JOURNAL OF PESTICIDE REFORM/ FALL 2002 ¥ VOL. 22, NO. 3

● FACTSHEET NALED (DIBROM)

Naled is an insecticide in the pesticide family used primarily for control. Dibrom is a common brand name for naled products. About one million pounds are used annually in the U.S.

Like all , naled is toxic to the nervous system. Symptoms of exposure include headaches, nausea, and diarrhea. Naled is more toxic when exposure occurs by breathing contaminated air than through other kinds of exposure. In laboratory tests, naled exposure caused increased aggressiveness and a deterioration of memory and learning.

Naled’s breakdown product (another organophosphate insecticide) interferes with prenatal brain development. In laboratory animals, exposure for just 3 days during pregnancy when the brain is growing quickly reduced brain size 15 percent.

Dichlorvos also causes cancer, according to the International Agency for Research on Carcinogens. In laboratory tests, it caused leukemia and pancreatic cancer. Two independent studies have shown that children exposed to household “no-pest” strips containing dichlorvos have a higher incidence of brain cancer than unexposed children.

Aerial applications of naled can drift up to one-half mile.

According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, naled is moderately to highly toxic to birds and fish. It also reduced egg production and hatching success in tests with birds and reduced growth in tests with juvenile fish.

BY CAROLINE COX convulsions, paralysis, and death.3 Figure 1 Naled Breakdown Products Naled (see Figure 1) is an in- O Naled breaks down into dichlorvos, secticide in the organophosphate pes- Br another organophosphate insecticide, ticide family that is commonly used to in animals and soil.4,5 (See Figure 2.) P Cl kill adult (flying) mosquitoes. Naled H3CO O Inert Ingredients has been registered for use in the U.S. Cl since 1959 and is sold under the brand OCH3 Br Like most pesticides, commercial name Dibrom. AMVAC Chemical Cor- naled-containing contain poration has been the major manufac- 1,2-dibromo-2,2-dichloroethyl dimethyl ingredients other than naled. Many of turer of naled since 1998.1 phosphate these ingredients, according to U.S. pesticide law, are called “inert.” Ex- Use cept for tests of acute effects, toxicol- About one million pounds of Figure 2 ogy tests required for the registration naled are used every year in the U.S. Dichlorvos of a pesticide are not conducted with Approximately 70 percent of this is the combination of ingredients found used for mosquito control; almost O in commercial products.6 all of this is applied aerially. The re- Cl Most inert ingredients are not identi- maining 30 percent is used in agricul- P fied on product labels, and little infor- ture. Major agricultural uses are on H3CO O mation about them is publicly available. Cl cotton in California and Louisiana, on OCH3 For information about the inert in- alfalfa in Idaho and Oregon, and on gredients in Dibrom products, see grapes in California.2 “Inerts in Dibrom Products,” p. 17. naled kills insects by inhibiting acetyl- Mode of Action (AChE), an enzyme in- Symptoms of Exposure Like all organophosphate insecticides, volved in the transmission of nerve im- Symptoms of exposure to naled and pulses from one nerve cell to another. all organophosphate insecticides This causes a “jam” in the transmission include headaches, muscle twitching, Caroline Cox is NCAP’s staff scientist. system, resulting in restlessness, nausea, diarrhea, difficult breathing,

NORTHWEST COALITION FOR ALTERNATIVES TO PESTICIDES/NCAP 16 P. O. BOX 1393, EUGENE, OREGON 97440 / (541)344-5044 JOURNAL OF PESTICIDE REFORM/ FALL 2002 ¥ VOL. 22, NO. 3 depression, seizures, and loss of con- exposure was less than 1/6 of the low- sciousness.7 est oral dose causing the same effect.11 Figure 3 An additional study by the Uni- Acute Toxicity of Naled Toxicity to the Nervous versity of California researchers men- 200 System tioned above found that small drop- A symptom of exposure to naled lets of naled (the size produced by that occurs at low doses (whether by ultra low volume sprayers often used breathing, through the skin, or orally) in mosquito spraying) were about 150 is inhibition of four times more acutely toxic than (AChE). In studies conducted by naled larger droplets.12 manufacturers, exposure of rats to Effects on Behavior naled in air at a dose of 0.3 milli- 100 grams per kilogram of body weight Exposure to naled has multiple (mg/kg) per day for three weeks, skin effects on behavior. In a study con- exposures of 20 mg/kg per day for 4 ducted by naled’s manufacturer, naled weeks, and oral exposure of 10 mg/ caused reduced muscle strength, slow 95% confidence intervals 50

