A monthly report on pesticides and related environmental issues

Issue No. 125, July 1996

Open Forum:
In an attempt to promote free and open discussion of issues, The Agrichemical and Environmental News encourages letters and articles with differing views. To include an article, contact: Catherine Daniels, Food and Environmental Quality Laboratory, Washington State University, Tri-Cities campus, 2710 University Drive, Richland, WA 99352-1671. Phone: 509-372-7495. Fax: 509-372-7491. E-mail: cdaniels@tricity.wsu.edu

Please disregard penalty mail postcards requesting return by June 15, 1996 in order to ensure continued delivery of the Agrichemical and Environmental News.

These postcards sent to newsletter subscribers were printed incorrectly and mailed prematurely.

In This Issue

News and Notes Container Collection Dates, Requirements
Available Reports Priority Pest Control Problems in Washington
Surveys Reveal Costs
of Good Laboratory Practices
Washington Pest Control Tour
MCPA and Peas Estimated Injuries in U.S.
from Selected Products --1993
Hops: Minor Crop Poster Child Washington Honeybee Colonies
Severely Affected by Mites
Federal Issues Officially Unofficial
State Issues

Return to WAPP Home Page

News and Notes

Note: The AENews is now accessible from the World Wide Web via the Washington State Pesticide Page. The address for the page is:

Enter this address carefully, paying close attention to punctuation and spacing (no spaces between parts of the address). Some readers may experience difficulties accessing the site. These are believed to be related to the Internet and to on-line services, not the web site. If you are having a problem accessing the web page, please inform Catherine Daniels, Food and Environmental Quality Laboratory, Washington State University, Tri-Cities campus, 2710 University Drive, Richland, WA 99352-1671. Phone: 509-372-7495. Fax: 509-372-7491. E-mail: cdaniels@tricity.wsu.edu

Potato late blight costs totalled

Fungicide and application costs due to the 1995 late blight epidemic in the Columbia Basin of Washington and Oregon total $26.7 million. Dr. Dennis Johnson, WSU Plant Pathologist, says earlier infection and more severe disease conditions caused costs to be highest in the South Basin. Crop desiccation costs are estimated at an additional $1.4 million, with one-third more of the crop vine killed last year than is normal.

Vegetation management group holds first meeting

The PNW Integrated Vegetation Management Conference held its organizational meeting in Vancouver, WA on June 18. Proposed by-laws, modeled upon those used by the California Forestry Vegetation Management Conference, were drafted. A suggested goal for the newly formed organization is to serve as a platform for the exchange of ideas and information on the success of vegetation management programs and to report on current research efforts. By consensus, it was agreed that a broader base of support and greater attendance at meetings would be possible by combining rights-of-way and forestry issues.

The proposed organization is to be restricted to an educational and informational forum; it is not to engage in political activities. The target audience of the organization is expected to be mid or upper level managers who make policy decisions about vegetation management programs for their companies and public agencies.

The next meeting of the organization's steering committee is scheduled for 1 p.m. July 30, 1996 at the WSU Extension Office in Vancouver, WA. For more information on the organization, contact Duncan Wurm at 360-754-1622.

Marketing orders

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed in June to review a decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit involving the intersection between commercial free speech and mandatory marketing orders in agriculture. The case, known as Wileman, arose out of a challenge to the California Tree Fruit Agreement. The decision by the Ninth Circuit would make it extremely difficult for federal or state marketing orders to function, while exposing them to the possibility of constant litigation.

It is the position of the Northwest Horticultural Council, along with a good many other agricultural organizations, that Wileman should be reversed. Chris Schlect, head of the NHC, along with five attorneys representing various states and federal marketing orders, met on June 27 with officials of the Solicitor General's office in Washington, D.C. to discuss how this First Amendment case might be best presented to the high court.

The law firms of McLeod, Watkinson and Miller; Baker, Manock and Jensen; Kahn, Soares and Conway; and Hogan and Hartson are coordinating the filing of appropriate amicus briefs. July 18 is the deadline for both the government's brief in support of the Secretary of Agriculture, who is seeking reversal of Wileman, and those filed pursuant to the companion friend of the court effort.

Oral argument will most likely be heard in November or December of 1996.

...From NHC News: A Monthly Bulletin of the Northwest Horticultural Council, July 1996

NHC fills new staff position

Michael J. Willett has been selected to fill the new position of Technical Issues Manager at the Northwest Horticultural Council. He will join the NHC August 1.

