The University of Georgia
College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences

The Georgia Pest Management Newsletter

Your source for pest management and pesticide news

August 1998 Volume 21, no. 5

Here is today's conundrum.

METHYL BROMIDE

NEWS YOU CAN USE
This tool is not available in the U.S. yet, but it is cool.
Here is another tool that may be a close second on the fun index.
You may also be interested in the Mite Meter.
Do you want to keep up to date on funding opportunities from CSREES? Hit the Web.

DOING THE IR-4
Researchers, do you need money for IR-4 biopesticide research?

HUMAN EXPERIMENTS?

FOOD QUALITY PROTECTION ACT
These quotes from Bruce Ames put things in their proper perspective.
The Environmental Working Group and others filed a Freedom of Information Act request to obtain hazard identification information on all 40 organophosphates currently under consideration
This example from the last TRAC meeting will clearly demonstrate how the preliminary reports could frighten people by not presenting the whole story.
Preliminary hazard assessment information for nine organophosphate chemicals was made public by EPA August 10 were released in anticipation of a targeted Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request.
On August 7, EPA placed in the EPA/Office of Pesticide Programs docket the "FQPA Safety Factor Recommendations for the Organophosphates - A Combined Report of the Hazard Identification Assessment Review Committee and the FQPA Safety Factor Committee."
Approximately 60 million pounds of organophosphates are applied to 38 million crop acres in the U.S. each year.

WHO DO YOU TRUST?
According to an Indiana survey, consumers and growers considered the Cooperative Extension Service and University researchers the most reliable sources for pesticide use information.

HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT
I know better than to print this story, but I have always been hard-headed according to my mother, wife, and daughter.
It seems that the Fox Point, WI, school board is rethinking its earlier decision to ban use of herbicides on local school grounds after one student serious exposure to poison ivy.
Spray drift has been one of our most intractable pesticide pollution problems.
The United States exported more than 1.2 billion pounds of pesticides in 1995-96.
The Natural Resources Defense Council issued a report that highlights methods to reduce pesticide use in agriculture
The University of Georgia has received nearly $40,000 to develop and implement peach IPM through the EPA Pesticide Environmental Stewardship Program (PESP).
If you want to know what inert ingredients are used in pesticides, go to the June 24, 1998, issue of the Federal Register.
Scientists with USDA have identified possible biocontrol agents for deer ticks (vector of Lyme disease).
The EPA has authorized the use of malathion to eradicate Medflies in Florida.
If you are interested in pesticide contamination of water, here are three titles that may interest you.
If you are interested in organic production, here are some resources that may interest you.

IPM NOTEBOOK

DON'T SAY THAT I DID NOT WARN YOU

BIOTECHNOLOGY
We have covered many angles of health and environmental concerns associated with biotechnology, but I have never considered the implications for beekeepers.
Round-Up Ready soybeans and glyphosate are at the heart of a dispute between Monsanto and Zeneca.

WORKER PROTECTION STANDARD
Although FQPA is in the headlines, WPS is still around.
For the first time, an exemption to WPS has been recognized because of an agricultural emergency.

CANCELED

Methyl Bromide

The European Commission is pushing for an earlier phase-out of methyl bromide even as some U.S. Congressmen are trying to extend our phase-out period. The Europeans are concerned about ozone depletion that is occurring over Europe. The U.S. is worried that our competitors will have an advantage over our growers if we phase out methyl bromide before everyone else (the Montreal Protocol calls for phase-out by 2005).

Europe, however, is now facing our dilemma. Their competitors in North Africa are unlikely to phase out methyl bromide before 2015 because of an exemption for developing nations. Will use in developing nations increase as U.S./European decreases? Will the U.S. and Europe permanently lose production and/or markets?

The European proposal contains an exemption for 'critical uses', and some U.S. lawmakers want similar language for the U.S. This exemption would allow continued use of methyl bromide until a technically and/or economically feasible alternative is discovered. This situation would be a two-edged sword. Methyl bromide represents a very lucrative market, but until methyl bromide is gone, there may not be an adequate incentive to invest research dollars into finding a replacement. Methyl bromide is an important tool for current production, but, for enough money, somebody will find a way.

