DOCSLIB.ORG

Poisoned Food, Poisoned Brains

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Poisoned Food, Poisoned Brains POISONED FOOD, POISONED BRAINS: MAPPING DANGEROUS PESTICIDES IN THE FOODS WE EAT POISONED FOOD, POISONED BRAINS Mapping dangerous pesticides in the foods we eat BACKGROUND Since the mid-1960s, staple fruits and vegetables chlorpyrifos from food, it is unclear EPA will do so. in the U.S. have been sprayed with chlorpyrifos, Recent reporting from The Intercept shows that for one of many dangerous organophosphate pesti- years, chemical companies like Dow have strong- cides on the market. Multiple studies have linked armed, tricked, or persuaded EPA into relying chlorpyrifos to permanent harms to the developing on flawed science and keeping harmful pesticides brains of children, including reduced IQ, loss of — including chlorpyrifos — on the market. These working memory, and attention deficit disorders. lobbying maneuvers are most likely ongoing as the Chlorpyrifos is sprayed on apples, all major citrus August deadline looms. crops, table grapes, strawberries, and cherries. It is To keep the record straight, Earthjustice reviewed also used on corn, the country’s largest crop. and extracted data from EPA human health risk The dire health consequences of organophosphates assessments, as well as agricultural pesticide usage like chlorpyrifos are not accidental. In the 1940s, data from the United States Geological Survey the Nazis weaponized organophosphates as a form (USGS). The data Earthjustice compiled, catego- of chemical warfare. After World War II, German rized, and analyzed, which also includes informa- chemical companies repurposed this class of nerve tion on 16 other organophosphates, is available to agents for agricultural use. And now, more than half download and explore in a searchable database at a century later, millions of pounds of chlorpyrifos earthjustice.org/organophosphates. The database are manufactured and sold every year by agrochem- shows which crops are sprayed, the foods that con- ical conglomerates like Dow Chemical (now Corteva tain high levels of organophosphates, links to health Agriscience)1, ADAMA Agricultural Solutions Ltd., risks evaluations, and a brief regulatory history. Cheminova (owned by FMC Corporation), Gharda This is the first time that risk findings and USGS Chemicals, Ltd., and Platte Chemical Company, Inc. mapping data on organophosphates as a whole, and (part of Loveland Products, Inc.). chlorpyrifos in particular, have been collated. Chlorpyrifos is one of dozens of organophos- phates that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reauthorized for use in agricultural fields Manufacturers with chlorpyrifos registrations in 2006. In the early 2000s, EPA agreed with in the US: Dow AgroSciences, then the largest manufacturer Nufarm Americas, Inc., FMC Corporation, of chlorpyrifos, to end most residential uses but BASF Corporation, Southern Agricultural not most food uses. In April 2021, after years of Insecticides, Inc., Adama Makhteshim LTD, litigation led by Earthjustice and its clients, the 9th Drexel Chemical Company, Control Solutions, Circuit Court of Appeals ordered EPA to ban all Inc., Makhteshim Agan of North America, food uses of chlorpyrifos or retain only those it can Inc., Tide International, USA, Inc, Liberty find safe for workers and children. Crop Protection LLC, Central Garden and Pest 2 EPA must unveil its rule by August 20, 2021. While Company, Gharda Chemicals International. the only sensible and lawful action would be to ban EARTHJUSTICE.ORG 1. Corteva, the largest manufacturer of chlorpyrifos, said it would stop manufacturing in 2021. Lorsban, the product name of chlorpyrifos, is still PRESS CONTACT: promoted on Corteva’s website. Alejandro Dávila Fragoso, 2. http://npirspublic.ceris.purdue.edu/ppis/product.aspx 1 National Media Strategist [email protected] POISONED FOOD, POISONED BRAINS: MAPPING DANGEROUS PESTICIDES IN THE FOODS WE EAT KEY TAKEAWAYS • The most recent government data says the too. Government reports show that farmworkers United States used over 5.6 million pounds of and people who live, work, or go to school near chlorpyrifos on agricultural land in 2017. agricultural fields where chlorpyrifos is used • California, Minnesota, North Dakota, and experience dangerously high levels of exposure Kansas used the most chlorpyrifos. Of the top 10 and are at elevated risk of harm. counties that used the most, four are in California • Children between one and two years old are and five are in North Dakota. most at risk of harm from chlorpyrifos, as they • Chlorpyrifos is allowed on 