Download the Report
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
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. -
USDA, Forest Service Forest Health Protection GSA Contract No
SERA TR 02-43-13-03b Triclopyr - Revised Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessments Final Report Prepared for: USDA, Forest Service Forest Health Protection GSA Contract No. GS-10F-0082F USDA Forest Service BPA: WO-01-3187-0150 USDA Purchase Order No.: 43-1387-2-0245 Task No. 13 Submitted to: Dave Thomas, COTR Forest Health Protection Staff USDA Forest Service Rosslyn Plaza Building C, Room 7129C 1601 North Kent Street Arlington, VA 22209 Submitted by: Patrick R. Durkin Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, Inc. 5100 Highbridge St., 42C Fayetteville, New York 13066-0950 Telephone: (315) 637-9560 Fax: (315) 637-0445 E-Mail: [email protected] Home Page: www.sera-inc.com March 15, 2003 TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF APPENDICES ...................................................... iv LIST OF WORKSHEETS ...................................................... v LIST OF ATTACHMENTS .................................................... v LIST OF TABLES ............................................................ v LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................... viii ACRONYMS, ABBREVIATIONS, AND SYMBOLS .............................. ix COMMON UNIT CONVERSIONS AND ABBREVIATIONS ......................... xi CONVERSION OF SCIENTIFIC NOTATION .................................... xii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................... xiii 1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................ 1-1 2. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION ................................................ 2-1 2.1. OVERVIEW -
The FARC and Colombia's Illegal Drug Trade
LATIN AMERICAN PROGRAM © JOHN VIZCANO/Reuters The FARC and Colombia’s Illegal Drug Trade By John Otis November 2014 Introduction In 2014, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, Latin America’s oldest and largest guerrilla army known as the FARC, marked the 50th anniversary of the start of its war against the Colombian government. More than 220,000 people have been killed1 and more than five million people uprooted2 from their homes in the conflict, which is the last remaining guerrilla war in the Western Hemisphere. However, this grim, half-century milestone coincides with peace negotiations between the Colombian government and the FARC that began in Havana, Cuba, in November 2012. The Havana talks have advanced much farther than the three previous efforts to negotiate with the FARC and there is a growing sense that a final peace treaty is now likely.3 So far, the two sides have reached agreements on three of the five points on the negotiating agenda, including an accord to resolve an issue that helps explain why the conflict has lasted so long: The FARC’s deep involvement in the taxation, production, and trafficking of illegal drugs. On May 16, 2014, the government and the FARC signed an agreement stating that under the terms of a final peace treaty, the two sides would work in tandem to eradicate coca, the plant used to make cocaine, and to combat cocaine trafficking in areas under guerrilla control. The FARC “has promised to effectively contribute, in diverse and practical ways, to a definitive solution to the problem of illegal drugs,” Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos said in a televised speech the day the accord was signed.4 “The Havana talks have advanced much farther than the three previous efforts to negotiate with the FARC and there is a growing sense that a final peace treaty is now likely.” A month later, Santos secured more time to bring the peace talks to a successful conclusion. -
Herbicide Mode of Action Table High Resistance Risk
