few currently used agricultural pesticides are routinely monitored for in the environment. Even if Received 10 January 2012 concentrations are known, sediment LC50 values are often lacking for common sediment toxicity testing Received in revised form 16 May 2012 species. To help fill this data gap, sediments in California’s Central Valley were tested for nine hydropho- Accepted 27 June 2012 bic pesticides seldom analyzed: abamectin, diazinon, dicofol, fenpropathrin, indoxacarb, methyl para- Available online 23 July 2012 thion, oxyfluorfen, propargite, and pyraclostrobin. Most were detected, but rarely at concentrations acutely toxic to Hyalella azteca or Chironomus dilutus.
    [Show full text]
  • The Calcium Arsenates
    Station RuIletin 131. June, 1918 Oregon Agricultural College Experiment Station AGRICULTURAL CHEMISTRY DEPARTMENT The Calcium Arsenates By R. H. ROBINSON Acting Chemist, Oregon Agricultural Experiment Station. CORVALLIS, OREGON The regular huIlejne of the Station are sent free to the residents of Oregon who request them. THE CALCIUM ARSENATES By R. H. ROBINSON Acting Chemist, Oregon Agricultural Experiment Station INTRODUCTION Chemical investigations on the calcium arsenates relative to their economfic value and practicability as insecticides have been carried on by the department of Agricultural Chemistry of this Station during the past two years.The results obtained from these investigations are presented in this bulletin.The work was supported by the annual funds provided by the Adams Act of the United States Government.. Commercial calcium arsenate is an arsenical now being produced by reliable manufacturers of spray material and offered for sale as a sub- stitute for the arsenates of lead.The value of the latter as a stomachic insecticide has been demonstrated, and itis now used extensively for the successful controlof the codling moth, the destructionof the cotton boll worm., the tobacco worm, and the Colorado potato beetle. Previous inveatigations on the toxic values and killing power of calcium arsenate and lead arsenate indicate equal efficiency. A consideration of a few figures will show the economic advantages which might be gained if calcium arsenate could be substituted for lead arsenate.A conservative estimate of the quantity of lead arsenate used annually in the United States, as stated by one of the largest manufac- turers of spray materials, is probably more than 30,000,000 pounds.
    [Show full text]
  • Biodegradation of Dicofol by Microbacterium Sp. D-2 Isolated
    Lu et al. Appl Biol Chem (2019) 62:72 https://doi.org/10.1186/s13765-019-0480-y ARTICLE Open Access Biodegradation of dicofol by Microbacterium sp. D-2 isolated from pesticide-contaminated agricultural soil Peng Lu* , Hong‑ming Liu and Ai‑min Liu Abstract Dicofol is an organochlorine insecticide widely used to prevent pests worldwide. Consequently, serious environmen‑ tal problems have arisen from the application of dicofol. Bioremediation is an efective solution for dicofol persistence in the environment. In this study, a bacterial strain D‑2, identifed to genus Microbacterium, capable of degrading dicofol was isolated from dicofol‑contaminated agricultural soil. This represents the frst dicofol degrading bacterium isolated from this genus. Microbacterium sp. D‑2 degraded 50 mg/L dicofol within 24 h at a rate of 85.1%. Dicofol was dechlorinated by D‑2 and the further degradation metabolite was indentifed as p,p′‑dichlorobenzophenone(DCBP). Soils inoculated with Microbacterium sp. D‑2 degraded 81.9% of the dicofol, while soils without D‑2 only degraded 20.5% of the dicofol present. This fnding suggests that strain D‑2 has great potential in bioremediation of dicofol‑ contaminated soils. Keywords: Dicofol, Biodegradation, Microbacterium sp. D‑2, Bioremediation Introduction cause acute poising of fsh and shrimp, endocrine dis- Organochlorine pesticides (OCPs) are broad spectrum ruptive properties, and chronic toxicity to other organ- insecticides with high toxicity and long residual periods isms [10–13]. Terefore, it is believed that DCF would [1]. Tey have been widely used in the control of agricul- exert a negative infuence on both animals [14, 15] and tural pests, antisepsis in industrial production and the humans [16].
