A monthly report on pesticides and related environmental issues

Issue No. 129, November 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: Alan Schreiber, Food and Environmental Quality Laboratory, 100 Sprout Road, Richland, WA 99352-1643, ph: 509-372-7324, fax: 509-372-7460,
E-mail: ebechtel@beta.tricity.wsu.edu or aschreib@beta.tricity.wsu.edu

In This Issue

News and Notes Costs of Producing
Red Delicious Apples
Preparation and Use of
Fresh, Unheated
Apple Cider
New Fungicides Tested
for Botrytis Bunch Rot
of Grapes
The Birth of a Pesticide 1997 IR-4 Projects
WSU Pesticide Education Tentative 1997 IR-4 Projects
Pesticide Training Materials
Available for Sale
Officially Unofficial
WSDA Pesticide
Management -- High Value
With Limited Resources
Federal Issues
State Issues

Return to PICOL Home Page

News and Notes

Note: The AENews is now accessible from the World Wide Web via the Pesticide Information Center On-Line 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 Eric Bechtel (ph: 509-372-7378, fax: 509-372-7460, E-mail: ebechtel@beta.tricity.wsu.edu

Minor crop group enters phase two

Representatives of the Minor Crop Farmer Alliance met in Washington, D.C. on October 23 to begin the second phase of the group's existence. The broad coalition representing agricultural producers concluded its first phase symbolically with the signing by President Clinton, on August 3, of the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996. The MCFA in its first phase worked to develop and obtain legislation intended to ease the registration process for minor crop chemicals when safety is not an issue. The comprehensive law signed by President Clinton in August adopted much of the specific language developed by the MCFA.

Environmental Protection Agency representatives estimate that the agency will require three years to write the regulations and draft the policies needed to implement FQPA. MCFA believes it must continue its work during this time, according to coalition representatives.

According to MFCA representatives, the group intends to expand its scope of work to encompass the most significant issues arising under the Act that directly impact those engaged in production agriculture. This will include focusing on new risk assessment rules mandated by Congress under FQPA.

MCFA has established a goal of raising $200,000 for coalition work in 1997.

Excerpted from Northwest Horticultural Council News, November 1996


The October issue of the AENews stated that a Section 18 for use of zinc phosphide to manage vole (Microtus) complex in timothy and timothy-legume stands produced for hay and timothy produced for seed had been granted. It should have been stated, instead, that the Washington State Department of Agriculture had submitted a Section 18 request to the EPA.

The August isssue of the AENews stated that the Food Quality Protection Act would allow American Indian tribes to regulate pesticides on tribal grounds. This was a provision included in the next-to-last version of the legislation and the version circulated after passage. That provision was dropped from the legislation at passage.

Average worldwide crop price subsidies

Countries worldwide protect their domestic markets through the use of government price supports ranging from an 86% average subsidy for rice to a 10% average subsidy for wool, according to the October 28, 1996, Wall Street Journal. Average worldwide subsidies for other agricultural products are as follows: wheat (48%), sugar (refined white) (48%), lamb and mutton (45%) coarse grains (36%), beef (incl. veal) (35%), oil seeds (24%), pork (22%), poultry (14%), and eggs (14%). The average worldwide subsidy for all agricultural products is 43%.

Sugar subsidies not so sweet

European Union consumers spend as much as $7.5 billion more each year for sugar than if they bought it on the world market, according to a story in the October 28, 1996, issue of the Wall Street Journal.

The 15-nation union is expected to produce nearly 15.6 million tons of sugar in 1996, more than the projected 1996 EU sugar consumption of 12.6 million tons. A surplus might be expected to lead to lower sugar prices, but government price supports provide sugar beet producers and processors with sugar prices sometimes three times what they might expect on the world market.

Wileman to come before high court

Oral arguments in the Wileman case are to be heard December 2 by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Arising from a challenge to the California Tree Fruit Agreement, Wileman raises questions regarding the First Amendment and its application to mandated promotion programs in agriculture. While the California Tree Fruit Agreement is a federal marketing order, the constitutional issues involved have direct relevance to state marketing orders such as the Washington Apple Commission.

Wileman has attracted a number of friend-of-the-court briefs from such disparate groups as the American Advertising Federation, the AFL-CIO and the Pacific Legal Foundation.

Northwest Horticultural Council News, November 1996

WSCPR seeks proposals

The Washington State Commission on Pesticide Registration is seeking proposals to fund projects that will result in obtaining or maintaining a pesticide registation in the state of Washington. For information on obtaining assistance from the WSCPR, contact Catherine Daniels at 509-372-7492 or by E-mail at cdaniels@beta.tricity.wsu.edu.