48 food commodities, face dietary exposures of more than 140 times including fruits, vegetables, meats, and their off- EPA’s so-called level of concern. shoot products. The commodities that have the • In its 2016 Refined Drinking Water Assessment, highest allowable levels of chlorpyrifos are sugar which is the only such assessment that attempted beets, corn, and citrus. Cilantro, basil, and raisins to find a chlorpyrifos exposure level that would have residue levels that exceed allowable limits, be safe for children, EPA said drinking water according to the most recent government data. across the nation is likely contaminated with • Anyone living near where chlorpyrifos is used unsafe levels of chlorpyrifos. EPA’s high end can be exposed to unsafe levels through air (drift) estimates indicate that in the most contaminated or drinking water, according to government stud- areas, chlorpyrifos contamination may be 12,000 ies, which note that food is a method of exposure higher than levels of concern. REPORT FINDINGS Chlorpyrifos Hot Spots Across the United States Pounds of organophosphate 1 - 1,000 100,000 USGS low estimates for chlorpyrifos use in pounds across US harvested croplands, or Crop Reporting Districts (“CDR”). The USGS E-pest low model more accurately reflects state use as it assumes no chlorpyrifos on crops for which data is not reported in a CDR. High estimates account for chlorpyrifos use that may happen but may not be reported and cannot be verified. The map reflects only agricultural crop usage in 2017, and does not reflect other uses like golf courses, or plant nurseries. Chlorpyrifos use data pertaining to non-contiguous states and U.S. territories, including Hawai’i, Alaska, and Puerto Rico were not made available by the USGS and are not reflected on this map. EARTHJUSTICE.ORG PRESS CONTACT: Alejandro Dávila Fragoso, 2 National Media Strategist [email protected] POISONED FOOD, POISONED BRAINS: MAPPING DANGEROUS PESTICIDES IN THE FOODS WE EAT Chlorpyrifos is used in nearly every major agri- highest chlorpyrifos use are Grand Forks, Pembina, cultural state and all over the country. The most Cavalier, Walsh, and Ramsey. The adjacent coun- recent available government data shows a down- ties of Towner and Nelson in North Dakota, along ward trend of use, but nonetheless the U.S. sprayed with Marshall and Polk counties in Minnesota, all 5.6 million pounds of chlorpyrifos on fields in one fall in the top 20 counties with highest chlorpyrifos year. According to the same 2017 data, California, use by volume, creating a sizeable agricultural hot Minnesota, North Dakota, Kansas, Florida, and spot. The combined use of chlorpyrifos across these Washington state used the most. And while California two states account for almost 27% of the annual approved a chlorpyrifos ban in 2019, which would usage in the United States from 2017. phase out most, but not all, agricultural uses of the Studies have shown that psychosocial stress from pesticide by December 2020, this does not mean the factors like poverty and racial injustice can make state will be chlorpyrifos free. In fact, states that have communities like those in Yakima and Grant adopted bans cannot prevent foods with chlorpyrifos counties in Washington state, which have higher residues from being sold or consumed in the state.3 percentages of poverty than the national average, Only EPA can do that with a federal ban. more vulnerable to harm from chlorpyrifos ex- Of the top 10 counties that use the most chlorpy- posure.4 Hispanic or Latinx communities are also rifos by volume, four are in California and five twice as likely to live in these two counties with are in North Dakota. In California, those coun- heavy chlorpyrifos use compared to the rest of ties are Kern, Fresno, Tulare, and Kings, which Washington state, according to 2010 US Census all border each other and are in the San Joaquin data. EPA does not take these factors into account Valley. In North Dakota, the counties with the when assessing risks. Volume (thousands) Concentration Volume (thousands) Concentration 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 200300400500 100 0 0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000 120000 California GeorgiaCalifornia1 Georgia Kings, CA Denver, ColoradoKings,1 California Denver, CO Georgia Ariz onaGeorgia2 Arizona Fresno, CA Gila, ArizonaFresno,2 California Gila, AZ Louisiana FloridaLouisiana3 Florida Kern, CA Greenlee, ArizonaKern,3 California Greenlee, AZ Texas LouisianaTexas4 Louisiana Imperial, CA Essex, New JerseyImperial,4 California Essex, NJ Mississippi CaliforniaMississippi5 California Monterey, CA Gulf, FloridaMonterey,5 Gulf, California FL Arkansas MississippiArka6 ns as Mississippi Tulare, CA Apache, ArizonaTulare,6 California Apache, AZ Minnesota South Ca roliMinne na7 sota South Carolina Jackson, OKChattahoochee, GeorgiaJacks7 on, OklaChattahoochee, homa GA North Dakota AlabamaNorth8 Dakota Alabama Tillman, OKWest Feliciana, LouisianaTillman,8 OklahomaWest Feliciana, LA Oklahoma Arka nsOklahoma9 as Arkansas