News You Can Use

This tool is not available in the U.S. yet, but it is cool. It is an unmanned helicopter from Yamaha for spraying pesticides. The spray chopper can hold about 20 pounds of liquid or granular pesticide. You can operate it from about 175 yards away, and it can spray from as low as 10 feet off of the ground. However, I do not have information about two important parameters: the cost and the performance. Also, if you only bought one, your farm hands would be constantly fighting over who will do the spraying.

Find out more at their Web site (if you can type it all in correctly).

http://www.yamaha-motor.co.jp/news/97-07-29/rmax-e.html

Here is another tool that may be a close second on the fun index. Scientists at USDA have developed the Aerodynamic Transport Body to deliver beneficial arthropods throughout a field from the margins. Also known as the Bug Slinger, it is a modified skeet target that holds the beneficial arthropods inside. After touch-down, the arthropods escape, and the carrier deteriorates. Even tiny wasps have been delivered with little injury. Only one thing keeps it out of first place on the fun index: you can't shoot them.

You may also be interested in the Mite Meter. It is a tractor-mounted device to gently deliver predatory mites or other arthropods gently across the field. The Mite Meter can be adjusted to drop from 500 to 20,000 mites/acre. (Life's not all fun and games you know.)

For more information, contact Lyle Carter (805) 746-8004 or lcarter@lightspeed.net

Do you want to keep up to date on funding opportunities from CSREES?

Hit the Web. http://www.reeusda.gov. Look under "Funding Opportunities."

Doing the IR-4

Believe it or not, I am glad we made an error in our last issue, because I became acquainted with Dr. Charles Meister who is the regional coordinator for IR-4.

First the corrections. IR-4 coordinator for Georgia: Dr. Greg MacDonald (912-386-3194)

Dr. Charles Meister's phone number has changed; it is 352-392-2399.

Dr. Meister told me that one major challenge for IR-4 is to identify the top priority needs for the growers. Growers, speak up! This program could save your bacon (and tomatoes and strawberries). Don't blow it now and complain later.

Researchers, do you need money for IR-4 biopesticide research? Contact Dr. Bill Biehn right away (732-932-9575) or call me for a copy of the RFP. The IR-4 program is soliciting grant proposals for 1999 funding. The proposals are due by October 30, 1998.

Human Experiments?

If you have ever heard me speak on pesticide safety, I have pointed out the difficulty of obtaining definitive data on pesticide safety because, after all, you cannot experiment with people. Or can you? According to the Environmental Working Group, volunteers in three experiments drank dichlorvos mixed with corn oil, and participants in another study drank aldicarb and orange juice. All of the experiments were conducted in England or Scotland. See the report at http://www.ewg.org

This situation creates a dilemma for EPA. U.S. laws would probably prohibit this type of testing, but the data may be the best available for some EPA determinations.

Should they use it? If the human data resulted in less restrictive pesticide regulation, there would be a flood of similar experimentation. It is easy to predict the subjects: the poor, the ignorant, the foolish. I am solidly against this type of testing even if the data would be useful.

I did not mention the names of the pesticide companies because I am not positive about the source. The Environmental Working Group does not invent information, but many advocacy groups use facts selectively to their advantage. On the other hand, this story was published in Science News (8-22-98), a very reliable magazine.

Food Quality Protection Act

Among all of the voices talking about FQPA, there are two that I consider experts. Dr. Carl Winter is a food toxicologist in California. I have heard him several times, and he always understands and presents both sides of pesticide issues. The other person is Dr. Bruce Ames; he invented the Ames test for carcinogenicity. There may be no one who knows more about the risks of cancer-causing chemicals.

The Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) was passed in August 1996 promising to ensure that the low levels of pesticides that may be in our foods are at safe levels. Sounds like a good idea, doesn't it? Unfortunately, in the hands of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), implementation of the law could prove disastrous for farmers and consumers across the U.S.

Instead of homegrown fresh fruits and vegetables expect them to be trucked in from other countries. Cherries, peaches and other fruit will likely come from South America. Our farmers will not be able to protect their crops economically enough to compete in the world market.