Return to Table of Contents

Letter to the Editor

Your timely and thought-provoking editorial in the October 1996 issue of Agrichemical and Environmental News raises questions that certainly are not going to be answered by the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996.

Consider just one loophole that has been created involving the importation of food and food products from other countries. Peas come in from Sweden, citrus from many other countries, and apples from as far away as New Zealand.

Consider the matter of orange juice purchased by the housewife with the recitation on the label . . . "orange juice from Florida." What the label does not tell you is that the oranges from which the juice was produced were not grown in Florida but were grown in South America, and who knows what pesticides were involved and what residues were present on the oranges before processing them into juice. You can bet your bottom dollar that the exemption clause is going to be invoked more often than not, and who will determine the "significant disruption to domestic production?"

Delaney may have had his faults, but at least we knew where we stood.

Yours very truly,

Stuart W. Turner

Return to Table of Contents

The birth of a pesticide

...Alan Schreiber

I recently visited the headquarters of a large chemical company and learned about its registration process. This company screens 20,000 to 35,000 chemicals and 50,000 fermentation products each year for herbicide, insecticide and fungicidal effects. In the first screening, each chemical or product is tested for efficacy on eight insects, six diseases and four weeds pre and post emergence. If a compound shows efficacy against at least one organism, it will undergo secondary screening. Registration for an herbicide will be pursued only if it demonstrates excellent efficacy against one or more weeds that pose major problems in one of four crops: rice, corn, soybeans or small grains. (The world-wide market for soybean herbicides is $2 billion annually; for rice, it is $600 million.)

The discovery process for a chemical lasts one to two years. The next stage is predevelopment. Each year the company tries to move two chemicals to predevelopment, where the chemicals are subjected to a series of tests to determine their suitability for registration. This process lasts three years, meaning that there are about six compounds in predevelopment at any one time. The next stage is development, which lasts three years. The company tries to have three compounds in this stage. From the development stage, the company tries to launch (introduce onto the market) at least one product a year.

Return to Table of Contents

WSU pesticide education

The winter training schedule for Washington State University pesticide education programs is completed. Brochures were mailed October 9, 1996 to individuals with a current pesticide license. Both Pre-license and Recertification courses will be offered this winter. A Spanish recertification class was offered in November. A pre-license aquatic session will be offered January 23, 1997. Registration is $40 per day, unless postmarked 14 days prior to the program, in which case it is considered early registration at $30 per day.

In response to comments regarding the Integrated Plant Health Workshop held last season in Puyallup, WSU has scheduled two workshops this year -- one in Spokane and one in Puyallup.

More information regarding winter training or registration may be obtained by contacting Cooperative Extension Conferences at 509-335-2830, the WAPP World Wide Web site at http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~ramsay or email: ramsay@wsu.edu.

Recertification Schedule
Each day provides six recertification credits.

Eastern Washington

Western Washington

Moses Lake Jan. 23, 24 Fife Jan. 15, 16
Pasco Jan. 23, 24 Kelso Jan. 28, 29
Mt. Vernon Feb. 12, 13 Lynnwood Feb. 4, 5
Yakima Jan. 27, 28 Bellevue Feb. 18, 19
Spokane Feb. 19, 20 Elma Mar. 4, 5
Pullman Feb. 26, 27

Integrated Plant Health Management Workshop
(registration will be limited to the first 60 people)
Puyallup Feb. 24-27 Spokane Mar. 4-7

Pre-License Schedule
The pre-license program offers no recertification credits. Testing is scheduled for Day 3 in the afternoon.
* Days 1-3 for Private Applicators
* Day 1 for Laws and Safety and Dealer/Managers
* Day 2 for Weed Control
* Day 3 for Insect and Disease Control

Eastern Washington

Western Washington

Moses Lake Jan. 15-17 Fife Jan. 14-16
Pasco Jan. 21-23+aquatic Kelso Jan. 27-29
Yakima Jan. 29-31 Lynnwood Feb. 3-5
Spokane Feb. 18-20 Mt. Vernon Feb. 11-13
Pullman Feb. 25-27 Puyallup Mar. 11-13

Return to Table of Contents

WSU pesticide training materials
available for sale

WSU has available several bulletins and videos to support pesticide education, mostly pre-license training. Following is a breakdown of materials currently offered by the Bulletin Office for pre-license, recertification, and worker protection training. A single asterisk (*) alongside the price indicates that postage and handling charges are additional; these charges are already included in the pre-license study materials.

For those interested in pesticide licensing in Washington, the Pesticide Licensing Guide MISC0078 (no charge) explains 1) type of license needed, 2) license fees required, 3) the exam requirements associated with that license, and 4) allowable exam substitutions. It also lists Washington State Department of Agriculture exam locations and dates. Study material titles are similar to exam category titles.