Load more

Recommended publications
  • US EPA Environmental Technology Verification Statement Removal of Chemical Contaminants in Drinking Water Watts Premier Inc
    THE ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY VERIFICATION PROGRAM U.S. Environmental Protection Agency NSF International ETV Joint Verification Statement TECHNOLOGY TYPE: POINT-OF-USE DRINKING WATER TREATMENT SYSTEM APPLICATION: REMOVAL OF CHEMICAL CONTAMINANTS IN DRINKING WATER PRODUCT NAME: WATTS PREMIER WP-4V COMPANY: WATTS PREMIER, INC. ADDRESS: 1725 WEST WILLIAMS DR. SUITE C-20 PHOENIX, AZ 85027 PHONE: 800-752-5582 NSF International (NSF) manages the Drinking Water Systems (DWS) Center under the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program. The DWS Center recently evaluated the performance of the Watts Premier WP-4V point-of-use (POU) drinking water treatment system. NSF performed all of the testing activities, and also authored the verification report and this verification statement. The verification report contains a comprehensive description of the test. EPA created the ETV Program to facilitate the deployment of innovative or improved environmental technologies through performance verification and dissemination of information. The goal of the ETV Program is to further environmental protection by accelerating the acceptance and use of improved and more cost-effective technologies. ETV seeks to achieve this goal by providing high-quality, peer- reviewed data on technology performance to those involved in the design, distribution, permitting, purchase, and use of environmental technologies. ETV works in partnership with recognized standards and testing organizations, stakeholder groups (consisting of buyers, vendor organizations, and permitters), and with the full participation of individual technology developers. The program evaluates the performance of innovative technologies by developing test plans that are responsive to the needs of stakeholders, conducting field or laboratory tests (as appropriate), collecting and analyzing data, and preparing peer reviewed reports.
    [Show full text]
  • Historical Perspectives on Apple Production: Fruit Tree Pest Management, Regulation and New Insecticidal Chemistries
    Historical Perspectives on Apple Production: Fruit Tree Pest Management, Regulation and New Insecticidal Chemistries. Peter Jentsch Extension Associate Department of Entomology Cornell University's Hudson Valley Lab 3357 Rt. 9W; PO box 727 Highland, NY 12528 email: [email protected] Phone 845-691-7151 Mobile: 845-417-7465 http://www.nysaes.cornell.edu/ent/faculty/jentsch/ 2 Historical Perspectives on Fruit Production: Fruit Tree Pest Management, Regulation and New Chemistries. by Peter Jentsch I. Historical Use of Pesticides in Apple Production Overview of Apple Production and Pest Management Prior to 1940 Synthetic Pesticide Development and Use II. Influences Changing the Pest Management Profile in Apple Production Chemical Residues in Early Insect Management Historical Chemical Regulation Recent Regulation Developments Changing Pest Management Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 The Science Behind The Methodology Pesticide Revisions – Requirements For New Registrations III. Resistance of Insect Pests to Insecticides Resistance Pest Management Strategies IV. Reduced Risk Chemistries: New Modes of Action and the Insecticide Treadmill Fermentation Microbial Products Bt’s, Abamectins, Spinosads Juvenile Hormone Analogs Formamidines, Juvenile Hormone Analogs And Mimics Insect Growth Regulators Azadirachtin, Thiadiazine Neonicotinyls Major Reduced Risk Materials: Carboxamides, Carboxylic Acid Esters, Granulosis Viruses, Diphenyloxazolines, Insecticidal Soaps, Benzoyl Urea Growth Regulators, Tetronic Acids, Oxadiazenes , Particle Films, Phenoxypyrazoles, Pyridazinones, Spinosads, Tetrazines , Organotins, Quinolines. 3 I Historical Use of Pesticides in Apple Production Overview of Apple Production and Pest Management Prior to 1940 The apple has a rather ominous origin. Its inception is framed in the biblical text regarding the genesis of mankind. The backdrop appears to be the turbulent setting of what many scholars believe to be present day Iraq.
