[X] CLOSEMAIN MENU

  • Archives

  • Categories

    • air pollution (10)
    • Announcements (612)
    • Antibiotic Resistance (47)
    • Antimicrobial (22)
    • Aquaculture (31)
    • Aquatic Organisms (45)
    • Artificial Intelligence (1)
    • Bats (19)
    • Beneficials (73)
    • biofertilizers (2)
    • Biofuels (6)
    • Biological Control (36)
    • Biomonitoring (42)
    • Biostimulants (1)
    • Birds (32)
    • btomsfiolone (1)
    • Bug Bombs (2)
    • Cannabis (31)
    • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (13)
    • Chemical Mixtures (20)
    • Children (143)
    • Children/Schools (245)
    • cicadas (1)
    • Climate (46)
    • Climate Change (109)
    • Clover (1)
    • compost (8)
    • Congress (31)
    • contamination (168)
    • deethylatrazine (1)
    • diamides (1)
    • Disinfectants & Sanitizers (19)
    • Drift (25)
    • Drinking Water (22)
    • Ecosystem Services (39)
    • Emergency Exemption (3)
    • Environmental Justice (185)
    • Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (610)
    • Events (92)
    • Farm Bill (30)
    • Farmworkers (222)
    • Forestry (6)
    • Fracking (4)
    • Fungal Resistance (8)
    • Generally Recognized As Safe (GRAS) (1)
    • Goats (2)
    • Golf (16)
    • Greenhouse (1)
    • Groundwater (21)
    • Health care (32)
    • Herbicides (58)
    • Holidays (46)
    • Household Use (9)
    • Indigenous People (9)
    • Indoor Air Quality (7)
    • Infectious Disease (4)
    • Integrated and Organic Pest Management (80)
    • Invasive Species (35)
    • Label Claims (53)
    • Lawns/Landscapes (257)
    • Litigation (357)
    • Livestock (13)
    • men’s health (9)
    • metabolic syndrome (3)
    • Metabolites (13)
    • Mexico (1)
    • Microbiata (27)
    • Microbiome (39)
    • molluscicide (1)
    • Nanosilver (2)
    • Nanotechnology (54)
    • National Politics (389)
    • Native Americans (5)
    • Occupational Health (24)
    • Oceans (12)
    • Office of Inspector General (5)
    • perennial crops (1)
    • Pesticide Drift (176)
    • Pesticide Efficacy (13)
    • Pesticide Mixtures (28)
    • Pesticide Residues (203)
    • Pets (40)
    • Plant Incorporated Protectants (3)
    • Plastic (13)
    • Poisoning (22)
    • President-elect Transition (3)
    • Reflection (4)
    • Repellent (4)
    • Resistance (128)
    • Rights-of-Way (1)
    • Rodenticide (37)
    • Seasonal (6)
    • Seeds (8)
    • soil health (45)
    • Superfund (5)
    • synergistic effects (35)
    • Synthetic Pyrethroids (18)
    • Synthetic Turf (3)
    • Take Action (636)
    • Textile/Apparel/Fashion Industry (1)
    • Toxic Waste (12)
    • U.S. Supreme Court (6)
    • Volatile Organic Compounds (2)
    • Women’s Health (38)
    • Wood Preservatives (36)
    • World Health Organization (13)
    • Year in Review (3)
  • Most Viewed Posts

Daily News Blog

17
Jan

California Pesticide Regulation Budget To Increase

The California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) will be able to step up pesticide regulation this year due to a significant increase in its 2007 budget, resulting in the largest availability of funding in fifteen years and more resources to direct to enforcement and education of pesticide laws.

DPR’s 2007 budget grew by $3 million, thanks to a law passed last year allowing the collection of fees from wholesale pesticide sales. DPR’s $69 million budget is fully funded by fees imposed on pesticide sellers and similar funds, rather than the state’s general fund. Until last year’s law included large-scale commercial sellers like Wal-Mart, Costco, and Home Depot, revenues were mostly derived from agricultural sellers. This is DPR’s largest budget since it’s inception in 1991, and is comparable to the inflation-adjusted budget from 2001, before California’s severe budget cuts.

Among other specific uses for the new funds will be the hiring of six new enforcement officials, and a four percent increase in enforcement funds to county agricultural commissioners. Grants will be renewed for the first time since 2003, potentially helping growers find alternatives to methyl bromide, an internationally phased-out fumigant of which the United States is annually granted usage by members of the Montreal Protocol (for more on this, click here).

