DOCSLIB.ORG

Communities in Peril: Global Report on Health Impacts of Pesticide Use in Agriculture

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Communities in Peril: Global Report on Health Impacts of Pesticide Use in Agriculture Communities in Peril: Global report on health impacts of pesticide use in agriculture Pesticide Action Network Communities in Peril: Global report on health impacts of pesticide use in agriculture EMPOWERING PEOPLE FOR CHANGE AN AP PESTICIDE ACTION NETWORK ASIA & THE PACIFIC Cover photo: With a pesticide container on his back, a young boy helps his father in their farm in Velingara, Senegal. September 2006. Photo credit: PAN Africa Copyright © Pesticide Action Network Asia Pacific, 2010. All rights reserved. Pesticide Action Network Asia Pacific holds the right to this publication. The publication may be cited in part as long as PAN Asia Pacific is properly acknowledged as the source and furnished with copies of the final work where the quotation or citation appears. Comments and inquiries may be forwarded to: Pesticide Action Network Asia and the Pacific (PAN AP) P.O. Box 1170, 10850 Penang, Malaysia Tel: 604 - 6570271, 6560381 Fax: 604 - 6583960 Email: [email protected] Edited by: Barbara Dinham from regional reports for PAN International Production Supervision: Gilbert M. Sape Layout and Cover Design: Dennis M. Longid Printed by Red Leaf Printing Press, Manila, Philippines. 2010. ISBN 978-983-9381-52-8 The following organisations carried out the research and surveys for this report Africa Coordination Pesticide Action Network Africa (PAN Africa), Senegal, Abou Thiam and Mamadou Bamba Sagna Senegal PAN Africa Mali PAN Mali; Association pour la Promotion des Initiatives de Base (APIB – Association for the Promotion of Grassroots Initiatives); Association pour la Valorisation et la Promotion des Initiatives Privées (AVPIB - Association for the Valuing and Promotion of Private Initiatives) Tanzania Work and Health in Southern Africa (WAHSA); AGENDA for Environment and Responsible Development Asia Coordination Pesticide Action Network Asia and the Pacific (PANAP), Malaysia, Bella Whittle Cambodia Cambodian Center for Study and Development in Agriculture (CEDAC) China Pesticides Eco-Alternatives Centre (PEAC) India Andhra Pradesh: Sahanivasa Kerala: Thanal Orissa: Living Farms Indonesia Serikat Petani Wonosobo (Wonosobo farmer’s association) and Gita Pertiwi Malaysia Perak: Tenaganita Sarawak: Sarawak Dayak Iban Association (SADIA) Philippines PAN Philippines, Community Based Health-Workers Association, Citizens Alliance for Sectoral Empowerment Davao Del Sur (CAUSE DS) Sri Lanka Vikalpani National Women’s Federation Vietnam An Giang: Research Centre for Rural Development, An Giang University Nam Dinh: Research Centre for Gender, Family and Environment in Development (CGFED) Latin America Coordination Red de Acción en Plaguicidas y sus Alternativas de América Latina (RAPAL / PAN Latin America), Argentina, Javier Souza Casadinho, Argentina Centro de Estudios sobre Tecnologías Apropiadas de Argentina (CETAAR); Movimiento Campesino Santiago del Estero; Via Campesina Bolivia Centro de Estudios e Investigación en Impactos Socioambientales (CEISSA) United States of America Coordination Pesticide Action Network North America, USA, Karl Tupper Drift catcher projects carried out by: Alaska Alaska Community Action on Toxics; California Big Valley Band of the Pomo, California Department of Public Health, Environmental Health Investigations Branch, Californians for Pesticide Reform, Center for Advanced Research and Technology, Commonweal, El Quinto Sol De America, Environmental Defense Center, Grayson Neighborhood Council, Latino Issues Forum, Parents for a - iii - Safer Environment; Colorado The Endocrine Disruptor Exchange; Florida Environmental Youth Council, Farmworker Association of Florida, Pedro Menendez High School, Southern Horticulture; Hawaii Maluia WMCS; Indiana Hoosier Environmental Council; Maine Maine Organic Farmers and Growers Association, Toxics Action Center; Minnesota Clean Water Action, Environmental Association for Great Lakes Education, Indigenous Environmental Network, Minnesota Pesticide Awareness, White Earth Land Recovery Project, White Earth Pesticide Action Network; North Carolina Agricultural Resources Center; Washington Farm Worker Pesticide Project PAN International would like to thank the following donors, who have made it possible to carry out this research: Cedar Tree Foundation (US), Evangelischer Entwicklungsdienst (Church Development Service – EED) (Germany), Global Greengrants Fund (US), Oxfam Novib (Netherlands), PAN Germany via funds from Bread for the World, Rausing Trust (UK), Swedish Biodiversity Fund (SwedBio). - iv - Communities in Peril: Global report on health impacts of pesticide use in agriculture Table of Contents Foreword vii Executive Summary xi 1. Introduction 1 2. Methodology – community monitoring 11 2.1 CPAM – monitoring pesticide impacts in Africa, Asia and Latin America 13 2.2 Community-based monitoring in North America 17 3. Results – poverty and conditions of pesticide use 21 3.1 The African surveys – conditions of use 23 3.2 The Asian