    [Show full text]
  • Development and Validation of a Method for the Simultaneous
    CORE Metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk Provided by UGD Academic Repository American Journal of Applie d Chemistry 2014; 2(4): 46-54 Published online August 10, 2014 (http://www.sciencepublishinggroup.com/j/ajac) doi: 10.11648/j.ajac.20140204.11 ISSN: 2330-8753 (Print); ISSN: 2330-8745 (Online) Development and validation of a method for the simultaneous determination of 20 organophosphorus pesticide residues in corn by accelerated solvent extraction and gas chromatography with nitrogen phosphorus detection Vesna Kostik *, Biljana Gjorgeska, Bistra Angelovska Medical Faculty, Department of Pharmacy, University “Goce Delchev”, Shtip, Republic of Macedonia Email address: [email protected] (V. Kostik), [email protected] (B. Gjorgeska), [email protected] (B. Angelovska) To cite this article: Vesna Kostik, Biljana Gjorgeska, Bistra Angelovska. Development and Validation of a Method for the Simultaneous Determination of 20 Organophosphorus Pesticide Residues in Corn by Accelerated Solvent Extraction and Gas Chromatography with Nitrogen Phosphorus Detection. American Journal of Applied Chemistry. Vol. 2, No. 4, 2014, pp. 46-54. doi: 10.11648/j.ajac.20140204.11 Abstract: The method for simultaneous determination of 20 organophosphorus pesticide residues in corn samples has been developed and validated. For the extraction of organophosporus pesticide residues from the samples, the accelerated solvent technique with the mixture of dichloromethane: acetone (1:1, V/V ) was used. Clean up was done using liquid – liquid extraction with n – hexane, followed by solid phase extraction on primary secondary amine adsorbent, and elution with the mixture of acetone: toluene (65:35). The determination of the pesticides was carried out by gas chromatography with nitrogen phosphorus detection.
    [Show full text]
  • RR Program's RCL Spreadsheet Update
    RR Program’s RCL Spreadsheet Update March 2017 RR Program RCL Spreadsheet Update DNR-RR-052e The Wisconsin DNR Remediation and Redevelopment Program (RR) has updated the numerical soil standards in the August 2015 DNR-RR- 052b RR spreadsheet of residual contaminant levels (RCLs). The RCLs were determined using the U.S. EPA RSL web- calculator by accepting EPA exposure defaults, with the exception of using Chicago, IL, for the climatic zone. This documentThe U.S. provides EPA updateda summary its Regionalof changes Screening to the direct-contact Level (RSL) RCLs website (DC-RCLs) in June that2015. are To now reflect in the that March 2017 spreadsheet.update, the The Wisconsin last page ofDNR this updated document the has numerical the EPA exposuresoil standards, parameter or residual values usedcontaminant in the RCL levels calculations. (RCLs), in the Remediation and Redevelopment program’s spreadsheet of RCLs. This document The providesU.S. EPA a RSL summary web-calculator of the updates has been incorporated recently updated in the Julyso that 2015 the spreadsheet.most up-to-date There toxicity were values no changes for chemi - cals madewere certainlyto the groundwater used in the RCLs,RCL calculations. but there are However, many changes it is important in the industrial to note that and the non-industrial web-calculator direct is only a subpartcontact of the (DC) full RCLsEPA RSL worksheets. webpage, Tables and that 1 andthe other 2 of thissubparts document that will summarize have important the DC-RCL explanatory changes text, generic tablesfrom and the references previous have spreadsheet yet to be (Januaryupdated.
    [Show full text]
  • Chemical Name Federal P Code CAS Registry Number Acutely