DPR will also focus new funds to “develop mitigation measures, adopt statewide rules, develop better worker and physician outreach programs, and take pesticide product registration actions. Reducing farmworker illnesses, long a priority of California’s pesticide regulatory program, has also taken on new urgency with imposition of environmental justice requirements.”

“This budget will put us in the best position that we’ve been in for some time to help protect the public, the environment and the regulated community. We’re now getting to the point that we have the resources to enforce the laws,�” said DPR director Mary-Ann Warmerdam. “With this support, we’ll aim for zero — no more major pesticide incidents on the farm or in urban settings.” Roughly 50 major incidents are reported annually in the state.

Ms. Warmerdam went on to say that the department’s aim is to avoid bans on common and dangerous chemicals like pyrethroids and fumigants, and instead control usage to reduce the risks associated with them. To facilitate that goal, the new budget includes a new position to “evaluate mitigation measures for chlorpyrifos and pyrethroids pesticides.”

Environmental groups are reacting positively to DPR’s recent actions. “They are doing a pretty good job of putting the money where people think there is the most need for it,” according to Susan Kegley, senior scientist with the Pesticide Action Network of North America (PANNA). However, “Some things need to change in the way that people are applying pesticides if we are to get to zero incidents. We think the best way is to reduce pesticide use overall.”

Source: Los Angeles Times

For DPR’s press release on its “Zero Major Incidents” plan, click here. To see the 2007-2008 Budget Highlights, click here.

Share

16
Jan

NJ Groups Oppose Lifting 20-Year Ban on Chemical Gypsy Moth Control

(Beyond Pesticides, January 16, 2007) A proposal is underway within New Jersey’s Department of Agriculture (DOA) to lift a 20-year ban on the use of Dimilin (diflubenzuron) for gypsy moth suppression. The State’s DOA is proposing to amend its regulations (N.J.A.C. 2:23) to permit the synthetic chemical pesticide to be aerially sprayed over forested residential areas (estimated to be 50,000 acres) in 14 counties where egg mass counts are over 4,000 per acre. In addition, the Department of Environmental Protection’s (DEP) Division of Parks and Forestry may propose using Dimilin in state park areas where the egg masses are 4,000 per acre or more — potentially treating up to an additional 28,000 acres.The New Jersey Environmental Federation (NJEF) has taken action to stop the plan. In a letter co-signed by an additional 25 organizations to the Commissioners of DEP and DOA, they state, “While gypsy moth is a nuisance pest and can contribute to oak tree mortality, it is not a human health threat, nor a disease vector. We believe that given the potential harm to human health and biodiversity by the chemical pesticide Dimilin, the Departments should err on the side of caution and stand by their regulations that have been in effect for more than twenty years.”

NJEF will be meeting with the governor’s staff this coming week to request intervention. “New Jersey ‘s governor should affirm the 20 year ban on aerial spraying of toxic pesticides over homes, schools and parks, not reverse it. The human and ecological risks of chemical pesticides are not worth the temporary relief they give from insect problems like gypsy moth,” says Jane Nogaki, NJEF’s pesticide program coordinator.

Concerns over this proposal arise from the potential effects on human health and biodiversity from the product Dimilin and its active ingredient diflubenzuron, as well as the aerial method of application. Diflubenzuron, a haloaromatic substituted urea (chlorinated diphenyl compound), acts as a chemical growth regulator that inhibits chitin formation in invertebrates, including, but not limited to, gypsy moth caterpillars. Diflubenzuron has also been shown to affect vertebrate species.

Non-target effects of diflubenzuron include adverse environmental effects on freshwater and estuarine marine invertebrates, requiring a 150-foot buffer to waterways, and the human risk from its metabolite, PCA (p-chloroaniline), a class B2 carcinogen (probable human carcinogen).

Dimilin, an endocrine disruptor, causes reduced testosterone production in birds. In humans, it could cause methemoglobinemia, also known as blue baby syndrome. It persists at toxic levels for up to four months, which makes it more likely to affect non-target organisms and expose humans in and near the spray area through drift and runoff.