kg per day for 4 weeks caused inhibi- responses to stimulation, and reduced with

tion of AChE. activity in rats. These behavioral (Smaller lethal dose = higher toxicity) Long-term exposure also caused changes occurred at all but the lowest AChE inhibition; reduced AChE activ- dose level tested in males and all dose 0 ity occurred in dogs exposed orally to levels tested in females,13 suggesting Median lethal dose to rats in milligrams per kilogram Breathing Oral 2 mg/kg per day for 1 year and in rats that females are more sensitive than Type of exposure exposed orally to the same dose for 2 males to naled poisoning. Source: Berteau, P.A. and W.A. Dean. 1978. 8 A comparison of oral and inhalation toxicities years. Exposure to naled’s breakdown of four insecticides to mice and rats. Bull. In addition, the long-term study with product dichlorvos causes increased Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 19: 113-120. dogs found that doses of 2 mg/kg per aggression and impaired memory. The day also caused mineralization of the Indian biochemists mentioned above Naled is more acutely toxic from exposure via spinal cord.8 found that fighting was about 5 times breathing than from oral exposure. Naled’s breakdown product dichlo- rvos inhibits the activity in rats of a nervous system enzyme called neur- opathy target esterase. In experiments NERTS IN IBROM RODUCTS conducted by biochemists at the Post- “I ” D P graduate Institute of Medical Educa- Dibrom Concentrate (EPA Regis- Anemia in newborns can be caused tion and Research (India), doses of 6 tration No. 5481-480) contains the by exposure during pregnancy.6 mg/kg per day reduced the enzyme’s inert ingredient aromatic hydrocar- 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene is activity by about 40 percent. Inhibi- bon solvent (Chemical Abstract Ser- irritating to eyes and skin. It can tion of this enzyme causes partial pa- vices number 64742-94-5), also depress the central nervous system ralysis of the hind legs followed by called solvent naphtha.1 This sol- and cause headache, fatigue, nau- incoordination.9 vent contains two aromatic hydro- sea, and anxiety. It has also caused carbons, naphthalene and 1,2,4- asthmatic bronchitis.7 Toxicity Caused by Breathing trimethylbenzene.2 Naled 1. U.S. EPA. Office of Prevention, Pesticides Dibrom 8 Emulsive (EPA Regis- and Toxic Substances. Office of Pesticide Naled is more potent when expo- tration No. 5481-479) contains Programs. 2002. Letter from L.V. Moos, In- 3 formation Resources and Services Division sure occurs through breathing than naphthalene. acting director, to NCAP, July 25. when exposure occurs through eating Dibrom 8 Miscible (EPA Regis- 2. Shell Chemical Company. 2002. Material contaminated food or drinking con- tration No. 34704-351) contains sol- safety data sheet: Shellsol¨ A150. 4 www.euapps.shell.com/MSDS/GotoMsds. taminated water. Toxicologists at the vents whose ingredients can in- 3. Amvac Chemical Corp. 2002. Material safe- University of California found that in- clude naphthalene and trimethyl- ty data sheet: Dibrom¨ 8 Emulsive. halation was 20 times more toxic to benzene.5 www.cdms.net. 4. Platte Chemical Co. 2001. Material safety rats than oral dosing (dosing through Naphthalene has been classified data sheet: Dibrom 8 Miscible. the mouth) of naled.10 (See Figure 3.) by EPA as a possible human car- www.cdms.net. 5. Shell Chemical Company. 2002. Material The U.S. Environmental Protection cinogen because it caused lung tu- safety data sheet: Shellsol A100. Agency (EPA) came to a similar con- mors in mice following inhalation. www.euapps.shell.com/MSDS. clusion based on tests submitted to Naphthalene exposure also causes 6. Hazardous Substance Data Bank. 2002. Naphthalene. http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov. the agency by naled’s manufacturer: headaches, restlessness, lethargy, 7. Hazardous Substance Data Bank. 2002. the dose required to cause cholinest- nausea, diarrhea, and anemia. 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene. http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov. erase inhibition through inhalation