Pre-license Study Manuals Publ. No. Price (ea)
Washington Pesticide Laws and Safety
-- also for Dealer/Managers
MISC0056 $12.00
Animal Damage Control in Washington EB1147 $9.00
Aquatic Pest Control MISC0134 $7.50
Interior Plantscape Pest Control MISC0176 $9.00
Introduction to Insect and Disease Management MISC0175 $7.50
Livestock Pests: Study Guide MISC0052 $4.50
Pest Management Study Manual for
Pest Control Operators (PCOs)
also for Structural Pest Control Inspector
MISC0096 $17.00
Private Applicator Pesticide Education Manual MISC0126 $12.00
Public Health Pest Control MISC0151 $ 6.50
Seed Treatment EM4747 $ 4.50
Soil Fumigation MISC0163 $ 4.50
Stored Grain Pest Control MISC0157 $ 5.50
Structural and Turf Demossing EM4749 $ 2.00
Agricultural Weed Management Principles MISC0167 $ 8.00
Turf and Ornamental Weed Management Principles MISC0170 $ 8.00
Rights-of-Way Vegetation Management (new) MISC0185 $ 8.00
Wood Preservation MISC0105 $ 4.50
Video Training Materials Video No. Price (ea)
Sprayer Prep with John and Daryl VT0042 $ 25.00*
Calibration with Gary and Carol VT0050 $ 25.00*
Weed Identification VT0054 $ 15.00*
Weed Management Strategies VT0055 $ 15.00*
Pesticide Handlers and the Worker Protection** VT0066 $ 18.50*
Pesticide Handlers and the Worker Protection -
in Spanish**
VT0066S $ 18.50*
Rinse and Recycle: Plastic Pesticide Containers*** VT0041 $ 25.00*
Rinse and Recycle: Plastic Pesticide Containers -
in Spanish***
VT0051 $ 15.00*
Protection from Exposure - English
and Spanish versions***
VT0071 $ 25.00*
Orchard Air-Blast Spraying*** VT0013 $ 30.00*
Orchard Air-Blast Spraying - in Spanish*** VT0014 $ 30.00*
Pocket Gopher Management*** VT0006 $ 28.00*
Jointed Goatgrass: A Threat to Wheat*** VT0035 $ 15.00*
Turfgrass Management with Dr. Gwen Stahnke*** VT0063 $ 20.00*

-no marks are for pre-license
** worker protection training
*** recertification training
Pesticide Information Bulletins/Fact Sheets Publ. No. Price (ea)
Safe Disposal of Home Use Pesticides EB1386 $1.00*
Read Pesticide Labels EB1468 $1.00*
Analytical Labs and Consultants
Serving Agric. in PNW
EB1578 $1.50*
Using Pesticides Safely in the Home and Garden EB1636 $1.00*
Home-A-Syst: Improving Pesticide Storage
and Handling
EB1746-F2 $1.00*
Home-A-Syst: Pesticide Storage and Handling EB1746-W2 $1.00*
Herbicide Injury Symptoms
on Cherry, Grape, Alfalfa and Rose
EB1748 $12.00*
Protective Clothing for Pesticide Users MISC0107 $1.00*
First Aid for Pesticide Poisoning PNW0278 $0.50*
Calibrating and Using a Backpack Sprayer PNW0320 $1.00*
Chemigation in the Pacific Northwest PNW0360 $1.50*
Crop Protection Guide
for Tree Fruits in Washington
EB0419 $3.50*
Spray Guide for Grapes in Washington EB0762 $3.00*
Pest Management Guide
for Commercial Small Fruits
EB1491 $3.50*
Special Local Needs (Section 24c) EB1815 $1.00*
The IR-4 Project - Interregional
Research Project No.4
EB1816 $1.00
Emergency Exemptions (Section 18s) EB1817 $1.00
PNW Insect Control Handbook MISC0047 $19.50
PNW Plant Disease Handbook MISC0048 $19.50
PNW Weed Control Handbook MISC0049 $19.50

WSU Bulletin Office
P.O. Box 645912
Pullman, WA 99164-5912

For content information, contact:

Carol Ramsay

For information on ALL WSU publications and video, the Educational Materials catalog #C0506, is available at no charge from the WSU Bulletin Office.

Those with Internet access may also wish to direct their browsers to the Pesticide Licensing Guide: http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~ramsay@wsu.edu.

