SPRAY DRIFT AND ITS MITIGATION

The International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC)

ผ่านทาง| IUPAC.

John Unsworth
8th April 2010

When forced under pressure through sprayer nozzles liquids emerge as thin elongated sheets with edge instabilities that break up into small aerosols or particles having nearly a thousand fold range in spherical diameters. Owing to gravitational forces and the viscosity of air, the rate of fall to ground can be predicted by Stokes Law and is proportional to the radius of the particles. The rate of fall before a particle hits the ground (or conversely how long a particle remains in air before it falls a given distance) is modified by entrainment in a mobile air mass. Rate of fall of a spray particle will also be influenced by the rate of evaporation of the liquid constituting the aerosol. The longer the aerosol remains in air before falling to ground (or alternatively striking an object above ground) the greater the opportunity to be carried away from its intended target (e.g., crop canopy). In general, all size classes of spray particles are capable of movement off-target, but the smallest particles would move the farthest before depositing on the ground. Drift has been historically considered to be the movement of pesticide residues via air masses during and after application. Post application movement of pesticide residues (i.e., after deposition on plants or soil) via volatilization can be classified as secondary or indirect drift. A comprehensive review of spray drift and its mitigation was published in 2005 (Felsot 2005)¹ and is currently the subject of an IUPAC funded project². A publication based on this project should be available in 2010.

 

Although drift has a negative connotation because of its usual association with off-target (or out of field) impacts, spray drift within, for example, the canopy during application can increase the potentially bioavailable material on foliage. On the other hand, off-target or out-of-field drift during application may produce a high concentration of residues that potentially have an immediate or acute effect on nontarget organisms.

 

Highly concentrated agrochemical residues generated during spray application can move (drift) beyond target foliage (or soil when a pre-emergent herbicide or fumigant is used) to nontarget receptors including water, plants and animals. Nontarget receptors may be acutely exposed and therefore face the greatest risk of adverse effects during and immediately after spray application. In addition to movement of agrochemical residues in turbulent air masses downwind of application, residues can also become concentrated in inversions or stable air masses and be transported long distances. Similarly, agrochemicals can volatilize from plant and soil surfaces in comparatively high concentrations for several days after application. These secondary drift residues also pose a hazard to nearby nontarget receptors. Factors affecting spray drift include droplet size, which can be modified by the nozzle type, nozzle spray angle and nozzle spacing, certain formulation adjuvants, wind direction, wind speed, air stability, relative humidity, temperature and height of released spray relative to the crop canopy^3,4.

In the US the assessment of spray drift has been studied in detail by the Spray Drift Task Force which was set up in 1990⁵ by 38 agricultural chemical companies to generate data to fulfil US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) spray drift data requirements. This Task Force has developed an evaluation tool to estimate the environmental exposure from spray drift at time of application⁶. In Europe drift is incorporated into the FOCUS model which predicts the concentration of pesticides in surface water due to run-off, erosion and drift⁷.

The US Spray Drift Task Force has issued several publications dealing with aerial application¹², ground hydraulic application¹³, airblast application in orchards¹⁴ and chemigation¹⁵ and their relationship to spray drift. In Germany the Ganzelmeier Tables have been developed using different types of sprayers and nozzles so that applicators can choose equipment that will minimise drift^16,17. In the UK a government website is available which allows applicators to examine the drift reduction ratings of many types of equipment¹⁸. In the EU there is a move to introduce a “Standardised Procedure for the Inspection of Sprayers in Europe” –SPISE¹⁹

References

1. A.S. Felsot, Evaluation and Mitigation of Spray Drift, Proc. International Workshop on Crop Protection Chemistry in Latin America; Harmonized Approaches for Environmental Assessment and Regulation, 14-17 February, 2005, San Jose, Costa Rica
   http://feql.wsu.edu/esrp531/Fall05/FelsotCostaRicaDrift.pdf
2. International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry, Agrochemical Spray Drift: Assessment and Mitigation, Project 2001-023-1-600
   http://www.iupac.org/objID/Institution/2001-023-1-600
3. A.G. Dexter, Herbicide Spray Drift, A-657 (Revised), North Dakota State University and the University of Minnesota, August 1993
   http://www.ag.ndsu.edu/pubs/plantsci/weeds/a657w.htm
4. R.N. Klein, L. Schulze and C.L. Ogg, Spray Drift of Pesticides, NebGuide G1733,University of Nebraska-Lincoln Extension, September 2007
   http://www.ianrpubs.unl.edu/epublic/live/g1773/build/g1773.pdf
5. US Environmental Protection Agency, Pesticide Registration (PR) Notice 90-3: Announcing the Formation of an Industry-Wide Spray Drift Task Force, April 6, 1990
   http://www.epa.gov/opppmsd1/PR_Notices/pr90-3.htm
6. US Spray Drift task force, AgDRIFT^® 2.0, January 2002http://www.agdrift.com/AgDRIFt2/DownloadAgDrift2_0.htm
   http://www.agdrift.com/AgDRIFt2/DownloadAgDrift2_0.htm
7. FOrum for Co-ordination of Pesticide Fate Models and their Use (FOCUS), Overview of FOCUS Surface Water
   http://viso.jrc.it/focus/sw/index.html
8. US Spray Drift Task Force, A Summary of Tank Mix and Nozzle Effects on Droplet Size, 2001
   http://www.agdrift.com/PDF_FILES/Tankmix.pdf
9. Reducing Spray Drift, Bulletin 816-00,  The Ohio State University, 2000
   http://ohioline.osu.edu/b816/b816_21.html
10. J.C. van de Zande, J.M.G.P. Michielsen, H. Stallinga, M. Wenneker & B. Heijne, Hedgerow Filtration and Barrier Vegetation, International Conference on Pesticide Application for Drift Management, Waikoloa, Hawaii, October 2004
    http://pep.wsu.edu/drift04/pdf/proceedings/pg163-177_Zande.pdf
11. A.J. Hewitt, Drift Filtration By Natural and Artificial Collectors: A Literature Review, Stewart Agricultural Research Services, Inc., October, 2001
    http://www.agdrift.com/PDF_FILES/drift%20filtration.PDF
12. US Spray Drift Task Force, A Summary of Aerial Application Studies, 1997
    http://www.agdrift.com/PDF_FILES/Aerial.pdf
13. US Spray Drift Task Force, A Summary of Ground Application Studies, 1997
    http://www.agdrift.com/PDF_FILES/Ground.pdf
14. US Spray Drift Task Force, A Summary of Airblast Application Studies, 1997
    http://www.agdrift.com/PDF_FILES/Airblast.pdf
15. US Spray Drift Task Force, A Summary of Chemigation Application Studies, 1997
    http://www.agdrift.com/PDF_FILES/Chem.pdf
16. D. Rautmann, Drift reducing Sprayers – Testing and Listing in Germany. ASAE Annual International Meeting 27-30 July, 2003, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA.
    http://asae.frymulti.com/abstract.asp?aid=13976&t=2
17. H. Ganzelmeier,  The Prospect Of European Harmonisation – Plant Protection Equipment Under Test,  Journal of Central European Agriculture (2002) 3 (4) 301-312
    http://www.agr.hr/jcea/issues/jcea3-4/pdf/jcea34-5.pdf
18. UK Pesticides Safety Directorate, Officially Recognised LERAP Low Drift Rating Spray Equipment
    https://secure.pesticides.gov.uk/SprayEquipment/equipmentsearch.asp
19. Standardised Procedure for the Inspection of Sprayers in Europe <SPISE>
    http://spise.jki.bund.de/

Last modified April 8^th 2010

 

SAFE USE OF PESTICIDES

The International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC)

ผ่านทาง| IUPAC.

John Unsworth
8th April 2010

Pesticides can be useful tools that provide significant benefits to society providing that they are used in a safe and responsible manner.  Using pesticides incorrectly can put people and the environment at risk. If you use a pesticide when you don’t need to, you will be wasting money and increasing the possibility of pests becoming resistant. In some cases you might also damage the treated area. A pest, weed or disease being present does not justify taking action against it. For these reasons, you should take care when deciding whether or not to use a pesticide¹. It is important to:

•          Identify the specific weed, disease or pest affecting the area you are concerned about.

•          Ask yourself whether you need to use a pesticide or whether there is another method of control or combination of methods you could use.

•          Consider the financial loss, damage or visual effect caused by the pest, weed or disease and whether this outweighs the cost of using the pesticide.

•          Consider whether the doses or concentrations of pesticides being used might damage the area being treated or the next crop planted there.

•          Ask yourself whether you can make these decisions yourself or whether you need someone to help.

•          If you decide to use a pesticide, plan how to use it properly. Is it possible to reduce the amount you use or the area you apply it to?

The most important source of information about a pesticide is the label. Manufacturers are required to provide information regarding what the pesticide is to be used for, how it can be used, how toxic it is, how to mix it, rate of application, precautions to take, re-entry times, kind of clothing and personal protective equipment needed, what the antidote is (if there is one), and the symptoms of poisoning if exposed to the pesticide. Other information about the use, storage, handling, or disposal of the pesticide may also be found on the label. Always read the label before purchasing, mixing, and applying a pesticide². The importance of reading and following all label directions cannot be over emphasised³.

The key points to keep in mind are:

•          Be sure that the pesticide is registered for the particular use.

•          Be sure that the application conditions, timing, site harvest interval etc. are complied with.

•          Avoid treatment if weather conditions are not suitable e.g. windy conditions.

•          Determine if any personal protective equipment (PPE) e.g. gloves, goggles etc., are required.

•          Have the correct equipment, properly calibrated where necessary, for the application.

•          Avoid contamination of yourself and others in the vicinity of application.

•          Avoid contamination of water ways.

•          Protect nearby sensitive plants if necessary.

Proper training in the handling and application of pesticides is important, especially for professional applicators.  In many countries it is a legal requirement that applicators hold a certificate to show that they have successfully completed a recognised training course.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has produced several leaflets on the safe use of pesticides for use pesticides in and around their homes⁴.  In addition, they have issued a Worker Protection Standard^5,6 which is designed to reduce the risks of illness or injury resulting from workers’ and handlers’ occupational exposures to pesticides used in the production of agricultural plants on farms or in nurseries, greenhouses, and forests and also from the accidental exposure of workers and other persons to such pesticides. It also gives workplace practices designed to reduce or eliminate exposure to pesticides and establishes procedures for responding to exposure-related emergencies.

In Australia useful documents have been produced by the South Australian government dealing with the responsible use of pesticides⁷ and the safe and effective use of pesticides for commercial spray operators⁸.  The safe use of pesticides is also dealt with in the FAO International code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides⁹.

CropLife International has also produced a useful Guideline – Guidelines for the Safe and Effective Use of Crop Protection Products – which supports in-field training programmes for farmers, trainers and other agricultural workers using crop protection products, and which bring together advice and recommendations in a simplified form¹⁰. Other relevant guidelines published by CropLife International concern safe warehousing¹¹, safe transportation¹² and advice on personal protection when using pesticides in hot climates¹³.