Herbicide Mode of Action Table High resistance risk Chemical family Active constituent (first registered trade name) GROUP 1 Inhibition of acetyl co-enzyme A carboxylase (ACC’ase inhibitors) clodinafop (Topik®), cyhalofop (Agixa®*, Barnstorm®), diclofop (Cheetah® Gold* Decision®*, Hoegrass®), Aryloxyphenoxy- fenoxaprop (Cheetah®, Gold*, Wildcat®), fluazifop propionates (FOPs) (Fusilade®), haloxyfop (Verdict®), propaquizafop (Shogun®), quizalofop (Targa®) Cyclohexanediones (DIMs) butroxydim (Factor®*), clethodim (Select®), profoxydim (Aura®), sethoxydim (Cheetah® Gold*, Decision®*), tralkoxydim (Achieve®) Phenylpyrazoles (DENs) pinoxaden (Axial®) GROUP 2 Inhibition of acetolactate synthase (ALS inhibitors), acetohydroxyacid synthase (AHAS) Imidazolinones (IMIs) imazamox (Intervix®*, Raptor®), imazapic (Bobcat I-Maxx®*, Flame®, Midas®*, OnDuty®*), imazapyr (Arsenal Xpress®*, Intervix®*, Lightning®*, Midas®* OnDuty®*), imazethapyr (Lightning®*, Spinnaker®) Pyrimidinyl–thio- bispyribac (Nominee®), pyrithiobac (Staple®) benzoates Sulfonylureas (SUs) azimsulfuron (Gulliver®), bensulfuron (Londax®), chlorsulfuron (Glean®), ethoxysulfuron (Hero®), foramsulfuron (Tribute®), halosulfuron (Sempra®), iodosulfuron (Hussar®), mesosulfuron (Atlantis®), metsulfuron (Ally®, Harmony®* M, Stinger®*, Trounce®*, Ultimate Brushweed®* Herbicide), prosulfuron (Casper®*), rimsulfuron (Titus®), sulfometuron (Oust®, Eucmix Pre Plant®*, Trimac Plus®*), sulfosulfuron (Monza®), thifensulfuron (Harmony®* M), triasulfuron (Logran®, Logran® B-Power®*), tribenuron (Express®), -
U.S. Geological Survey National Water-Quality Assessment Program
U.S. Geological Survey National Water-Quality Assessment Program Stream water-quality analytes Major ions and trace elementsschedule 998 (20 constituents) Pesticides schedule 2437 (229 compounds) Alkalinity 1H1,2,4Triazole Arsenic 2,3,3Trichloro2propene1sulfonic acid (TCPSA) Boron 2,4D Calcium 2(1Hydroxyethyl)6methylaniline Chloride 2[(2Ethyl6methylphenyl)amino]1propanol Fluoride 2AminoNisopropylbenzamide Iron 2Aminobenzimidazole Lithium 2Chloro2',6'diethylacetanilide 2Chloro4,6diaminostriazine {CAAT} Magnesium (Didealkylatrazine) pH 2Chloro4isopropylamino6aminostriazine Potassium 2Chloro6ethylamino4aminostriazine {CEAT} Total dissolved solids 2ChloroN(2ethyl6methylphenyl)acetamide Selenium 2Hydroxy4isopropylamino6aminostriazine 2Hydroxy4isopropylamino6ethylaminostriazin Silica e {OIET} Sodium 2Hydroxy6ethylamino4aminostriazine Specific conductance 2Isopropyl6methyl4pyrimidinol Strontium 3,4Dichlorophenylurea Sulfate 3Hydroxycarbofuran Turbidity 3Phenoxybenzoic acid Vanadium 4(Hydroxymethyl)pendimethalin 4Chlorobenzylmethyl sulfoxide Suspended sediment 4Hydroxy molinate 4Hydroxychlorothalonil Nutrientsschedule 2430 (18 constituents) 4Hydroxyhexazinone A Inorganic carbon, suspended Acephate Dissolved inorganic carbon Acetochlor ammonia + organic nitrogen (unfilteredKjeldahl) Acetochlor oxanilic acid ammonia + organic nitrogen (filteredKjeldahl) Acetochlor sulfonic acid Ammonia as N, filtered Acetochlor sulfynilacetic acid nitrite, filtered Alachlor -
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 -
Drugs and Development: the Great Disconnect
ISSN 2054-2046 Drugs and Development: The Great Disconnect Julia Buxton Policy Report 2 | January 2015 Drugs and Development: The Great Disconnect Julia Buxton∗ Policy Report 2 | January 2015 Key Points • The 2016 United Nations General Assembly Special Session on the World Drug Problem (UNGASS) will see a strong lobby in support of development oriented responses to the problem of drug supply, including from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC). • The promotion of Alternative Development (AD) programmes that provide legal, non-drug related economic opportunities for drug crop cultivators reflects the limited success of enforcement responses, greater awareness of the development dimensions of cultivation activities and the importance of drugs and development agencies working co-operatively in drug environments. • Evidence from thirty years of AD programming demonstrates limited success in supply reduction and that poorly monitored and weakly evaluated programmes cause more harm than good; there has been little uptake of best practice approaches, cultivators rarely benefit from AD programmes, the concept of AD is contested and there is no shared understanding of ‘development’. • AD was popularised in the 1990s when development discourse emphasised participatory approaches and human wellbeing. This is distinct from the development approaches of the 2000s, which have been ‘securitised’ in the aftermath of the Global War on Terror and which re-legitimise military participation in AD. • UNGASS 2016 provides an opportunity for critical scrutiny of AD and the constraints imposed by the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs on innovative, rights based and nationally owned supply responses. Cultivation is a development not a crime and security issue. -