Return to Table of Contents

WSDA pesticide management --
high value with limited resources

The Washington State Department of Agriculture Pesticide Management Division is divided into three branches: Registration, Compliance and Program Development. The Registration Branch is responsible for maintaining 8,500 registrations, submitting about 25 emergency exemption requests to EPA, registering about 50 Section 24 (c) registrations, providing label interpretation and providing other registration support activities. Four full-time staff and one half-time individual are assigned to the Registration Branch. The Compliance Branch investigates complaints thought to be related to pesticides, provides inspections and technical assistance and monitors activities allowed by permits. There are 18 individuals in the Compliance Branch. The Program Development Branch is responsible for testing, licensing and continuing education of Washington's 25,000 pesticide license holders and the state groundwater management plan. The Program Development Branch staff consists of 11 full-time positions and one half-time position. Two individuals are responsible for the division's administration and three individuals are responsible for the waste pesticide disposal program.

While Washington state ranks fifth in the nation in overall pesticide usage and third in the nation in importance of minor crops, the size of the state pesticide regulatory program is relatively small. The average amount of support for state pesticide programs is $3.7 million (based on a survey of 31 states.) Washington's PMD budget is $2.4 million.

The following table ranks the eight leading states in terms of the value of minor use agriculture and provides a comparison of the relative size of the state pesticide regulatory programs. Value of minor crops is used because it is a primary indication of intensity and complexity of pesticide use patterns. While Washington ranks third in value of minor crops, it ranks sixth in size of its pesticide management program. Only Oregon ranks lower among the eight states.

State Minor Crops Sales
in $ billion
All Crop Sales
in $ billion
Pesticide Pgm
budget in $ million
California 9.65 11.75 46.0
Florida 4.13 4.2 8.07
Washington 1.72 2.45 2.4
N. Carolina 1.41 1.2 3.79
Oregon 0.98 1.45 1.45
Georgia 0.98 1.43 2.51
Texas 0.93 3.33 5.61
Michigan 0.85 1.67 4.79

Washington's Pesticide Management Division obtains 42% of its support from registration fees, 28% from license fees and 15% each from the state general fund and from EPA.

Return to Table of Contents

Costs of producing Red Delicious apples

Tim Smith, WSU County Agent, recently developed some approximate costs for producing a typical box of Red Delicious apples. These numbers are estimates, but they provide some interesting insight into the costs of apple production.

A box of Red Delicious apples cost an average of $14.92 per box to produce in 1995. Grower profit margin, at $3.79, was the greatest single contributor to cost. Pack and store labor, at $3.36, was the second greatest single production cost.

Other costs included machines and buildings ($2.47), labor ($1.73), the box, trays and liner ($1.22), storage and marketing ($1.01), sprays and fertilizers ($0.78), grower profit margin ($0.65), and repair, interest and overhead ($0.55).

The average cost per box of Red Delicious apples in 1994 was $11.78. The increase in the 1995 average cost was due to an increased grower profit margin as a result of low apple supplies in 1995. Grower profit margin in 1994 was an average $0.64 per box.

Return to Table of Contents

New fungicides tested
for botrytis bunch rot of grapes

When grapes are delivered to a winery, the winemaker usually inspects them to determine whether they should be accepted or rejected and, if accepted, what class of wine will be made from them. The highest quality fruit goes into premium varietal wines, while fruit of lower quality may go into bulk wines. The grower may receive less money for lower quality fruit.

One of the factors a winemaker considers when deciding the fate of a load of grapes is the amount of bunch rot present. Bunch rot is a disease usually caused by the fungus Botrytis cinerea. Other fungi and bacteria may infect the cluster after it is infected by botrytis. Botrytis produces an enzyme that makes the fruit soften and turn brown. If the rot is "clean", meaning that it contains only botrytis without secondary molds or bacteria, the grapes can be made into botrytized dessert wines that are very sweet. However, most fruit with bunch rot is undesirable for winemaking. If a grower suspects that more than 10% of the fruit in a vineyard has bunch rot, the grower sends crews to drop the rotted clusters on the ground. This process is expensive and may lead to significant yield loss.

Unregistered fungicides may not be used commercially in the state of Washington. Iprodione (Rovral) is the only registered fungicide used to control bunch rot on Washington wine grapes. Rovral is only used on 3% of state wine grape acres, and growers have expressed doubts as to its effectiveness. In 1996 the Washington Wine Advisory Board and the Northwest Center for Small Fruit Research funded a screening trial to determine the effectiveness of various new fungicides on botrytis bunch rot. The trial was conducted in a white riesling vineyard near Grandview, Washington.