 

References

1.       Pesticides – Code of Conduct for Using Plant Protection Products, DEFRA, UK, January 2006

http://www.pesticides.gov.uk/uploadedfiles/Web_Assets/PSD/Code_of_Practice_for_using_Plant_Protection_Products_-_Complete%20Code.pdf

2.       Safe Use, Storage and Disposal of Pesticides, M. Steinwachs, University of Missouri Extension, WM6000, June 2007

http://extension.missouri.edu/publications/DisplayPub.aspx?P=WM6000

3.       Pesticide Safe Use Checklist, A.E. Brown, Maryland Co-operative Extension, University of Maryland, Pesticide Information Leaflet No. 11, Revised October 2003

http://www.entmclasses.umd.edu/peap/leaflets/PIL11.pdf

4. US Environmental Protection Agency, Using Pesticides Safely, Last updated March 14^th 2008 http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/health/safely.htm

5. US Environmental Protection Agency, Code of Federal Regulations, CFR Part 170, Worker Protection Standard, Last updated September 24^th, 2007

http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/safety/workers/PART170.htm

6. US Environmental Protection Agency, Worker Protection Standard (WPS), Quick reference Guide, 2005 Update

http://www.nh.gov/agric/divisions/pesticide_control/documents/HTCQuickRefGuidecolorEPAver12-30-05.pdf

7.       Environment Protection Authority, South Australia, EPA Guidelines for Responsible Pesticide Use, ISBN 1 92112505 5, December 2005

http://www.epa.sa.gov.au/xstd_files/Water/Guideline/guide_pesticides.pdf

8.       Environment Protection Authority, South Australia, Safe and Effective Pesticide Use, A Handbook for Commercial Spray Operators

http://www.epa.sa.gov.au/xstd_files/Water/Other/pesticide_commercial.pdf

9. International code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides (Revised Version), Food and Agriculture Organisation, Rome, 2002

http://www.fao.org/WAICENT/FAOINFO/AGRICULT/AGP/AGPP/Pesticid/Code/Download/code.pdf

10.   CropLife International, Brussels, Guidelines for the Safe and Effective Use of Crop Protection Products

http://www.croplife.org/files/documentspublished/1/en-us/PUB-GL/279_PUB-GL_2006_07_25_Guidelines_for_the_safe_and_effective_use_of_crop_protection_products.pdf

11.   CropLife International, Brussels, Guidelines for the Safe Warehousing of Crop Protection Products

http://www.croplifeafrica.org/uploads/File/forms/resource_center/guidelines/Guidelines%20for%20the%20safe%20warehousing%20of%20cropprotection%20produc.pdf

12.   CropLife International, Brussels, Guidelines for the Safe Transportation of Crop Protection Products

http://www.croplife.org/files/documentspublished/1/en-us/PUB-GL/274_PUB-GL_2006_07_25_Guidelines_for_the_safe_transport_of_crop_protection_products.pdf

13.   CropLife International, Brussels, Guidelines for Personal Protection when Using Crop Protection Products in Hot Climates

http://www.croplife.org/files/documentspublished/1/en-us/PUB-GL/278_PUB-GL_2005_02_14_Guidelines_for_personal_protection_when_using_crop_protection_products_in_hot_climates.pdf

Last modified April 8^th 2010

 

PRIOR INFORMED CONSENT

The International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC)

ผ่านทาง| IUPAC.

John Unsworth
7th April 2010

The dramatic growth in chemical production and trade during the past three decades has raised concerns about the potential risks posed by hazardous chemicals and pesticides. Countries lacking adequate infrastructure to monitor the import and use of these chemicals are particularly vulnerable.

In response to these concerns, UNEP and FAO started developing and promoting voluntary information exchange programmes in the mid-1980s. FAO launched its International Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides in 1985 and UNEP established the London Guidelines for the Exchange of Information on Chemicals in International Trade in 1987. In 1989, the two organisations jointly introduced the voluntary Prior Informed Consent (PIC) procedure into these two instruments.
Together, these instruments helped to ensure that governments had the necessary information to enable them to assess the risks of hazardous chemicals and to take informed decisions on their future import.

Seeing the need for mandatory controls, officials attending the 1992 Rio Earth Summit adopted Chapter 19 of Agenda 21, which called for a legally binding instrument on the PIC procedure by the year 2000. Consequently, the FAO Council (in 1994) and the UNEP Governing Council (in 1995) mandated their Executive Heads to launch negotiations. Talks started in March 1996 and concluded in March 1998 with the finalisation of the text of the Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals in International Trade.
The Rotterdam Convention was adopted at the Diplomatic Conference held in Rotterdam on 10 September 1998 and entered into force on 24 February 2004 when it became binding for its Parties
Between the adoption of the Convention and its entry into force, it has been operated on a voluntary basis as the interim Prior Informed Consent (PIC) procedure whose purpose was to continue the original PIC procedure and to prepare for effective operation of the Convention upon its entry into force. During the interim period, over 170 countries have designated some 265 national authorities (DNAs) to act on their behalf in the performance of the administrative functions required by the Convention.

The Rotterdam Convention is a multilateral environmental agreement designed to promote shared responsibility and co-operative efforts among Parties in the international trade of certain hazardous chemicals. Its aim is to protect human health and the environment from potential harm and to contribute to environmentally sound use of hazardous chemicals by facilitating information exchange about their characteristics, providing a national decision-making process on their import and export and disseminating these decisions to Parties.

In other words, the Convention enables the world to monitor and control the trade in certain hazardous chemicals.

It is not a recommendation to ban the global trade or use of specific chemicals it is rather an instrument to provide importing Parties with the power to make informed decisions on which of these chemicals they want to receive and to exclude those they cannot manage safely.

If trade takes place requirements for labelling and provision of information on potential health and environmental effects will promote the safe use of these chemicals.

The PIC procedure applies to: (a) Banned or severely restricted chemicals; and (b) Severely hazardous pesticide formulations. Article 2 of the Convention has given the following definitions:

(a) “Chemical” means a substance whether by itself or in a mixture or preparation and whether manufactured or obtained from nature, but does not include any living organism. It consists of the following categories: pesticide (including severely hazardous pesticide formulations) and industrial;

(b) “Banned chemical” means a chemical all uses of which within one or more categories have been prohibited by final regulatory action, in order to protect human health or the environment. It includes a chemical that has been refused approval for first-time use or has been withdrawn by industry either from the domestic market or from further consideration in the domestic approval process and where there is clear evidence that such action has been taken in order to protect human health or the environment;

(c) “Severely restricted chemical” means a chemical virtually all use of which within one or more categories has been prohibited by final regulatory action in order to protect human health or the environment, but for which certain specific uses remain allowed. It includes a chemical that has, for virtually all use, been refused for approval or been withdrawn by industry either from the domestic market or from further consideration in the domestic approval process, and where there is clear evidence that such action has been taken in order to protect human health or the environment;

(d) “Severely hazardous pesticide formulation” means a chemical formulated for pesticidal use that produces severe health or environmental effects observable within a short period of time after single or multiple exposure, under conditions of use.

There are a total of 41 chemicals currently subject to the PIC procedure. Among these chemicals are 24 pesticides, 11 industrial chemicals and 6 severely hazardous pesticide formulations.

The pesticides subject to the PIC procedure are:

2,4,5-T, aldrin, binapacryl, captafol, chlordane, chlordimeform, chlorobenzilate, DDT, dieldrin, DNOC, dinoseb, EDB, ethylene dichloride, ethylene oxide, fluoroacetamide, HCH, heptachlor, hexachlorobenzene, mercury, monocrotphos, parathion, pentachlorophenol and toxaphene.

Plus some formulations of:

Benomyl, carbofuran, thiram, monocrotophos, methamidophos, phosphamidon, methyl parathion and parathion.

Full details of the PIC procedure, the chemicals involved and their Decision Guidance Documents (DGDs) can be found on the PIC web site^1,2.

REFERENCES

1. The Rotterdam Convention

http://www.pic.int

2.  Information on Chemicals Subject to the PIC Procedure

http://www.pic.int/en/Table7.htm

Last modified 7^th April 2010

 

PESTICIDES AND MINOR CROPS

The International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC)

ผ่านทาง| IUPAC.

D. Wauchope
April 7th 2010

Pesticides and Minor Crops

In pesticide terminology there are three ways in which the term “minor crop” is used.

First, a crop may be called “minor” if such small amounts are grown it will be a minor market for pesticides. The consequence of this is that pesticide producers will have little incentive to do the expensive research and development work needed for registration of pesticides for use on the crop, and the crop will have limited pest protection options.

Second, a crop may be such a minor crop economically in a given region that it will not receive the attention from exporting or importing governments needed to permit it in trade. Specifically, a lack of action for food safety certification, especially for pesticide residues, is often the hindrance.

Third, a crop may be eaten in such small amounts that any residues present from pesticide use may be expected to contribute minor or negligible amounts to human exposure. An example is spices. These “very minor crops” typically suffer from both of the above issues and efforts are being made to recognize their unique situation.

These three minor crop issues are consequences of the way pesticides are developed by the industry and subsequently regulated by national or regional agencies.  In general, for a pesticide to be legally used on a crop, an experiment must be made to determine how much pesticide “residue” will occur in the resulting food. These studies are a combination of field experiments, in which the chemical is applied in the manner it is proposed to be used in the crop, followed by laboratory analysis of the food for the pesticide. These data are then combined with data on how much of the food is consumed by individuals to determine how much pesticide will be ingested, and then these amounts are compared with the toxicity of the pesticide to humans.  The studies to determine residue amounts alone are very expensive: typically a single study in a single crop location can cost $US 100,000 and multiple locations are often required.  Thus the industry will prioritize such studies to crops which are large markets and likely to justify such an investment.  Similarly, governments and their regulators will give the same crops their highest priority since pesticide usage on these crops has the greatest potential environmental and food safety impact.

But crops are never “minor” to those who produce them and often are far from minor economically to a given region or specific country.  Thus, a wide variety of “third party” (meaning non-manufacturer) initiatives have been undertaken to obtain legal uses of pesticides for minor crops, and approvals for allowed residue levels in foods for commerce. Examples include:

Innovative measures for using research data from one crop for a similar crop, e.g., grouping pome fruits together and assuming that residues of a pesticide in apples are likely to be similar to those observed in cherries.

Making simple but conservative assumptions for residues in very minor crops; even large overestimated residues in spices, for example will contribute very small amounts to pesticide intake.

Using funds from sources such as grower groups or taxes to fund the field and laboratory investigations needed to clear specific used of pesticides on minor crops.

Currently, minor crops are receiving a lot of international attention. The lack of crop protection options and regulatory neglect causes hardships for (often small and marginalized) producers.  These problems are a source of continuous trade conflicts. These obstacles can be overcome: there are many success stories.  But a global effort must be encouraged to recognize the importance of these crops for a healthy, diverse human diet.

Useful sources of information are:

IR-4, the US publicly-funded minor use registration project

http://www.ir4.rutgers.edu/

The Minor Use Global Summit Conference, Rome, December 2007

http://www.fao.org/agriculture/crops/core-themes/theme/pests/pm/jmpr/gmus/en/

Global Minor Use information Portal

http://ir4.rutgers.edu/GMUS/GMUSportal.htm

European Initiative on Minor Uses

http://www.pesticides.gov.uk/uploadedfiles/Web_Assets/PSD/Minor_uses_reportdec02.pdf

US Environmental Protection Agency, Pesticides, New Approaches to Minor Uses, April 2010

http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/minoruse/

UK Minor Uses Network

http://www.pesticides.gov.uk/uploadedfiles/Web_Assets/PSD/MUN_UK_30apr04_Annex.pdf

European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization (EPPO), Minor Uses of Plant Protection Products

http://www.eppo.org/PPPRODUCTS/minor_uses/minor_uses.htm

OECD, OECD Series on Pesticides, Number 38, Survey of the Pesticide Risk Reduction Steering Group on

Minor Uses of Pesticides

http://www.olis.oecd.org/olis/2007doc.nsf/LinkTo/NT00002B22/$FILE/JT03228678.PDF

OECD, OECD Guidance Document On Defining Minor Uses Of Pesticides, ENV/JM/MONO(2009)39, 2009

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/21/49/44033414.pdf

Original Author: R. Don Wauchope

Last modified April 7^th 2010

 

PESTICIDE SPECIFICATIONS

The International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC)

ผ่านทาง| IUPAC.