NORTHWEST COALITION FOR ALTERNATIVES TO PESTICIDES/NCAP P. O. BOX 1393, EUGENE, OREGON 97440 / (541)344-5044 17 JOURNAL OF PESTICIDE REFORM/ FALL 2002 ¥ VOL. 22, NO. 3

entists found that injections of Figure 4 dichlorvos at weekly intervals in Exposure to Naled’s Breakdown Product Increases mice caused a 3-fold increase in the Aggressiveness and Disrupts Learning number of mutations in liver cells.26 A team of geneticists from the National 20 Fighting 8 Learning an Research Centre (Egypt) found that Avoidance Behavior oral doses of dichlorvos given to mice, or feeding mice diclorvos-treated 15 6 beans, increased the incidence of chro- mosome abnormalities in both spleen 10 4 and sperm cells.27 Ability to Cause Cancer 2 5 (Carcinogenicity)

(with standard deviations)

Number of trials required to EPA classifies naled as a “Group E”

learn an avoidance behavior Number of fighting episodes 0 0 chemical. Group E chemicals have

(per minute, with standard deviations) Unexposed Exposed Unexposed Exposed demonstrated “evidence of noncar- cinogenicity” in laboratory tests.28 Source: , S. and K.D. Gill. 1998. Biochemical and behavioral deficits in adult rat following chronic dichlorvos exposure. Pharmacol. Biochem. Behavior 59: 1081-1086. Naled’s breakdown product dichlor- vos, however, is classified as “possi- bly carcinogenic to humans,” with “suf- In laboratory animals, exposure to naled’s breakdown product dichlorvos causes more frequent ficient evidence in experimental ani- fighting and hinders learning. mals” for its carcinogenicity by the more common among exposed rats development. Biologists at the International Agency for Research on than among unexposed ones.9 Exposed University of Oslo found that dosing Carcinogens. The agency gave animals also required more trials than guinea pigs with 15 mg/kg of dichlorvos this classification because unexposed ones to learn an avoid- dichlorvos twice daily for three days it caused forestomach tumors, leuke- ance behavior, indicating a “severe during pregnancy caused a signifi- mia, and pancreatic tumors in labora- deterioration in their memory and cant (15 percent) decrease in the off- tory tests with rats and mice.29 learning functions.”14 (See Figure 4.) spring’s brain size. The guinea pigs In children, exposure to dichlorvos were dosed with dichlorvos between has been linked with increased can- Eye and Skin Irritation the 40th and 50th day of their preg- cer risks. Researchers at the Univer- Naled is a “severe” eye irritant and nancy, a time when the fetal brain is sity of North Carolina found an asso- is “corrosive” to skin.15 All three fre- undergoing a growth spurt.21 ciation between exposure to dichlor- quently used commercial Dibrom prod- In addition, University of Michigan vos “no-pest” strips during pregnancy ucts pose similar hazards. Labels of researchers showed that naled expo- or during childhood and the incidence two of the products warn “causes irre- sure causes delays in the development of three types of childhood cancer: versible eye and skin damage”16,17 and of rat embryos. For example, expo- leukemias, brain tumors, and lym- the third states that it is “corrosive” sure of pregnant rats on the ninth day phoma.30 Missouri Department of and “causes eye damage and skin dam- of their pregnancy caused a signifi- Health researchers found similar re- age.”18 Skin irritation was documented cant delay in the closing of the sults for childhood brain cancer.31 by physicians soon after naled’s use embryo’s neural tube.22 in the U.S. began.19 Naled and dichlorvos can be passed Effects on the Immune System from mothers to their offspring through Both naled and its breakdown prod- Effects on the Circulatory nursing. German researchers found uct dichlorvos inhibited an enzyme in System both insecticides in milk from cows white blood cells called monocyte es- In a long-term feeding study con- that had been treated with naled.23 terase, according to a study conducted ducted by naled’s manufacturer, naled by researchers at the Technicon Sci- Ability to Cause Genetic caused anemia in dogs at all but the ence Center.32 (See Figure 5, p. 19.) Damage (Mutagenicity) lowest dose level tested. Exposures of Monocyte esterases are an “integral 2 mg/kg per day reduced the number Naled damaged bacteria’s genetic component”33 of the process by which of red blood cells and the amount of material in laboratory tests conducted white blood cells eliminate virus-in- hemoglobin (the oxygen-carrying pig- by geneticists at Monash University fected cells from our bodies and moni- ment) in the blood.20 (Australia)24 as well as biologists at tor for precancerous cells.33 Texas Tech University.25 Effects on Reproduction Naled’s breakdown product Synergy Dichlorvos, naled’s breakdown dichlorvos also causes genetic dam- A study submitted to EPA by Shell product, interferes with prenatal brain age. A team of Greek and Dutch sci- Chemical Co. showed that “the toxic