Dr. Willett is a graduate of Michigan State University and holds a Ph.D. in horticulture from Washington State University (WSU). He has served as an extension agent at the Yakima County office of WSU Cooperative Extension since 1983 and previously worked in a similar post with Oregon State University in Medford, OR.

A mosquito was heard to complain
That a chemist had poisoned his brain
The cause of his sorrow
Was para-dichloro-

Return to Table of Contents

Surveys reveal costs
of Good Laboratory Practices

The Environmental Protection Agency on October 16, 1989 announced regulations requiring compliance with Good Laboratory Practices (GLP) standards for field tests conducted for pesticide residue chemistry and for other disciplines. Product performance (efficacy testing) was not included under these standards for food and ornamental crops.

In response to this EPA requirement, the IR-4 Project modified its program. The private sector responded as well (many pesticide manufacturers had already done so.) Research protocol and field and laboratory reports were expanded. Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) and Quality Assurance Units (QAU) for each field and laboratory facility were developed. A detailed paper trail was developed to follow a sample from planting in the field to analysis in the laboratory.

In 1993, 177 IR-4 cooperators were surveyed concerning the impact GLPs had had on their programs. Survey results indicated that compliance with GLP consumed 39% of program resources.

Two years later, after the program had more time to adjust to the use of GLPs, a follow-up survey on the impact of compliance with GLPs was conducted. Results of the survey were divided into four groups: headquarters staff, regional coordinators and quality assurance personnel, field research directors and laboratory research directors.

The headquarters staff in 1995 estimated that 31% of their resources went to meet GLP regulations. This is a decrease from 46% in 1993. Regional coordinators estimated a decrease from 56% to 39% in resources required to comply with GLP. As was the case with the 1993 survey, field research directors were the most impacted by GLP, which consumed 46% of resources, an increase of 8% during the two years.

The majority of IR-4 resources were used to conduct residue analyses in the laboratory. This is an area where GLP costs, representing about 29% of the laboratory resources in 1993 and 1995, were the lowest.

Overall, it was estimated that 39% (1993) and 36% (1995) of IR-4 resources were utilized to meet GLP standards. The IR-4 Project estimated that in 1995 the average field trial cost $3,235 and the average laboratory analysis cost $8,058. Of these amounts, $1,671 and $2,344 of the cost of the field and laboratory trials, respectively, was for GLP compliance

Information for this article was taken from the report - A Summary of Expenses Incurred by the IR-4 Program to Conduct Studies Under GLP During 1995. Copies of this report may be obtained by contacting IR-4 Headquarters at 908-932-9575.

Return to Table of Contents

MCPA and peas

...Alan Schreiber

The impacts of the 1988 changes to the Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (more commonly known as reregistration) continue to ripple across American agriculture. One of the more recent impacts was a decision by the MCPA Reregistration Task Force to not reregister MCPA on peas. MCPA is an effective, low cost herbicide used widely in the production of succulent peas, dry peas and pea seed in the Pacific Northwest.

The reason behind the decision not to reregister the herbicide was simple and all too commonly heard in the Pacific Northwest. The cost of conducting the reregistration studies was expected to be greater than the profit the four task force members could expect to make on sales of the product on the crops.

I was alerted to this issue last year by Gary Pelter, WSU County Agent, and John Shipley, field representative for Asgrow Seed Company. Soon other individuals throughout the pea industry began to speak up about how the loss of MCPA would cause serious pest control problems. Known alternatives to MCPA are less effective and cost approximately 10 times as much.

At first glance, the future did not look promising for continued use of MCPA on peas. The estimated cost of field and laboratory studies was about $42,000, and EPA was expected to require a plant metabolism study that could cost between $200,000 and $300,000 to complete. Neither of the two main users of MCPA, green pea processors and pea seed growers, appeared to have the organization necessary to lobby for use of the chemical. And finally, the pea industry, with the exception of dry pea growers, had little funding to support research.

After a series of meetings, representatives from Washington State University and the pea industry divided up various tasks and set about to try to save MCPA. Gary Pelter, John Shipley and other field representatives collected data on the importance of MCPA use on peas. I worked with the IR-4 Project to convince EPA to waive the plant metabolism study requirement.

EPA agreed to the IR-4 request to waive the plant metabolism study. Paul LaCroix, Manager, Western Washington Farm Crops Association, developed a proposal for the Washington State Commission on Pesticide Registration for assistance in funding the field and laboratory studies on MCPA. LaCroix's proposal stated that if the commission would fund half of the $21,000 needed for the study, the pea industry would come up with the remaining funds. The commission voted unanimously to support the project.