    [Show full text]
  • Comments of Teresa Homan with Attachments
    Teresa Homan Watertown, SD 57201 I am a landowner in Deuel County, South Dakota. Our land boarders the Deuel Harvest Wind Project in Deuel county, Docket # EL 18-053. There are 112 towers cited in the project, with 9 towers within a mile of our property. We have spent over three decades developing this property to enhance wildlife and for the enjoyment of our family. Can you imagine how we felt when we found we have a population of eastern bluebirds? We have yellow warblers, which by the way feed on the web worms that form in our trees. We have orioles, cedar waxwings, brown thrashers, rose breasted grosbeaks, gold finches, purple finches, robins, blue jays, nuthatches, eastern kingbirds, bitterns, dark eyed juncos, red winged blackbirds, morning doves, owls, cow birds, northern mocking birds, grey cat birds, wood thrushes, tufted titmouse, king fishers, indigo buntings, scarlet tanagers, bobolinks, meadowlarks, many woodpeckers, turkeys, turkey vultures, even humming birds and bald eagles. There are more, just to numerous to list. Many of these birds we have seen for the first time in our lives on this property in the past 1 O years. Not only are these birds beautiful and fun to watch, they have their purpose in the ecosystem. We also see northern long eared bats, that are on the endangered list in South Dakota. These birds are making a come back after the use of insecticides that nearly wiped out many. In the 1940's the insecticide DDT was introduced for public use, it is now banned from sale. In 1976 the herbicide Roundup was introduced to the public.
    [Show full text]
  • Comparison of Acute Noaels and Benchmark Doses for Female Brain Cholinesterase Inhibition
    Supplemental Material for: February 5-8, 2002 SAP 25 January 2002 Comparison of Acute NOAELs and Benchmark Doses for Female Brain Cholinesterase Inhibition In cumulative risk assessment, it is important to characterize both the time frame for exposure (e.g., What is the exposure duration?) and for the toxic effect (e.g., What are the time to peak effects and the time to recovery?). In the Preliminary Cumulative Risk Assessment of the Organophoshate Pesticides (OPs) relative potency factors (RPFs) for 29 chemicals and points of departure (PODs) and the index chemical were determined based on whole brain cholinesterase (ChE) data from toxicity studies of 21 days and longer. The Office of Pesticide Programs has argued that the use of steady state data for relative potency determination generates relative potency factors (RPFs) that are reproducible and reflect less variability than RPFs derived from single-dose or short-term studies where the extent of inhibition changes rapidly immediately following dosing. OPP has posed a question to the FIFRA SAP for the February 5-8, 2002 review concerning how best to evaluate risk, taking into account the temporal characteristics of the hazard endpoint (i.e., cholinesterase inhibition) and the temporal characteristics of the exposure patterns for the food, drinking water, and residential/nonoccupational pathways. In order to facilitate the panel discussion, a table listing the available single dose toxicity studies performed with OPs has been made. Most of the studies are acute neurotoxicity (ACN) studies (OPPT Guideline 870.6200, OPP Guideline 81-8) administered by gavage. Acute lethality studies were not included. Dose levels, no- observed-adverse-effect levels (NOAELs), and no-observed-adverse-effect levels (LOAELs) for female brain ChE are also listed in the table.