Aerial spraying poses its own risks from drift and the inherent danger of low flying aircraft. The proposed DOA aerial spray areas are all in forested residential areas, and inevitably direct human exposure occurs. New Jersey public policy has generally not supported aerial application of broad-spectrum pesticides over residential areas except in extreme circumstances like the threat of West Nile virus from mosquitoes. DEP’s own pesticide regulations ban aerial spraying of broad-spectrum pesticides for non-agricultural purposes. An exemption can be made for agricultural, health or environmental emergencies (N.J.A.C.7:30-10 (t).1.). DOA will likely be applying for that exemption.

Since l985, DOA and DEP have used only Bt, a biological pesticide with no known mammalian toxicity, as the pesticide of choice for gypsy moth suppression. DOA’s regulations explicitly state that DOA “select the most efficacious non-chemical insecticide (Bacillus thuringiensis).” However, now there is a claim that gypsy moths have become resistant to Bt, a common occurrence with pesticides.

Without human intervention, gypsy moth populations rise and fall in cycles, and are subject to collapse due to a naturally occurring fungus. Due to two years of very dry springs, this fungus has not been adequate to suppress the moths. Spraying, however, has a questionable impact on the gypsy moth cycle. In fact, some scientists believe spraying may actually prolong this cycle.

Source: New Jersey Environmental Federation

Share
  • Archives

  • Categories

    • air pollution (10)
    • Announcements (612)
    • Antibiotic Resistance (47)
    • Antimicrobial (22)
    • Aquaculture (31)
    • Aquatic Organisms (45)
    • Artificial Intelligence (1)
    • Bats (19)
    • Beneficials (73)
    • biofertilizers (2)
    • Biofuels (6)
    • Biological Control (36)
    • Biomonitoring (42)
    • Biostimulants (1)
    • Birds (32)
    • btomsfiolone (1)
    • Bug Bombs (2)
    • Cannabis (31)
    • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (13)
    • Chemical Mixtures (20)
    • Children (143)
    • Children/Schools (245)
    • cicadas (1)
    • Climate (46)
    • Climate Change (109)
    • Clover (1)
    • compost (8)
    • Congress (31)
    • contamination (168)
    • deethylatrazine (1)
    • diamides (1)
    • Disinfectants & Sanitizers (19)
    • Drift (25)
    • Drinking Water (22)
    • Ecosystem Services (39)
    • Emergency Exemption (3)
    • Environmental Justice (185)
    • Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (610)
    • Events (92)
    • Farm Bill (30)
    • Farmworkers (222)
    • Forestry (6)
    • Fracking (4)
    • Fungal Resistance (8)
    • Generally Recognized As Safe (GRAS) (1)
    • Goats (2)
    • Golf (16)
    • Greenhouse (1)
    • Groundwater (21)
    • Health care (32)
    • Herbicides (58)
    • Holidays (46)
    • Household Use (9)
    • Indigenous People (9)
    • Indoor Air Quality (7)
    • Infectious Disease (4)
    • Integrated and Organic Pest Management (80)
    • Invasive Species (35)
    • Label Claims (53)
    • Lawns/Landscapes (257)
    • Litigation (357)
    • Livestock (13)
    • men’s health (9)
    • metabolic syndrome (3)
    • Metabolites (13)
    • Mexico (1)
    • Microbiata (27)
    • Microbiome (39)
    • molluscicide (1)
    • Nanosilver (2)
    • Nanotechnology (54)
    • National Politics (389)
    • Native Americans (5)
    • Occupational Health (24)
    • Oceans (12)
    • Office of Inspector General (5)
    • perennial crops (1)
    • Pesticide Drift (176)
    • Pesticide Efficacy (13)
    • Pesticide Mixtures (28)
    • Pesticide Residues (203)
    • Pets (40)
    • Plant Incorporated Protectants (3)
    • Plastic (13)
    • Poisoning (22)
    • President-elect Transition (3)
    • Reflection (4)
    • Repellent (4)
    • Resistance (128)
    • Rights-of-Way (1)
    • Rodenticide (37)
    • Seasonal (6)
    • Seeds (8)
    • soil health (45)
    • Superfund (5)
    • synergistic effects (35)
    • Synthetic Pyrethroids (18)
    • Synthetic Turf (3)
    • Take Action (636)
    • Textile/Apparel/Fashion Industry (1)
    • Toxic Waste (12)
    • U.S. Supreme Court (6)
    • Volatile Organic Compounds (2)
    • Women’s Health (38)
    • Wood Preservatives (36)
    • World Health Organization (13)
    • Year in Review (3)
  • Most Viewed Posts