"Without MCPA," according to LaCroix, "weed control costs in peas would certainly have increased. In some parts of the state it could have meant the end of pea production, due to increased costs or poor quality peas contaminated with nightshade."

LaCroix led the effort in "passing the hat around" to generate the needed funds from the pea industry. The response from the pea industry has been nearly unanimous, and $19,500 has been collected thus far. Each contributor of $500 to $1,000 to the MCPA fund has had matching funds provided. The contributors make up a veritable Who's Who of the green pea, pea seed and dry pea industry. Contributors include processors such as American Fine Foods, Hermiston Foods, Dean Foods Veg. Company, Smith Frozen Foods, National Frozen Foods, J.R. Simplot Company, Twin City Foods, Del Monte, Columbia Foods, Symons Frozen Foods and Seneca Foods Corporation; pea seed companies, such as Asgrow Seed Company, Rogers Seed Company, Purline Seed Company, Brotherton Seed Company and Crites-Moscow Seed; and several other organizations associated with the pea industry including the Washington Dry Pea and Lentil Commission, Western Washington Farm Crops Association, Oregon-Washington Pea Growers Association and the Skagit County Farm Bureau. Other companies are expected to provide additional support. Although the commission money and much of the matching funds came from Washington state, a significant portion of the matching money came from Idaho and Oregon, reflecting the interest and need for the product in those states.

As a result of the activities begun by the pea industry and WSU, the Commission on Pesticide Registration in cooperation with the IR-4 Project set up a project to generate the data necessary to reregister MCPA on peas. Matching support was sought from pea growing regions outside of the Pacific Northwest, but use of the product was not considered important enough to justify its continued registration outside of the area. So the project was restricted to the three Northwest pea growing states. Due to the widespread use of both the salt and amine formulations of MCPA, the project was developed in such a way to retain the use of both formulations.

The project required five field trials. All trials are being conducted at IR-4 Field Research Centers. One trial was to be conducted in Idaho, one in Oregon, one in western Washington and two in eastern Washington. The distribution of trials was an approximate reflection of the relative reliance on MCPA on peas.

The Idaho field trial is being conducted by Will Meeks of the University of Idaho, the Oregon trial is being conducted by Bob McReynolds of Oregon State University, the western Washington trials are being conducted by Kassim Al-Khatib of WSU and the eastern Washington trials are being conducted by my research staff.

The field trials are underway and are expected to be completed by the end of July. Upon completion of the field trials, pea samples will be provided to Carol Weisskopf at the WSU Food and Environmental Quality Laboratory. The FEQL will analyze the samples and provide the data to the IR-4 Project. The IR-4 Project will use data from the field trials and laboratory analysis to develop a petition and submit it to EPA to reregister the use of the salt and amine formulations of MCPA on peas. Growers will be able to continue during this process to use the products on peas .

Return to Table of Contents

Hops: minor crop poster child

...Alan Schreiber

The U.S. hop industry could serve as the poster child for minor crops. Hops are grown on a limited acreage, have a high value and suffer annually from severe pest pressure, yet the industry has strict standards for low tolerance of pest damage. There are about 44,000 acres of hops, representing about 25% of the world hop supply, in the U.S. this year.

One problem facing the U.S. hop industry is the high cost of pesticide registration efforts; no company has borne the full cost of registering a pesticide on hops in well over a decade. Another problem is pest resistance; due to the limited number of compounds registered on hops, pests of hops have a tendency to develop resistance to the few compounds that growers do have available.

Not surprisingly, there have been more emergency exemption requests over a longer period of time for hops than for almost any other crop in the United States (certainly more than for any crop in the Northwest). This year marks a new era for hop plant protection; it is the first year in recent memory that no Section 18s were requested from Washington or Idaho. Oregon requested one Section 18 in 1996.

How the hop industry got to this stage should be a textbook example of how a small industry can address its own pest control needs. The tri-state U.S. hop industry formed the U.S. Hop Industry Plant Protection Committee to coordinate and fund pest control research. The Committee is comprised of two representatives from each of the three state commissions and from the Hop Growers of America. The U.S. hop industry has funded 25 GLP residue projects since 1988 and a greater number of efficacy trials over the past 10 years. This is undoubtedly a record number of commodity funded GLP trials for any crop in the U.S. In 1996, six GLP residue trials are underway, the greatest number yet. Overall, the hop industry contributes about $250,000 a year toward pest control research and related activities.