    Acutely / Extremely Hazardous Waste List Federal P CAS Registry Acutely / Extremely Chemical Name Code Number Hazardous 4,7-Methano-1H-indene, 1,4,5,6,7,8,8-heptachloro-3a,4,7,7a-tetrahydro- P059 76-44-8 Acutely Hazardous 6,9-Methano-2,4,3-benzodioxathiepin, 6,7,8,9,10,10- hexachloro-1,5,5a,6,9,9a-hexahydro-, 3-oxide P050 115-29-7 Acutely Hazardous Methanimidamide, N,N-dimethyl-N'-[2-methyl-4-[[(methylamino)carbonyl]oxy]phenyl]- P197 17702-57-7 Acutely Hazardous 1-(o-Chlorophenyl)thiourea P026 5344-82-1 Acutely Hazardous 1-(o-Chlorophenyl)thiourea 5344-82-1 Extremely Hazardous 1,1,1-Trichloro-2, -bis(p-methoxyphenyl)ethane Extremely Hazardous 1,1a,2,2,3,3a,4,5,5,5a,5b,6-Dodecachlorooctahydro-1,3,4-metheno-1H-cyclobuta (cd) pentalene, Dechlorane Extremely Hazardous 1,1a,3,3a,4,5,5,5a,5b,6-Decachloro--octahydro-1,2,4-metheno-2H-cyclobuta (cd) pentalen-2- one, chlorecone Extremely Hazardous 1,1-Dimethylhydrazine 57-14-7 Extremely Hazardous 1,2,3,4,10,10-Hexachloro-6,7-epoxy-1,4,4,4a,5,6,7,8,8a-octahydro-1,4-endo-endo-5,8- dimethanonaph-thalene Extremely Hazardous 1,2,3-Propanetriol, trinitrate P081 55-63-0 Acutely Hazardous 1,2,3-Propanetriol, trinitrate 55-63-0 Extremely Hazardous 1,2,4,5,6,7,8,8-Octachloro-4,7-methano-3a,4,7,7a-tetra- hydro- indane Extremely Hazardous 1,2-Benzenediol, 4-[1-hydroxy-2-(methylamino)ethyl]- 51-43-4 Extremely Hazardous 1,2-Benzenediol, 4-[1-hydroxy-2-(methylamino)ethyl]-, P042 51-43-4 Acutely Hazardous 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane 96-12-8 Extremely Hazardous 1,2-Propylenimine P067 75-55-8 Acutely Hazardous 1,2-Propylenimine 75-55-8 Extremely Hazardous 1,3,4,5,6,7,8,8-Octachloro-1,3,3a,4,7,7a-hexahydro-4,7-methanoisobenzofuran Extremely Hazardous 1,3-Dithiolane-2-carboxaldehyde, 2,4-dimethyl-, O- [(methylamino)-carbonyl]oxime 26419-73-8 Extremely Hazardous 1,3-Dithiolane-2-carboxaldehyde, 2,4-dimethyl-, O- [(methylamino)-carbonyl]oxime.
    [Show full text]
  • The Insecticide Industry of Today Seed Production in Various States Has Comprises More Than 50 Basic Producers Doubled the Yield
    put nearly 2 million dollars extra in the growers' pockets. In Mississippi at least 75 percent of the 1950 cotton crop The Insecticide would have been destroyed were it not for the control of insects through the Industry use of the industry's products. Insecti- cides applied in Nebraska to control Lea S. Hitchner grasshoppers in 1949 resulted in savings estimated at 2 million dollars. Insecti- cidal treatment of alfalfa raised for The insecticide industry of today seed production in various States has comprises more than 50 basic producers doubled the yield. or manufacturers and more than 500 One factor among others responsible formulatorsj xemixers, and processors. for the high productivity of American From their plants throughout the coun- agriculture is the cooperative attack try comes a great variety of insecticides that is waged on insects and other pests. and related products. The agricultural chemicals industry The products, except those derived has welcomed the opportunity to co- from botanical sources, have their ori- operate with Federal and State agen- gins in the basic chemicals on which cies and with farm organizations in this the industry is founded, but the proc- important work and to carry the re- esses that turn the raw materials into sponsibility for developing, producing, the finished products applied by farm- and delivering the necessary pesticides. ers are long, highly scientific, and ex- Such a responsibility is a heavy one pensive in capital. investment and even in normal times. It becomes operating costs. acutely heavy in times of national The industry employs thousands of stress, when shortages of raw materials, scientists in the fields of entomology, containers, personnel, and transporta- plant pathology, botany, toxicology, tion may hamper production and dis- medicine, chemistry, and chemical en- tribution.
