Volume 10, Number 2, June 11, 1999
In This Issue
* EPA is proposing to revoke over 200 tolerances (pesticide residue limits) that had previously been established for pesticides used on a variety of food products. This proposal follows-up earlier actions on canceled pesticides or uses. The review of these tolerances is part of the tolerance reassessment process that EPA is conducting under the Food Quality Protection Act. EPA has reassessed more than 2,300 tolerances of the approximately 3,200 needed to meet the August 1999 goal of reassessing 33% of tolerances existing when the law was enacted. There are 15 active ingredients associated with this proposal. Copies of the proposed rule, which was published in the Federal Register on April 7, may be obtained from: http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-PEST. U. S. EPA April 9, 1999
* As required by the Food Quality Protection Act, EPA is now establishing tolerances for pesticide uses granted under the emergency exemption provision of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act. This proposed rule solicits public comment on the procedures and criteria for EPA to establish pesticide tolerances (maximum residue limits) resulting from emergency uses of pesticides. Prior to passage of FQPA, EPA did conduct a health and safety review on the proposed use, but did not set tolerances for emergency uses. EPA is now required to establish time-limited tolerances that meet the new FQPA safety requirements. Written comments on the proposal will be accepted on or before August 2. The proposal can be viewed on EPA's web site at: http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-PEST, or obtained by contacting the Office of Pesticide Programs Docket at 703-305-5805. U. S. EPA June 4, 1999
By Scott Marlowe
Executive Director
North Carolina Peanut Project
Editor's Note: The North Carolina Peanut Project is funded, in part, by an EPA Region 4 Agricultural Initiative grant.
The North Carolina Peanut Project began in 1995 as a program of the Rural Advancement Foundation International-USA, a non-profit organization which focuses on issues of equity, diversity, and sustainability in agriculture and rural communities. The focus of the Peanut Project is to assist peanut farmers in getting ahead of the changes that will affect the peanut industry and agriculture in general, in a way that improves the economic, environmental, and social impact of agriculture. Our main target has been to reduce the need for chemical pesticides, using informal learning situations, farmer-run research, and farmer-to-farmer information sharing.
Since the program's inception, more than 60 farmers have participated in Peanut Project field trials, testing and adapting bio-rational methods of peanut production, and many more have attended Peanut Project meetings to hear the results of the trials. In 1998, Peanut Project farmers reduced their use of chemical pesticides from 1994 levels by more than 106,000 pounds of active ingredient, on more than 7,800 acres, independent of seasonal pesticide use fluctuation. Eighty-five percent of the participating growers increased their profit, and most reported no yield reduction. Meetings have given farmers the opportunity to share with other farmers, land grant faculty, extension agents, members of the non-governmental organization (NGO) community, and others from the peanut industry their experiences and challenges in keeping their farms operating. These new relationships have helped all of the collaborators do their jobs more effectively.
The challenges facing farmers as we approach the next century are taking an immediacy that requires quick action. As one grower stated at a Peanut Project meeting, "I don't have ten years to wait for them to figure out this stuff. I need the information now." The only way for growers to have access to information quickly is for them to participate in generating the information. Several trends are increasing the pressures on farmers and making it more difficult to stay on the land. Federal commodity programs are being dismantled. International trade agreements like the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) are increasing competition from the world market. Consumers are demanding reduction of pesticides used on food, and legislators are responding with increased regulation and legislation limiting pesticide use.
Organizations such as the Cooperative Extension Service and the Agricultural Research Service, which have traditionally provided new options for farmers, are facing budget cuts from both the federal and state levels.
This urgency is at the heart of the Peanut Project. The solutions which will help growers stay on the farm will be found on the farm. Each member of the agricultural community can contribute to solving the puzzle. The test at the end of the day is whether or not farmers, their farms, and their families are healthier as a result of our work.
For further information and to receive a copy of the report, The Peanut Project: Farmer-focused agricultural innovation for sustainable peanut production, which outlines both the model of agricultural innovation used in the project and the specific strategies for reducing pesticides and other costs in peanut production, send $6.00 US in check or money order to: The Peanut Project, RAFI-USA, PO Box 640, Pittsboro, NC 27312. Alphabet Soap, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, Atlanta, Georgia Volume 1, Number 3, April 1999
The domestic elimination of two effective and commonly used groups of pest-fighting crop protectants would bolster foreign food producers while hurting America's consumers and farmers, according to a university study released May 11.
A U.S. ban on the two pesticide groups -- organophosphates and carbamates -- would result in more food imports from foreign nations, higher food prices for American consumers, less consumption of nutritionally important fruits and vegetables, lower crop yields and increased production costs for America's farmers, according to the study compiled by Texas A&M University's Agricultural and Food Policy Center and Auburn University.
