DOCSLIB.ORG

Common Herbicides for Ornamental Weed Control Greg Armel, Extension Horticultural Weed Specialist Beth Babbit, Extension Urban Horticulture Area Specialist

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Common Herbicides for Ornamental Weed Control Greg Armel, Extension Horticultural Weed Specialist Beth Babbit, Extension Urban Horticulture Area Specialist W244 Common Herbicides for Ornamental Weed Control Greg Armel, Extension Horticultural Weed Specialist Beth Babbit, Extension Urban Horticulture Area Specialist This chart provides recommendations for the best treatments available for weed control in most ornamental plants. The rates and recommendations for these herbicides are specific for ornamental plants and the chart should be used in accordance with the label. Herbicides listed in this chart are common and often easy for consumers to find; there are many other acceptable herbicides on the market that may suit a similar purpose. Always consult the label before applying any pesticide on a specific ornamental plant or variety. Products applied for burndown of existing vegetation prior to planting and/or post-directed for weed control around existing ornamental plants. Extreme care should be taken to avoid spray contact on the foliage of desired vegetation. • Preemergence and/or pre-plant applied herbicides for residual control of weeds in selected ornamental plants. • Postemergence selective weed control in specific ornamental plants. • Products applied for burndown of existing vegetation prior to planting and/or post-directed for weed control around existing ornamental plants in organic production systems. Extreme care should be taken to avoid spray contact on the foliage of desired vegetation. • 1 • Chemical Ornamentals appearing on label Weeds controlled Timing of Application Application Rates Burndown Glyphosate Many plants, see label for specifics A non-selective herbicide Pre-plant applications 1 to 5 pints/acre or Trade name: Roundup®, that controls many allowed in most plants. 1 to 10% solutions other weeds. Post-directed and spot depending on the crop spray treatments are allowed for certain Surfactant requirements ornamentals as long as are based upon care is taken to avoid formulation of contact with any foliage or glyphosate selected. green tissue. Consult label Please consult product labels for more label for specific specific information. recommendations. Glyphosate has no soil residual activity. Pelargonic acid All landscape trees, bedding plants, A non-selective herbicide Post-directed (avoiding 3 to 10% solution (spot Trade name: Scythe®, other flowers and other ornamentals that controls many spray on foliage or spray): weeds. green bark) and pre- plant applications in all 3-5%- solution for landscape trees, bedding annual weeds plants, flowers and other 5-7%- solution for ornamentals. perennial weeds 8-10%- solution for Pelargonic acid has no soil maximum burndown of residual activity. mature weeds No additional adjuvant required. Diquat dibromide Around all types of ornamental plants in A non-selective Post-directed (avoiding 0.75 fl oz plus labeled Trade name: Reward®, gardens and landscapes. herbicide that controls spray on foliage or rate of a 75% active other many weeds; however, green bark) and pre- nonionic surfactant in broadleaf weeds are plant applications in all 1 gallon of water (spot more susceptible than landscape trees, bedding spray) grass species. In general, plants, flowers and other grasses are most ornamentals. susceptible when 1 inch or less in height. Diquat dibromide has no soil residual activity. 2 Glufosinate For use around trees and shrubs in Broadleaf weeds: Post-directed (avoiding 2 to 6 quarts/acre Trade name: Finale®, other residential gardens and landscapes. annual sowthistle, spray on foliage or green broadcast or 2 to 4 fl oz bindweed, buffalobur, bark) around trees and per 1 gallon of water for burdock, Canada thistle shrubs. spot spray applications (suppression), curly dock, dandelion, fleabane, Glufosinate has no soil goldenrod, hemp residual activity. dogbane (suppression), horsetail, lambsquarters, mugwort (suppression), musk thistle, nettle, nightshade, redroot pigweed, plantain, prickly lettuce, ragweed, mustard species, velvetleaf, Virginia copperleaf, white heath aster, wild buckwheat, wild onion, woodsorrel and others Grasses: Annual bluegrass, bermudagrass (suppression), crabgrass, dallisgrass, fescue, Kentucky