    [Show full text]
  • Malathion Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment Final Report
    SERA TR-052-02-02c Malathion Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment 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-06-0012 SERA Internal Task No. 52-02 Submitted by: Patrick R. Durkin 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 May 12, 2008 Table of Contents Table of Contents............................................................................................................................ ii List of Figures................................................................................................................................. v List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. vi List of Appendices ......................................................................................................................... vi List of Attachments........................................................................................................................ vi ACRONYMS, ABBREVIATIONS, AND SYMBOLS ............................................................... vii COMMON UNIT CONVERSIONS AND ABBREVIATIONS.................................................... x CONVERSION OF SCIENTIFIC NOTATION ..........................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • APPENDIX G3 Diflubenzuron Rejected by OPP and ECOTOX
    APPENDIX G3 Diflubenzuron Rejected by OPP and ECOTOX Rejected Abgrall, J. F. (1999). Short and Medium Term Impact of Aerial Application of Insecticide Against the Winter Moth (Operophtera Brumata L.). Revue forestiere francaise (nancy) 50: 395-404. Chem Codes: Chemical of Concern: DFZ Rejection Code: NON-ENGLISH. Aguirre-Uribe, L. A., Lozoya-Saldana, A., Luis-Jauregui, A., Quinones-Luna, S., and Juarez-Ramos, F. (1991(1992)). Field Evaluation for the Population Control of Musca Domestica (Diptera: Muscidae) in Chicken Manure With Diflubenzuron. Folia entomol mex 0: 143-151. Chem Codes: Chemical of Concern: DFZ Rejection Code: NON-ENGLISH. Akanbi, M. O. and Ashiru, M. O. (1991). Towards Integrated Pest Management of Forest Defoliators the Nigerian Situation. Xviii international congress of entomology, vancouver, british columbia, canada, 1988. For ecol manage 39: 81-86. Chem Codes: Chemical of Concern: DFZ Rejection Code: REVIEW,CHEM METHODS. Akiyama, Y., Yoshioka, N., Yano, M., Mitsuhashi, T., Takeda, N., Tsuji, M., and Matsushita, S. (1997). Pesticide Residues in Agricultural Products (F.y. 1994-1996). J.Food Hyg.Soc.Jpn. 38: 381-389 (JPN) . Chem Codes: Chemical of Concern: FNT,ACP,DZ,DDVP,MTM,CYP,EFX,FNV,FVL,PMR,MOM,BFZ,IPD,TFZ,CYF,TFY,MLN,BPH,ILL,T BA,DPHP,ES,DM,BTN,FRM,IPD,MYC,TDF,TDM Rejection Code: NON-ENGLISH. Alho, C. Jr and Vieira, L. M. (1997). Fish and Wildlife Resources in the Pantanal Wetlands of Brazil and Potential Disturbances From the Release of Environmental Contaminants. Environmental toxicology and chemistry 16: 71-74. Chem Codes: Chemical of Concern: DFZ Rejection Code: REVIEW. Ali, A.
    [Show full text]
  • Cockroach Control Manual
    COCKROACHCOCKROACH CONTROLCONTROL MANUALMANUAL (Photo by J. Kalisch) Barb Ogg, Extension Educator, Lancaster County Clyde Ogg, Extension Educator, Pesticide Safety Education Program Dennis Ferraro, Extension Educator, Douglas & Sarpy Counties Extension is a Division of the Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources at the University of Nebraska–Lincoln cooperating with the Counties and the United States Department of Agriculture. ® University of Nebraska–Lincoln Extension’s educational programs abide with the nondiscrimination policies of the University of Nebraska–Lincoln and the United States Department of Agriculture. Table of Contents 1 Chapter 1: Introduction 5 Chapter 2: Know Your Enemy 9 Chapter 3: Cockroach Biology 15 Chapter 4: Locate Problem Areas 23 Chapter 5: Primary Control Strategies: Modify Resources 31 Chapter 6: Low-Risk Control Strategies 37 Chapter 7: Insecticide Basics 45 Chapter 8: Insecticides and Your Health 53 Chapter 9: Insecticide Applications 59 Chapter 10: Putting a Management Plan Together i Cockroach Control Manual Preface It has been more than 10 years since the first edition of the Cockroach Control Manual was completed. While the basic steps for effective and safe cockroach control are still the same, there are more types of control products available than there were 10 years ago. This means you have even more choices in your arsenal to help fight roaches. The Cockroach Control Manual is a practical reference for persons who have had little or no training in insect identification, biology or control methods. We know most people want low toxic methods used inside their homes so we are emphasizing low-risk strategies even more than in the original edition.
    [Show full text]
  • Proposed Interim Registration Review Decision for Imidacloprid
    Docket Number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0844 www.regulations.gov Imidacloprid Proposed Interim Registration Review Decision Case Number 7605 January 2020 Approved by: Elissa Reaves, Ph.D. Acting Director Pesticide Re-evaluation Division Date: __ 1-22-2020 __ Docket Number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0844 www.regulations.gov Table of Contents I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 4 A. Summary of Imidacloprid Registration Review............................................................... 5 B. Summary of Public Comments on the Draft Risk Assessments and Agency Responses 7 II. USE AND USAGE ............................................................................................................... 14 III. SCIENTIFIC ASSESSMENTS ......................................................................................... 15 A. Human Health Risks....................................................................................................... 15 1. Risk Summary and Characterization .......................................................................... 15 2. Human Incidents and Epidemiology .......................................................................... 17 3. Tolerances ................................................................................................................... 18 4. Human Health Data Needs ......................................................................................... 18 B. Ecological Risks ............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]