John Unsworth 7th April 2010  Since 1971 the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO) has developed and published specifications for pesticides and their related formulations, as well an accompanying manual on the development of these specifications. The purpose of these publications is to provide: · a normal standard of quality for the buying and selling of pesticides · assistance in the official approval and acceptance of pesticides · protection for responsible vendors against inferior products · a link between biological efficacy and specification requirements · an international point of reference Thus FAO Pesticide Specifications represent an internationally recognised mechanism to define quality standards for pesticides. These specifications provide an international point of reference against which products can be measured and judged thereby preventing the trade sale and use of inferior products. As part of their registration requirements some countries require that products permitted for use comply with the relevant FAO specifications. FAO specifications may be extended to similar formulations produced by other manufacturers through a simple procedure for defining the equivalence of pesticide products.  The process for the establishing FAO Specifications is detailed in the Manual on the Development and Use of FAO Specifications for Plant Protection Products, including the New Procedure1,2. The specifications encompass the physical appearance of the material, its content of active ingredient and any relevant impurities and its physical properties. They do not normally include chemical characteristics of the formulants unless they influence physical characteristics such as pH, acidity and alkalinity. Nor do they include efficacy information. Recommendations to FAO on the adoption, extension, modification or withdrawal of specifications are made by the Joint Meeting on Pesticide Specifications (JMPS). This body is composed of scientists collectively possessing expert knowledge of specifications. Other experts may be invited to meetings for particular reasons e.g. industry experts to provide additional information, but these outside experts do not participate in drafting the recommendations of the JMPS. Specifications may become obsolete and their withdrawal considered. The reasons for this can be that the pesticides are no longer traded or that they are classified as posing serious health or environmental risks and their use is no longer recommended internationally3. Pesticides used in public health came under the auspices of the WHO Pesticide Evaluation Scheme (WHOPES)4. This consists of a four phase evaluation and testing programme studying the safety, efficacy and operational acceptability of public health pesticides and developing specifications for quality control and international trade. References 1. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), Pesticide Specifications http://www.fao.org/agriculture/crops/core-themes/theme/pests/pm/jmps/ps/en/ 2. Manual on Development and Use of FAO and WHO Specifications for Pesticides (1st Edition), Rome 2002 http://www.fao.org/WAICENT/FAOINFO/AGRICULT/AGP/AGPP/Pesticid/SPECS/pdf/newman ual.pdf 3. FAO Pesticide Specifications – Review and Withdrawal of Old Specifications,  G. Vaagt, Pesticide Outlook December 2001, p. 239 http://www.researchinformation.co.uk/pest/2001/B110554J.PDF 4. World Health Organization – WHO Pesticide evaluation Scheme (WHOPES) http://www.who.int/whopes/en Last modified 7th April 2010

PESTICIDE RESISTANCE

The International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC)

ผ่านทาง| IUPAC.

John Unsworth 3rd April 2010 Pesticide Resistance Through evolution plants and animals have developed defensive mechanisms, including chemical repellents and toxins, against attacking organisms. In turn the attacking organisms have developed mechanisms that enable them to detoxify or otherwise resist the defensive chemicals of their hosts. Thus, it appears that most pest species already contain genes that enable them to degrade enzymatically or otherwise circumvent the toxic effects of many types of chemicals that have been developed as modern pesticides1. Pesticide resistance, therefore, is a genetically based phenomenon and occurs when a pesticide is used on a population containing some individuals genetically predisposed to be resistant to that pesticide. Repeated applications and higher treatment rates will kill increasing numbers of the pest but resistant survivors will pass the resistance genes to the next generation. Unless a different treatment regime is used the population will contain increasing numbers of resistant pests and where reproductive rates are high, e.g. in insects, the entire population will quickly become resistant2. Once a pest has developed resistance to a particular pesticide it is necessary to have other means of controlling it. One method is to use a different pesticide, especially one in a different chemical class that has a different mode of action against the pest2. Care must be taken, however, that multiple resistance, i.e. resistance to several classes of pesticides, is not introduced into the population. The best strategy is to avoid building up a resistant population and various procedures have been developed for this. Various management strategies have been recommended to avoid the build up of resistant populations due to the use of pesticides. The US EPA and the Canadian PMRA have drawn up a voluntary labelling scheme, together with recommendations for avoiding resistance, giving mode of action and target site information to users3. Various “Action Committees” have been set up by industry and, with the input of academic and government scientists, have proposed management strategies to avoid the build up of resistance to pesticides. Insecticides – A summary of the recommendations made by The Insecticide Resistance Action Committee (IRAC) is given below. Full details can be found on the IRAC website4. Consult an advisor for insecticide resistance management and IPM strategies. Consider the pest management options available and map out a season-long plan to avoid unnecessary applications of insecticides. Before planting, consider the options for minimizing insecticide use by selecting early maturing varieties or varieties that are resistant to insect attack. Consider an integrated approach incorporating as many different control mechanisms as possible. Select insecticides with care and consider the impact on future pest populations. Watch the pest population during the growing season. Regularly monitor fields to identify pests and natural enemies, estimate insect populations and track stage of development. Insecticides and acaricides generally should be used only if insect counts exceed the local economic threshold or the point where economic losses exceed the costs of insecticide plus application. At the end of the season remove crop residues, as appropriate, to eliminate food sources and over wintering habitats for pests. Prevention is the best strategy, but if you suspect resistance, first eliminate other possible causes. Fungicides – A summary of recommendations made by the Fungicide Resistance Action Committee (FRAC) is given below. Full details can be found on the FRAC website5. Do not use the product in isolation, apply it as a mixture with one or more fungicides of a different type. Restrict the number of treatments applied per season and apply only when strictly necessary. Maintain manufacturers’ recommended dose. Avoid eradicant use. Use integrated disease management, a particular aspect of the concept more generally referred to as IPM (Integrated Pest Management) Make use of the chemical diversity of different fungicide families. Herbicides – A summary of recommendations made by the Herbicide Resistance Action Committee (HRAC) is given below. Full details can be found on the HRAC website6. Rotate crops in order to allow the use of herbicides having a different mode of action and the use of different cultural techniques which can be employed to manage a particular weed problem. Use non-chemical weed control methods which can assist greatly in reducing the soil seed bank. Use herbicides with different modes of action against a given weed species. Follow label use instructions for timing and treatment rate carefully. Routinely monitor results of herbicide application and keep detailed field records of herbicide use so that cropping and treatment history are known. Rodenticides – The Rodenticide Resistance Action Committee (RRAC) have issued a monograph on the strategy for anticoagulant resistance management, the recommendations of which are summarised below. Full details can be found on the RRAC website7. Ensure that all baiting points are inspected weekly and old bait replaced where necessary. Undertake the treatment according to the label until the infestation is cleared. Remove all unused bait when treatment is complete. Do not use anticoagulant rodenticides routinely as permanent baits. Ensure complete elimination of the infestation is achieved Apply Integrated Pest Management measures e.g. removal of food and water sources, remove harbourage and proof susceptible areas against rodent access. Record details of treatment. References 1. The Magnitude of the Resistance Problem, G.P. Georghiou, Pesticide Resistance: Strategies and Tactics for Management, National Academy Press, Washington DC (1986) http://fermat.nap.edu/openbook/0309036275/gifmid/14.gif 2. Pest Resistance to Pesticides, R.G. Bellinger, Dept. of Entymology, Clemson University, South Carolina (1996) http://entweb.clemson.edu/pesticid/Issues/pestrest.pdf 3. US EPA, Pesticide Registration (PR) Notice 2001-5, Guidance for Pesticide Registrants on Pesticide Resistance Management Labelling (2001) http://www.epa.gov/PR_Notices/pr2001-5.pdf 4. General Principles of Insecticide Resistance from IRAC http://www.irac-online.org/ 5. Fungicide Resistance in Crop Pathogens : How Can it be Managed ? K.J. Brent, FRAC Monograph No.1 (April 1995) http://www.frac.info/frac/index.htm 6. Guideline to the Management of Herbicide Resistance, HRAC http://www.hracglobal.com/ 7. Anticoagulant Resistance Management for Pest Management Professionals, Central and Local Government and Other Competent Users of Rodenticides, RRAC Technical Monograph 2003 http://www.rrac.info/ Last modified 3rd April 2010

 

PESTICIDE FORMULATIONS

The International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC)

ผ่านทาง| IUPAC.

John Unsworth 7th April 2010 Following the manufacture of a pesticide technical material (active ingredient, a.i., active substance a.s.) the manufacturer must prepare a formulation to ensure that it can be used in a safe and efficacious manner. In order to do this the technical material is mixed with other ingredients (sometimes called inert ingredients and or co-formulants) to improve its effectiveness, safety, handling and storage. The other ingredients can include solvents, mineral clays, stickers, wetting agents or other adjuvants1,2. Pesticide formulations may contain one or more active ingredients and come in many different variations depending on the nature of the active ingredient and the proposed use. Formulations may be in the form of solids (e.g. dustable powders), liquids (e.g. emulsifiable concentrates) or gases (e.g. fumigants).  Formulations of different active ingredients can in some cases be mixed before use, however, this should only be done if it is known that the two formulations are compatible and that there will be no adverse effects due to the mixing of the formulations. Pesticide formulations may also come ready to use or require dilution before use. In some cases spray adjuvants can be added to the diluted formulation in order to enhance the performance of the pesticide. Adjuvants are usually classified according to their use rather than their chemistry, they include surfactants, crop oils, antifoaming agents, stickers and spreaders3. Care must be taken when adding adjuvants to a given formulation to ensure that there are no compatibility problems which could make the pesticide less effective. There is an international coding system for the different pesticide types. The codes, together with definitions, are given in the “Catalogue of Pesticide Formulation Types and International Coding System” published by CropLife International 4. Some examples of the coding system are: Water Dispersible Granules (Code WG) – a formulation consisting of granules to be applied after disintegration and dispersion in water. Emulsifiable Concentrate (Code EC) – a liquid, homogeneous formulation to be applied as an emulsion after dilution in water. Vapour Releasing Product (Code VP) – a formulation containing one or more volatile active ingredients, the vapours of which are released in the air. REFERENCES Pesticide Formulations – National Pesticide Telecommunications Network (December 1999) http://npic.orst.edu/factsheets/formulations.pdf Pesticide Education Resources, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Unit 3 – Formulations http://pested.unl.edu/pat3.htm B.J. Brecke and J.B. Unruh, University of Florida, IFAS Extension – Spray Additives and Pesticide Formulations (Fact Sheet ENH-82), February 2003 http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/pdffiles/LH/LH06100.pdf Catalogue of Pesticide Formulation types and International Coding System, Croplife Technical Monograph No. 2, 6th Edition, May 2008 http://www.croplife.org/files/documentspublished/1/en-us/PUB-TM/4147_PUB-     TM_2008_05_01_Technical_Monograph_2_-_Revised_May_2008.pdf Last modified 7th April 2010

 

OBSOLETE PESTICIDES

The International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC)

ผ่านทาง| IUPAC.

John Unsworth
3rd April 2010
.

Obsolete pesticides are pesticides that are unfit for further use or for re-conditioning. Obsolescence may arise because a product has been de-registered locally or banned internationally. More commonly, however, a stock of pesticides becomes obsolete because of long-term storage during which the product and/or its packaging degrade. The total quantity of potentially obsolete pesticides held in developing countries and countries with economies in transition is thought to be huge, on the order of tens or hundreds of thousands of tonnes. The amount can only be estimated, however, because many stocks have not been inventoried or even located¹. In 2002 FAO estimated that the toxic waste in Africa alone amounts to around 120,000 of the more than 500,000 tons worldwide. FAO previously estimated the amount in Africa at around 50,000 tons, with about 30 per cent of the waste believed to be persistent organic pollutants (POPs)².Most developing countries have outdated and deteriorated stocks of pesticides that can no longer be used as prescribed on the label. These stocks are often stored in poor conditions and pose a threat to human health and the environment. With the exception of a few newly industrialized countries, developing countries do not have adequate facilities to dispose of such stocks in a safe and environmentally sound manner. In many cases, therefore, the recommended disposal method would appear to be shipment of the pesticides to a country that has special hazardous waste incineration facilities. In view of the dangerous nature of these pesticides and the high costs of safe and environmentally sound disposal, the long-term solution to obsolete stocks lies in preventive measures: improved stock management and reduction of stocks³.Various types of stockpiles of obsolete pesticides can be defined⁴:Small quantities resulting from use - This group comprises those obsolete pesticides generated by producers, experimental stations or research institutes. Generally this means small quantities whose generation is disperse and fluctuating, but it is also expected that this waste stream is more or less the same in the different areas through time.Obsolete pesticides generated in trade operations - These pesticides are found at identified pesticides trading companies but disperse throughout the countries. Their generation is directly related to the companies’ activities in relation to product stockpiles management and generally because of prices, small quantities are involved.Wastes from production or formulation of pesticides - These wastes are generated as a result of industrial activities. Their generation is a function of pesticides production, they are at a fixed facility and completely characterized.Wastes from accidents - Accidents are the origin of these wastes. They might be generated during transport, by fire, spills or other accidents within the storing area. Their generation is eventual and disperse, quantities range from a few to several kilograms and the wastes are basically well characterized.Deteriorated products - These are products that have deteriorated as a result of different circumstances: bad storage conditions that changed their physicochemical properties and therefore they can no longer be applied. The generation is eventual and disperse, the quantities are variable and basically the wastes’ characteristics are known.Deposits - These are warehouses of different characteristics where quantities range from a few tens of kilograms to various tonnes of obsolete pesticides. Generally they were generated in the past but they still can be generated because of bad buying policies, inadequate deposits and poor stock management and also due to confiscation. Obsolete pesticides can be found in public or private facilities in any part, they might be part of an inventory or not and sometimes they might not even be identified. The abovementioned comprises old industries deposits, under no activity and that has become environmental liabilities. This is a heterogeneous group due to the types of products, quantities, containers and active ingredients conditions, storage conditions and the risk they represent.Burials - This kind of disposal method was used in the past in various countries. This is usually named “contaminated site” but on account of the high soil contamination that can be present, burials might be considered as stockpiles. The buried quantities as well as the affected area and the risks involved are different from site to site. Additionally, the areas identification can also be difficult.In most cases, the only option for dealing with unused and obsolete pesticides stocks is to destroy them. But destroying pesticide waste is neither cheap nor technically simple. Destruction processes vary depending on the type of contaminant. But in general high temperature incineration is the most widely used method. However, the incineration of hazardous waste is not without its problems. It can create toxic emissions, and although these emissions are relatively low compared to many other sources, they are nevertheless measurable. The incineration process also leaves ash that is hazardous and the filters that remove the toxic emissions become toxic.