surveys – conditions of use 33 3.3 The Latin American surveys – conditions of use 45 3.4 Pesticide dealers – conditions of sale 50 3.5 Observations on pesticide practices and protection 57 4. Results – Experience of acute poisoning from pesticide exposure 59 4.1 The African surveys – Experience of acute poisoning 60 4.2 The Asian surveys – Experience of acute poisoning 65 4.3 The Latin American surveys – Experience of acute poisoning 71 4.4 Incidents of acute poisoning – interviews 75 4.5 Acute pesticide poisoning in the United States 76 4.6 Observations on health impacts 78 - v - 5. Highly hazardous pesticides and their use in surveyed areas 81 5.1 Call for action on highly hazardous pesticides – from 1985 to 2010 82 5.2 The African surveys - Pesticides associated with poisoning 84 5.3 The Asian surveys - Pesticides associated with poisoning 85 5.4 The Latin American surveys – Pesticides identified with poisonings 92 5.5 Summary of most used HHPs in survey areas 96 5.6 Community-based monitoring in the US – sample findings 101 5.7 Observations on hazardous pesticides from the survey 103 6.Conclusions and recommendations 105 References 111 Appendix 1. Documentation on certain pesticide poisonings: Africa, Asia, Latin America 117 Appendix 2. Questionnaire – Pesticide use and effects 121 Appendix 3. Poisoning incidents – interviews with victims 133 Appendix 4. Highly Hazardous Pesticides: criteria and listing 151 1. Criteria drawn up by the FAO/WHO Panel of Experts on Pesticide Management for identifying HHPs 151 2. Criteria for classification, measure and references to identify HHPs drawn up by PAN International, 2009 152 3. PAN International, list of Highly Hazardous Pesticides, with listing of registration status in the US 155 Appendix 5. Results from PAN North America Drift Catcher projects, 2003-2009 169 Appendix 6. Registration status of Highly Hazardous Pesticides in the United States 177 Appendix 7. Acronyms 181 - vi - Foreword Since its founding in 1982 Pesticide Action Network (PAN) has worked to replace the use of hazardous pesticides with ecologically sound and socially just alternatives. An important basis and tool of PAN’s work has been monitoring the distribution, use and disposal of pesticides. The latest result of PAN monitoring initiatives is this report. It documents that pesticides still cause wide-ranging hazards, risks and poisoning in Africa, Asia and the Americas. PAN International releases this report during unprecedented and simultaneous disruptions in the major world systems upon which we all depend: climate, ecosystems and economies. These disruptions threaten the livelihoods and lives of many people around the world, and especially those in developing countries. However, this period offers an urgent stimulus for a rethinking of the architecture of our world’s fundamental systems, and for solutions that can address a global food crisis, dramatic weather events and a changing climate increasing droughts, floods and storms and collapsed economies. - vii - This is the context for the enclosed report, which reflects how a food and agricultural system promoted by a handful of agrochemical corporations as the industrialization of agriculture, has not only failed to deliver on ending hunger and stimulating prosperity, but in fact, left a footprint of damage to health of peoples and ecosystems through the dangerous use, trade and disposal of synthetic pesticides. Observations made throughout the world, through grassroots civil society groups and other organisations, show that chemicals, in particular pesticides, continue to have severe negative and unacceptable effects on the health of communities and the environment, especially in developing countries. According to the World Health Organisation (WHO) acute pesticide poisoning will affect three million people and account for 20,000 unintentional deaths each year. However, estimates range from one million to 41 million people affected every year. In many communities and nations, those living in poverty, women and children continue to be disproportionately exposed to pesticides, making this an issue of fairness and environmental justice. The political will has not existed to thoroughly document and expose the magnitude of the pesticide problem in individual countries, across regions, and in the world as a whole. Efforts such as these, where civil society organisations document the scientific and community evidence, are crucial. And the findings are disturbing as can be seen in this report. Current trends show that the market for herbicides and insecticides in developing countries
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]
  • 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]
  • Managing Pesticide Drift1 F