    [Show full text]
  • Agents for Defense Against Chemical Warfare: Reactivators of Acetylcholinesterase Inhibited with Neurotoxic Organophosphorus Compounds **
    Mil. Med. Sci. Lett. (Voj. Zdrav. Listy) 2015, vol. 84(3), p. 115-127 ISSN 0372-7025 DOI: 10.31482/mmsl.2015.013 REVIEW ARTICLE AGENTS FOR DEFENSE AGAINST CHEMICAL WARFARE: REACTIVATORS OF ACETYLCHOLINESTERASE INHIBITED WITH NEUROTOXIC ORGANOPHOSPHORUS COMPOUNDS ** Petronilho, E. C., Figueroa-Villar, J. D. Chemistry Engineering Section, Medicinal Chemistry Group, Military Institute of Engineering, Praça General Tibúrcio, 80, Urca, 22290-270, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil. Received 30 th April 2015. Revised 7 th July 2015. Published 4 th September 2015. Summary The chemical warfare agents and neurotoxic agents are an important threat to people all over the world, and require special attention because they are highly dangerous. Most of these agents are neurotoxic organophosphorus compounds (OP), which inhibit the enzyme acetylcholinesterase (AChE), which is responsible for controlling the transmission of nerve impulses. To be inhibited by these compounds, AChE can sometimes be reactivated using cationic oximes, which are the most used substances for this reactivation. Until today there have not been discovered agents for complete treatment of poisoning by all OPs. For this reason, the treatment of intoxicated people requires the determination of the absorbed OP, in order to select the appropriate activator, a process that usually requires long time and may cause death. Therefore, this study aims to do a review on the OPs used as chemical warfare agents and the process of inhibition and reactivation of AChE, especially to motivate the development of new agents for defense against chemical weapons, a process that is very important for protecting all humanity. Key words: acetylcholinesterase; AChE reactivators; organophosphorus; oximes; warfare agents INTRODUCTION pounds (OP), which are highly toxic, allowing their use with small quantities in order to cause seizures The use of chemical warfare agents is a major and death.
    [Show full text]
  • For Methyl Parathion
    UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON D.C., 20460 OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES MEMORANDUM DATE: July 31, 2006 SUBJECT: Finalization of Interim Reregistration Eligibility Decisions (IREDs) and Interim Tolerance Reassessment and Risk Management Decisions (TREDs) for the Organophosphate Pesticides, and Completion of the Tolerance Reassessment and Reregistration Eligibility Process for the Organophosphate Pesticides FROM: Debra Edwards, Director Special Review and Reregistration Division Office of Pesticide Programs TO: Jim Jones, Director Office of Pesticide Programs As you know, EPA has completed its assessment of the cumulative risks from the organophosphate (OP) class of pesticides as required by the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996. In addition, the individual OPs have also been subject to review through the individual- chemical review process. The Agency’s review of individual OPs has resulted in the issuance of Interim Reregistration Eligibility Decisions (IREDs) for 22 OPs, interim Tolerance Reassessment and Risk Management Decisions (TREDs) for 8 OPs, and a Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) for one OP, malathion.1 These 31 OPs are listed in Appendix A. EPA has concluded, after completing its assessment of the cumulative risks associated with exposures to all of the OPs, that: (1) the pesticides covered by the IREDs that were pending the results of the OP cumulative assessment (listed in Attachment A) are indeed eligible for reregistration; and 1 Malathion is included in the OP cumulative assessment. However, the Agency has issued a RED for malathion, rather than an IRED, because the decision was signed on the same day as the completion of the OP cumulative assessment.
    [Show full text]
  • EPA Method 538: Determination of Selected Organic Contaminants in Drinking Water with Direct Aqueous Injection LC/MS/MS
    EPA Method 538: Determination of Selected Organic Contaminants in Drinking Water with Direct Aqueous Injection LC/MS/MS E. Michael Thurman and Imma Ferrer Center for Environmental Mass Spectrometry University of Colorado Boulder, CO, USA Confidentiality Label 1 March 20, 2012 Abstract EPA Method 538 is a new method from EPA for organophosphate pesticides in drinking water. It uses direct aqueous injection; thus, no sample preparation is needed. We use both UHPLC (Agilent 1290) and MS/MS (Agilent 6460) analysis for rapid analysis and sensitive detection with ng/L limits of detection. A second MRM is added for more reliable identification. Confidentiality Label 2 March 20, 2012 Hypothesis Direct injection of organophosphate pesticides (EPA Method 538) will work by UHPLC (Agilent Model 1290) and LC/MS/MS with Jetstream (Agilent Model 6460) with trace level detection at ng/L concentrations. Confidentiality Label 3 March 20, 2012 1. Introduction-Summary 1.1 EPA Method 538 (published in November 2009 by Shoemaker) deals with Organophosphate pesticides in drinking water (1) and one other contaminant, quinoline. 1.2 The method consists of 10 compounds: acephate, aldicarb, aldicarb sulfoxide, dicrotophos, diisopropylmethylphosphonate (DIMP), fenamiphos sulfone, fenamiphos sulfoxide, methamidophos, oxydemeton methyl, quinoline, and thiofanox with 5 labeled internal standards. 1.3 Direct aqueous injection is used with a large volume sample of 100 microliters; thus, no sample preparation is needed. 1.4 Because solid phase extraction (i.e. concentration of the sample is not carried out) suppression is mimimized in the analysis. 1.5 Part-per-Trillion Detection Limits. Confidentiality Label 4 March 20, 2012 Introduction 1.1: EPA Method 538: Determination of Selected Organic Contaminants in Drinking Water by Direct Aqueous Injection by Jody Shoemaker, EPA Cincinnati, OH [email protected] 513-569-7298 Confidentiality Label 5 March 20, 2012 Introduction: 1.2.