According to the American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF), which sponsored the Texas A&M/Auburn study, organophosphates and carbamates face possible elimination due to the Environmental Protection Agency's flawed implementation of the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA). AFBF is supporting legislation (H.R. 1592) that would help ensure proper implementation of FQPA.
Faced with congressionally mandated deadlines, EPA is hurriedly reviewing organophosphates and carbamates. In doing so, Farm Bureau contends the agency is relying on incomplete science, grossly inflated use rates, and a risk-assessment method devoid of any consideration for overall nutrition or the resulting health impact of imported food -- over which there is no effective U.S. control regarding chemical use.
The study -- authored by Ron Knutson and Ed Smith of Texas A&M and Robert Taylor of Auburn -- gauges the impacts of eliminating the two pesticide families based on in-depth analysis from 22 university scientists from 10 of the nation's premier land-grant universities. The scientists, specialized in production technology for specific commodities, filed reports for 14 different crops -- apples, carrots, corn, cotton, grapes, oranges, peaches, peanuts, potatoes, rice, sorghum, soybeans, tomatoes and wheat. A detailed analysis of the aggregate economic impacts regarding farmers and consumers also was compiled.
MORE IMPORTED FOOD
According to the study, the list of U.S. fruits and vegetables most likely to be displaced by foreign produce is led by fresh apples, the imports of which would surge by 16.8%. Other large import increases are predicted for: juices, 4.3%; potatoes, 3.9%; processed tomatoes, 3.8%; fresh grapes, 3.4%; fresh peaches, 3.3%; and fresh tomatoes, 3.3%.
The study states that those and other increases in imports would result from reductions in U.S. fruit and vegetable production due to the domestic loss of the two groups of pesticides. Farmers in foreign countries, however, could reap a huge EPA-granted competitive advantage since they could still use the U.S.- banned pesticides.
According to AFBF, since residues from the pesticides are frequently absent or undetectable, using even sophisticated testing methods, there is no way to prove they were grown with the use of pesticides banned in the United States. Furthermore, even if foreign use of the pesticides could be proved, keeping the products out of the U.S. market would likely run afoul of international trading rules.
As a result, the study's authors state that, due to those higher foreign imports, there would actually be less U.S. control over the use of organophosphates and carbamates than if its use were not banned domestically.
"The incomplete science EPA is proposing to implement this law will result in all pain and no gain," said AFBF President Dean Kleckner. "We would be stripping our farmers of the tools they need to produce an abundant, affordable supply of healthy food, while at the same time turning over production of those foods to foreign farmers, who would still have access to those tools. It makes no sense to forfeit the production of food for American children to lesser-trained foreign farmers operating under far less stringent food safety rules who will be using pesticides banned in the United States."
U.S. ECONOMIC IMPACT
In addition to the specter of more imports, America's overall economy would be impacted by a ban of the two groups of pesticides, according to the study. The nation's total economic output would decrease by $17 billion. Total value added to U.S. farm commodities by processing would decline $10 billion. Income -- for employees, proprietors and others -- would fall by $9 billion. Elimination of the pesticides would result in the loss of 209,000 U.S. jobs.
LOWER YIELDS, HIGHER COSTS
Of the 14 crops analyzed for national impact, apple growers will take the biggest hits. In addition to facing the highest level of imports, eliminating the crop protectants will result in a 38% yield reduction and a staggering increase of 66% in the per-unit cost of growing domestic apples. The combined impact of those factors would sound a death knell for the U.S. apple industry, according to Farm Bureau.
Despite a wide variation by crop type, the compounded effect of even the slightest yield reduction or increase in production expenses -- in light of the economic realities of today's agriculture -- would have immediate impacts on the razor-thin profit margins for producers of nearly all crops analyzed, according to AFBF.
Even producers of several commodities studied that appear to experience short-term price increases -- corn, grain sorghum, soybeans, and cotton -- would eventually see that picture erode as long-term global production levels are hiked to compensate for U.S. production shortfalls created by the pesticide ban. Global production would further slash U.S. export demand and prices would fall over the long term.
The study predicted lower U.S. yields across the board. Yields would be reduced for carrots by 7%; corn, 4%; cotton, 14%; grapes, 9%; oranges, 3%; peaches, 2%; peanuts, 9%; potatoes, 3%; rice, 8%; sorghum, 12%; soybeans, 5%; tomatoes, 15%; and wheat, 1%.