NORTHWEST COALITION FOR ALTERNATIVES TO PESTICIDES/NCAP 18 P. O. BOX 1393, EUGENE, OREGON 97440 / (541)344-5044 JOURNAL OF PESTICIDE REFORM/ FALL 2002 ¥ VOL. 22, NO. 3 effects of naled were potentiated by mon contaminants of urban streams 750 meters (2400 feet) downwind from co-administration of Ciodrin, , and rivers.37 However, neither naled sprayed areas. They suggest that no- and methyl .”34 All three are or its breakdown product dichlorvos spray buffer zones greater than 750 insecticides in the organophosphate were included in the national water meters in width “be placed around eco- family. quality monitoring program currently logically sensitive areas.”41 being conducted by the U.S. Geologi- Special Susceptibility cal Survey.38 This means that no sys- Effects on Beneficial Insects Malnourished individuals may be tematic information is available about Because it is a broad spectrum in- particularly susceptible to naled poi- naled contamination of U.S. streams, secticide, it is not surprising that naled soning. Researchers from the Institute rivers, or wells. EPA also does not impacts beneficial insects, those that of Hygiene and Occupational Health have monitoring data for naled or its provide important economic benefits (Bulgaria) studied naled’s effects on breakdown products in ground or sur- to farmers. In a study submitted as rats that were fed a low-protein diet face water.39 part of naled’s registration process, and found that naled was almost twice naled was “highly toxic”42 to honey as toxic to them as it was to rats fed a Air Contamination bees. Follow-up studies found that this normal diet. (See Figure 6.) In addi- Naled can persist in air up to sev- toxicity decreased rapidly during the tion, the rats fed a low-protein diet eral days after treatment. University of first day after treatment.42 Naled’s developed liver damage from their California, Davis toxicologists measured toxicity to other species of bees naled exposure.35 both naled and its breakdown product (alfalfa leafcutting bees and alkali dichlorvos in the air around a naled- bees) is more persistent than for honey Contamination of Food treated orange grove for three days bees.43 It can “mimic long residual The U.S. Department of Agriculture after application.40 [persistent] materials,” reducing documented contamination of straw- leafcutting bee numbers 48 hours after berries, peppers, and beans with naled’s Drift treatment.44 breakdown product dichlorvos.36 Aerial applications of naled drift Parasitoid wasps (wasps that lay (move from the target site during ap- their eggs in juvenile stages of other Water Contamination plication) for significant distances. En- insects, which then are killed as the Insecticides in naled’s chemical fam- tomologists from the University of wasps hatch and develop) can also be ily, the organophosphates, are com- Florida measured naled contamination poisoned by low-level exposure to

Figure 5 Figure 6 Naled (and Dichlorvos) Malnutrition Increases Naled’s Toxicity Inhibit the Immune System 250 Note: Smaller lethal dose 4 indicates higher toxicity