Rovral at the maximum label rate (2 lb/A) was used as the industry standard treatment. A half rate of Rovral (1 lb/A) tank mixed with either a 1% or 2% solution of JMS Stylet Oil (a mineral oil made by JMS Flower Farms) was also tested. Vanguard (cyprodinil), made by Ciba Crop Protection, was tested alone and tank mixed with a low rate of Rovral (0.76 lb/A). Botran (DCNA) and a liquid formulation of DCNA, both made by Gowan, were also included, as was fluazinam, made by ISK Biosciences. The manufacturer of one test compound asked that the product name not be released; it will be referred to as Experimental Compound One (EC-1).

Treatments were applied at bloom, pre-bunch closure and veraison (the onset of ripening). After harvest, project personnel evaluated clusters from the plots for bunch rot severity (percent of each cluster covered by bunch rot). The results are shown in the table below. The tank mix of Vanguard + Rovral had significantly lower bunch rot severity than either Vanguard alone or Rovral at the maximum rate alone. JMS Stylet-Oil tank mixed with a half rate of Rovral showed no improvement in control relative to Rovral alone. For both EC-1 and fluazinam, the low rate of the product significantly outperformed the high rate.

If funding is available, a second botrytis bunch rot fungicide screening trial will be conducted in 1997.

Bunch rot severity
(average % of each cluster covered with bunch rot)

Vanguard + Rovral 12% a
EC-1 (low rate) 14% ab
Vanguard 14% bc
Fluazinam (low rate) 15% bc
EC-1 (high rate) 16% c
Rovral 16% c
JMS Stylet-Oil (high rate) + Rovral 19% d
GWN4481 20% d
Fluazinam (high rate) 20% d
JMS Stylet-Oil (low rate + Rovral) 21% d
Untreated 25% e
Botran 37% f

Commissioners review four proposals

The Washington State Commission on Pesticide Registration met November 20 in Federal Way at the Weyerhaeuser Technology Center to discuss the upcoming Request For Proposals and to review four proposals for funding. Funded proposals included the following: 1) Combination treatment of Parrotfeather with fluridone and triclopyr - submitted by Bill Wansley of Lewis County Noxious Weed Control Board ($24,915), 2) Weed control and burdock (gobo) - submitted by Alan Schreiber ($10,000), 3) Support for 1997 Western Region/Washington IR-4 Projects - submitted by the Western Region IR-4 coordinator ($35,000), and 4) Control of cone and seed insects within forest tree seed orchards of genetically improved Douglas-fir with the nicotine-based chemical imidacloprid - submitted by Dr. Charles J. Masters of Weyerhaeuser ($13,486).

The next scheduled meeting, during which commissioners will elect officers, is January 13, 1997, in Spokane. Location and time have not yet been determined.

Return to Table of Contents

1997 IR-4 projects

...Alan Schreiber

I recently obtained a copy of the IR-4 projects tentatively scheduled for initiation in 1997. It is important to remember that some of these may not proceed and that new projects may be added. It is remarkable that IR-4 is initiating at least 50 projects on 34 crops of interest to Washington (and the Pacific Northwest). Additional projects of interest to Oregon and Idaho, but not to Washington, may be initiated.

Each of these projects addresses some unmet critical crop protection need. Successful completion of these projects is still 3 to 4 years away, but these projects, once completed, will solve a wide array of many of agriculture's most pressing pest problems. In the more extreme cases, a Section 18 emergency exemption can be sought to provide relief in the interim before registrations.

A list of tentative 1997 Pacific Northwest IR-4 projects accompanies this article. An "R" by a chemical name indicates that the project is a reregistration effort; all other projects involve new registrations.

Crops with the most projects include asparagus, blueberry, raspberry, hops, and onion (dry bulb). Each has three projects.

There are at least three reasons for emphasizing these crops:

1) Much of the projects are funded by the commodity groups themselves.

2) Growers for the crops in most cases are organized, have prioritized pest control needs and have articulated them to the IR-4 Project.

3) They have serious multiple pest control needs.

A review of some of the projects highlights the importance of these IR-4 projects.

Lima Bean
With the loss of propargite (Comite) on lima beans, growers have no alternative for control of spider mites. Control of spider mites on lima beans is important in the Pacific Northwest, and a Section 18 based on this effort is likely.

Dry pea
Growers in Washington and Idaho obtained a crisis exemption to expand their use of dimethoate for aphid control from one application to three, raised the rate of application and shortened the pre-harvest interval. Data generated by IR-4 will be essential to obtaining an exemption in the future.

Scientists at several universities have demonstrated the effectiveness of spinosad (Success) in controlling immature Colorado potato beetle with minimal impact on beneficials. Obtaining use of this chemical will be important for the development of future potato Integrated Pest Management programs.