    [Show full text]
  • EPA Method 538: Determination of Selected Organic Contaminants in Drinking Water by Aqueous Direct Injection and LC/MS/MS Summar
    EPA Method 538: Determination of Selected Organic Contaminants in Drinking Water by Aqueous Direct Injection and LC/MS/MS UCT Part Numbers: SLAQ100ID21-3UM - Selectra® Aqueous C18, 100 x 2.1mm, 3µm SLAQGDC20-3UM - Selectra® Aqueous C18, Guard column, 10 x 2.0mm, 3µm SLGRDHLDR - Guard Cartridge Holder June 2015 Summary: This application outlines a direct aqueous injection-liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry (DAI-LC/MS/MS) method for the determination of 11 selected organic contaminants in drinking water, including methamidophos, acephate, aldicarb sulfoxide, oxydemeton methyl, dicrotophos, aldicarb, diisopropyl methylphosphonate (DIMP), fenamiphos sulfone, fenamiphos sulfoxide, thiofanox, and quinoline [1]. Dicrotophos, oxydemeton methyl, methamidophos, and acephate are UCMR4 compounds. An Aqueous C18 HPLC column was utilized for analyte retention and separation. Calibration curves were constructed using calibration standards prepared in reagent water with preservative reagents for analyte quantitation. The responses were linear over the entire analytical ranges (R2 ≥ 0.9970). Excellent accuracy (90 - 111%) and precision (RSD% < 20%, n=7) were achieved for fortified reagent water and tap water samples. Procedure: 1. Preserve drinking water sample with 64 mg/L of sodium omadine (antimicrobial) and 1.5 g/L of ammonium acetate (binding free chlorine). 2. Mix 0.99 mL of the preserved water sample with 10 μL of 0.4-12.5 ng/μL internal standard mixture, and vortex for 30 sec. 3. Inject 50 μL onto LC/MS/MS equipped with an aqueous
    [Show full text]
  • 422 Part 180—Tolerances and Ex- Emptions for Pesticide
    Pt. 180 40 CFR Ch. I (7–1–16 Edition) at any time before the filing of the ini- 180.124 Methyl bromide; tolerances for resi- tial decision. dues. 180.127 Piperonyl butoxide; tolerances for [55 FR 50293, Dec. 5, 1990, as amended at 70 residues. FR 33360, June 8, 2005] 180.128 Pyrethrins; tolerances for residues. 180.129 o-Phenylphenol and its sodium salt; PART 180—TOLERANCES AND EX- tolerances for residues. 180.130 Hydrogen Cyanide; tolerances for EMPTIONS FOR PESTICIDE CHEM- residues. ICAL RESIDUES IN FOOD 180.132 Thiram; tolerances for residues. 180.142 2,4-D; tolerances for residues. Subpart A—Definitions and Interpretative 180.145 Fluorine compounds; tolerances for Regulations residues. 180.151 Ethylene oxide; tolerances for resi- Sec. dues. 180.1 Definitions and interpretations. 180.153 Diazinon; tolerances for residues. 180.3 Tolerances for related pesticide chemi- 180.154 Azinphos-methyl; tolerances for resi- cals. dues. 180.4 Exceptions. 180.155 1-Naphthaleneacetic acid; tolerances 180.5 Zero tolerances. for residues. 180.6 Pesticide tolerances regarding milk, 180.163 Dicofol; tolerances for residues. eggs, meat, and/or poultry; statement of 180.169 Carbaryl; tolerances for residues. policy. 180.172 Dodine; tolerances for residues. 180.175 Maleic hydrazide; tolerances for resi- Subpart B—Procedural Regulations dues. 180.176 Mancozeb; tolerances for residues. 180.7 Petitions proposing tolerances or ex- 180.178 Ethoxyquin; tolerances for residues. emptions for pesticide residues in or on 180.181 Chlorpropham; tolerances for resi- raw agricultural commodities or proc- dues. essed foods. 180.182 Endosulfan; tolerances for residues. 180.8 Withdrawal of petitions without preju- 180.183 Disulfoton; tolerances for residues.