The EPA is in danger of falling into the old trap of exaggerating potential human risks from exposure to pesticides instead of using appropriate scientific data to assess risks. The result: phantom risks that exist only on paper. Based on this unrealistic information, the EPA has considered removing entire classifications of pesticides from the market. Such a move could result in the loss of valuable pest-control options for growers, a reduction in food production, and an increase in food prices, all without any real improvement in food safety.

With all of the focus on these compounded and unrealistic assumptions, it is easy to overlook what is known about pesticide residues in foods. Results from hundreds of thousands of food residue analyses conducted by state and federal agencies consistently indicate that the levels of residues, when detected at all, are extremely low. For example, suppose you take the typical human daily exposure to a pesticide and feed laboratory animals 10,000 times that amount (on the basis of body weight) every day throughout their lifetimes. What happens to the animals? In general, nothing happens.

For any noticeable effects to be observed, animals generally need to be exposed to levels at least 10,000 times our typical daily dose. Does this prove the absolute safety of pesticide residues? Certainly not. But it does explain why there is strong skepticism among many members of the health community, myself included, over whether pesticide residue controls need to be tightened.

These quotes from Bruce Ames put things in their proper perspective. They were not made about FQPA specifically, but they are appropriate. Professional activists are effective publicists, but appear to have less of an incentive for scholarship or critical analysis. The scientific enterprise, in contrast, is very competitive for problem solving and weeds out uncritical people fairly effectively.

The quarter of the American population that eats the least fruits and vegetables has over twice the rate of most types of cancer as the quarter eating the most, as shown by about 200 epidemiological studies that are remarkably consistent.

The assumption is wrong that residues of synthetic industrial chemicals contribute significantly to cancer and that we can lower cancer rates by eliminating them [3,4] . There are several reasons why dietary residues of synthetic chemicals such as pesticides and industrial pollutants are not likely to be significant carcinogenic risks to humans.

1. Animal cancer tests, which are done at the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of the test chemical, are misinterpreted to mean that low doses of synthetic chemicals and industrial pollutants are relevant to human cancer. Half of all chemicals tested, whether synthetic or natural, are carcinogenic to rodents at the MTD. A plausible explanation for the high proportion of positive results is that testing at the MTD can cause chronic cell killing and consequent cell division due to cell replacement, a risk factor for cancer that can be limited to high doses. Ignoring this greatly exaggerates calculated hypothetical cancer risks.
2. The vast bulk of chemicals ingested by humans are natural. For example 99.99% of the pesticides we eat are naturally present in plants toward off insects and other predators. Half (33/59) of the natural pesticides tested at the MTD are rodent carcinogens. Reducing our exposure to the 0.01% ingested pesticides that are synthetic is not likely to reduce cancer rates. Synthetic pesticide residues in the U.S. diet rank extremely low compared to the background of natural chemicals when human exposures to rodent carcinogens are ranked according to possible carcinogenic hazard.
3. Cooking food generates thousands of chemicals. There are over l000 chemicals reported in a cup of coffee. Only 26 have been tested in animal cancer tests and more than half are rodent carcinogens; there are still a thousand chemicals left to test. The amount of rodent carcinogens consumed as pesticide residues in a year is less than the known amount of rodent carcinogens in a cup of coffee. This does not mean that coffee is dangerous but that animal cancer tests and worst-case risk assessment build in enormous safety factors and should not be considered true risks.

One reason we can eat the tremendous variety of natural chemicals that are rodent carcinogens is that animals and humans are extremely well protected by many general-defense enzymes, most of which are inducible (i.e., whenever a defense enzyme is in use, more of it is made). The enzymes are equally effective against natural and synthetic reactive chemicals. One does not expect, nor does one find, a general difference between synthetic and natural chemicals in toxicity or ability to cause cancer in high-dose rodent tests.

There is no risk-free world and resources are limited; therefore, society must distinguish between significant and insignificant risks in order to save the most lives. Putting resources into minimizing minuscule exposures to synthetic substances, such as pesticide residues, while ignoring the natural world, can also harm human health by having adverse side effects which create more risk. For example, adequate consumption of fruits and vegetables plays a major role in lowering disease rates; therefore if banning pesticides because of tiny hypothetical hazards of residues, increases costs (organic food is very expensive), it harms public health.