History of Seed in the U.S. the Untold American Revolution 660 Pennsylvania Ave SE Suite 302 Washington, D.C
History of Seed in the U.S. The Untold American Revolution 660 Pennsylvania Ave SE Suite 302 Washington, D.C. 20003 P (202) 547-9359 F (202) 547-9429 www.centerforfoodsafety.org Save Our Seeds An exhibition at the National Archives in Washington, D.C., What’s Cooking Uncle Sam?, traces the history of U.S. agriculture from “the horse and plow (SOS) to today’s mechanized farm.” While the exhibition contains humorous elements, including a corporate campaign to win the War Food A program of the Administration’s endorsement of its Vitamin Donuts—“For pep and vigor… Center for Food Safety Vitamin Donuts!”—it also chronicles a sobering story of American farming and how the effects of U.S. food and agricultural policies reach far beyond the borders of Uncle Sam. Throughout, it is clear that the path of agriculture begins with the seed. Over the past 40 years, the U.S. has led a radical shift toward commercialization, consolidation, and control of seed. Prior to the advent of industrial agriculture, there were thousands of seed companies and public breeding institutions. At present, the top 10 seed and chemical companies, with the majority stake owned by U.S. corporations, control 73 1 Debbie Barker percent of the global market. International Program Today, fewer than 2 percent of Americans are farmers,2 whereas 90 percent 3 Director of our citizens lived on farms in 1810. This represents perhaps a more transformative revolution than even the Revolutionary War recorded in our history books. August 2012 This report will provide a summary of U.S. -
Congener Patterns of Polychlorinated Dibenzo-P-Dioxins
Science of the Total Environment 746 (2020) 141098 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Science of the Total Environment journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/scitotenv Review Congener patterns of polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins, dibenzofurans and biphenyls as a useful aid to source identification during a contamination incident in the food chain Ron L.A.P. Hoogenboom a,⁎, Rainer Malisch b, Stefan P.J. van Leeuwen a, Huig Vanderperren c, Helge Hove d, Alwyn Fernandes f, Alexander Schächtele b, Martin Rose e,g a Wageningen Food Safety Research, Wageningen UR, Akkermaalsbos 2, 6708 WB Wageningen, the Netherlands b EURL for POPs, CVUA, Bissierstraße 5, 79114 Freiburg, Germany c FLVV, Leuvensesteenweg 17, 3080 Tervuren, Belgium d NIFES, Strandgaten 229, 5004 Bergen, Norway e FERA Science Ltd, Sand Hutton, York YO41 1LZ, UK f School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK g Manchester Institute of Biotechnology, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK HIGHLIGHTS GRAPHICAL ABSTRACT • Congener patterns are important tools for source identification. • TEQ contribution may be preferred over contribution to total sum. • Only PCDDs point to clay or chlorophenols, only PCDFs to PCB sources. • Mixed patterns point to minerals or burning processes. • Simple patterns indicate certain pesti- cides or herbicides. article info abstract Article history: Polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (PCDDs), dibenzofurans (PCDFs) and biphenyls (PCBs) are still consid- Received 7 May 2020 ered among the most important groups of contaminants in the food chain. Self-control by food producers Received in revised form 13 July 2020 and official control by authorities are important activities that allow contaminant sources to be traced Accepted 18 July 2020 and promote further reduction in food and feed levels. -