bluegrass, ryegrass, sandbur and others 3 Preemergence and/or Pre-plant Trifluralin For use on several established Several annual grasses, Preemergence weed 1 oz / 10 sq ft Trade name: Preen™ ornamental plantings. carpetweed, chickweed, control when applied to Garden Weed Preventer, Florida pusley, goosefoot, established ornamental other henbit, knotweed, plants before weeds lambsquarters, pigweed have emerged. This spp. and purslane. product needs immediate incorporation after application with irrigation, rainfall or light tillage. Orzyalin For use on several field and container- Several annual grasses, Preemergence weed 2 to 4 quarts/acre or 1.5 Trade name: Surflan® AS grown ornamentals. Injury has been bittercress, carpetweed, control when applied to to 3 fluid oz/1000 sq ft reported on the following species: chickweed, filaree, established ornamental slender deutzia, Douglas fir, Techny groundsel, henbit, plants before weeds arborvitae, eastern hemlock, begonia and knotweed (prostrate), have emerged. This coleus lambsquarters, pigweed product performs better spp., puncturevine, with incorporation after purslane, shepherd’s application with irrigation, purse, spurge (prostrate) rainfall or light tillage. and yellow woodsorrel. DCPA Use on more than 120 different Several annual grasses, Pre-plant or preemergence 1 pint in 3 to 7 gallon Trade name: Dacthal®, ornamental plants. Do not use on lambsquarters, weed control treats 3000 sq ft other Dichondra, bugleweed, button pink, carpetweed, chickweed, carnation, geum, germander, ice plant, purslane, field pansy pansy, phlox, Sweet William, Telanthera. and suppression of other Consult label for specific details. broadleaf weeds. 4 Postemergence Selective Weed Control Sethoxydim Several bedding plants, groundcovers, Provides selective Provides selective 2.25 pints/acre or 0.8 Trade name: Segment, shrubs, trees and wildflowers. postemergence postemergence contact fluid oz / 1000 square other contact control of grass control only. feet on grasses up to 6 several grass species, inches in height including, but not limited Sethoxydim has little to no to, bermudagrass, soil residual activity. 3.75 pints/acre or 1.4 broadleaf signalgrass, fluid oz / 1000 square crabgrass spp., foxtail feet on grasses 6 to12 spp., goosegrass and inches in height johnsongrass. No additional adjuvant required. Fluazifop-p-butyl Several ornamental plants. Warning: Provides selective Provides selective 64-96 fluid oz/acre Trade name: Ornamec®, Post-directed applications may be safest postemergence contact postemergence contact plus 0.25% nonionic other for certain ornamental plants. Consult control of several grass grass control only. surfactant label. species including, but not limited to, bermudagrass, Fluazifop-p-butyl has little Spot spray: 2.5 fl oz/gal broadleaf signalgrass, to no soil residual activity. plus surfactant crabgrass spp., foxtail spp., goosegrass and johnsongrass. Clethodim Several ornamental trees, groundcovers, Provides selective Provides selective 16-32 fl oz/acre or Trade name: Envoy Plus™, garden flowers and plants and shrubs. postemergence contact postemergence contact 0.4-0.8 fl oz/1000 sq other control of several grass grass control only. ft plus 0.25% nonionic species including but not surfactant limited to bermudagrass, Clethodim has little to no broadleaf signalgrass, soil residual activity. Spot spray: 1/2 to 1% crabgrass spp. foxtail (0.65 to 1.3 fl oz/gal) plus spp. and johnsongrass. surfactant Does not always adequately control goosegrass. Halosulfuron Apply in landscaped areas with Certain broadleaf weeds, Use as a spot spray 0.9 grams in 1 to 2 Trade name: established woody ornamentals. Do yellow and purple around established woody gallons of water will treat Sedgehammer™, other not apply over-the-top of flowers, nutsedge and kyllinga ornamentals. 