While incineration is not the perfect solution, doing nothing is also not an option. The very real threat to health and environment that obsolete pesticides pose in developing countries, demands urgent solutions. The technology to deal with hazardous chemical waste safely does not currently exist in most developing countries. Providing temporary solutions such as repackaging and storage in the hope that a better solution will emerge in the foreseeable future is unacceptable since long terms security and integrity of the pesticides and their containers cannot be guaranteed. The search for environmentally benign destruction technologies has also so far been unsuccessful and therefore at present the only available technology for the destruction of most obsolete pesticides is dedicated high temperature incineration.
Currently, only Europe allows the import of pesticide waste for incineration. European incineration facilities are presently operating at under capacity, so prices are competitive. The market situation is liable to change however, and incineration prices may vary. Thus developing countries may need to develop their waste management infrastructure to deal with hazardous wastes. Countries must assess their long term waste management needs on the basis of a comprehensive analysis of ongoing waste streams from industry, hospitals, agriculture and other sectors and develop appropriate solutions. The mandate of FAO extends to the management of pesticides throughout their life-cycle. In order to deal with waste management countries should consult with other UN agencies such as UNIDO or UNEP⁵.

In order to help countries deal with obsolete pesticides FAO has developed several guidelines giving information on the disposal of bulk quantities⁶, small quantities⁷, contaminated soil⁸ and on country guidelines⁹ as well as on good management practices to avoid a build up of obsolete stock³.

References

1. Report of the OECD-FAO-UNEP Workshop on Obsolete Pesticides, Alexandria, Virginia, 13-15 September 2000

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/23/35/2076941.pdf

2. Europaworld, 20^th September 2002, Toxic Waste from Obsolete Pesticides in Africa Threatens Health, Says UN Agency

http://www.europaworld.org/week97/toxicwaste20902.htm

3. Plant Production and Protection Division, FAO, Rome, Italy, Prevention of Accumulation of Obsolete Pesticide Stocks

http://www.fao.org/docrep/v7460e/v7460e00.htm#2

4. Basel Convention Coordinating Centre for Latin America and the Caribbean, Practical Guideline on Environmentally Sound Management of Obsolete Pesticides In the Latin America and Caribbean Countries,   J. Martinez, Montevideo, Uruguay, November, 2004

http://www.basel.int/centers/proj_activ/tctf_projects/013.pdf

5. UN Food and Agriculture Organisation, Prevention and Disposal of Obsolete Pesticides

http://www.fao.org/WAICENT/FAOINFO/AGRICULT/AGP/AGPP/Pesticid/Disposal/en/103285/index.html

6. UN Food and Agriculture Organisation, Disposal of bulk quantities of obsolete pesticides in developing countries

http://www.fao.org/WAICENT/FAOINFO/AGRICULT/AGP/AGPP/Pesticid/Disposal/common/ecg/103811_en_w1604e.pdf

7. UN Food and Agriculture Organisation, Guidelines for the management of small quantities of unwanted and obsolete pesticides

http://www.fao.org/WAICENT/FAOINFO/AGRICULT/AGP/AGPP/Pesticid/Disposal/common/ecg/103825_en_No_7___Small_quantities_stocks.pdf

8. UN Food and Agriculture Organisation, Assessing soil contamination: A reference manual

http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/003/X2570E/X2570E00.HTM

9. UN Food and Agriculture Organisation, Country guidelines

ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/005/y2566E/y2566E00.pdf

Last modified 3^rd April 2010

INTRODUCTION TO PESTICIDE PROFILES

The International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC)

ผ่านทาง| IUPAC.

John Unsworth 2nd April 2010 Critical evaluation and summary of data related to pesticide chemistry as well as environmental and toxicology studies accompanies the registration approval of a given pesticide at the national or regional level. Evaluations are also used in the establishment of various international standards. In addition, some evaluation and summary of pesticide data may be completed by non-governmental organisations. Before making reference to a published evaluation it is important to review it carefully and determine if there are any ambiguities or conclusions that might require further explanation. Depending on the source, published evaluations may contain divergent conclusions or controversial interpretations based on particular national science policy (e.g., FQPA in the U.S.) or evaluator bias. In general, however, there is a lack of co-ordination to make this information widely available to interested regulators and research scientists on a global basis. However, a comprehensive compilation of data on pesticides is the FOOTPRINT database.  This is a relational database of pesticide physicochemical, ecotoxicological and toxicological data, containing information on about 650 active ingredients and 200 metabolites1and is accessible from this site. FAO/IAEA has launched a project entitled INFOCRIS (International Food Contaminant and Residue Information System). The INFOCRIS site gives comprehensive pesticide profiles for a large number of pesticides in an easy to read and searchable format2. Some of the other pesticide evaluations which are published and available via the internet are summarised below. WHO evaluations3,4 are co-ordinated by the International Program on Chemical Safety (IPCS), and are focused on mammalian toxicology and human safety aspects. The evaluations themselves are most often based on data submitted by the manufacturer as part of the process to establish Codex MRLs through the FAO/WHO Joint Meeting on Pesticide Residues (JMPR), WHO product quality specifications through the FAO/WHO Joint Meeting on Pesticide Specifications (JMPS) or WHO water quality guidelines. Each detailed evaluation, which may be more than 100 pages in length, considers critical mammalian toxicology and metabolism data, establishes toxicology end points of interest (e.g., NOEL), and recommends relevant technical endpoints such as the acceptable daily intake (ADI) or acute reference dose (ARfD In addition, WHO has produced secondary technical documents which summarise the results of detailed evaluations, including WHO Pesticide Data Sheets and WHO Health and Safety Guides. The evaluations completed by scientists working under WHO or FAO auspices are widely recognised for their high technical quality and unbiased and authoritative nature. FAO evaluations5 are generally based on data submitted by the manufacturer as part of the process to establish Codex MRLs through the FAO/WHO Joint Meeting on Pesticide Residues (JMPR). Each detailed evaluation, which may be more than 100 pages in length, considers good agricultural practice (GAP) for a particular pesticide, analytical methods for residues, plant and animal metabolism studies and residue trials, and recommends proposed maximum residue limits (MRLs), supervised trial median residue (STMR) values and processing factors corresponding to the GAP examined. FAO evaluations have been completed on around 200 different pesticides, and are published via the FAO web site. In addition to exhaustive initial evaluations or full re-evaluations conducted on a periodic basis, FAO evaluations also include specific efforts which might be focused on a single crop or small group of crops with new or revised GAPs. Australia6: Two types of pesticide evaluations are published by the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APMVA), formerly known as the National Regulatory Authority (NRA). Evaluations of selected existing products are completed as part of the Chemical Review Programme, and draft and/or final evaluation reports are available for around 50 pesticides. In addition, public release summaries associated with new pesticide approvals are available for about 75 active ingredients. The evaluation summaries sponsored by APVMA generally include consideration of both environmental and human health aspects and are often accompanied by a proposed or final regulatory decision. Canada7: The Canada Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) also publishes evaluation summaries for both existing product re-evaluations and new  product approvals. There are several types of published evaluations of existing products, including Proposed Acceptability for Continuing Registration (PACR), Re-evaluation Documents (REV) and Re-evaluation Decision Documents (RRD). The published documents typically include a technical summary and a proposed or final regulatory decision. Published documents for new active ingredients or significant new uses include Proposed Regulatory Decision Documents (PR DD), Regulatory Decision Documents (RDD) and Regulatory Notes (REG). There are significant differences in the level of detail of these various documents, some being comprised of extensive technical summaries of toxicology, environmental and efficacy data and others being very brief notices summarising a final regulatory position or decision. Europe8,9: The 91/414 Plant Protection Directive of the European Commission created a centralised evaluation system for active substances and representative uses. Brief evaluation reports for existing active substances under comprehensive re-evaluation and for new active substances are available via the Health and Consumer Protection Directorate (DG Sanco). Evaluation reports for approximately 70 existing and 45 new active substances are posted on the web site of the European Commission. The evaluation reports typically include a summary of the proposed regulatory decision (i.e. positive or negative recommendation for Annex I listing as an approved active substance) and a detailed listing of relevant regulatory end-points. For existing products, a listing of studies which were relied upon for the evaluation and for which data protection is claimed by the notifier is also included. Among other EU member states which publish national pesticide evaluations, the UK stands out as offering particularly useful and thorough technical documents. These evaluations are completed by the UK Pesticides Safety Directorate (PSD) for review by the UK Advisory Committee on Pesticides (ACP). Approximately 200 evaluations have been published, mostly for existing active substances, which include detailed discussion of human health and environmental data and risk assessments10. United States11: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has made available extensive technical summaries of human health and environmental evaluations completed as part of the re-registration process during the past 20 years. The primary document is the Re-registration Eligibility Decision (RED) document, which may run to hundreds of pages and contains detailed data summaries and risk assessments, as well as recommended regulatory decisions. Shorter re-registration “fact sheets” are also available which offer a synopsis of key regulatory information and recommendations. More recently, interim RED documents (IRED) have also been published by EPA. The IRED is the equivalent of the RED but with the caveat that the molecule evaluated may be subject to cumulative evaluation at a future point under provisions of the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA). In addition, some tolerance RED documents have also been released, these are completed for those molecules not requiring a full re-registration evaluation (generally newer products approved after 1984) but which were subject to human health and residue chemistry evaluation as part of the tolerance re-evaluation process under FQPA. More than 275 RED, IRED, and TRED documents are available in electronic formvia the EPA web site. For some time U.S. EPA has also published chemical fact sheets for new active ingredients. These fact sheets are generally 5-10 or more page summaries of key regulatory properties, and approximately 50 of the more recently published ones are available on the EPA web site12. The U.S. Department of Agriculture also publishes information on pesticides. These include human health and ecological risk assessments for about 20 pesticides used in forestry13, whilst the ARS Pesticide Properties Database focuses on the chemical properties of  over 300 pesticides linked to their transport and degradation14. Non-governmental Organisations: There are several non-governmental organizations (NGO) which publish data compilations or technical summaries for pesticides. Perhaps the most widely known and referenced pesticide technical summaries are the Pesticide Information Profiles (PIP) published by the Extension Toxicology Network (EXTOXNET). The project is a joint effort of several U.S.-based institutions including the University of California, ­Davis, Oregon State University, Michigan State University, Cornell University and the University of Idaho. Approximately 200 pesticides have published PIPs on the EXTOXNET web site15, but many of the newest active ingredients are not included since funding problems were experienced by the project during the past 5-7 years. The PIPs are generally 5-10 page technical summaries of key properties including those related to human health and the environment. A brief but comprehensive summary of pesticide formula, name, structure and activity can be found in the Compendium of Pesticide Common Names16. The Pesticide Action Network (PAN) is part of a project operated by PAN North America. The pesticide database of technical information compiled by PAN via its web site17 is interesting, and for several hundred active ingredients includes summaries and links related to chemistry, poisoning symptoms, toxicology, environmental fate and ecotoxicology. In addition, some regulatory information is also included on each molecule such as hazard classification, countries of registration, restrictions or bans and international treaty listings (PlC, POP). References FOOTPRINT Pesticide Properties Database http://sitem.herts.ac.uk/aeru/footprint/ FAO/IAEA Food Contaminant and Residues Information System http://www-infocris.iaea.org IPCS INCHEM Pesticide Data Sheets http://www.inchem.org/pages/pds.html IPCS INCHEM Joint Meeting on Pesticide Residues, Monographs & Evaluations http://www.inchem.org/pages/jmpr.html Food and Agriculture Organisation, GAP – JMPR Reports  & Evaluations http://www.fao.org/agriculture/crops/core-themes/theme/pests/pm/jmpr/jmpr-rep/en/ Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority, All Reviews (including superseded, discontinued and deregistered chemicals) http://www.apvma.gov.au/products/review/a_z_reviews.php Health Canada, Consumer Product Safety, Decisions and Updates http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/cps-spc/pubs/pest/_decisions/index-eng.php#rvd-drv European Commission, DG Health and Consumers, Plant Protection Products, Existing Active Substances, Decisions and Review Reports http://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/protection/evaluation/exist_subs_rep_en.htm European Commission, DG Health and Consumers, Plant Protection Products, New Active Substances, Decisions and Review Reports http://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/protection/evaluation/new_subs_rep_en.htm UK Health and Safety Executive, Chemicals Regulation Directorate, Pesticides, Published Evaluation Documents http://www.pesticides.gov.uk/psd_evaluation_all.asp US Environmental Protection Agency, Pesticides, Pesticide Registration Status http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/reregistration/status.htm US Environmental Protection Agency, Pesticides, Topical & Chemical fact Sheets, Specific Chemical Fact Sheets http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/chemical_fs.htm US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Risk Assessments, Human Health & Ecological Risk Assessments http://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/pesticide/risk.shtml US Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Services, The ARS Pesticide Properties Database http://www.ars.usda.gov/Services/docs.htm?docid=14199 EXTOXNET, Pesticide Information Profiles (PIPs) http://extoxnet.orst.edu/pips/ghindex.html Compendium of Pesticide Common Names http://www.alanwood.net/pesticides/ Pesticide Action Network, PAN Pesticide Database http://www.pesticideinfo.org/ Last modified 2nd April 2010