    [Show full text]
  • 2002 NRP Section 6, Tables 6.1 Through
    Table 6.1 Scoring Table for Pesticides 2002 FSIS NRP, Domestic Monitoring Plan } +1 0.05] COMPOUND/COMPOUND CLASS * ) (EPA) (EPA) (EPA) (EPA) (EPA) (FSIS) (FSIS) PSI (P) TOX.(T) L-1 HIST. VIOL. BIOCON. (B) {[( (2*R+P+B)/4]*T} REG. CON. (R) * ENDO. DISRUP. LACK INFO. (L) LACK INFO. {[ Benzimidazole Pesticides in FSIS Benzimidazole MRM (5- 131434312.1 hydroxythiabendazole, benomyl (as carbendazim), thiabendazole) Carbamates in FSIS Carbamate MRM (aldicarb, aldicarb sulfoxide, NA44234416.1 aldicarb sulfone, carbaryl, carbofuran, carbofuran 3-hydroxy) Carbamates NOT in FSIS Carbamate MRM (carbaryl 5,6-dihydroxy, chlorpropham, propham, thiobencarb, 4-chlorobenzylmethylsulfone,4- NT 4 1 3 NV 4 4 13.8 chlorobenzylmethylsulfone sulfoxide) CHC's and COP's in FSIS CHC/COP MRM (HCB, alpha-BHC, lindane, heptachlor, dieldrin, aldrin, endrin, ronnel, linuron, oxychlordane, chlorpyrifos, nonachlor, heptachlor epoxide A, heptachlor epoxide B, endosulfan I, endosulfan I sulfate, endosulfan II, trans- chlordane, cis-chlordane, chlorfenvinphos, p,p'-DDE, p, p'-TDE, o,p'- 3444NV4116.0 DDT, p,p'-DDT, carbophenothion, captan, tetrachlorvinphos [stirofos], kepone, mirex, methoxychlor, phosalone, coumaphos-O, coumaphos-S, toxaphene, famphur, PCB 1242, PCB 1248, PCB 1254, PCB 1260, dicofol*, PBBs*, polybrominated diphenyl ethers*, deltamethrin*) (*identification only) COP's and OP's NOT in FSIS CHC/COP MRM (azinphos-methyl, azinphos-methyl oxon, chlorpyrifos, coumaphos, coumaphos oxon, diazinon, diazinon oxon, diazinon met G-27550, dichlorvos, dimethoate, dimethoate
    [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]
  • Lifetime Organophosphorous Insecticide Use Among Private Pesticide Applicators in the Agricultural Health Study
    Journal of Exposure Science and Environmental Epidemiology (2012) 22, 584 -- 592 & 2012 Nature America, Inc. All rights reserved 1559-0631/12 www.nature.com/jes ORIGINAL ARTICLE Lifetime organophosphorous insecticide use among private pesticide applicators in the Agricultural Health Study Jane A. Hoppin1, Stuart Long2, David M. Umbach3, Jay H. Lubin4, Sarah E. Starks5, Fred Gerr5, Kent Thomas6, Cynthia J. Hines7, Scott Weichenthal8, Freya Kamel1, Stella Koutros9, Michael Alavanja9, Laura E. Beane Freeman9 and Dale P. Sandler1 Organophosphorous insecticides (OPs) are the most commonly used insecticides in US agriculture, but little information is available regarding specific OP use by individual farmers. We describe OP use for licensed private pesticide applicators from Iowa and North Carolina in the Agricultural Health Study (AHS) using lifetime pesticide use data from 701 randomly selected male participants collected at three time periods. Of 27 OPs studied, 20 were used by 41%. Overall, 95% had ever applied at least one OP. The median number of different OPs used was 4 (maximum ¼ 13). Malathion was the most commonly used OP (74%) followed by chlorpyrifos (54%). OP use declined over time. At the first interview (1993--1997), 68% of participants had applied OPs in the past year; by the last interview (2005--2007), only 42% had. Similarly, median annual application days of OPs declined from 13.5 to 6 days. Although OP use was common, the specific OPs used varied by state, time period, and individual. Much of the variability in OP use was associated with the choice of OP, rather than the frequency or duration of application.
    [Show full text]