Return to Table of Contents

Tentative 1997 IR-4 projects

apple			pendimethalin (Prowl)
asparagus		clethodim (Select), pirimicarb (Pirimor),
spinosad (Success) barley zinc phosphide bean (dry) glyphosate (Roundup), imidacloprid (Provado) blueberry dimethoate, glufosinate (Rely),
imidacloprid (Provado) caneberry (raspberry) chlorfenapyr (Alert), R-dicofol (Kelthane),
oxyfluorfen (Goal) caneberry (blackberry) R-dicofol (Kelthane) carrot metolachlor cherry pendimethalin (Prowl), tebuconazole (Folicur) clover (seed) R-MCPA cranberry fosetyl-al (Aliette), imidacloprid (Provado) dill ethalfluralin (Sonalan) garlic glyphosate (Roundup) ginseng DCPA (Dacthal) greens (mustard) clethodim (Select) hops R-endothall (Accelerate), pirimicarb (Pirimor),
tebuconazole (Folicur) lentil benomyl (Benlate) lettuce (head and leaf) pirimicarb (Pirimor) lettuce (leaf) imazethapyr (Pursuit) lettuce (head) imazethapyr (Pursuit) lima bean acifluorfen (Blazer), bifenthrin (Brigade) mint clomazone (Command) onion (dry bulb) bentazon (Basagran), chlorfenapyr (Alert),
dimethenamid (Frontier) pea (edible podded) dimethoate pea (dry) dimethoate pea imidacloprid (Provado) peach pendimethalin (Prowl), tebuconazole (Folicur) pear diflubenzuron (Dimilin) pepper(bell and non-bell) ethoprop (Mocap) pepper (bell) chorothalonil (Bravo) plum pendimethalin (Prowl), tebuconazole (Folicur) potato spinosad (Success) rhubarb oxyfluorfen (Goal) strawberry R-cryolite (Kryocide, Prokil)

Return to Table of Contents

Preparation and use of fresh,
unheated apple cider

Several outbreaks of illness from E. coli O157:H7 have been caused by drinking unpasteurized apple cider.

Apples that fall from trees in the orchard and come in contact with cow,sheep or deer manure on the ground are the most likely source of E. coli O157:H7 contamination.

Any time cider is made from fresh apples, there is a risk that E. colior other bacteria will be in the finished product. The most effective way to kill the bacteria is to pasteurize the cider or juice by heating it. Research at Cornell University has established that heating cider to 160O F for 0.1 minute is sufficient to kill E. coli 0157:H7. Pasteurization is particularly important when using apples that have dropped from the trees.

Washington State University suggests the following cautions regarding the making of apple cider:

Making fresh,
unpasteurized apple cider:

(The following steps will reduce, but not completely eliminate, the risk of E. coli O157:H7 contamination from fresh cider.)

  1. Use apples that are picked directly from trees. Do not use any apples that have touched the ground.
  2. Wash the apples thoroughly with water containing a small amount of soap or detergent. Rinse well.
  3. For additional safety, the apples can be soaked for one minute in a solution containing 1 to 2 tablespoons chlorine bleach per gallon of water. After the soak, rinse the apples to remove the bleach taste.
  4. Squeeze the apples to make cider.
  5. Keep the cider refrigerated.

Making apple juice
from apples that have fallen on the ground:

  1. Wash the apples thoroughly with water.
  2. Squeeze the apples to make juice.
  3. Pasteurize the apple juice by heating to at least 160OF to kill any harmful bacteria (such as E. coli O157:H7) that may have been on the apples.
  4. Keep the cider refrigerated.

Prepared by Val Hillers, Ph.D.,
Washington State University
Extension Food Specialist
and Richard H. Dougherty, Ph.D., Washington State University
Extension Food Science Specialist

November 1996

Return to Table of Contents

Officially Unofficial

...Alan Schreiber

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

From The Packer, Nov. 4, 1996, Reprinted by permission from The Packer.

Return to Table of Contents

Federal Issues


The following actions by EPA occurred since the last report (October 1996).

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

EPA is correcting its rule, published on July 31, 1996, that established tolerances for residues on the insecticide/miticide fenpropathrin, a synthetic pyrethroid, in or on the raw agricultural commodities (RACs) peanuts and peanut hay, and increases tolerances in meat, meat byproduct and fat of cattle, goats, hogs, horses and sheep and poultry; eggs; and milkfat.
Chemical* Tolerance
(I) Fenpropathrin 1.0 (a) cattle, sheep; fat
0.1 (a) sheep: mbyp, meat

(a) Time limited tolerance expires Nov. 15th, 1997.

Reregistration Notifications

Ferbam (Carbamate, Fermate) Reregistration Status

UCB Chemicals Corporation, the basic producer of ferbam, plans to support the registration of ferbam for several uses during the reregistration process. IR-4 is assisting in the maintenance of several of these uses.