 

INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT

The International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC)

ผ่านทาง| IUPAC.

John Unsworth 2nd April 2010 About the time humans started aggregating into villages and began planting selected food crops in clusters near rivers in fertile valleys, pests became an increasing challenge. They had to live with the ravages of pests of all types that attacked them and their crops. Through trial and error, humans began to learn how to improve conditions and control the environment. People learned to perform cultural and physical control practices for crop protection. Methods such as destroying or using crop refuse, roughing diseased plants, tillage to expose an eliminate soil insects, removal of alternate hosts off pathogens and insects, timing of planting, crop rotation, trap crops, determining optimum planting sites, pruning, dusting with sulphur, and others reduced damage potential to many crops from many pests. These cultural and physical control methods are still viable today1. The roots of Integrated Pest Management (IPM), as it is today, can be traced to the late 1880s when “ecology” was identified as the foundation of scientific plant protection2. However, it was not until the 1960s when the idea of developing more environmentally benign crop protection methods began1. There have been many definitions for Integrated Pest Management3but has been defined by the FAO Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides4 as “the careful consideration of all available pest control techniques and subsequent integration of appropriate measures that discourage the development of pest populations and keep pesticides and other interventions to levels that are economically justified and reduce or minimize risks to human health and the environment. IPM emphasizes the growth of a healthy crop with the least possible disruption to agro-ecosystems and encourages natural pest control mechanisms”. IPM requires competence in three areas: prevention, observation and intervention. The first includes a range of practical strategies that can be rationalised to suit local conditions. Observation links monitoring with decision making, often together with “expert systems”. Intervention involves a range of physical, biological and chemical methods optimally employed to preserve the economic value of the crop with minimal effects on the environment5. IPM is not a single pest control method but, rather, a series of pest management evaluations, decisions and controls. In practicing IPM, growers who are aware of the potential for pest infestation follow a four-tiered approach. The four steps include6: Set Action Thresholds – Before taking any pest control action, IPM first sets an action threshold, a point at which pest populations or environmental conditions indicate that pest control action must be taken. Sighting a single pest does not always mean control is needed. The level at which pests will either become an economic threat is critical to guide future pest control decisions. Monitor and Identify Pests – Not all insects, weeds, and other living organisms require control. Many organisms are innocuous, and some are even beneficial. IPM programs work to monitor for pests and identify them accurately, so that appropriate control decisions can be made in conjunction with action thresholds. This monitoring and identification removes the possibility that pesticides will be used when they are not really needed or that the wrong kind of pesticide will be used. Prevention – As a first line of pest control, IPM programs work to manage the crop, lawn, or indoor space to prevent pests from becoming a threat. In an agricultural crop, this may mean using cultural methods, such as rotating between different crops, selecting pest-resistant varieties, and planting pest-free rootstock. These control methods can be very effective and cost-efficient and present little to no risk to people or the environment. Control – Once monitoring, identification, and action thresholds indicate that pest control is required, and preventive methods are no longer effective or available, IPM programs then evaluate the proper control method both for effectiveness and risk. Effective, less risky pest controls are chosen first, including highly targeted chemicals, such as pheromones to disrupt pest mating, or mechanical control, such as trapping or weeding. If further monitoring, identifications and action thresholds indicate that less risky controls are not working, then additional pest control methods would be employed, such as targeted spraying of pesticides. Broadcast spraying of non-specific pesticides is a last resort. Integrated Pest Management can contribute importantly to pesticide risk reduction by7 : Reducing reliance on chemical pesticides and encouraging the use of alternatives Encouraging the use of reduced risk pesticides when pesticide treatment is necessary Preventing pest problems through better crop management and maintenance of natural resources Increasing farmer knowledge about agricultural pests and ecosystems A Global IPM Facility has been established by FAO, UNDP, UNEP and the World Bank which supports IPM field programmes as well as advising governments, international organizations, NGOs and donors on pest management programmes and policies8. Another useful resource is The Database of IPM Resources9. A great deal of information about IPM is available on the internet and many universities, institutes and other bodies give practical advice and aid on various IPM programmes. This information can be of a general nature or relate to specific areas or crops10-14. References 1.  The History of Integrated Pest Management, International Pest Management Institute http://www.biconet.com/reference/IPMhistory.html 2.  Radcliffe’s IPM World Textbook, University of Minnesota, USA http://ipmworld.umn.edu/textbook.htm 3.  Compendium of IPM Definitions, Integrated Plant Protection Center, Oregon State University, USA http://www.ipmnet.org/ipmdefinitions/ 4.  International Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides, FAO, Rome, 2003 http://www.fao.org/WAICENT/FAOINFO/AGRICULT/AGP/AGPP/Pesticid/Code/Download/code.pdf 5. Integrated Pest Management, CropLife International http://www.croplife.org/public/integrated_pest_management 6.  IPM and Food Production, Pesticides : Topical and Chemical Fact Sheets – US EPA http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/ipm.htm 7.  OECD Series on Pesticides No. 8, Report of the OECD/FAO Workshop on IPM and Pesticide Risk        Reduction, OECD, April 1999 http://www.olis.oecd.org/olis/1999doc.nsf/LinkTo/NT00000FBE/$FILE/04E94320.PDF 8.  Food and Agriculture Organisation, AGP – Integrated Pest Management, FAO 2004 http://www.fao.org/ag/AGP/AGPP/IPM/gipmf/index.htm 9. The Database of IPM Resources, Integrated Plant Protection Center, OIRD, University of Illinois, Oregon State University, North Carolina State University and Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University http://www.ippc.orst.edu/cicp/ 10.  Guidelines for Promoting Safer and More Effective Pest Management with Small Holder Farmers, S. Gladstone and A. Hruska, CARE – USA, USAID (refers to Latin America) http://allanhruska.com/Docs/Allan_BU_RLC_-IPM_Guidelines_Final_Oct.Manejo_eng_low.pdf 11.  Indigenous and Modern approaches to IPM in Latin America, M.A. Altieri and C.I. Nicholls, 2000 http://www.cnr.berkeley.edu/~agroeco3/indigenous_and_modern_approaches.html 12.  Ten Years of IPM Training in Asia – From Farmer Field School to Community IPM, J. Pontius, R. Dilts and A. Bartlett, FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, 2002 http://www.fao.org/documents/show_cdr.asp?url_file=/docrep/005/ac834e/ac834e00.htm 13.  Database of IPM Resources, IPM or Related Technical/Professional Organisations and their Websites in Africa http://ipmnet.org/cicp/africa.htm 14.  The World Bank, Integrated Pest Management http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTARD/EXTPESTMGMT/0,,contentMDK:20631451~menuPK:1605318~pagePK:64168445~piPK:64168309~theSitePK:584320,00.html Last modified 2nd April 2010

 

HISTORY OF PESTICIDE USE

The International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC)

ผ่านทาง| IUPAC.