1000 sq ft ornamentals, shrubs or trees. spp. Add 1/3 oz of nonionic surfactant per gallon of water 5 Bentazon Liriope (common, green), Ajuga, Provides selective Provides selective 1 to 2 pints/acre or 0.375 Trade name: Basagran® Boxwood ‘Winter Gem’, Holly (‘Bufordii,’ postemergence contact postemergence contact to 0.75 fl oz/1000 sq ft T/O, other ’Compacta,’ ‘Dwarf Burford’), Impatiens control of certain broadleaf and sedge ‘Balsam,’ English Ivy, Marigold broadleaf weeds such control. Spot spray: 0.75 fl oz per ‘Aurora Gold,’ Mugo pine, Red oak, as ballonvine, coffee 1 to 2 gallons of water Pachysandra, Ornamental cabbage senna, galinsoga, pansy, Ornamental cabbage ‘Colorup,’ groundsel, ladysthumb, A non-phytotoxic oil Petunia (‘Madness Plum,’ ‘Ultra white’), lambsquarters, mustard, concentrate may be Snapdragon ‘L. Scarlet,’ and Yew Pennsylvania smartweed, added at 0.75 fluid oz / (Japanese ‘Densiformis,’ ‘Hatfieldii’ and prickly sida, purslane, 1000 sq ft (2 pints/acre). ‘Hicks’) ragweed (common, giant), redweed, sesbania, shepherd’s purse, spurred anoda, lawn burweed, wild buckwheat, wild poinsettia, wild sunflower and yellow nutsedge. Bentazon has no soil residual activity. Imazaquin Indian hawthorne, Dwarf yaupon holly, Provides selective Apply postemergence to Apply 0.2 to 0.26 Trade name: Image®, other Blue Pfitzer Juniper, Helleri holly, Red control of black medic, established landscape oz / 1000 sq ft as a tip photinia, Yucca, Wax Myrtle, Burford buttercup, Carolina ornamentals for selective broadcast application. Holly, Gardenia, ‘Miami Supreme,’ ‘Flame geranium, carpetweed, contact and
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic Acid
    2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid IUPAC (2,4-dichlorophenoxy)acetic acid name 2,4-D Other hedonal names trinoxol Identifiers CAS [94-75-7] number SMILES OC(COC1=CC=C(Cl)C=C1Cl)=O ChemSpider 1441 ID Properties Molecular C H Cl O formula 8 6 2 3 Molar mass 221.04 g mol−1 Appearance white to yellow powder Melting point 140.5 °C (413.5 K) Boiling 160 °C (0.4 mm Hg) point Solubility in 900 mg/L (25 °C) water Related compounds Related 2,4,5-T, Dichlorprop compounds Except where noted otherwise, data are given for materials in their standard state (at 25 °C, 100 kPa) 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) is a common systemic herbicide used in the control of broadleaf weeds. It is the most widely used herbicide in the world, and the third most commonly used in North America.[1] 2,4-D is also an important synthetic auxin, often used in laboratories for plant research and as a supplement in plant cell culture media such as MS medium. History 2,4-D was developed during World War II by a British team at Rothamsted Experimental Station, under the leadership of Judah Hirsch Quastel, aiming to increase crop yields for a nation at war.[citation needed] When it was commercially released in 1946, it became the first successful selective herbicide and allowed for greatly enhanced weed control in wheat, maize (corn), rice, and similar cereal grass crop, because it only kills dicots, leaving behind monocots. Mechanism of herbicide action 2,4-D is a synthetic auxin, which is a class of plant growth regulators.
    [Show full text]
  • EFFICACY of ORGANIC WEED CONTROL METHODS Scott Snell, Natural Resources Specialist
    FINAL STUDY REPORT (Cape May Plant Materials Center, Cape May Court House, NJ) EFFICACY OF ORGANIC WEED CONTROL METHODS Scott Snell, Natural Resources Specialist ABSTRACT Organic weed control methods have varying degrees of effectiveness and cover a broad range of costs financially and in time. Studies were conducted at the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Cape May Plant Materials Center, Cape May Court House, New Jersey to examine the efficacy and costs of a variety of organic weed control methods: tillage, organic herbicide (acetic acid), flame treatment, solarization, and use of a smother cover crop. The smother cover and organic herbicide treatment plots displayed the least efficacy to control weeds with the average percent weed coverage of each method being over 97%. The organic herbicide plots also had the greatest financial costs and required the second most treatment time following the flame treatment plots. Although the flame treatment method was time consuming, it was effective resulting in an average of 12.14% weed coverage. Solarization required below average treatment time and resulted in an average of 49.22% weed coverage. The tillage method was found to be the most effective means of control and also had well below average financial costs and required slightly above average treatment time. INTRODUCTION The final results of the third biennial national Organic Farming Research Foundation’s (OFRF) survey found that organic producers rank weed control as one of the top problems negatively affecting their farms’ profitability (1999). Weed control options available for organic producers are far more limited than those of conventional production due to organic certification standards.