EPA says its regulations cost $140 billion per year, which is equivalent to a cost of about $2000 per American family. It has been argued effectively that the overall result is to harm public health, because "wealthier is not only healthier but highly risk reducing". One estimate indicates "that for every 1% increase in income, mortality is reduced by 0.05%". In addition, as John Graham has shown "the median toxin control program costs 58 times more per life-year saved than the median injury prevention program and 146 times more than the median medical program".

Graham and & Tengs have estimated that the U.S. could prevent 60,000 deaths a year by redirecting resources to more cost effective programs. We have argued that the discrepancy is much greater since risk estimates used for toxin control programs are hypothetical worst-case estimates and the risks are likely to be wildly exaggerated and often may be zero. As the economists Zeckhouser and Viscusi have pointed out "improvements in mortality and morbidity have come primarily from technological progress and a higher standard of living, not from government regulation". If the government wants to save the most lives for the dollar it might consider increasing support of basic research. Basic research drives technological progress, is highly cost effective in saving lives (unlike most government programs it is fiercely competitive), and is less than 10% the cost of EPA regulations.

If you want the entire publication and the supporting references, please refer to: Is there a problem ? Env. Health Persp.1995. 103, 346-351

Also credit Dr. Ames for pointing out this quote from H.L. Mencken.

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with a series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."

The Environmental Working Group and others filed a Freedom of Information Act request to obtain hazard identification information on all 40 organophosphates currently under consideration. Why is that a problem? Does EPA have something to hide? The EPA does not have complete risk data for the organophosphates. Their preliminary assessments are based on default assumptions and worst-case estimates. These estimates are very scary, but they do not reflect real-life risks. In the worst case, my children's' school will catch on fire; the fire truck will be hit by a falling piece of space station Mir; and my kids will be abducted by terrorists attracted by the fire. I took my children to school because these events are extremely unlikely.

The EPA's current estimates should be very conservative because they do not have all the information to make more refined, realistic estimates. The EPA risk scenarios will be revised as additional data are received. Many people believe, however, that the Environmental Working Group plans to usurp the process by issuing reports based on the current data and assumptions. If such a report could be used to frighten a large number of parents, the political options for EPA would be very limited.

Additionally, the EPA assessments will have little review before the information is released. There may be substantial errors that underestimate or overestimate risks. The EPA cannot win if they try to correct the errors after the reports are published. If risk estimates increase, groups will charge that EPA underestimated risks because of undue influence from pesticide companies. Likewise, if EPA reduces the risk estimates, it will appear that the Agency is again appeasing the pesticide registrants.

The Environmental Working Group said they will use the EPA information 'as we see fit.'

This example from the last TRAC meeting will clearly demonstrate how the preliminary reports could frighten people by not presenting the whole story. The committee worked through the process with methidathion (Supracide). When EPA used all the worst case scenarios (e.g., 100% acres treated, residues at the maximum legal tolerance), the Margin of Exposure (MOE) was 78 (to be considered safe, the MOE must exceed 100). With refined data (e.g., actual % crop treated and actual field residues), the MOE was greater than 100.

A logical nondetect policy is also critical. Methidathion is often used as a dormant application. Understandably, methidathion from dormant applications cannot be detected on the harvested crop. Current EPA policy, however, assumes that residues from a dormant application are present, just undetectable with current technology. Therefore, EPA will assign a residue value for an application of a nonsystemic pesticide that is applied before the crop even blooms (who makes up these policies?).

Why not assume that every poisonous chemical is everywhere, and we just cannot detect them?

The actual % crop treated is also critical. Much of concern for methidathion stems from its citrus registrations, and children drink juice. Scary, right? Methidathion is used almost exclusively on California oranges, but 98% of orange juice is made oranges from Florida and other sources. The worst-case scenario assumes that 100% of oranges are treated with methidathion and all of those oranges wind up in juice.

Imagine this report based on the preliminary data alone. "EPA reports indicate that all of oranges used to make the orange juice that YOUR children drink may come from oranges treated with the nerve toxin methidathion! Government refuses to act until more information can be analyzed. Pesticide companies try to dilute risk numbers with additional 'real-world' data." These statements scared my wife so badly that she poured our juice down the sink. Although it is technically true, this story leads you to a frightening and erroneous conclusion.