John Unsworth 10th May 2010  The practice of agriculture first began about 10,000 years ago in the Fertile Crescent of Mesopotamia (part of present day Iraq, Turkey, Syria and Jordan) where edible seeds were initially gathered by a population of hunter/gatherers1. Cultivation of wheat, barley, peas, lentils, chickpeas, bitter vetch and flax then followed as the population became more settled and farming became the way of life. Similarly, in China rice and millet were domesticated, whilst about 7,500 years ago rice and sorghum were farmed in the Sahel region of Africa. Local crops were domesticated independently in West Africa and possibly in New Guinea and Ethiopia. Three regions of the Americas independently domesticated corn, squashes, potato and sunflowers2. It is clear that the farmed crops would suffer from pests and diseases causing a large loss in yield with the ever present possibility of famine for the population. Even today with advances in agricultural sciences losses due to pests and diseases range from 10-90%, with an average of 35 to 40%, for all potential food and fibre crops3. There was thus a great incentive to find ways of overcoming the problems caused by pests and diseases. The first recorded use of insecticides is about 4500 years ago by Sumerians who used sulphur compounds to control insects and mites, whilst about 3200 years ago the Chinese were using mercury and arsenical compounds for controlling body lice4. Writings from ancient Greece and Rome show that religion, folk magic and the use of what may be termed chemical methods were tried for the control of plant diseases, weeds, insects and animal pests. As there was no chemical industry, any products used had to be either of plant or animal derivation or, if of mineral nature, easily obtainable or available. Thus, for example, smokes are recorded as being used against mildew and blights. The principle was to burn some material such as straw, chaff, hedge clippings, crabs, fish, dung, ox or other animal horn to windward so that the smoke, preferably malodorous, would spread throughout the orchard, crop or vineyard. It was generally held that such smoke would dispel the blight or mildew. Smokes were also used against insects, as were various plant extracts such as bitter lupin or wild cucumber. Tar was also used on tree trunks to trap crawling insects. Weeds were controlled mainly by hand weeding but various “chemical” methods are also described such as the use of salt or sea water5,6. Pyrethrum, which is derived from the dried flowers of Chrysanthemum cinerariaefolium “Pyrethrum daisies”, has been used as an insecticide for over 2000 years. Persians used the powder to protect stored grain and later, Crusaders brought information back to Europe that dried round daisies controlled head lice7. Many inorganic chemicals have been used since ancient times as pesticides8, indeed Bordeaux Mixture, based on copper sulphate and lime, is still used against various fungal diseases. Up until the 1940s inorganic substances, such as sodium chlorate and sulphuric acid, or organic chemicals derived from natural sources were still widely used in pest control. However, some pesticides were by-products of coal gas production or other industrial processes. Thus early organics such as nitrophenols, chlorophenols, creosote, naphthalene and petroleum oils were used for fungal and insect pests, whilst ammonium sulphate and sodium arsenate were used as herbicides. The drawback for many of these products was their high rates of application, lack of selectivity and phytotoxicity9. The growth in synthetic pesticides accelerated in the 1940s with the discovery of the effects of DDT, BHC, aldrin, dieldrin, endrin, chlordane, parathion, captan and 2,4-D. These products were effective and inexpensive with DDT being the most popular, because of its broad-spectrum activity4 ,10. DDT was widely used, appeared to have low toxicity to mammals, and reduced insect-born diseases, like malaria, yellow fever and typhus; consequently, in 1949, Dr. Paul Muller won the Nobel Prize in Medicine for discovering its insecticidal properties. However, in 1946 resistance to DDT by house flies was reported and, because of its widespread use, there were reports of harm to non-target plants and animals and problems with residues4,10. Throughout most of the 1950s, consumers and most policy makers were not overly concerned about the potential health risks in using pesticides. Food was cheaper because of the new chemical formulations and with the new pesticides there were no documented cases of people dying or being seriously hurt by their “normal” use11. There were some cases of harm from misuse of the chemicals. But the new pesticides seemed rather safe, especially compared to the forms of arsenic that had killed people in the 1920s and 1930s12. However, problems could arise through the indiscriminate use and in 1962 these were highlighted by Rachel Carson in her book Silent Spring13. This brought home the problems that could be associated with indiscriminate use of pesticides and paved the way for safer and more environmentally friendly products. Research into pesticides continued and the 1970s and 1980s saw the introduction of the world’s greatest selling herbicide, glyphosate, the low use rate sulfonylurea and imidazolinone (imi) herbicides, as well as dinitroanilines and the aryloxyphenoxypropionate (fop) and cyclohexanediones (dim) families. For insecticides there was the synthesis of a 3rd generation of pyrethroids, the introduction of avermectins, benzoylureas and Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) as a spray treatment. This period also saw the introduction of the triazole, morpholine, imidazole, pyrimidine and dicarboxamide families of fungicides. As many of the agrochemicals introduced at this time had a single mode of action, thus making them more selective, problems with resistance occurred and management strategies were introduced to combat this negative effect. In the 1990s research activities concentrated on finding new members of existing families which have greater selectivity and better environmental and toxicological profiles. In addition new families of agrochemicals have been introduced to the market such as the triazolopyrimidine, triketone and isoxazole herbicides, the strobilurin and azolone fungicides and chloronicotinyl, spinosyn, fiprole and diacylhydrazine insectides. Many of the new agrochemicals can be used at grams rather than the kilograms per hectare. New insecticide14 and fungicide15 chemistry has allowed better resistance management and improved selectivity This period also saw the refinement of mature products in terms of use patterns with the introduction of newer and more user-friendly and environmentally safe formulations9. Integrated pest management systems, which use all available pest control techniques in order to discourage the development of pest populations and reduce the use of pesticides and other interventions to levels that are economically justified, have also contributed to reducing pesticide use16. Today the pest management toolbox has expanded to include use of genetically engineered crops designed to produce their own insecticides or exhibit resistance to broad spectrum herbicide products or pests. These include herbicide tolerant crops like soybeans, corn, canola and cotton and varieties of corn and cotton resistant to corn borer and bollworm respectively9. In addition the use of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) systems which discourage the development of pest populations and reduce the use of agrochemicals have also become more widespread. These changes have altered the nature of pest control and have the potential to reduce and/or change the nature of agrochemicals used. REFERENCES 1.  Impetus for sowing and the beginning of agriculture: Ground collecting of wild cereals; M.E. Kislev, E. Weiss and A. Hartmann, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 101 (9) 2692-2694 (2004) http://www.weizmann.ac.il/kimmel-arch/pdf/17_Kislev2004.pdf 2.  Primal Seeds, Origin of Agriculture http://www.primalseeds.org/agricult.htm 3.  Economic Benefits of Pest Management; R. Peshin, Encyclopedia of Pest Management, pages 224-227, Pub. Marcel Dekker, 2002 http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ytFoAcwI4sQC&pg=PA224&lpg=PA224&dq=global+crop+losses+without+pesticides&source=web&ots=nNOWp1gqyo&sig=S6scf7yN5aOE1j7n4QhAVy3qNCI&hl=en&ei=3uKbSc_gD4Oh-gbChpXhBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=2&ct=result#PPA227,M1 4.  The History of Pesticides, Organic Pesticides, September 19th 2008 http://blog.ecosmart.com/index.php/2008/09/19/the-history-of-pesticides/ 5. History of Horticulture, Roman Agricultural History; J. Janek, Purdue University http://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/Hort_306/text/lec18.pdf 6.  Forerunners of Pesticides in Classical Greece and Rome; A.E. Smith and D.M. Secoy, J. Ag. Food Chem. 23 (6) 1050 (1975) See http://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/history/lecture18/r_18-1.html 7. Pyrethrum, The Natural Insecticide; Equatorial Health Services http://www.equatorialhealth.com/pyrethrum.html 8.  A Compendium of Inorganic Substances Used in European Pest Control before 1850; A.E. Smith and D.M. .Secoy, J. Ag. Food Chem. 24 (6) 1180 (1976) See http://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/history/lecture31/r_31-1.html 9.  A History of Crop Protection and Pest Control in our Society; CropLife Canada (2002) http://www.croplife.ca/english/pdf/Analyzing2003/T1History.pdf 10.  Pesticide Usage in the United States: History, Benefits, Risks, and Trends; Bulletin 1121, November 2000, K.S. Delaplane, Cooperative Extension Service, The University of Georgia College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences http://pubs.caes.uga.edu/caespubs/pubs/PDF/B1121.pdf 11.  Wessels Living History Farm, York, Nebraska; Farming in the 1950s & 60s http://www.livinghistoryfarm.org/farminginthe50s/pests_08.html 12.  Wessels Living History Farm, York, Nebraska; Farming in the 1930s http://www.livinghistoryfarm.org/farminginthe30s/pests_04.html 13.  Silent Spring, 40th Anniversary Edition, Rachel Carson, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2002 ISBN 0618249060, 9780618249060 http://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&id=HeR1l0V0r54C&dq=silent+spring&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=1r4bWmlR2G&sig=RFBfJr0UBxYcFAS7Y6YdVWkSwwQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=6&ct=result#PPP1,M1 14 . New Insecticide Modes of Action: Whence Selectivity? J. Coats, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa, USA http://www.slideworld.org/viewslides.aspx/New-Insecticide-Modes-of-Action-Whence-Selectivity-ppt-42841 15. A Short History of Fungicides, V. Morton and T. Staub, APSnet, March 2008 http://www.apsnet.org/online/feature/fungi/ 16. OECD SERIES ON PESTICIDES, Number 8, Report of the OECD/FAO Workshop on Integrated Pest Management and Pesticide Risk Reduction, April 1999 http://www.olis.oecd.org/olis/1999doc.nsf/LinkTo/NT00000FBE/$FILE/04E94320.PDF Last modified 10th May 2010

Trace Magnifique

ผ่านทางBetter Nutrition :: Supplements :: Shop Smart.

Trace Magnifique

By Jack Challem

Trace minerals, including iron and zinc, are vital for immune health, energy, and blood sugar control

ShareThis

ALL SIGNS POINT TO TRACE MINERALSIn middle age, Jane was experiencing multiple health problems. She was being treated by a nutritionally oriented physician for several health issues—all of which were helped by trace minerals. For Jane’s hypothyroidism, the doctor prescribed natural thyroid hormones and also recommended that Jane begin taking iodine and selenium supplements. For her blood sugar problems, he asked her to adopt a high-protein, low-carb diet and to take extra chromium. Because Jane was also iron deficient and chronically fatigued, he recommended that she take iron supplements as well. Within several weeks of beginning this regimen, Jane said she felt better than she had in years. DID YOU KNOW? Using a cast-iron skillet for cooking is a good way to obtain dietary iron.

THE BASICS: Calcium, magnesium, and sodium get the most attention as minerals—after all, they are the heavyweights among essential dietary minerals. Trace minerals, however, are no less essential for health. They are necessary, just in smaller amounts. Trace minerals include zinc, copper, iron, chromium, selenium, iodine, manganese, and molybdenum.

HOW THEY WORK: Trace minerals serve myriad biochemical functions. In these different roles, they act as constituents of hormones, cofactors needed for energy production, coenzymes to initiate chemical reactions, and many other biological processes.

HEALTH BENEFITS: Trace minerals typically multitask—that is, they have diverse roles in our health.

Zinc plays a fundamental role in the activity of genes, forming what geneticists call zinc fingers because of their shape. For example, zinc fingers are involved in activating genes and linking DNA to RNA. Zinc deficiencies interfere with the activity of these genes. Zinc is also needed to make copper-zinc superoxide dismutase, one of the most potent antioxidants in the body. The mineral is required in the manufacture of metallothionein, a small family of enzymes that protect us from lead and cadmium. Zinc is also needed for normal taste sensation. White spots on fingernails are a sign of zinc deficiency.

Copper is used in a key enzyme that breaks down food molecules for energy. Copper also is needed for normal immunity. In general, your supplements should contain a ratio of between 1:15 and 1:30 copper to zinc (i.e., 1 milligram of copper to between 15 and 30 milligrams of zinc). Too much copper can suppress zinc levels, and vice versa.

Iron is also needed for enzymes involved in energy production, which is why iron deficiency is often characterized by fatigue. Your body also uses iron to make hemoglobin, the part of red blood cells that carries oxygen to tissues. Check with your doctor before taking high-dose iron supplements, because too much can cause health problems.

Chromium helps insulin transport glucose from the blood into cells, and supplements can greatly improve blood sugar levels. In a study of 180 people with type 2 diabetes, taking 500 micrograms of chromium picolinate twice daily resulted in significant improvements in blood sugar and insulin levels after just four months. Niacin-bound chromium has similar benefits. Chromium supplements can also reduce depression in people with a history of overeating.

Selenium is needed to make glutathione peroxidase, a potent antioxidant. It enhances immunity and aids the body’s ability to fight a wide range of infections. Its antiviral activity was shown in a study of 174 HIV-positive men and women who took selenium supplements for nine months. Subjects taking selenium had increases in immune cells and decreases in viral load, while those who took placebos had substantial increases in viral concentrations. Selenium supplements may be especially beneficial for women who inherit mutations in the BRCA cancer gene. In a study of women with this gene mutation, selenium supplements significantly decreased the rate of gene damage.

Iodine is an essential constituent of thyroid hormones, which regulate our metabolism. The principal thyroid hormones are T4 (which contains four iodine atoms) and the active T3 form (which contains three thyroid atoms). Selenium is needed to convert T4 to T3. Both minerals should be included in any treatment for low thyroid activity.

Manganese works with chromium and zinc in maintaining our ability to properly use carbohydrates. And like zinc and copper, it is also needed to make the antioxidant superoxide dismutase. Some studies have linked manganese deficiencies to seizure disorders, and the mineral also plays important roles in the formation of cartilage.

Molybdenum is needed to form aldehyde oxidase, sulfite oxidase, and xanthine oxidase. These enzymes help the body break down sulfites and aldehydes, the latter being a toxic by-product produced by yeast infections.

BACKGROUND CHECK: There are still other important trace minerals: cobalt is part of the vitamin B12 molecule; boron helps strengthen bones; and vanadium can improve carbohydrate tolerance.