    [Show full text]
  • PRINCIPLES of ORGANIC FARMING SIXTH SEMESTER Polytechnic In
    A LECTURE NOTE ON Agron. 6.10 (1 + 1 = 2) PRINCIPLES OF ORGANIC FARMING SIXTH SEMESTER Polytechnic in Agriculture College of Agriculture, NAU, Bharuch Agron. 6.10 (1 + 1 = 2) Principles of Organic Farming Theory: Chapter Chapter Page No. No. 1. ORGANIC FARMING-AN INTRODUCTION 2. PRINCIPLES, SCOPE AND COMPONENTS OF ORGANIC FARMING 3. COMPONENTS OF ORGANIC FARMING AND THEIR ROLE IN SUSTAINABLE CROP PRODUCTION 4. INITIATIVES FOR PROMOTING ORGANIC FARMING 5. NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT IN ORGANIC FARMING 6. DISEASE AND PEST MANAGEMENT IN ORGANIC FARMING 7. WEED MANAGEMENT IN ORGANIC FARMING 8. OPERATIONAL STRUCTURE OF NPOP AND NATIONAL STANDARDS FOR ORGANIC FARMING 9. CERTIFICATION AND ACCREDITATION PROCESS OF ORGANIC PRODUCT 10. ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS, MARKETING AND EXPORT POTENTIAL OF ORGANIC FARMING Reference books 1. Organic farming-Theory and Practice by S.P. Palaniappan and K. Annadurai 2. Principles of organic farming by S. R. Reddy 3. Principles of Agronomy by S. R. Reddy 4. Organic crop production (Principles and practices Vol-I: Principles and General Aspects) by J. P. Sharma 5. Principles and practices of organic farming by R. Balasubramanian, K. Balakrishnan and K. Sivasubramanian CHAPTER -1 INTRODUCTION, DEFINITION, CONCEPT, IMPORTANCE, ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES, OBJECTIVES, ESSENTIAL CHARACTERISTICS OF ORGANIC FARMING 1.1 Introduction: Green revolution technologies such as greater use of synthetic agro chemicals like fertilizers and pesticides, adoption of nutrient responsive, high-yielding varieties of crops, greater exploitation of irrigation potentials etc… has boosted the production out put in most of cases. Without proper choice and continues use of these high energy inputs is leading to decline in production and productivity of various crops as well as deterioration of soil health and environments.
    [Show full text]
  • Efficacy of Intercropping Pattern in Reducing Weeds Infestation in Okra, Maize and Pepper Intercrop
    International Journal of Weed Science and Technology ISSN 4825-3499 Vol. 2 (1), pp. 063-069, January, 2018. Available online at www.advancedscholarsjournals.org © Advanced Scholars Journals Full Length Research Paper Efficacy of intercropping pattern in reducing weeds infestation in okra, maize and pepper intercrop *Ubini C. Thomas, Jaymiwhie Obanna and Ikogho B. Patrick Department of Crop and Soil Science, University of Port Harcourt, P. M. B 5323 Port Harcourt, Nigeria. Accepted 15 January, 2018 Field study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy of intercropping pattern in reducing weed infestation in okra, maize and pepper intercrop; at the teaching and research farm of Rivers State University of Science and Technology Port Harcourt, Nigeria during 2009 and 2010 cropping season. Three intercropping pattern namely; alternate row intercropping, strip row intercropping and mixed intercropping were compared to sole cropping in a randomized complete block design replicated three times. The result reveal that weed biomass were significantly lower in both years in all forms of intercropping pattern compared to sole cropping or mono-cropping. Weed smothering efficiency in both years showed that mixed pattern (45.7%) >alternate row pattern (33.4%) > strip row pattern (11.5%). Crop yield were better in an intercrop system for maize and pepper in both years compared to -1 sole crop. However, mean okra fruit yield was highest in sole cropping (3253 kg ha ) when compared -1 to intercropping pattern. Maize yield was highest in mixed pattern (8,987 kg ha ) and lowest in sole -1 -1 cropping (6,955 kg ha ) while pepper fruit yield was highest in strip row pattern (5,435 kg ha ) and -1 lowest in mixed pattern (1,562 kg ha ).