The Role of Biopesticides in Sustainable Agriculture Nature Fighting Nature Susan M
The role of biopesticides in sustainable agriculture Nature fighting nature Susan M. Boyetchko Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan,Canada [email protected] Introduction • Investment in biopesticide R&D in Canada has progressed • perceptions and attitudes towards chemical pesticides have changed • renewed interest in biopesticides, more products being registered since 2000 • social and economic drivers – legislative changes – regulatory policies – changing attitudes of consumers – greater interest by small-to-medium sized enterprises (SME’s) What are biopesticides? • beneficial use of living organisms to (directly or indirectly) suppress, inhibit, damage, or kill a pest or pest population • biocontrol agents: e.g. fungi, bacteria, viruses, natural products • inundative application, applied repeatedly, annually • easy to use and mass-produce, acceptable shelf life • host specific (target pests/pathogens, group of related pathogens) • no detrimental effects on non-target organisms • environmental and toxicological safety standards Biopesticides – Opportunities/Need • pesticide-resistance management • control of invasive alien species • reduced risk pest control products (new active ingredients & new modes of action) • expand label registration of existing biopesticide products; more products registered in Canada • reduce chemical residues (soil, water, food) • IPM in crop production systems (e.g. conventional, organic, no/low pesticide use) • where control measures (e.g. chemicals) are inadequate/unavailable/deregistered Biopesticides = Next Generation of Pest Control Products (transformative research) Biopesticide Market Global Biopesticides and Synthetic Pesticides Market ($millions) Type 2003 2004 2005 2010 Ave. Ann. growth rate Biopesticides 468 562 672 1,075 9.9 Synthetic 27,144 26,600 26,076 24,205 -1.5 Pesticides Total 27,612 27,162 26,748 25,280 -1.1 Biopesticides as % of total 1.69 2.07 2.51 4.25 from Business Communications Company, Inc. -
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. -
An Economic Analysis of Coca Eradication Policy in Colombia
An Economic Analysis of Coca Eradication Policy in Colombia by Rocio Moreno-Sanchez David S. Kraybill Stanley R. Thompson1 Department of Agricultural, Environmental, and Development Economics The Ohio State University May 2002 Paper submitted for presentation at the AAEA Annual Meeting July 28 – 31, 2002, Long Beach, CA Abstract. We estimate an econometric model of coca production in Colombia. Our results indicate that coca eradication is an ineffective means of supply control as farmers compensate by cultivating the crop more extensively. The evidence further suggests that incentives to produce legal substitute crops may have greater supply- reducing potential than eradication. Key words: coca production, coca eradication, drug control policy 1 Graduate Assistant and Professors, respectively, in the Department of Agricultural, Environmental, and Development Economics at The Ohio State University. 2120 Fyffe Road, Columbus, OH 43210. Email: [email protected] Copyright 2002 by Rocio Moreno, David Kraybill, and Stanley Thompson. All rights reserved. Readers may make verbatim copies of this document for non-commercial purposes by any means, provided that this copyright notice appears on all such copies Introduction Coca (Erythroxylum coca) is the main input in the manufacture of cocaine hydrochloride, an addictive, pscyhostimulant drug whose use is illegal today in most countries. Policies regarding production and use of coca and its derivatives are controversial. The controversy focuses primarily on whether drug-control policies are effective in achieving their stated objectives of reducing cocaine usage. The Policy Setting Cocaine is produced in four stages: cultivation of the coca plant and harvesting of the leaf, extraction of coca paste, transformation of the paste into cocaine base, and conversion of the base into cocaine (Riley, 1993).