200

3 150

2 100

Median lethal dose

50 1

(monocyte esterase) by 50 %

(parts per billion in blood sample)

(milligrams per kilogram of body weight in rats) 0 Normal diet Low protein diet

Concentration inhibiting a white blood cell enzyme 0 Naled Dichlorvos Source: Kaloyanova, F. and M. Tasheva. 1983. Effect of protein malnutrition on the toxicity of pesticides. In Pesticide chemistry: Human welfare and Source: the environment. Vol. 3. Mode of action, , and toxicology, Lee, M.J. and H.C. Waters. 1977. Inhibition of monocyte esterase ed. Miyamoto, J and P.C. Kearney. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Pp. activity by organophosphate insecticides. Blood 50:947-951. 527-529.

Naled inhibits the activity of an immune system enzyme. It is also more toxic to malnourished animals than animals fed a normal diet.

NORTHWEST COALITION FOR ALTERNATIVES TO PESTICIDES/NCAP P. O. BOX 1393, EUGENE, OREGON 97440 / (541)344-5044 19 JOURNAL OF PESTICIDE REFORM/ FALL 2002 ¥ VOL. 22, NO. 3 naled. According to U.S. Department also affects bird reproduction. Mallard killed by naled. According to a naled of Agriculture researchers, a wasp that ducks eating food treated with naled manufacturer, a concentration of 8 ppb parasitizes fruit flies was killed by a laid fewer eggs, produced fewer vi- kills stoneflies.50 Research conducted naled and protein bait mixture de- able eggs, and hatched fewer duck- by the Arctic Health Research Center signed to kill fruit flies.45 lings than unexposed mallards.48 (Alaska) showed that water striders Naled is also highly toxic to a were killed 300 feet from a naled predatory mite.46 Effects on Fish fogger.51 Stoneflies are important nu- A University of Florida zoologist According to EPA, naled is very trient cyclers in streams and water strid- studied areas in Florida where regular highly toxic to lake trout; highly toxic ers are scavengers and predators.52,53 mosquito spraying occurred with to rainbow trout, cutthroat trout, and Aquatic arthropods are also im- Dibrom and another insecticide. He catfish; and moderately toxic to sun- pacted by naled. Waterfleas are killed found a “major loss” in insect diver- fish, minnow, and bass. The most by less than 0.5 ppb of naled in tests sity in sprayed sites. Wasps showed sensitive species in tests submitted conducted by naled’s manufacturer, “some of the most dramatic drops in to EPA by naled’s manufacturer was and less than 0.2 ppb disrupts 47 species diversity.” Scale insects, lake trout, with an LC50 (median le- waterflea growth. Shrimp are killed whose populations are normally con- thal concentration; the dose required by less than 10 ppb.54 trolled by parasitic wasps, increased.47 to kill 50 percent of test animals) of According to EPA, naled is “very 87 parts per billion (ppb).49 highly toxic” to oysters.55 Effects on Birds Naled also causes effects on fish Sea urchins are also sensitive to According to EPA, naled is moderately other than death. In a test conducted naled exposure. University of Miami to highly toxic to birds. The most sen- by naled’s manufacturer, a concentra- researchers showed that concentrations sitive species tested by naled’s manu- tion of 15 ppb impaired the growth of of less than 4 ppb disrupt normal facturer during the registration process fathead minnows.49 development of embryos.56 was the Canada goose, killed by 37 mg/kg of naled.48 Effects on Other Aquatic Effects on Endangered According to tests conducted by Animals Species naled’s manufacturer, this insecticide Ecologically important insects are Evaluations by both EPA and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have concluded that use of naled puts en- Figure 7 dangered mammals, fish, mussels, and Naled Mosquito Spraying Reduces Populations of Rare Butterflies other species at risk.57 4 In addition, there is field evidence of naled’s hazards for endangered species. Dibrom spraying (along with spraying of another insecticide) was “directly correlated with the precipi- 3 tous decline in the Schaus Swallowtail populations on Key Largo [FL],”47 ac- cording to a University of Florida zo- ologist. This swallowtail is listed as an endangered species under both Florida 2 and federal law.47 A University of Florida entomolo- gist studying a different rare butterfly, the Florida lacewing, found higher 1 populations in unsprayed areas than in sprayed areas. (See Figure 7.) He concluded that “it is likely that chemi-