    [Show full text]
  • Principles of Sustainable Weed Able Weed
    PRINCIPLES OF SUSTAINABLE WEED MANAGEMENT FOR CROPLANDS AGRONOMY SYSTEMS SERIES Abstract: To some extent, weeds are a result of crop production, but to a larger extent they are a consequence of management decisions. Managing croplands according to nature’s principles will reduce weed problems. And while these principles apply to most crops, this publication focuses on agronomic crops such as corn, soybeans, milo, and small grains. The opportunities to address the root causes of weeds are not always readily apparent, and often require some imagination to recognize. Creativity is key to taking advantage of these opportunities and devising sustainable cropping systems that prevent weed problems, rather than using quick-fix approaches. Annual monoculture crop production generally involves tillage that creates conditions hospitable to many weeds. This publication discusses several alternatives to conventional tillage systems, including allelopathy, intercropping, crop rotations, and a weed- free cropping design. A Resources list provides sources of further information. By Preston Sullivan boundaries within which we operate and the NCAT Agriculture Specialist rules for success within those boundaries. September 2003 The “weed control” paradigm is reactive— it addresses weed First, Free Your Brain problems by using As Iowa farmer Tom Frantzen poetically states: various tools and tech- “Free your brain and your behind will follow.” nologies. “How am I What Tom is referring to is discovering new para- gonna get rid of this vel- digms. Joel Barker, author of Paradigms—The vet-leaf?” and “How do Business of Discovering the Future (1), defines a I control foxtail?” are re- paradigm as a set of standards that establish the active statements.
    [Show full text]
  • Agricultural Biotechnology: Benefits of Transgenic Soybeans
    AGRICULTURAL BIOTECHNOLOGY: BENEFITS OF TRANSGENIC SOYBEANS Leonard P. Gianessi Janet E. Carpenter April 2000 National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy 1616 P Street, NW, First Floor Washington, DC 20036 Tel: 202-328-5048 Fax: 202-328-5133 [email protected] Preparation of this report was supported financially with a grant from the Rockefeller Foundation TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Introduction 2. U.S. Soybean Production 3. Soybean Products 4. Soybean Physiology 5. Soybeans – Agronomic Factors 6. Soybean Genetic Improvements A. Introduction B. Reproductive Process C. Artificial Cross Breeding D. Mutation Breeding E. Transgenic Plants 7. Weed Competition – Soybeans 8. Weed Control in Soybeans: 1940’s – 1950’s 9. Herbicides – An Overview 10. Herbicide Use in Soybeans: 1960’s – 1995 A. Introduction B. Historical Overview 1. The Early 1960’s 2. Soil Applied Herbicides 3. Postemergence Herbicides 4. Sulfonylurea/Imidazolinone Herbicides 5. Burndown Herbicides C. Summary of Usage: 1995 11. Transgenic Herbicide Tolerant Soybeans A. Glyphosate – An Overview B. Performance of Roundup Ready Soybeans C. Herbicide Ratings D. Adoption Impacts: 1995 – 1998 1. Herbicide Costs 2. Soybean Yields 3. Returns 4. Other Aggregate Studies 5. Herbicide Treatments 6. Herbicide Use Amounts 7. Other Impacts 12. Summary and Conclusions 13. References Appendix 1: Soybean Processing – A Description 1. Introduction Soybeans and other crops have been improved genetically for many decades through traditional crop breeding – a technique that requires that species be sexually compatible. With the development of biotechnology methods, scientists have the ability to transfer single genes from one living organism into another, regardless of species or sexual compatibility. Varieties that are developed through the transfer of genes between species that are not sexually compatible are referred to as “transgenic.” Transgenic soybean plants have been developed with a gene from a soil bacteria that allows the use of an herbicide that would normally kill soybeans.