A variety of pests or pest groups attack hops. The most damaging are the two-spotted spider mite, the hop aphid and downy mildew. The hop industry has been able to obtain registrations for at least one effective compound for each pest. It is now in the process of developing multiple control tactics for each of the major pests and trying to come up with solutions to emerging pest control problems. With the registration of more selective, IPM-compatible compounds, hop growers are having to control pests, such as several lepidopterous species and root weevils, that previously had not caused economic losses.

Following is a list of projects that the hop industry is funding or has funded to a large extent on its own and on which it is working or has worked in cooperation with the IR-4 Project, Washington State University, Oregon State University, University of Idaho, Washington State Department of Agriculture, Oregon Department of Agriculture, the Washington State Commission on Pesticide Registration and various registrants.

Two-spotted spider mite

Abamectin (Agri-Mek) - This product will be used in the U.S. during the 1996 growing season under a Federal Section 3 registration for the first time.

Amitraz (Mitac) - The U.S. received an import tolerance, but the registrant, citing EPA concern about the product, has no plans to seek a U.S. registration.

Hexakis (Vendex) - Data were submitted to IR-4, but the manufacturer expressed concern that the residues would take up too much of the accepted dietary intake for the chemical and asked that the study be repeated with fewer applications and a longer preharvest interval. New field trials were completed, and samples are being analyzed at the WSU Food and Environmental Quality Laboratory.

Hexythiazox (Savey) - Efficacy and residue studies were conducted in Washington, Idaho and Oregon in 1995. A U.S. registration is expected in 1997.

Hop aphid

Bifenthrin (Brigade) - This product received a Section 3 registration in the U.S. in June of 1996.

Chlorpyrifos (Lorsban) - The petition for tolerance will be completed by IR-4 and submitted to EPA during the middle of 1996. Application will be by ground only.

Cyfluthrin (Baythroid) - A petition for tolerance should be completed by IR-4 and submitted to EPA by the end of 1996.

Dimethoate - All data has been submitted to IR-4, and the petition for tolerance preparation is scheduled to begin in late 1996.

Disulfoton (Disyston) - GLP field residue trials for aerial and drip irrigation application will be conducted in 1996.

Fluvalinate (Mavrik) - All data for this product were submitted to EPA. One study, however, was flawed and required the entire project to be repeated. This project is currently on hold.

Imidacloprid (Admire, Provado) - A section 3 registration was approved for the 1996 growing season for foliar application by ground only. Field residue trials are being completed in 1996 to expand the registration to allow application through drip irrigation systems and soil application.

Methyl parathion - A data package to support reregistration is complete, and it will submitted to EPA within the next year.

Pirimicarb (Pirimor) - Efficacy studies were conducted in 1995 and 1996. The industry hopes to proceed with residue trials in 1997.

Triazimate (Aphistar) - Efficacy studies are completed. GLP foliar residue trials and efficacy studies of application via a drip system will be conducted in 1996.

Garden symphylan

Ethoprop (Mocap) - The WSU FEQL has completed the laboratory analysis of field samples. Data from this study were used to support a Section 18 request for Oregon; this request was approved by EPA in March of 1996.

Lepidopteran species

Naled (Dibrom) - Residue data to support reregistration were submitted to EPA in 1991; IR-4 submitted the final data package to EPA in 1994. Valent obtained registrations in 1995. EPA approved the data package in June, 1996.

Downy Mildew

Fosetyl-Al (Aliette) - EPA's reclassification of dried hops as a raw agricultural commodity in December of 1993 eliminated the Delaney Clause restriction on this compound and allowed EPA to issue a tolerance and Section 3 registration in 1994. A second IR-4 study began in 1996 to support an amended registration to allow an increase in the number of applications per season from four to six.


Clopyralid (Stinger) - Efficacy studies have been completed; a GLP residue trial is underway in 1996.

Glyphosate (Round-up) - Field trials were completed for a use pattern for spot treatment of grasses and broadleaf weeds. The laboratory analysis has not yet been completed.

Norflurazon (Solicam) - A data package to support reregistration was submitted to EPA in 1992. Review has been completed and a new Section 3 registration is expected during 1996 for dormant weed control.

Oryzalin (Surflan) - Field trials were completed in 1994 and samples are currently being analyzed by WSU FEQL. The new use would be for control of grasses.

Oxyfluorfen (Goal) - A submission of petition for tolerance to EPA is expected in 1996 for a use pattern to control broadleaf weeds.