Several currently registered uses are not being supported and are expected to be canceled. Those registered uses supported by the basic producer, UCB, and those unsupported are listed here:

Registered uses supported by UCB that are expected to be reregistered:
apples, *blackberries (SLN in Oregon and Washington), *cherries, conifers (forest), *cranberries, *dewberries (SLN in Oregon and Washington), grapefruit, *grapes, lemons, limes, *loganberries (SLN in Oregon and Washington), mangoes (SLN in Florida), nectarines, oranges, ornamentals (herbaceous and shrubs), peaches, pears, *raspberries (SLN in Oregon and Washington), tangelos, tangerines, tobacco, and *youngberries (SLN in Oregon and Washington).

* IR-4 is providing support for these registered uses.

Registered uses unsupported and expected to be cancelled:
apricots, beans, cabbage, lettuce, and tomatoes.

For additional information contact: Mr. Dennis W. Long, UCB Chemicals Corporation,
Phone 770-801-3212, Fax 770-801-3238

Methomyl (Lannate) Reregistration Status

DuPont Ag Products plans to support all of the registered uses of methomyl during the reregistration process expected to be completed by the end of 1997. DuPont had previously cancelled uses on watercress, woodlots, clover, turnips (except greens), and ornamentals in the years 1992-1994. During that time DuPont also reduced use rates and/or total number of applications on apples, citrus, and pears.

The product label for 1997 remains nearly the same as for 1996. Additional requirements have been added to the Personal Protective Equipment section for cleaners and repairers of application equipment, and information has been added to remind users not to open, cut or tear the inner water soluble bag. The rate adjustments and additional label language have been added in response to concerns about worker exposure.

Registered uses supported by DuPont that are expected to be reregistered:
alfalfa, anise, apples, asparagus, avocados, barley, beans, beets, bermudagrass, pastures, blueberries, broccoli, broccoli raab (SLN in California), Brussels sprouts, cabbage, carrots, cauliflower, celery, *chicory, Chinese broccoli (SLN in California), Chinese cabbage, collards, corn (field, pop, sweet), cotton, cucumbers, dandelions, eggplants, endive (escarole), fennel, garlic, grapes, grapefruit, horseradish, kale, lemons, lentils, lettuce, livestock premises (nonfood fly bait use of technical product), melons, mint, mustard greens, nectarines (SLN in Arizona, California, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and West Virginia), oats, onions, oranges, parsley, peaches, peanuts, pears, peas, pecans, peppers, pomegranates, potatoes, pumpkins (SLN in California), radishes (SLN in California and Florida), rye, sorghum, soybeans, spinach, squash (summer), strawberries, sugar beets, sweet potatoes (SLN in California), Swiss chard, tangelos, tangerines, tobacco, tomatoes, turnip greens, turf, and wheat.

* IR-4 is providing support for this registered use.

Registered uses unsupported and expected to be cancelled: none

For additional information contact: Dr. Charles Baer, DuPont Agricultural Products, Phone: 302-992-6260, Fax: 302-992-6470, E-mail: Baercs@a1.csag1.umc.dupont.com

Withdrawal of Proposed and Final Revocations in Accordance With FQPA

The USEPA is withdrawing the proposed revocations and final rules revoking several pesticide residue tolerances in processed food or animal feed. This is in accordance with provisions of the recently enacted Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA). The act replaces the Delaney clause with a single health-based standard requiring a "reasonable certainty of no harm" for pesticide residues in all types of food.

The USEPA is also withdrawing final and proposed revocations based on its interpretation of which foods are "ready-to-eat," because the new law does not require such a determination. Finally, the USEPA is also withdrawing proposed rules revoking food tolerances that were based on the premise, known as the "coordination policy," that if a processed food tolerance were required but could not be established due to the Delaney clause, the corresponding raw food tolerance should not be allowed.

The following withdrawn tolerance revocations have not yet taken effect and will remain lawful. This should not be interpreted as a safety finding by the USEPA. The agency will systematically review the safety of all tolerances within the next 10 years, as required under the FQPA. Tolerance revocations that have already taken effect (not listed here) will not be reinstated unless new petitions are submitted to the USEPA that demonstrate the tolerances meet the standards of the FQPA.