    PI232 Managing Pesticide Drift1 F. M. Fishel and J. A. Ferrell2 Introduction may drift and whether it is harmful depends on interrelated factors that can be complex. The drift of spray from pesticide applications can expose people, plants and animals, and the environment to Drift is a significant legal concern in Florida. During pesticide residues that can cause health and environmental 2009–2010, the Florida Department of Agriculture and effects and property damage. Agricultural practices are Consumer Services (FDACS), which is the state pesticide poorly understood by the public, which causes anxiety and regulatory agency, initiated 39 investigations in response sometimes overreaction to a situation. Even the application to allegations of drift. Where significant drift does occur, of fertilizers or biological pesticides, like Bt or pheromones, it can damage or contaminate sensitive crops, poison bees, can be perceived as a danger to the general public. Drift pose health risks to humans and animals, and contaminate can lead to litigation, financially damaging court costs, soil and water in adjacent areas (Figure 1). Applicators are and appeals to restrict or ban the use of crop protection legally responsible for the damages resulting from the off- materials. Urbanization has led to much of Florida’s agri- target movement of pesticides. It is impossible to eliminate cultural production being in areas of close proximity to the drift totally, but it is possible to reduce it to a legal level. general public, including residential subdivisions, assisted The purpose of this guide is to discuss factors influencing living facilities, hospitals, and schools. Such sensitive sites drift and provide common-sense solutions for minimizing heighten the need for drift mitigation measures to be taken potential drift problems.
    [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]
  • Draft Spray Drift Workgroup
    April 17, 2007 Spray Drift Workgroup – Final Report to PPDC Executive Summary The Spray Drift workgroup to the Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee met five times over the course of the last year in response to EPA’s request for input on how to mitigate risks to water from pesticide use. The workgroup was pleased that the OW and OPP are working together on this issue. The workgroup decided to focus primarily on: • Labeling to mitigate spray drift; • The role of education, training, and stewardship; and • Practices and equipment to mitigate drift and adverse effects from drift. Issues the EPA decided were beyond the scope of this workgroup include: 1) the content of EPA’s proposed rule concerning whether use of a pesticide requires a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit (because the rule concerned aquatic pesticide applications, not pesticide spray drift, and because the comment period for the rule was closed and it was still in internal Agency review) and 2) the off­target movement of pesticides through volatilization. In addition, the workgroup discussed “complex issues” surrounding spray drift, including: • What constitutes “harm” from spray drift? • Design standards vs. performance standards • Tailoring regulatory restrictions to local conditions, and • Determining the real world impacts of pesticide labeling The following report for each of these topics presents a summary of what the workgroup did, consensus findings, and, where possible, consensus recommendations to EPA to be considered by the full PPDC. Where consensus was not achieved, individual workgroup members provided additional comments for EPA consideration. These comments do not reflect the position of the workgroup as a whole but are included to provide EPA with a complete range of views on the topic.
    [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]
  • 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]
  • Analysis of 52 Pesticides in Fresh Fish Muscle by Quechers Extraction
    1 Analysis of 52 pesticides in fresh fish muscle by QuEChERS extraction 2 followed by LC-MS/MS determination. 3 4 Maria Vittoria Barbieri1, Cristina Postigo1,2 *, Nuria Guillem-Argiles1, L. Simon 5 Monllor-Alcaraz1, Julliana Izabelle Simionato 3, Elisa Stella 4, Damià Barceló1,5, Miren 6 López de Alda1 7 8 ABSTRACT 9 Pesticide pollution in water has been well described; however, little is known on 10 pesticide accumulation by aquatic organisms, and to date, most studies in this line have been 11 focused on persistent organochlorine pesticides. For this reason, a method based on 12 QuEChERS extraction and subsequent liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry 13 (LC-MS/MS) has been developed and validated for the determination of 52 medium to highly 14 polar pesticides in fresh fish muscle. Target pesticides were selected on the basis of use and 15 occurrence in surface waters. Quantification is carried out following an isotope dilution 16 approach. The method developed is satisfactory in terms of accuracy (relative recovery 17 between 71-120%), precision (relative standard deviation below 20.6%) and sensitivity (limits 18 of determination in the pg/g or low ng/g f.w. range for most compounds). The application of 19 the validated methodology to fish specimens collected from the Adige River (Italy) revealed 20 the presence of trace levels of diazinon, dichlorvos and diuron, and measurable levels of 21 metolachlor, quinoxyfen, irgarol, terbutryn, and acetamiprid, but in all cases at 22 concentrations below the default maximum residue level of 10 ng/g established for 23 pesticides not specifically regulated in fish.
    [Show full text]