2,4-D - All data have been submitted to IR-4, but there may still be difficulties in obtaining approval from EPA. A petition submission to EPA is expected late in 1996.

Return to Table of Contents

Available Reports

Return to Table of Contents

Plastic pesticide container
collection dates, requirements

Container requirements

1. Must be multiple rinsed, so that no residues remain.

2. Must be clean and dry inside and out, with no apparent odor.

3. Hard plastic lids and slip on lids must be removed.

4. Glue-on labels may remain.

5. The majority of the foil seal must be removed from the spout.
A small amount of foil remaining on the container rim is acceptable.

6. Half pint, pint, quart, one and two-and-a-half-gallon containers will
be accepted whole.

7. Five-gallon containers will be accepted whole if the lids and bails
are removed.

8. Special arrangements must be made for 30-gallon and 55-gallon
containers, by calling (509) 457-3850 prior to the collection.

Containers not meeting above specifications will not be accepted.

WPCA container collection dates






Snipes Mountain Landfill

Yakima County
Mark Nedrow



Terrace Heights Landfill

Yakima County
Mark Nedrow



WSU Treefruit Station

North Central WA Dealers Association
Bruce Reathaford




Wilbur-Ellis Company
Brian Hendricks




Wilbur-Ellis Company
Brian Hendricks


Wilbur-Ellis Company
Brian Hendricks
NW Wholesale,
Okanogan County
Sheilah Ray
Mike Skystad

For more information about plastic pesticide container collection, contact: Steve George
WPCA Recycling Coordinator
31 High Valley View St.
Yakima, WA 98901
(509) 457-3850
or the WAPP web site at http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~ramsay/wpca.html

Return to Table of Contents

Washington honeybee colonies
severely affected by mites

..James C. Bach, State Apiarist

High losses of honeybee colonies have in recent months received much state, regional and national attention in the press. Media reports accurately describe the serious loss of pollinating honeybees nationwide and in Washington state. These high losses of bees have damaging implications for urban and rural pollinated agriculture, including urban gardens.

Estimates based upon statewide reports suggest that perhaps as much as 90% of feral colonies in Washington state are now dead. Feral colonies refer to bees living in bee trees, walls of buildings and other sites.

The major causes of these bee deaths are the Honeybee Tracheal ((HBTM) and Varroa mites. The domestic honeybee in the United States lacks natural resistance to these predatory mites. HBTM was introduced into Washington in 1985; Varroa was introduced in 1987. Since that time, these mites have become generally distributed among feral as well as non-commercial and commercial honeybee colonies.

Mites and other problems have severely impacted the number of non-commercial colonies across the state. Beekeepers need time to learn how to control mites, and there must be at least two effective registered chemicals. There is now one chemical - menthol - that is effective on Varroa. Menthol on HBTM is ineffective in the cool climate of western Washington.

From 1990 to 1995, inclusive, the number of beekeepers with 50 or fewer hives declined by 30% and their number of hives declined by 38%. During the same period, the number of beekeepers with 51 hives or more declined 31.5% and the number of hives declined by 30.2%. The number of beekeepers statewide declined by 30%, and the number of hives declined by 31%. Due to the manner in which such data are received by the department, the numbers do not truly reflect the losses.

Some beekeepers do not register with the department; when they do, the numbers of hives they report generally reflect their target number of hives rather than their actual number of hives. This is reflected in the number of losses reported to the department in February of each year. Each of the last three years, commercial beekeepers have reported an average of 50% losses from September of the previous year to January of the current year. There has been a decline of approximately 23,450 colonies since 1990. Beekeepers must increase the number of colonies they import by that same number, in order to satisfy their contracts with growers. Beekeepers and growers imported an estimated 40,000 colonies prior to 1990. Estimates now place the number of imported honey bee colonies at about 63,450.

Beekeepers have been operating on cash flow and depreciation schedules for the last 10 to 15 years. Pollination fees have increased an average of $1.33 each of those years, while operation costs have increased by a much greater amount.

Beekeepers pay $10 per hive to treat for mites each year. Out-of-state beekeeper competition for pollination contracts and current business practices have also kept pollination fees low. It has been estimated that a beekeeping operation should realize an income of about $150 per hive per year, including owner/manager salary. Beekeepers are now receiving about $106.