According to the study, per-unit production costs would increase for carrots by 4%; corn, 5%; cotton, 22%; grapes, 3%; oranges, 2%; peaches, 3%; peanuts, 7%; potatoes, 7%; rice, 8%; sorghum, 10%; soybeans, 9%; tomatoes, 13%; and wheat, 1%.
REGIONAL IMPACT
Regional breakdowns of the analyzed crops show that farmers in some areas of the nation will actually face impacts even more severe than the national outlook -- impacts that could result in cropping changes and farm restructuring. For example, carrot producers in Texas and Washington will see yields decreasing 20-25%, compared to 7% nationwide (Table 1).
Cotton farmers in the Southwest and Southern Plains will see yields drop 19-21% and per-unit production costs rise 27-28% -- numbers that eclipse the national figures by 5 percentage points.
Depending on the crop, the study, in general, indicates farmers in the southeastern United States, California and Washington will feel the most severe impacts of losing the use of organophosphates and carbamates.
FAMILY FARMS
According to the study, in addition to lower yields, loss of the two crop protectant groups would result in less stable and more vulnerable crop production. The resulting increase in price variability would make life a lot tougher for family farmers.
"Moderate-size family farmers are relatively more vulnerable to increased price variability than part-time producers who use off-farm income to reduce risk or larger operations that are capable of internalizing risk reduction management," state the study's authors.
The authors also point out that no alternatives to the use of organophosphates and carbamates exist for some agricultural pests. Even when alternatives exist, however, crop scientists who contributed to the report expressed concern about pests developing resistance to a limited array of treatments. They stressed the importance of organophosphates and carbamates as "second or third line defenses to prevent crop failures and production shortfalls."
HIGHER FOOD PRICES
The retail prices consumers pay for most food items will rise, and, as a result, consumption of most fruits and vegetables -- a widely recognized policy goal to improve nutrition, diet and health -- will fall. For example, the consumption of fresh grapes will fall by 5.1%; fresh apples, 4.3%; and tomatoes, 4.17%.
The largest retail price impact is for apples. Retail apple prices will increase by 6.24%, helping reduce expected consumption by 1.88%. Retail price increases of greater than 1% were also seen for: tomatoes, 5.02%; fruit juice, 4.17%; grapes, 2.22%; sweeteners, 2%; other fats and oils, 2%; and eggs, 1.18%.
"Increased retail food prices of a few percentage points, resulting in an increase of $5.90 to $8.60 in annual food expenditures, may not sound like much to people whose household income is in the mid to upper levels. However, to the household whose income is already under the poverty level, any increase in spending takes away from expenditures for other necessities and will likely result in those families eating a less nutritionally adequate diet," the authors stated.
FEWER U.S. EXPORTS
The U.S. agricultural trade picture would be pinched severely by the loss of organophosphates and carbamates. Less competitive prices and a loss of export quality would result in sizeable declines in U.S. farm exports. Peanut exports would drop by 14.4%. Other commodities with export declines of more than 4% include: grain sorghum, 12.5%; soybeans, 11.1%; cotton lint, 10.6%; and corn, 4.7%. In addition, U.S. wheat exports would fall by 2.7%.
The authors emphasized that additional long-term erosion in U.S. farm exports could be expected as farmers in competing nations increase crop production.
"Implementation of FQPA will come at a price," said Kleckner. "It's only fair to expect some benefit for that cost, but the way things are heading, America's farmers and consumers will be paying more for poorer nutrition, less domestic food security and lower confidence in food safety. The only winners are foreign farmers over whom EPA has no control. No matter how you slice it, that's bad implementation of the law." Copies of the study are available, at cost, by contacting Texas A&M at (409) 845-5913. A report summarizing the individual commodities analyzed is available on the Internet at: http://afpc1.tamu.edu/pesticides. htm. Copies of that report also are available, at cost, by calling the university. Also available, at cost, are copies of the individual commodity reports prepared by scientists who contributed to the overall study. American Farm Bureau Federation News Release May 11, 1999
Table 1. Commodities and Regions Found To Be Most Vulnerable to Reduced Yields and
Increased Costs if Organophosphates and Carbamates Were Eliminated.
| Commodity | Region/States Most Adversely Affected a/ | Yield Reduction | Variable Cost Increase |
| Percent | |||
| Apples | Washington b/ | 38 | 66 |
| Carrots | Texas / Washington | 25 / 20 | 3 / 20 |
| Corn | Southeast | 5 | 9 |
| Cotton | Southwest / Southern Plains | 21 / 19 | 27 / 28 |
| Grapes | California (Table) | 32 | 32 |
| Oranges | California | 15 | 14 |
| Peaches | Georgia | 17 | 19 |
| Peanuts | Virginia / North Carolina | 17 | 15 |
| Potatoes | Central States | 5 | 13 |
| Rice | Gulf Coast | 15 | 17 |
| Grain Sorghum | Southern Plains | 14 | 13 |
| Soybeans | Delta | 8 | 15 |
| Tomatoes | Florida Fresh | 21 | 20 |
| Wheat | Southeast | 5 | 3 |
a/ This table only highlights the region most adversely impacted by the loss of organophosphates and carbamates. This does not imply that other regions of the U.S. are not impacted.
b/ Only region studied.