(average of 63 sampling dates in 1997 and 1998)

Number of Florida lacewing butterflies per hectare cal applications play an important role in affecting the population size and 58 0 behavior of these species.” Unsprayed sites Sprayed sites Effects on Plants Source: Salvato, M. 2001. Influence of mosquito control chemicals on butterflies (Nymphalidae, Insecticides are typically not ex- Lycaenidae, Hesperiidae) of the lower Florida Keys. J. Lepidop. Soc. 55:8-14. pected to damage plants. However, University of California researchers Naled spraying reduced populations of a rare butterfly, the Florida lacewing, in the Florida showed that naled treatment caused Keys. brown lesions in celery and bronzing

NORTHWEST COALITION FOR ALTERNATIVES TO PESTICIDES/NCAP 20 P. O. BOX 1393, EUGENE, OREGON 97440 / (541)344-5044 JOURNAL OF PESTICIDE REFORM/ FALL 2002 ¥ VOL. 22, NO. 3

of strawberries.59,60 The strawberry Appl. Pharmacol. 41: 183. 38. U.S. Geological Survey. 1999. Pesticides ana- 13. Ref. #4, pp. 23-24. lyzed in NAWQA samples: Use, chemical analy- damage was accompanied by reduced 14. Sarin, S. and K.D. Gill. 1999. Dichlorvos induced ses, and water-quality criteria. http:// photosynthesis (using sunlight to pro- alterations in glucose homeostasis: Possible im- ca.water.usgs.gov/pnsp/anstrat. duce sugars) and closing of leaf open- plications on the state of neuronal function in 39. Ref. # 5, pp. 20, 22. 60 rats. Mol. Cell. Biochem. 199:97-92. 40. Hall, G.L. et al. 1997. Development and valida- ings (stomata). Brazilian researchers 15. Ref. #4, p. 15. tion of an analytical method for naled and dichlo- found that naled also “drastically re- 16. Amvac. Undated. Dibrom Concentrate insecti- rvos in air. J. Agric. Food Chem. 45:145-148. 61 cide. Label. www.cdms.net. 41. Hennessey, M.K., H.N. Nigg, and D.H. Habek. duced” tomato pollen germination. 17. Amvac. Undated. Dibrom 8 Emulsive. Naled in- 1992. Mosquito (Diptera: Culicidae) adulticide In aquatic plants, naled reduces secticide. Label. www.cdms.net. drift into wildlife refuges of the Florida Keys. photosynthesis. In laboratory tests, a 18. Platte Chemical Co. 1995. Dibrom 8 Miscible. Environ. Entomol. 21: 714-721. Label. www.epa.gov/pesticides. 42. Ref. # 5, pp. 5-6. naled concentration of 1 ppm reduced 19. Edmundson, W.F. and J.E. Davies. 1967. Occu- 43. Johansen, C.A. et al. 1983. Pesticides and bees. photosynthesis by estuary algae by pational dermatitis from naled. Arch. Environ. Environ. Entomol. 12: 1513-1518. over 50 percent.62 Health 15: 89-91. 44. Torchio, P.F. 1983. The effects of field applica- 20. Ref. #4, p. 17. tions of naled and trichlorfon on the alfalfa 21. Mehl, A. et al. 1994. The effect of trichlorfon leafcutting bee, Megachile rotundata (Fabricus). Efficacy of Mosquito and other organophosphates on prenatal brain J. Kansas Entomol. Soc. 56:62-68. Treatments development in the guinea pig. Neurochem. Res. 45. Purcell, M.F., J.D. Stark, and R.H. Messing. 19:569-574. 1994. Insecticide effect on three tephritid fruit The U.S. Centers for Disease Con- 22. Beaudoin, A.R. and D.L. Fisher. 1981. An in flies and associated braconid parasitoids in Ha- trol and Prevention has written that vivo/in vitro evaluation of teratogenic action. waii. J. Econ. Entomol. 87(6): 1455-1462. Teratol. 23:57-61. 