The Washington Legislature removed general funds from the apiary program in 1994. Beekeepers and growers developed their own funding plan to maintain the program. Beekeepers pay a graduated registration fee based upon their number of colonies, and growers pay a $0.50 per hive service fee each time they rent a hive for pollination of a crop. With the reduction in the number of colonies and beekeepers, the fees collected will not keep the program functioning full time. The program expenses for the last 12 month program period was a conservative $72,360, with income amounting to $64,797 (89.5%).

The Industry Apiary Program concentrates on providing public service, technical information exchange, communication, education, and trying to help solve the honeybee problems beekeepers are experiencing. It handles many questions from the public, the press and beekeepers, and some from the Legislature. With the regional focus of commercial beekeeping, it is necessary that the program also be aware of what is happening in other Western states.

Another high impact of the loss of honeybees is on the pollination of farm and wild flora for domestic and wildlife forage. Birds and animals eat the fruit and seeds of many pollinated plants. With the sharp decline in bee populations, it may be assumed that most of these plants will not be pollinated unless or until wild insect populations build to fill the need. However, it is not certain that this will occur.

The department is considering plans to bring interested parties together to discuss the bee losses and the impact this is having on urban and rural pollination.

This article was taken from The Demise of Honeybee Colonies in Washington, a draft briefing paper by James C. Bach, State Apiarist.

Return to Table of Contents

Priority pest control
problems in Washington

...Alan Schreiber

As state pesticide coordinator, I am exposed to almost all pest control problems of consequence in the state of Washington. Of the myriad of pest problems in Washington, several stand out as major issues. Some are recent, others are perennial. My list of major pest problems is based on potential for economic loss and risk to environmental and human health. Most of the more significant pest control problems have a political side to them, and in some situations the potential problem is largely one of perception -- individuals with differing perspectives will have differing opinions. I invite readers to submit their own lists of most important pest control problems.

( not ranked by order of importance)

Return to Table of Contents

Washington Pest Control Tour

...Alan Schreiber

The Washington State Commission on Pesticide Registration and Washington State University conducted a crop protection tour on July 16, 17 and 18 for the purpose of educating pesticide manufacturers about unmet pest control needs in Washington. The three-day tour covered the Yakima Valley, Horse Heaven Hills, Columbia Basin and Walla Walla Valley.

Featured crops included hops, currants, grapes, tree fruit, mint, sugar beets, wheat, grass seed, carrots, asparagus, potatoes, onions alfalfa, vegetable seeds, lima beans, sweet corn, pulp trees, canola, alfalfa seed, Walla Walla sweet onions, garbanzo beans and noxious weeds.

Remarks from tour participants indicated that the tour was successful, if not a little on the intensive side. For example, the tour notebook weighed 10 pounds. Tour supporters included Washington Friends of Farms and Forests, Western Crop Protection Association, Washington State Potato Commission, Washington Asparagus Commission, Washington Wine Grape Growers Association, Washington Association of Wheat Growers, Far West Fertilizer and AgChem Association, Pacific Northwest Vegetable Growers Association, Washington Alfalfa Seed Commission, U.S. Hop Industry Plant Protection Committee, Mint Industry Research Council, Pacific Northwest Rapeseed/Canola Association, SeedTec International and U.S.A. Dry Pea, Lentil and Chickpea Council. Special thanks go to the Washington Wine Grape Growers Association and the U.S. Hop Industry Plant Protection Commmittee for their in-kind support.

Based on the success of this tour, tentative plans are to hold a similar tour in 1997 in western Washington. A possible tour itinerary would include one day devoted to agriculture in the Skagit Valley, a second day devoted to urban pesticide use patterns, such as nursery, landscape, ornamentals or structural pest control, and a third day on forestry and right-of-way pest control.

Return to Table of Contents

Estimated injuries in U.S.
from selected products -- 1993

Product Est. injuries Product Est. injuries
Stairs, steps 1,055,355 Bunk beds 48,311
Bicycles, accessories 604,066 Trampolines 46,215
Knives 460,625 Crutches, canes, walkers 45,445
Tables 340,184 Razors, shavers 43,691
Chairs 307,066 Hot water 43,250
Nails, screws, tacks 233,627 Chain saws 40,149
Bathtubs, showers 151,852 Shopping carts 37,304
Ladders 141,616 Television 36,457
Drinking glasses 127,232 Contact lenses 33,162
Fences, fence posts 126,980 Pens, pencils 30,683
Carpets, rugs 116,201 Scissors 28,998
Drugs, medications 115,814 Paper money, coins 28,592
Metal containers 105,879 Skateboards 27,718
Bottles, jars 100,536 Refrigerators 27,337
Footwear 94,228 Baby walkers, jumpers 25,457
Lawn mowers 71,598 Gasoline 20,092
Sinks, toilets 63,192 Pins, needles 19,486
Wheelchairs 61,133 Telephones, accessories 18,899
Sleds 55,260 Irons 16,447
Hammers 55,882 Pesticides 16,281
Jewelry 51,017

Notes: These national estimates are based on injuries treated in hospital emergency rooms participating in the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System. Patients said their injuries were related to the products; this does not necessarily mean the injuries were caused by the products.