    [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]
  • Aquaponicstheeasywaysample
    HOW TO DO AQUAPONICS THE EASY Way A Step-by-Step, Affordable DIY Guide to the Most Efficient Food Production System in the History of Mankind If You Have Light and Heat You Can Have Plants and Fish! SUSANNE FRIEND & TIM MANN HOW TO DO AQUAPONICS THE EASY WAY! First Edition, December 2013 ©Susanne Friend, Tim Mann, and Friendly Aquaponics, Inc, 2013. All rights reserved. This book may not be reproduced in whole or in part, or transmitted in any form without express written permission from the publisher (Friendly Aquaponics, Inc.), except by a reviewer, who may quote brief passages in a review; nor may any part of this book be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means: electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or other, without express written permission from both the authors and publisher. Cover design, all document layout, design, and artwork ©Susanne Friend, 2013 This is designed to be an E-book, and is meant to be read on a mobile device or e-reader, and not printed at all, this saves TONS of paper! If you really need to print it, print it off your printer, but make sure to print only the pages you really need to print! Mahalo Nui Loa “Great thanks, Everlasting” To The People We Call “Farmily” First and foremost, thank you to Dr. James Rakocy, for his seminal work at the University of the Virgin Islands, and for hosting the 2007 Short Course that started us on this path. Along the way have been many excellent students who asked a critical question at just the right moment.
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Health Criteria 39 PARAQUAT and DIQUAT
    Environmental Health Criteria 39 PARAQUAT AND DIQUAT Please note that the layout and pagination of this web version are not identical with the printed version. Paraquat and diquat (EHC 39, 1984) INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMME ON CHEMICAL SAFETY ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH CRITERIA 39 PARAQUAT AND DIQUAT This report contains the collective views of an international group of experts and does not necessarily represent the decisions or the stated policy of the United Nations Environment Programme, the International Labour Organisation, or the World Health Organization. Published under the joint sponsorship of the United Nations Environment Programme, the International Labour Organisation, and the World Health Organization World Health Orgnization Geneva, 1984 The International Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS) is a joint venture of the United Nations Environment Programme, the International Labour Organisation, and the World Health Organization. The main objective of the IPCS is to carry out and disseminate evaluations of the effects of chemicals on human health and the quality of the environment. Supporting activities include the development of epidemiological, experimental laboratory, and risk-assessment methods that could produce internationally comparable results, and the development of manpower in the field of toxicology. Other activities carried out by the IPCS include the development of know-how for coping with chemical accidents, coordination of laboratory testing and epidemiological studies, and promotion of research on the mechanisms of the biological action of chemicals. ISBN 92 4 154099 4 The World Health Organization welcomes requests for permission to reproduce or translate its publications, in part or in full. Applications and enquiries should be addressed to the Office of Publications, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland, which will be glad to provide the latest information on any changes made to the text, plans for new editions, and reprints and translations already available.
    [Show full text]
  • Glyphosate and Cancer Risk: Frequently Asked Questions
    May 2015 FACT SHEET GLYPHOSATE AND CANCER RISK: FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS WHY IS THERE CONCERN ABOUT showing higher rates of cancer in glyphosate-using GLYPHOSATE AND CANCER? The World farmers; and research showing that glyphosate damages Health Organization’s (WHO’s) cancer authorities – the DNA and chromosomes, one mechanism by which cancer International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) is induced.2 IARC’s full assessment is due out in 2016. – recently determined that glyphosate is “probably carcinogenic to humans” (Group 2A). Glyphosate is WHOSE ASSESSMENT IS MORE the most heavily used pesticide in the world thanks to RELIABLE: IARC OR EPA? IARC is the world’s widespread planting of Monsanto’s Roundup Ready crops, leading authority on cancer. Its glyphosate determination which are genetically engineered to survive spraying with was made by unanimous decision of 17 qualified scientists it. Use and exposure will increase still more if glyphosate- led by Dr. Aaron Blair, a distinguished epidemiologist resistant turfgrasses currently being developed for lawns, recently retired from the U.S. National Cancer Institute.3 playing fields and golf courses are introduced. IARC’s assessment is up-to-date, analyzing all the relevant available research, while EPA’s last comprehensive WHERE DO EPA AND WHO’S IARC STAND assessment of glyphosate occurred in 1993. IARC ON GLYPHOSATE’S CARCINOGENICITY? considered a broad range of evidence, including human In 1985, EPA classified glyphosate as a possible epidemiology and other peer-reviewed studies, while EPA carcinogen based on experiments showing tumors in did not assess epidemiology and relied almost entirely on glyphosate-treated rodents.