46. U.S. EPA. Undated. Naled reregistration stan- “adulticiding, application of chemicals 23. Dedek, W. et al. 1980. Abbau und ausscheidung dard - Nontarget insects. p. 2. to kill adult mosquitoes by ground or von 32P-naled in der milch. Die Nahrung 24:767- 47. Emmel, T.C. 1991. Overview: Mosquito control, aerial applications, is usually the least 772. (Abstract in English.) pesticides, and the ecosystem. In Mosquito con- 63 24. Hanna, P.J. and K.F. Dyer. 1975. Mutagenicity trol pesticides: Ecological impacts and manage- efficient mosquito control technique.” of organophosphorus compounds in bacteria and ment alternatives, ed. T.C. Emmel and J.C. Naled is no exception. For example, Drosophila. Mut. Res. 28: 405-420. Tucker. Gainesville FL: Scientific Publishers, Inc. 25. Shiau, S.Y., R.A. Huff, and I.C. Felkner. 1981. 48. Ref. #1, p. 32. researchers from the New York De- Pesticide mutagenicity on Bacillus subtilis and 49. Ref. #1, p. 34-35. partment of Health showed that 11 Salmonella typhimurium detectors. J. Agric. Food 50. Ref. # 5, pp. 8-9. years of naled spraying was “success- Chem. 29:268-271. 51. Gorham, J.R. 1974. Malathion and naled as mos- 26. Pletsa, V. et al. 1999. Induction of somatic mu- quito adulticides in Alaska. Mosq. News 34:286- ful in achieving short-term reductions tations but not methylated DNA adducts in λlacZ 290. in mosquito abundance,”64 but popu- transgenic mice by dichlorvos. Cancer Let. 52. Speight, M.R., M.D. Hunter, and A.D. Watt. 1999. lations of the disease-carrying mosquito 146:155-160. Ecology of insects: Concepts and applications. 64 27. Amer, S.M., F.A.E. Aly, and S.M. Donya. 2000. Oxford, UK. Blackwell Science. p. 176. of concern “increased 15-fold” over Cytogenetic effect of the organophosphorous in- 53. Daly, H.V., J.T. Doyen, and A.H. Purcell. 1998. the 11 years of spraying. secticide DDVP and its residues in stored faba Introduction to insect biology and diversity. Ox- beans in somatic and germ cells of the mouse. ford, U.K.: Oxford Univ. Press. p.424. References Cytologia 65:295-303. 54. Ref. # 5, pp. 8-10. 28. Ref. #4, p. 18. 55. Ref. #1, pp. 34-35. 1. U.S. EPA. 2002. Interim reregistration eligibility 29. International Agency for Research on Carcino- 56. Rumbold, D.G. and S.C. Snedaker. 1997. Evalu- decision for naled. Case number 0092. (Unpub- gens. 1991. Occupational exposures in insecti- ation of bioassays to monitor surface microlayer lished document.) p. 3. cide applications, and some pesticides. IARC toxicity in tropical marine waters. Arch. Environ. 2. Ref. # 1, pp. 4-6. Monographs 53: 267. Contam. Toxicol. 32:135-140. 3. Ware, G.W. 2000. The pesticide book. Fresno 30. Leiss, J.K. and D.A. Savitz. 1995. Home pesti- 57. Ref. #1, p.44. CA: Thomson Publications. Pp. 181-183. cide use and childhood cancer: A case-control 58. Salvato, M. 2001. Influence of mosquito control 4. U.S. EPA. Office of Pesticide Programs. Health study. Amer. J. Publ. Health 85: 249-252. chemicals on butterflies (Nymphalidae, Effects Division. 1999. Human health risk as- 31. Davis, J.R. et al. 1993. Family pesticide use Lycaenidae, Hesperiidae) of the lower Florida sessment: Naled. www.epa.gov/pesticides/op/ and childhood brain cancer. Arch. Environ. Keys. J. Lepidop. Soc. 55:8-14. status.htm. Pp. 22-23. Contam. Toxicol. 24: 87-92. 59. Koike, S.T. et al. 1997. Association of the in- 5. U.S. EPA. 1997. EFED’s Reregistration Chapter 32. Lee, M.J. and H.C. Waters. 