Source: Consumer Product Safety Commission, National Electronic Injury Surveillance System, NEISS Product Summary Report (1994).

Return to Table of Contents

Officially Unofficial

...Alan Schreiber

"Officially Unofficial" is a regular feature that may include information considered inappropriate by some.

Return to Table of Contents

Federal Issues


The following tolerances were granted by EPA since the last report (June 1996). These data do not mean that a label has been registered for this use. These pesticides must not be used until a label is registered with EPA or a state department of agriculture.

A=adjuvant D=desiccant D/H=desiccant, herbicide F=fungicide
FA=feed additive FM=fumigant G=growth regulator H=herbicide
I-insecticide N=nematicide P=pheromone V=vertebrate repellent

Chemical* Petitioner Tolerance (ppm) Commodity
(A) Oxo-Alkyl Acetates Exxon exempt when used as a solvent
(F) 1-[[2-(2,4-Dichlorophenyl)-
Ciba-Geigy 0.1 oats, grain
1 oats, straw
10 oats, forage
30 oats, hay
(I) Imidacloprid Bayer 3.5 leafy greens subgroup, leafy vegetables crop group
(I) Bifenthrin FMC 3 strawberries
(H) Prosulfuron Ciba-Geigy 0.01a corn: forage, fodder, grain and fresh (including sweet kernels plus cobs with husks removed)
cereal grains group (except rice and wild rice): grain, forage
0.05a meat (cattle, goats, hogs, horses, sheep)
fat (cattle, goats, hogs, horses, sheep)
kidney (cattle, goats, hogs, horses, sheep)
liver (cattle, goats, hogs, horses, sheep)
meat by-products (cattle, goats, hogs, horses, sheep)
0.02a cereal grains group (except rice and wild rice), straw
0.2a cereal grains group (except rice and wild rice), hay
(A) Oxidized pine lignin, formulations sodium salt Ligno Tech exempt when used as an inert ingredient in pesticide formulations applied to growing crops, to raw commodities after harvest, or to agricultural animals
(F) Aluminum tris
IR-4 40b blueberry
(A) 1,1,1,2-Tetrafluorethane Whitmire exempt (aerosol propellant) intended to be applied in food handling establish- ments
(H) Sodium salt of acifluorfen IR-4 0.05 strawberry
(H) Triflusulfuron methyl DuPont 0.05c sugar beet root, top
(I) Diflubenzuron IR-4 6 artichokes
(H) Quizalofop-P
ethyl ester
DuPont 0.05 lentils
3 foliage of legume vegetables (except soybeans)
0.25 legume vegetables (succulent or dried) group
0.1 sugar beet, root
0.5 sugar beet, top
(H) Fenoxaprop-ethyl AgrEvo 0.5d wheat, straw, grain

a=Time limited tolerance expires December 31, 1999.
b=Time limited tolerance expires December 31, 1998.
c=Time limited tolerance expires June 14, 1999.
d=Time limited tolerance expires November 1, 1997.

EPA tolerance revocations

EPA is issuing a final tolerance rule for maleic hydrazide, oryzalin, hexazinone, and streptomycin. EPA has completed the reregistration process and issued a Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED). In the reregistration process, all information to support a pesticide's continued registration is reviewed for adequacy and, when needed, supplemented with new scientific studies. Based on the RED tolerance assessments for the pesticide chemicals subject to this rule, EPA is revoking various tolerances for maleic hydrazide, oryzalin, and hexazinone. This rule also deletes as superfluous the term "negligible" from a regulation on streptomycin.