    [Show full text]
  • Diquat Ecological Risk Assessment, Final Report
    Utah State University DigitalCommons@USU All U.S. Government Documents (Utah Regional U.S. Government Documents (Utah Regional Depository) Depository) 11-2005 Diquat Ecological Risk Assessment, Final Report Bureau of Land Management Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/govdocs Part of the Life Sciences Commons, and the Physical Sciences and Mathematics Commons Recommended Citation Bureau of Land Management, "Diquat Ecological Risk Assessment, Final Report" (2005). All U.S. Government Documents (Utah Regional Depository). Paper 107. https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/govdocs/107 This Report is brought to you for free and open access by the U.S. Government Documents (Utah Regional Depository) at DigitalCommons@USU. It has been accepted for inclusion in All U.S. Government Documents (Utah Regional Depository) by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@USU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Bureau of Land Management Reno, Nevada Diquat Ecological Risk Assessment Final Report November 2005 Bureau of Land Management Contract No. NAD010156 ENSR Document Number 09090-020-650 Executive Summary The United States Department of the Interior (USDI) Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is proposing a program to treat vegetation on up to six million acres of public lands annually in 17 western states in the continental United States (US) and Alaska. As part of this program, the BLM is proposing the use of ten herbicide active ingredients (a.i.) to control invasive plants and noxious weeds on approximately one million of the 6 million acres proposed for treatment. The BLM and its contractor, ENSR, are preparing a Vegetation Treatments Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to evaluate this and other proposed vegetation treatment methods and alternatives on lands managed by the BLM in the western continental US and Alaska.
    [Show full text]
  • Benefits and Safety of Glyphosate
    TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ………………………………………………………………….4 2 BENEFITS OF GLYPHOSATE …………………………………………………………...5 2.1 Benefits to agriculture in glyphosate-tolerant cropping systems …………………………..6 2.1.1 Expansion in agriculture and replacement of other herbicides ……………………. 6 2.1.2 Farm level benefits ………………………………………………………………………7 2.1.3 Impacts on conservation tillage ……………………………………………………….8 2.1.4 Value of U.S. commodity exports of glyphosate-tolerant crops …………………..10 2.2 Benefits to agriculture in non-glyphosate-tolerant crops ………………………………….11 2.2.1 Orchards and vineyards ………………………………………………………………11 2.2.2 Wheat …………………………………………………………………………………..12 2.2.3 Sugarcane ……………………………………………………………………………..12 2.2.4 Cover crops ……………………………………………………………………………13 2.3 Benefits outside of agriculture ……………………………………………………………….14 2.3.1 Highway, railroad and utility right of ways …………………………………………...14 2.3.2 Recreational settings ………………………………………………………………….15 2.3.3 Invasive and noxious weeds ………………………………………………………….16 2.3.4 Aquatic weeds …………………………………………………………………………18 2.4 Managing herbicide resistant weed biotypes ……………………………………………… 19 2.5 Potential impacts of losing access to glyphosate …………………………………………. 20 2.6 Policy considerations …………………………………………………………………………..21 3 SAFETY OF GLYPHOSATE ……………………………………………………………………...23 3.1 Glyphosate environmental fate and toxicology ……………………………………..24 3.2 Glyphosate ecotoxicology …………………………………………………………….24 3.3 Glyphosate and honey bees …………………………………………………………………..25 3.4 Glyphosate and soil biota ……………………………………………………………………..25
    [Show full text]