1977. Inhibition of secticide naled with celery petiole lesion dam- C for naled. Memo from J. Peckenpaugh, S. monocyte esterase activity by organophosphate age. Crop Protec. 16: 753-758. Temes, and C. Laird, Environmental Fate and insecticides. Blood 50:947-951. 60. Trumble, J.T. 1988. Impact of pesticides for to- Effects DIv., to K. Monk, Special Review and 33. Newcombe, D.S. 1992. Immune surveillance, mato fruitworm (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) sup- Reregistration Div. www.epa.gov/pesticides/op/ organophosphorous exposure, and lymphoma- pression on photosynthesis, yield, and nontar- status.htm. p. 17. genesis. Lancet 339: 539-541. get arthropods in strawberries. J. Econ. Entomol. 6. 40 Code of Federal Regulations ¤ 158.340. 34. U.S. EPA. Office of Pesticides and Toxic Sub- 81: 608-614. 7. Reigart, J.R. and J.R. Roberts. 1999. Recogni- stances. 1982. Naled registration standard: Toxi- 61. Araújo de Lacerda, C.A. et al. 1994. Interferencia tion and management of pesticide poisonings. cology chapter. Memo from I. Mauer, Hazard in vitro de agrotóxicos na germinaçao e no Fifth edition. U.S. EPA. Office of Pesticide Pro- Evaluation Div., to B. Kapner, Special Pesticides desenvolvimento do tubo polínico do tomateiro, grams. p. 34. www.epa.gov/pesticides/safety/ Review Div., Dec. 22. p. 13. cultiva Santa Cruz Kada. Pesq. Agropec. Bras., healthcare. 35. Kaloyanova, F. and M. Tasheva. 1983. Effect of Brasilia 29:1651-1656. (Abstract in English.) 8. Ref. #4, p. 15-17, 28. protein malnutrition on the toxicity of pesticides. 62. Ware, G.W. and C.C. Roan. 1970. Interaction of 9. Sarin, S. and K.D. Gill. 1998. Biochemical and In Pesticide chemistry: Human welfare and the pesticides with aquatic microorganisms and behavioral deficits in adult rat following chronic environment. Vol. 3. Mode of action, metabo- plankton. Residue Rev. 33:15-45. dichlorvos exposure. Pharmacol. Biochem. lism, and toxicology, ed. Miyamoto, J and P.C. 63. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Behavior 59: 1081-1086. Kearney. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Pp. 527-529. 2001. Epidemic/epizootic West Nile virus in the 10. Berteau, P.A. and W.A. Dean. 1978. A compari- 36. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture. 2002. Pesticide data United States: Revised guidelines for surveil- son of oral and inhalation toxicities of four in- program: Annual summary calendar year 2000. lance, prevention, and control. p.30. secticides to mice and rats. Bull. Environ. Appendix E. p. 13. www.ams.usda.gov/science/ www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dvbid/westnile/resources/ Contam. Toxicol. 19: 113-120. pdp/00summ.pdf. wnv-guidelines-apr-2001.pdf. 11. Ref. #4, pp. 26-28. 37. U.S. Geological Survey. 1999. The quality of 64. Howard, J.J. and J. Oliver. 1997. Impact of naled 12. Berteau, P.E., W.A. Deen, and R.L. Dimmick. our nation’s waters—nutrients and pesticides. (Dibrom 14¨) on the mosquito vectors of east- 1977. Effect of particle size on the inhalation USGS Circular 1225. p. 62. http://water.usgs.gov/ ern equine encephalitis virus. J. Amer. Mosq. toxicity of naled aerosols. (Abstract.) Toxicol. pubs/circ/circ1225. Cont. Assoc. 13:315-325.

NORTHWEST COALITION FOR ALTERNATIVES TO PESTICIDES/NCAP P. O. BOX 1393, EUGENE, OREGON 97440 / (541)344-5044 21