Reregistration Notifications

alachlor (Lasso), atrazine (AAtrex), cyanazine (Bladex), metolachlor (Dual), simazine (Princep) - The USEPA has proposed a rule to implement a key component of its 1991 Pesticides and Ground Water Strategy through the development of State Management Plans (SMPs). The agency is proposing, specifically, to restrict the use of alachlor, atrazine, cyanazine, metolachlor, and simazine by providing States with the flexibility to protect the ground water in the most appropriate way for local conditions. The labels of these herbicides would be changed to require use in accordance with EPA approved SMPs, after a period allowed for development and approval of the SMPs. This proposed rule outlines the basis for selecting pesticides for SMPs, describes the content of SMPs, and outlines the reason these five pesticides were selected for this action. The USEPA proposes to allow 24 months for the states to submit SMPs for these five pesticides, six months for USEPA approval, and a three month startup period. Written comments, with mention of OPP-36190, should be sent to the Public Response Branch at EPA by 10/24/96.

For information contact: Mr. Arden Calvert, EPA, Policy & Special Projects, Phone: 703-305-7099, Fax: 703-305-6244, E-mail: calvert.arden@epamail.epa.gov

linuron (Linex, Lorox) - The USEPA proposes to revoke the tolerances for linuron on barley (forage, grain, hay, and straw), popcorn (fodder & forage), oats (forage, grain, hay, and straw), parsnips (tops), and rye (forage, grain, hay, and straw). There are no current registrations, nor is there any record of past registrations for the use of linuron on barley, pop corn, oats, and rye. There are registrations for parsnips, but parsnip tops are no longer viewed as a significant feed item, and therefore no longer need a feed tolerance. The USEPA has completed the reregistration of linuron and is attempting to update and correct tolerance actions for this herbicide as indicated in the RED. Written comments, identified by OPP-300424, should be sent to the Public Response Branch of EPA by 8/26/96.

For information contact: Mr. Paul Parsons, EPA, Special Review Branch, Phone: 703-308-8037, Fax: 703-308-8041, E-mail: parsons.paul@epamail.epa.gov

resmethrin (SBP-1382) - AgrEvo Environmental Health has requested that the USEPA delete commercial greenhouse use from its labels of the insecticide, resmethrin. This action is the result of a data-call-in by the USEPA and is expected to result in the deletion of commercial greenhouse use from other registrants' resmethrin labels over time. AgrEvo will consider supporting this use if another party is willing to pay for the required data-call-in studies. Unless these requests are withdrawn by AgrEvo, the commercial greenhouse use on the company's labels will be deleted on 9/17/96.

For additional information contact: Ms. Sharon Johnston, AgrEvo Environmental Health, Inc, Phone: 201-307-3363, Fax: 201-307-3384, E-mail: sharon@regulatory.hcc.com

triadimefon (Bayleton) - The USEPA has proposed revoking the pesticide tolerances for triadimefon on barley (grain, green forage, and straw), and the food additive regulations (processed food tolerances) on milled fractions of barley (except flour) as of 5/23/97. The use of this systemic fungicide on barley was canceled in 1993. After cancellation the registrant was given 18 months, until 5/23/95, to sell existing stocks labeled with the use of barley. Written comments, identified by OPP-300431, should be sent to the Public Response Branch of EPA by 7/19/96.

For information contact: Ms. Niloufar Nazmi, EPA, Special Review Branch, Phone: 703-308-8028, Fax: 703-308-8041, E-mail: nazmi.niloufar@epamail.epa.gov

The source for this information, the Reregistration Notification Network, is a cooperative effort of USDA-NAPIAP, Interregional Project No. 4 (IR-4), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), and the American Crop Protection Association (ACPA).

For additional information on any reregistration notification, contact the individual(s) listed or contact:

Alan Schreiber
WSU Pesticide Coordinator
100 Sprout Road
Richland, WA 99352-1643
Phone: 509-372-7378
Fax: 509-372-7460

State Issues

Special Local Needs (Section 24c)

Label restrictions for Special Local Needs in Washington: The following pesticide uses have been granted label registration by the Washington State Department of Agriculture under the provision of Section 24(c) amended FIFRA.


The following Section 24c label registrations have been cancelled:

Return to Table of Contents

Contributors to the Agrichemical and Environmental News:

Alan Schreiber, Allan Felsot, Catherine Daniels, Mark Antone, Carol Weisskopf, Eric Bechtel

Contributions, comments and subscription inquiries may be directed to: Catherine Daniels, Food and Environmental Quality Laboratory, Washington State University, Tri-Cities campus, 2710 University Drive, Richland, WA 99352-1671. Phone: 509-372-7495. Fax: 509-372-7491. E-mail: cdaniels@tricity.wsu.edu

Return to Table of Contents

This page has been accessed times since July 22, 1996.