WHAT YOU SHOULD TAKE: All of these minerals should be found in multimineral supplements. Under some circumstances you may need extra amounts of zinc, copper, iron, chromium, selenium, and iodine.

product examples (from left)

TRACE MINERALS RESEARCH CONCENTRACE Using ConcenTrace every day (mix with juice, food, or remineralize purified water) helps renew and energize your body’s “electrical system” for enhanced energy.
NATURE’S PLUS TRACE-MINS MULTI-TRACE MINERALS TABLETS This formula contains 72 trace minerals, derived from ancient seabed deposits. All minerals are naturally chelated and in the exact proportions that exist in ancient seawater deposits.
LUMINA HEALTH PRODUCTS CELL FOOD ORIGINAL LIQUID CONCENTRATE provides high levels of oxygen, hydrogen, and trace minerals to the body, supporting energy, endurance, and natural health. Just add to water or juice 15 minutes before meals or 45 minutes after, or add to your water bottle and drink throughout the day.

Disposal and Storage of Pesticides

The International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC)

ผ่านทาง| IUPAC.

DISPOSAL AND STORAGE OF PESTICIDES

John Unsworth
April 28th 2010

It is essential that pesticides are safely stored before use so that they do not contaminate the environment or harm human health. Ten rules for proper pesticide storage and stock management have been put forward by FAO in the Pesticide Storage and Stock Control Manual1.
Pesticide stores should not be located in or near densely populated urban areas or near water bodies.
The storage capacity (total storage surface) should be sufficient to store the total stock of pesticides at any time.
Each store should have at least the following:
sufficient ventilation openings to avoid unnecessarily high temperatures;
floors made of, or covered by, impermeable concrete or cement (as a temporary measure, floors may be covered by a large and thick polyethylene sheet);
ramps at entrances to contain any major leakage within the store;
doors that are lockable and bars across ventilation holes and windows to prevent unauthorized entry.
The floor of the store should have a layout of separate blocks with aisles between them. Ideally the outline of the blocks should be painted on the floor. Each block should contain only one product. There should be sufficient space between blocks to move containers freely, enable the inspection of containers and treat leakages. Drums should be stacked in such a way that each can be inspected from the aisles between the blocks. Drums and bags should be stored on pallets. The number of containers stacked on top of each other should not exceed the stacking recommendations for the type of container concerned. Overstacking may lead to rupture of containers lower down and reduces access to containers.
Pesticide stores should only contain pesticides. All other goods or objects should be removed.
Obsolete pesticides should be separated from operational stocks.
Each store should have the following for dealing with emergencies:
a few bags of sawdust and/or sand to absorb leaked or spilled pesticides;
a number of empty containers (preferably salvage drums that can contain a whole 200-litre drum) and empty bags to repack heavily damaged or leaking containers;
spade and brush;
fire extinguisher;
protective gear for staff to enable them to deal with emergencies (nitrile rubber or neoprene gloves, rubber boots, overalls, goggles, vapour masks or half-face respirators with organic vapour cartridges)
water supply from a tap, or a container of water, to wash hands and face if these become contaminated;
eyewash set.
The contents of leaking or heavily damaged containers should be repacked in appropriate replacement containers. Repacked pesticides should be labelled immediately. Stores should be inspected regularly. Any leakage or contamination should be cleaned up immediately.
Storekeepers should keep a record of the stocks in their custody and a separate record of stocks in the country should be kept centrally. Recorded data should include: for incoming pesticides, the arrival date, formulation, quantity, unit size, date of manufacture, supplier and origin; for outgoing pesticides, the date, formulation, quantity, unit size and destination. Records should be updated regularly.
A “first in – first out “principle should be applied consistently. In other words, always finish old consignments before using newly arrived consignments.
Disposal of small amounts of pesticides should be carried out by applying it according to label recommendations. By managing stocks of pesticides carefully and not over ordering it should be possible to avoid having to dispose of large amounts of material. However, where this is unavoidable advice should be taken on legal methods for disposal according to local requirements.

Individual countries also give specific advice for the storage and disposal of pesticides much of which is similar to that given above. In the USA the Environmental Protection Agency gives advice on the storage and disposal of pesticides to both household consumers and farmers2, the latter also disposing of pesticides under the “Clean Sweep” programme, available in many states for the collection and disposal of unwanted pesticides3. Information is also available from various extension services e.g. University of Nebraska4, Colorado State University5, University of Nevada6, University of Missouri7. In the UK advice is given to farmers by the Health and Safety Executive8.

CropLife International has also produced a comprehensive guide to the safe warehousing of crop protection products9.

References

1. Food and Agriculture Organisation, Pesticide Storage and Stock Control Manual

http://www.fao.org/docrep/V8966E/V8966E00.htm#2

2. US Environmental Protection Agency, Storage and Disposal of Pesticides

http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/regulating/storage.htm

3. US Environmental Protection Agency, Storage and disposal of pesticides, The Clean Sweep Report

http://www.epa.gov/oppfead1/cb/csb_page/updates/cleansweep.pdf

4. C.L. Ogg, L.d. Schulze and S.T. Kamble, Safe Transport, Storage and Disposal of Pesticides, EC 2507, University of Nebraska, 2006

http://www.ianrpubs.unl.edu/epublic/live/ec2507/build/ec2507.pdf

5. L.G. Skoglund and S.K. McDonald, Proper Pesticide Storage, Colorado Environmental Pesticide Education
Program, Pesticide Fact Sheet #115, 2006

http://wsprod.colostate.edu/cwis79/FactSheets/Sheets/115ProperStorage.pdf

6. S. Strom, W. S. Johnson and F. Whitford, Pesticide Safety Tips for Private and Commercial Applicators, Best Management Practices, Special Publication-05-11, 2005

http://www.unce.unr.edu/publications/files/ho/2005/sp0511.pdf

7. M. Steinwachs, Safe Use, Storage and Disposal of Pesticides, WM 6000, University of Missouri, 2007

http://extension.missouri.edu/explore/wasteman/wm6000.htm

8. UK Health and Safety Executive, Guidance on storing pesticides for farmers and other professional users, Agriculture Information Sheet No. 16, 2006

http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/ais16.pdf

9. CropLife International, Guidelines for the safe warehousing of crop protection products, 2006

http://www.croplife.org/files/documentspublished/1/en-us/PUB-GL/275_PUB-GL_2007_09_26_Guidelines_for_the_safe_warehousing_of_crop_protection_products.pdf

Last modified 8th April 2010

Date added: 2009-09-05 11:35:03
Last Updated 2010-05-10 04:35:38

Codex Alimentarius

The International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC)

ผ่านทาง| IUPAC.

CODEX ALIMENTARIUS

John Unsworth
7th April 2010

From the earliest times, governing authorities have been concerned with the safety and quality of food. Assyrian tablets described the method to be used in determining the correct weights and measures for food grains and Egyptian scrolls prescribed labelling to be applied to certain foods. In ancient Athens, beer and wines were inspected for purity and soundness and the Romans had a well-organised state food control system to protect consumers from fraud or bad produce. In Europe during the Middle Ages, individual countries passed laws concerning the quality and safety of eggs, sausages, beer, wine and bread1.

The second half of the nineteenth century saw the first general food laws adopted and basic food control systems put in place to monitor compliance. During the same period, food chemistry came to be recognized as a reputable discipline, and the determination of the “purity” of a food was primarily based on the chemical parameters of simple food composition. When harmful industrial chemicals were used to disguise the true colour or nature of food, the concept of “adulteration” was extended to include the use of hazardous chemicals in food. Science had begun providing tools with which to disclose dishonest practices in the sale of food and to distinguish between safe and unsafe edible products1.

Developments in food safety and quality continued throughout the 20th century with individual countries setting their own food regulations. However, it became apparent that these were often conflicting and contradictory. Thus the Codex Alimentarius Commission was created in 1963 by FAO and WHO to develop food standards, guidelines and related texts such as codes of practice under the Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards Programme which are published in the Codex Alimentarius1.

The Codex Alimentarius covers all foods and contains general standards for matters such as food labelling, hygiene, additives and pesticide residues, in addition there are procedures for assessing the safety of foods derived from biotechnology. The Codex Alimentarius Commission is science based and has stimulated activity in the fields of food chemistry, food technology, food microbiology, mycology and pesticide and veterinary drug residues. Much work is carried out in the form of collaborative studies among individual scientists, laboratories, institutes and universities and joint FAO/WHO expert committees and consultations2. As well as English it is published in Arabic, Chinese, French and Spanish.

Codex standards usually relate to product characteristics and may deal with all government-regulated characteristics appropriate to the commodity, or only one characteristic. Maximum residue limits (MRLs) for residues of pesticides or veterinary drugs in foods are examples of standards dealing with only one characteristic. There are Codex general standards for food additives and contaminants and toxins in foods that contain both general and commodity specific provisions. The Codex General Standard for the Labelling of Pre-packaged Foods covers all foods in this category. Because standards relate to product characteristics, they can be applied wherever the products are traded. Codex methods of analysis and sampling, including those for contaminants and residues of pesticides and veterinary drugs in foods, are also considered Codex standards3,4.

JMPR – Joint FAO/WHO Meeting on Pesticide Residues

The Joint FAO/WHO Meeting on Pesticide Residues (JMPR) is an international expert scientific group that is administered jointly by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and the World Health Organization (WHO). JMPR, which consists of the FAO Panel of Experts on Pesticide Residues in Food and the Environment and the WHO Core Assessment Group, has been meeting regularly since 1963. During the Meetings, the FAO Panel of Experts is responsible for reviewing residue and analytical aspects of the pesticides under consideration, including data on their metabolism, fate in the environment, and use patterns, and for estimating the maximum residue levels that might occur as a result of the use of the pesticides according to good agricultural practices. The WHO Core Assessment Group is responsible for reviewing toxicological and related data and for estimating, where possible, acceptable daily intakes (ADIs) for humans of the pesticides under consideration5.

JMPR serves as a scientific advisory body to FAO, WHO, to FAO and WHO member governments, and to the Codex Alimentarius Commission. Advice to the Codex Alimentarius Commission on pesticides is provided via the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues (CCPR).

Toxicological monographs are published after the meetings by WHO. These summarize the data used in the Meeting’s evaluations and provide full references to the relevant literature. Most of the monographs that have been published are available on INCHEM6.
Residues monographs, which contain information on pesticide use patterns, data on the chemistry and composition of pesticides, methods of analysis for pesticide residues, and information on MRLs is published in the FAO Plant Production and Protection Paper series5.

JMPS – Joint FAO/WHO Meeting on Pesticide Specifications
Since 1971, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) has developed and published specifications for pesticides and their related formulations. The specifications are designed to reflect generally acceptable product standards and to provide an international point of reference against which products can be judged, either for regulatory purposes or in commercial dealings, thus helping to prevent the trade of inferior products. They define the essential chemical and physical properties that may be linked to the efficacious and judicious use of a product.

In 2001, the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) of the United Nations and the World Health Organization (WHO) agreed to jointly develop specifications for pesticides. The joint FAO/WHO Meeting on Pesticide Specifications (JMPS) meets annually and consists of experts drawn from governments and academic circles. The Expert Panels of FAO and WHO are composed of scientists collectively possessing expert knowledge of the development of specifications. The role of the Panel Members is to evaluate pesticide data submitted by pesticide companies in accordance with the “Manual on the development and use of FAO and WHO specifications for pesticides”7. When the specifications are accepted, FAO and WHO then publish the specification and the accompanying evaluation on the Internet. This initiative provides a unique, robust and universally applicable standard for pesticide quality.

CIPAC – Collaborative International Pesticides Analytical Council
CIPAC is international, non-profit-oriented and non-governmental organization devoted to: promoting the international agreement on methods for the analysis of pesticides and physico-chemical test methods for formulations and promoting inter-Iaboratory programmes for the evaluation of test methods. The methods are proposed by companies and are tested by laboratories all over the world. After evaluation of the results and adoption, the methods are published in the CIPAC Handbooks8.

CIPAC methods are for pesticide registration, for official post-registration control, for FAO and WHO Specifications etc. Currently there are 400 methods for pesticide a.i. (M-series), ~ 200 methods for physical and chemical properties (MT-series), as well as several methods for reagents etc. (R-series).

The methods are not available on the Internet but must be purchased from CIPAC.