Preliminary hazard assessment information for nine organophosphate chemicals was made public by EPA August 10 were released in anticipation of a targeted Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. The ACPA and registrant companies are reviewing the assessment information, but they believe that environmental groups to generate alarmist headlines may use the preliminary assessments.

If the ecological risk assessment is complete, it will be included as well. Preliminary assessments for nine chemicals will be placed in the docket no later than August 10th (terbufos, azinphos-methyl, phorate, ethion, naled, bensulide, fenamiphos, isofenphos, profenofos), followed by seven additional chemicals on September 9th (ethoprop, tribufos, sulfotepp, temephos, dimethoate, cadusafos, fenthion). Each of the remaining 24 chemicals will be placed in the docket when the preliminary risk assessment is complete.

On August 7, EPA placed in the EPA/Office of Pesticide Programs docket the "FQPA Safety Factor Recommendations for the Organophosphates - A Combined Report of the Hazard Identification Assessment Review Committee and the FQPA Safety Factor Committee." If you want a copy, call the EPA (703) 305-5805 or ACPA at (888) 587-0438. Ask for items 189, 190, 191, and 192.

Approximately 60 million pounds of organophosphates are applied to 38 million crop acres in the U.S. each year. About one-third of the total is applied to field corn, and one-fourth is applied to cotton and one-fourth to fruits and vegetables.

Another 17 million pounds are used to control termites and mosquitoes. Five products account for about 60% of the usage: chlorpyrifos (Dursban/Lorsban), terbufos (Counter), tribuphos (Folex/Def), and malathion. (AP, 5-8-98 via Chemically Speaking, 7-98)

Who Do You Trust?

According to an Indiana survey, consumers and growers considered the Cooperative Extension Service and university researchers the most reliable sources for pesticide use information. (the Label, 7-98)

Health and the Environment

I know better than to print this story, but I have always been hard-headed according to my mother, wife, and daughter. There is a great deal of concern about our exposure to estrogen mimics; pesticides and plastics generally get most of the blame. However, scientists in England reported that effluents from domestic sewage can cause endocrine disruption in cell cultures and live fish. The researchers discovered that the chemicals were primarily natural estrogens, with lesser amounts of synthetic estrogens from birth control pills. A woman can excrete approximately 16 micrograms of total estrogens per day. Not much from an individual, but consider the millions of women in large cities. With so much pressure to regulate estrogen mimics, will there also be restrictions placed on these natural estrogens? (Environmental Sci & Technology, vol. 32: 1549-65 via Kansas Pesticide Newsletter, 7-98)

It seems that the Fox Point, WI, school board is rethinking its earlier decision to ban use of herbicides on local school grounds after one student serious exposure to poison ivy. Ever since the ban, complaints about weed growth around school buildings and playgrounds have increased, and the board admits that removing weeds by hand is impractical and unreasonable. This situation should remind us that both pests and pesticides carry risks; we need to consider both.

Spray drift has been one of our most intractable pesticide pollution problems. One of the latest anti-drift designs is the TeeJet Air Induction (AI) Nozzle that incorporates a venturi to draw air into the spray liquid flowing through the nozzle resulting in larger, air-filled droplets that are less prone to drift. [Note: We have no data regarding the performance of this product.]

The air bubble-filled droplets are also less dense and thus tend to disintegrate more readily on impact creating a splatter effect that theoretically provides increased coverage inside a target canopy. The AI nozzle's removable, polymer pre-orifice creates more droplets of more uniform size, even at higher operating pressures. AI nozzles are designed to fit into standard nozzle body and cap assemblies.

FMI: Spraying Systems Co., PO Box 7900, Wheaton, IL 60189-7900, USA.
e-mail: <info@spray.com>.
Fax: 1-630-260-0842 Phone: 1-630-665-5000.