Tolerances for which revocations are being withdrawn and the original reasons for proposed or final revocation are listed here:

Commodity Pesticide Original Reason
for Revocation
Apples dicofol coordination pol. proposed 408
Apples propargite coordination pol. proposed 408
Barley mancozeb coordination pol. proposed 408
Citrus benomyl coordination pol. proposed 408
Citrus oil imazalil not ready-to-eat final 409
Citrus pulp, dried benomyl not ready-to-eat proposed 409
Citrus pulp, dried imazalil not ready-to-eat proposed 409
Cocoa propylene oxide Delaney clause final 409
Cottonseed acephate coordination pol. proposed 408
Cottonseed dimethipin coordination pol. proposed 408
Cottonseed oxyfluorfen coordination pol. proposed 408
Cottonseed thiodicarb coordination pol. proposed 408
Cottonseed hulls acephate not ready-to-eat proposed 409
Feed of beef, dairy
cattle, and horses
tetrachlorvinphos Delaney clause proposed 409
Figs propargite coordination pol. proposed 408
Figs, dried propargite Delaney clause final 409
Food handling
acephate Delaney clause final 409
Foods, processed,
bagged and packaged
dichlorvos (DDVP) Delaney clause final 409
Ginseng, dried iprodione Delaney clause final 409
Grapes captan coordination pol. proposed 408
Grapes dicofol coordination pol. proposed 408
Grapes mancozeb coordination pol. proposed 408
Grapes maneb coordination pol. proposed 408
Grapes norflurazon coordination pol. proposed 408
Grapes propargite coordination pol. proposed 408
Grapes triadimefon coordination pol. proposed 408
Gums propylene oxide Delaney clause final 409
Nutmeats, processed
(except peanuts)
propylene oxide Delaney clause final 409
Oats mancozeb coordination pol. proposed 408
Oat bran mancozeb Delaney clause final 409
Peanuts iprodione coordination pol. proposed 408
Peppermint oxyfluorfen coordination pol. proposed 408
Pineapples carbaryl coordination pol. proposed 408
Pineapples triadimefon coordination pol. proposed 408
Plums dicofol coordination pol. proposed 408
Plums propargite coordination pol. proposed 408
Raisins benomyl Delaney clause final 409
Raisins iprodione Delaney clause final 409
Rice benomyl coordination pol. proposed 408
Rice iprodione coordination pol. proposed 408
Rice bran iprodione not ready-to-eat proposed 409
Rice hulls benomyl not ready-to-eat proposed 409
Rice hulls iprodione not ready-to-eat proposed 409
Rye mancozeb coordination pol. proposed 408
Soybeans diflubenzuron coordination pol. proposed 408
Soybeans oxyfluorfen coordination pol. proposed 408
Soybeans thiodicarb coordination pol. proposed 408
Soybean hulls diflubenzuron not ready-to-eat proposed 409
Soybean hulls thiodicarb not ready-to-eat proposed 409
Spearmint oxyfluorfen coordination pol. proposed 408
Spices, ground ethylene oxide Delaney clause final 409
Spices, processed propylene oxide Delaney clause final 409
Spices, whole
(direct treatment)
ethylene oxide coordination pol. proposed 408
Sugarcane simazine coordination pol. proposed 408
Sugarcane molasses simazine Delaney clause proposed 409
Sunflower seed alachlor coordination pol. proposed 408
Tea, dried dicofol Delaney clause final 409
Tea, dried propargite Delaney clause final 409
Tomatoes captan coordination pol. proposed 408
Tomatoes dicofol coordination pol. proposed 408
Tomatoes lindane coordination pol. proposed 408
Tomatoes PCNB coordination pol. proposed 408
Tomatoes permethrin coordination pol. proposed 408
Tomato products benomyl Delaney clause final 409
Wheat mancozeb coordination pol. proposed 408
Wheat methomyl coordination pol. proposed 408
Wheat triadimefon coordination pol. proposed 408
Wheat frac., milled mancozeb not ready-to-eat proposed 409
Wheat frac., milled triadimefon Delaney clause final 409
* Proposed or final Section 408 (raw) or 409 (processed) tolerances.

For additional information contact: Ms. Niloufar Nazmi-Glosson, EPA, Special Review Branch, Phone 703-308-8028, Fax 703-308-804, nazmi-glosson.niloufar@epamail.epa.gov

The source of 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)

Bacticide for use as a fruit dip, SLN number WA960035, has been voluntarily 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

If you would like to include a piece in a future issue of the Agrichemical and Environmental News, please contact Alan Schreiber. To subscribe to the newsletter, please contact Eric Bechtel.

Contributions, comments and subscription inquiries may be directed to: Food and Environmental Quality Laboratory, Washington State University, 100 Sprout Road, Richland, WA 99352-1643, ph: 509-372-7378, fax: 509-372-7460, E-mail: ebechtel@beta.tricity.wsu.edu.

Return to Table of Contents

This page has been accessed times since November 27, 1996.