With its May 19 technical briefing on a revised risk assessment for this chemical, the EPA kicked off a public comment period through July 19 to take suggestions for risk management. Such comments could address how to manage dietary, occupational or ecological risks on specific azinphos-methyl use sites across the United States or in particular geographic regions. At the technical briefing, EPA's Steve Johnson, acting deputy assistant administrator of the Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, said, "We do believe it is now time to move seriously into the next phase for this chemical, and look at ways to reduce exposure in an orderly, common sense way. "Let me also say . . . our unequivocal advice is that consumers should continue to eat a healthy and balanced diet, which includes the recommended servings of fruits and vegetables. We do not believe, based on our pilot process, that it is necessary to take immediate action to address any of the risks from this chemical." To obtain the revised risk assessment and related documents, go to: http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/op/azm.htm. Contact: Karen Angulo at 703-308-8004 or angulo.karen@epa.gov. Reregistration Notification Network, Office of Pest Management Policy, U. S. Department of Agriculture Volume 9, Number 5, June 4, 1999
EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs has made pesticide fact sheets available on their Office of Pesticide Programs Home Page. The fact sheets contain information on specific chemicals and items involving pesticides. For instance, information on newly registered pesticide active ingredients includes reviews of topics such as the year of initial registration, chemical family, producer, application site(s), formulation types, method(s) of application, application rates, science statements, and toxicological characteristics for both human health and the environment. The fact sheet site is new and will continue to expand. View the fact sheets at http://www.epa.gov/ pesticides/factsheets/. Chemically Speaking, University of Florida May 1999
Clothes with built-in detoxifiers may soon be available to protect agricultural workers from exposure to some carbamates, researchers with the University of California at Davis said March 23 at the American Chemical Society conference in Anaheim, California. Louise Ko, a University of California-Davis graduate student, developed a treatment for cotton-based textiles based on chlorine and the compound hydantion which can decompose up to 99% of methomyl and aldicarb within 5 minutes. The compound "has the ability to break down the pesticide on contact," Ko said during a poster presentation. The treated clothing can be washed at least 50 times with 0.01% chlorine bleach, which reactivates the treatment.
Pesticide exposure to humans is most likely to occur through the skin, Ko said. While pesticide applicators and mixer/loaders are required by law to wear heavy synthetic suits to protect themselves, field workers prefer light, breathable, cotton-based fabrics such as jeans and T-shirts, Ko said. The functional fabrics could be used to manufacture long-sleeved shirts, trousers or gauntlets as protective clothing for agricultural workers or harvesters, Ko said. The clothing could then be laundered and re-bleached on-site so workers would not bring contaminated clothing to their homes. The treatment also works as an antibacterial agent, which may be useful for treating clothing and bedding in hospitals and other medical settings. The process to create protective clothing has been patented and the technology purchased by Halosource Corp. of Seattle. Pesticide & Toxic Chemical News March 1999 in ACCES-Pesticides, University of Arizona, Volume 24, Number 5, May 1999
EPA is releasing the fifth edition of the manual Recognition and Management of Pesticide Poisonings which provides healthcare professionals with information on the health hazards of pesticides and recommendations for managing poisonings and injuries. This new updated manual contains current information on pesticides and what to do in case of a pesticide poisoning. The manual has been essential to health care professionals both nationally and internationally in diagnosing and treating pesticide poisoning incidences. The fifth edition introduces a new chapter on the importance of medical professionals conducting complete patient histories to help ensure proper diagnosis and treatment. Another new area explored in this edition is on disinfectants. The manual is available through the Office of Pesticide Programs' Certification and Worker Protection Branch and will be accessible in May at: http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/safety/heathcare. A Spanish edition will be available this summer. U. S. EPA April 22, 1999
Note: Manuals can be ordered by telephone at 703-305-7666
Employment and program opportunities are offered to all people regardless of race, color, national origin, sex, age or handicap. North Carolina State University, North Carolina A&T State University, U.S. Department of Agriculture, and local governments cooperating.
Last modified on June 11, 1999 by Stephen J. Toth, Jr.