The United States exported more than 1.2 billion pounds of pesticides in 1995-96. Exports of pesticides classified as 'extremely hazardous' by the World Health Organization have increased 500% since 1992. (Pestic. & Tox. Chem News, vol 26, no. 32 via Kansas Pesticide Newsletter, 7-98)

The Natural Resources Defense Council issued a report that highlights methods to reduce pesticide use in agriculture. Farmers from 16 states developed a economically viable system to reduce their dependence on pesticides. Pesticide use reductions ranged from 10% to 100%. The growers used a variety of techniques to realize these pesticide reductions. We have been preaching the same sermon; it is called integrated pest management. (Pestic. & Tox. Chem. News, 7-23-98)

I am impressed with the NRDC approach because they are not simply whining for pesticide restrictions. They call for increased funding for sustainable agriculture, organic farming, and IPM. If we really want to reduce pesticide risk, let us put our money where our mouth is and keep it full of food.

The University of Georgia has received nearly $40,000 to develop and implement peach IPM through the EPA Pesticide Environmental Stewardship Program (PESP). The peach growers and the U.Ga. College of Agriculture have recently joined PESP. It is a good program and will not commit your organization to anything you will regret later. If you want more information about joining PESP, give me a call.

If you want to know what inert ingredients are used in pesticides, go to the June 24, 1998 issue of the Federal Register (you can find it on the Web easily). There are lists of currently used (and no longer used) inerts. The EPA also identifies inert pesticide ingredients that may pose human health risks. The notice does not identify ingredients in particular pesticides.

Scientists with USDA have identified possible biocontrol agents for Deer ticks (vector of Lyme disease). Some types of nematodes and fungi kill deer ticks. Researchers are investigating the timing, application rate, etc. necessary to achieve a level of useful control.

Everyone is understandably nervous about Lyme disease because we have a lot of ticks in Georgia. However, we have very few reported cases of Lyme disease. You should still be concerned about ticks; they also transmit other diseases. Protect yourself and your children when you go into tick-infested areas. Check carefully for ticks when you return home. Ticks generally have to be attached for some time to transmit diseases. Help your children check themselves; pay attention to their hair. If you find an attached tick, do not panic. The person should see a doctor if they develop a rash around the bite area or become ill. Inform your doctor about the tick bite.

The EPA has authorized the use of malathion to eradicate Medflies in Florida. Medflies were discovered in three separate areas of Florida in the Spring. If this species of fruitfly were to become established, it would cost hundreds of millions of dollars and result in greatly increased application of pesticides.

When Medflies are discovered, the U.S. and Florida departments of agriculture act quickly to eliminate the population. Malathion is commonly used in a bait formulation. They start with ground applications, but aerial applications may also be used. Recent concerns over human safety have prompted action groups to use legal action to delay or stop malathion sprays. I understand their concerns, but they fail to consider the environmental and health implications associated with establishment of Medfly.

If you are interested in pesticide contamination of water, here are three titles that may interest you.

• Pesticides in Surface Waters: Distribution, Trends, and Governing Factors, 1997. Steven Larson, Paul Capel and Michael Majewski. 373 pp. US$69.95.
• Pesticides in Ground Water: Distribution, Trends, and Governing Factors, 1996. Jack Barbash and Elizabeth Resek. 588 pp. US$69.95.
• Pesticides in the Hydrologic System Series. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS).

You can order them all from Ann Arbor Press, Inc. 121 South Main Street, P.O. Box 310, Chelsea, MI 48118; (800) 858-5299

e-mail: aap310@aol.com

If you are interested in organic production, here are some resources that may interest you.

The Real Dirt: Farmers Tell about Organic and Low-Input Practices in the Northeast, 1998. Summarizes practical methods for ecological soil, pest, disease, crop, greenhouse and livestock management, based on interviews with more than 60 farmers in eight states. Lists organizations and extension contacts for Northeast region. 264 pp. US$13.95. To order, contact Sustainable Agricultural Publications, Hills Building, Room 12, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT 05405-0082; fax (802) 656-4656;

e-mail: nesare@zoo.um.edu

Exporting Organic Products, 1997. Protrade. Analyzes consumer trends in certified organic products within the context of larger market trends for Europe and the United States. Identifies avenues to further expand organic market. Provides information about trade restrictions and legal mechanisms related to organic products, assesses export potential and recommends marketing strategies. 212 pp. Contact Protrade- Dept. Organic Products and Fine Foods. Deutsche Gesellschaft fur, Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) GmbH, Postfach 5180, D-65726 Eschborn, Germany; e-mail: marion.buley@gtz.de

If you want to get started in the organic business, why not call the trade organization?