References

1. Origins of the Codex Alimentarius; Understanding the Codex Alimentarius, p.5, 3rd Edition, WHO/FAO Rome 2006
ftp://ftp.fao.org/codex/Publications/understanding/Understanding_EN.pdf

2. Codex and Science, Understanding the Codex Alimentarius, p.21, 3rd Edition, WHO/FAO Rome 2006
ftp://ftp.fao.org/codex/Publications/understanding/Understanding_EN.pdf

3. What is the Codex Alimentarius? Understanding the Codex Alimentarius, p.10, 3rd Edition, WHO/FAO Rome 2006
ftp://ftp.fao.org/codex/Publications/understanding/Understanding_EN.pdf

4. Codex Alimentarius, Current Official Standards

http://www.codexalimentarius.net/web/standard_list.jsp

5. International Program on Chemical Safety, About the Joint FAO/WHO Meeting on Pesticides (JMPR)

http://www.who.int/ipcs/food/jmpr/about/en/index.html

6. IPCS INCHEM Pesticide Documents

http://www.inchem.org/pages/pds.html

7. Manual on the development and use of FAO and WHO specifications for pesticides, 1st Edition, WHO/FAO, Rome 2006

http://www.fao.org/ag/AGP/AGPP/Pesticid/Specs/Pdf/Manual_update%202006.pdf

8. CIPAC – Summary

http://www.cipac.org/summary.htm

Last modified April 7th 2010

BIOPESTICIDES

The International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC)

ผ่านทาง| IUPAC.

BIOPESTICIDES

John Unsworth
April 6th 2010

Biopesticides can be considered as falling into three main categories1.
Microbial pesticides consist of a microorganism (e.g., a bacterium, fungus, virus or protozoan) as the active ingredient. Microbial pesticides can control many different kinds of pests, although each separate active ingredient is relatively specific for its target pest[s]. For example, there are fungi that control certain weeds, and other fungi that kill specific insects.

Plant-Incorporated-Protectants (PIPs) are pesticidal substances that plants produce from genetic material that has been added to the plant. For example, scientists can take the gene for the Bt pesticidal protein, and introduce the gene into the plant’s own genetic material. Then the plant, instead of the Bt bacterium, manufactures the substance that destroys the pest.

Biochemical pesticides are naturally occurring substances that control pests by non-toxic mechanisms. Conventional pesticides, by contrast, are generally synthetic materials that directly kill or inactivate the pest. Biochemical pesticides include substances, such as insect sex pheromones, which interfere with mating, as well as various scented plant extracts that attract insect pests to traps. Because it is sometimes difficult to determine whether a substance meets the criteria for classification as a biochemical pesticide, EPA has established a special committee to make such decisions.

Biopesticides play an important role in providing pest management tools in areas where pesticide resistance, niche markets and environmental concerns limit the use of conventional chemical pesticide products. Examples are2:

Insect Control

Bacteria – Bacillus thuringiensis, B. sphaericus, Paenibacillus popilliae, Serratia entomophila
Viruses – nuclear polyhedrosis viruses, granulosis viruses, non-occluded baculoviruses
Fungi – Beauveria spp, Metarhizium, Entomophaga, Zoopthora, Paecilomyces fumosoroseus, Normuraea, Lecanicillium lecanii
Protozoa – Nosema, Thelohania, Vairimorpha
Entomopathogenic nematodes – Steinernema spp, Heterorhabditis spp
Others – Pheromones, parasitoids, predators, microbial by-products

Weed Control

Fungi – Colletotrichum gloeosporioides, Chondrostereum purpureum, Cylindrobasidium laeve
Bacteria – Xanthomonas campestris pv. Poannua

Plant Disease Control

Fungi – Ampelomyces quisqualis, Candida spp. , Clonostachys rosea f. catenulate, Coniothyrium minitans, Pseudozyma flocculosa, Trichoderma spp
Competitive and Soil Inoculants – Bacillus pumilus, B. subtilis, Pseudomonas spp, Streptomyces griseoviridis
Burkholderia cepacia

Nematicides etc.

Nematode Trapping Fungi – Myrothecium verrucaria, Paecilomyces lilacinus
Bacteria – Bacillus firmus, Pasteuria penetrans
Mollusc parasitic nematode – Phasmarhabditis hermaphrodita

Currently the most widely used biopesticide is Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) which is an insecticide with unusual properties that make it useful for pest control in certain situations. Bt is a naturally occurring bacterium common in soils throughout the world. Several strains can infect and kill insects. Because of this property, Bt has been developed for insect control. The target insect species are determined by whether the particular Bt produces a protein that can bind to a larval gut receptor, thereby causing the insect larvae to starve. The insecticidal activity of Bt was first discovered in 1911. However, it was not commercially available until the 1950s. In recent years, there has been tremendous renewed interest in Bt. Several new products have been developed, largely because of the safety associated with Bt-based insecticides3. Since 1996 plants have been modified with short sequences of genes from Bt to express the crystal protein Bt makes. With this method, plants themselves can produce the proteins and protect themselves from insects without any external Bt and/or synthetic pesticide sprays. Bt GM crops are protected specifically against European corn borer, southwestern corn borer, tobacco budworm, cotton bollworm, pink bollworm and the Colorado potato beetle4.

Examples of biopesticides also include the use of fungi and bacteria to prevent damage to plants by pests and diseases5. UK researchers have demonstrated that biocontrol agents can also be applied to seeds during drum priming, a seed preparation method that is used commercially to improve germination. They demonstrated, for the first time, that during the drum priming process it is possible to apply mixtures of fungi (Clonostachys rosea IK726 or Trichoderma harzianum T22) and bacteria (Pseudomonas chlororaphis MA342 or P.fluorescens CHA0), to carrot and onion seeds6.

As with conventional chemical pesticides biopesticides also have to undergo a registration process. The US EPA wishes to facilitate the registration of biopesticides and promotes the use of safer pesticides, including biopesticides, as components of IPM programs. Since biopesticides tend to pose fewer risks than conventional pesticides, the EPA generally requires much less data to register a biopesticide than to register a conventional pesticide. In fact, new biopesticides are often registered in less than a year, compared with an average of more than 3 years for conventional pesticides1. The US EPA also publishes fact sheets on biopesticides which have undergone registration7.

In the EU biopesticides are regulated in the same way as conventional pesticides, requiring the same data sets. However, several draft documents have been produced to give guidance on the actual requirements when applied to biopesticides e.g. for plant extracts8, taxonomic level for micro-organisms9. The UK PSD has introduced a scheme to facilitate more alternative products to enter the market by giving early advice to potential registrants. This scheme covers products based on pheromone and other semiochemicals, microorganisms (e.g. bacterium, fungus, protozoa, virus and viroid), plant extracts and other novel products10. This scheme does not, however, cover GM plants.

The OECD has introduced the Pesticide Registration and Re-registration Project for Biological Pesticides (microbials, pheromones and semiochemicals and invertebrates such as insects and nematodes) to help governments work together to assess pesticide risks to man and the environment. By working together, governments can evaluate a biological pesticide’s risks more quickly and thoroughly. This speeds up the process of approving safer new pesticides and stopping use of riskier ones. The project has focused on writing guidance for the submission and evaluation of biological pesticide test data11.

In the US the Environmental Protection Agency is responsible for the registration of “plant-incorporated protectants (PIP)” i.e. genetically modified crops. Identification of the new PIP character added to the plant generally follows guidance developed by the EPA, Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) and the USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service ( APHIS). Guidelines have been produced by the EPA giving the requirements for registration12.

In the EU GM food and feed, i.e. crops producing pesticidal substances from genetic material that has been added to the plant, can only be authorised for placing on the market after a scientific assessment of any risks which they might present for human and animal health and, as the case may be, for the environment (according to Regulation (EC) 1829/2003)13. Detailed information on the requirements is given in a guidance document published by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)14,15.

Similar guidelines are available for Canada16 Australia17 – although here, if they are food organisms, after it is decided that they are safe in the form of crops to be released into the environment, they must also be approved by the Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ)18, Japan19,20 etc.

The OECD is currently looking at international regulation of GM crops, the main focus of the work is on international harmonization of regulatory oversight in modern biotechnology which will ensure that environmental health and safety aspects are properly evaluated, while avoiding non-tariff trade barriers to products of the technology21.

References

1. US Environmental Protection Agency – What are Biopesticides?

http://www.epa.gov/opp00001/biopesticides/whatarebiopesticides.htm

2. Society for Invertebrate Pathology – Microbial Control Division – Biopesticides

http://www.dropdata.net/SIP_micontrol/biopesticides.htm

3. Colarado State University – Extension – Horticulture, Bacillus thuringiensis

http://www.ext.colostate.edu/pubs/Insect/05556.html

4. University of California, San Diego – Bacillus thuringiensis

http://www.bt.ucsd.edu/bt_crop.html

5. Potential of Microbial Control “Fungi”, Sebastian Kiewnick, Agroscope Changins-Wädenswil Research Station ACW, Switzerland, 19th September 2006

http://www.rebeca-net.de/downloads/REBECASalzauDocuments/Group%20work%20bacteria%20fungi/Salzau%20Sebastian%20Kiewnick%20Fungi.pdf

6. European Commission, DG Environment, News Alert Service – Chemical Pesticides on their Way Out?

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/integration/research/newsalert/pdf/95na1.pdf

7. US Environmental Protection Agency – Biopesticide Active Ingredient Fact Sheets

http://www.epa.gov/opp00001/biopesticides/ingredients/

8. EU DG Health and Consumer Protection, Sanco/10472/2003 –rev.5, Concerning the Data Requirements for Active Substances of Plant Protection Products Made from Plants or Plant Extracts (2004)

http://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/protection/evaluation/plant_extracts.pdf

9. EU DG Health and Consumer Protection, Sanco/10754/2005 –rev.5, Guideline developed within the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health on the taxonomic level of micro-organisms to be included in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC (2005)

http://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/protection/resources/taxonomic_level_dir91414.pdf

10. UK Pesticides Safety Directorate, Launch of New Biopesticides Scheme

http://www.pesticides.gov.uk/biopesticides.asp?id=1846

11. OECD Environment Directorate, Biological Pesticide Registration

http://www.oecd.org/document/8/0,3343,en_2649_34383_31962760_1_1_1_1,00.html

12. US Environmental Protection Agency, Introduction to Biotechnology Regulation for Pesticides

http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/biopesticides/regtools/biotech-reg-prod.htm

13. Official Journal of the European Union,L268/1, 18th October 2003, Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on Genetically Modified Food and Feed,

http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/animalnutrition/labelling/Reg_1829_2003_en.pdf

14. Guidance Document of the Scientific Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms for the Risk Assessment of Genetically Modified Plants and Derived Food and Feed Use, The EFSA Journal (2006) 374, 1-115.

http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/scdocs/scdoc/374.htm

15. EFSA, EFSA Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO), Scientific Opinion on Statistical Considerations for the Safety Evaluation of GMOs

http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/scdocs/doc/1250.pdf

16. Food Directorate, Health Products and Food Branch, Health Canada – Guidelines for the Safety Assessment of Novel Foods (June 2006)

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/legislation/guide-ld/nf-an/guidelines-lignesdirectrices_e.html

17. The Office of the Gene Technology Regulator, Commonwealth Department of Health and Aged Care, A Users Guide to the Gene Technology Act 2000 and Related Legislation

http://www.svhm.org.au/research/governance/Documents/handbook%5B1%5D.pdf

18. Food Standards Australia New Zealand, Genetically Modified (GM) Foods

http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/consumerinformation/gmfoods/

19. Japan Ministry of the Environment, Japan Biosafety Clearing House, Domestic Law and Regulations

http://www.bch.biodic.go.jp/english/law.html

20. MINISTRY OF HEALTH, LABOUR AND WELFARE, JAPAN, FOODS AND FOOD ADDITIVES PRODUCED BY RECOMBINANT DNA TECHNIQUES, MANDATORY REQUIREMENT OF THE SAFETY ASSESSMENT RELATED ORDINANCES AND ANNOUNCEMENTS

http://www.mhlw.go.jp/english/topics/food/sec03.html

21. OECD Environment Directorate, Harmonisation of Regulatory Oversight in Biotechnology

http://www.oecd.org/department/0,3355,en_2649_34387_1_1_1_1_1,00.html

Last modified 6th April 2010