Organic Trade Association
P.O. Box 1078
Greenfield, MA 01302 USA
phone: 413/774-7511 fax: 413/774-6432
web: http://www.ota.com

IPM Notebook

According to the World Wildlife Fund and the Wisconsin Potato and Vegetable Growers Association, 200 potato growers have reduced pesticide risks 20% since 1996. In 1995, growers applied more than 190,000 pounds of insecticide to 264,000 potato acres; in 1997, they applied 74,000 pounds to 174,000 acres. The ongoing five-year program aims to dramatically reduce the use of pesticides considered acutely toxic, carcinogens, or endocrine disrupters. If you want more information, visit the WWF on the WEB. (Pestic. & Tox. Chem. News, 7-9-98)

Don't Say That I Did Not Warn You

I keep hearing things about recordkeeping from a variety of sources. All this buzz makes believe that pesticide recordkeeping may become very important in the near future. If you use restricted-use pesticides or if you are a pesticide contractor in Georgia, you must keep records of all applications. If you need more information, call your local extension office.

Biotechnology

We have covered many angles of health and environmental concerns associated with biotechnology, but I have never considered the implications for beekeepers. Proteins that are engineered into plants may adversely affect bees. High doses of proteins from genetically engineered rape shortened bee lives and interfered with odor recognition.

Consumers may also have questions about honey produced from genetically engineered plants. Can it be considered organic? Are the bees concentrating some protein that may be unsafe for my children? Can or should honey be labeled as 'genetically modified' if the nectar comes from engineered plants?

Round-up Ready soybeans and glyphosate are at the heart of a dispute between Monsanto and Zeneca. As you know, Monsanto created Round-up Ready, and they sell a glyphosate product, Round-up. They would prefer that growers that plant Round-up Ready crops use their glyphosate product; Round-up Ready soybeans are expected to capture up to 70% of the market soon. Zeneca claims that Monsanto unfairly requires Round-up Ready growers to use Round-up when they could be using other glyphosate products (like Zeneca's).

Worker Protection Standard

Although FQPA is in the headlines, WPS is still around. If you have an agricultural operation (forestry, row crops, green house, or nursery), you need to make sure your workers are properly trained and protected. The Georgia Department of Agriculture is checking for WPS compliance, and you are increasing your liability if you do not follow WPS. The GDA and the Extension Service will glad to help you; call your local extension office.

For the first time, an exemption to WPS has been recognized because of an agricultural emergency. Under WPS, an agricultural emergency could provide some exceptions to WPS if a grower would face substantial economic loss due to circumstances beyond his control. An 'agricultural emergency' is narrowly defined. Grape growers in California were allowed to send pickers back into fields treated with sulfur before the re-entry interval had expired because of losses associated with fungal disease. (EPA Memo from J. Horton, 7-2-98)

Canceled

All of these pesticides are being stubbed out because of nonpayment of fees. In other words, the current registrant is letting them go. You may still use them according to the label.

I have not seen this many pesticides canceled at one time. It is getting more expensive to maintain registrations; the companies face greater liability, and regulations are getting stricter all the time.

The appearance of any trade name in this newsletter is not intended to endorse that product nor convey negative implications of unmentioned products.

Dear Readers:

The Georgia Pest Management Newsletter is a monthly journal for extension agents, extension specialists, and others interested in pest management news. It provides information on legislation, regulations, and other issues affecting pest management in Georgia.

Do not regard the information in this newsletter as pest management recommendations. Consult the Georgia Pest Control Handbook, other extension publications, or appropriate specialists for this information.

Your input in this newsletter is encouraged.

If you wish to be added to the mailing list, just call us at 706-542-1765

Or write us:

Department of Entomology
University of Georgia
Athens, GA 30602
E-mail: pguillebeau@bugs.ent.uga.edu

Or visit us on the Web. You will find all the back issues there and other useful information.

http://www.ces.uga.edu/ces/wnews.html

Sincerely:

Paul Guillebeau, Assistant Professor & Extension Entomologist