1. No category

cBe:wflrc
The Zestof the Lemon
'(-rime,
0range
,
'IQui'fyot,
grnyffruit-
by ShirleyA. Briggs
RACHEL
CARSONCOUNCIL, INC.
-n-,fn^
) LJzwazt the Z ett ol thtl tm
- on
--
i
orqnpf
rrri
wi-th special
Citrus
may not be unusually
fruits
contaminated
by
pesticides,
reputati-on
but their
nutritious
as especially
foods means that
they are sought for children
and older
people who are more vulnerable
As a source
to poisons.
of popular
flavoring,
they pervade our food supply,
making
their
toxic
residue
content
important
for the public
to
understand.
Imported foods,. a-n important
source of our citrus
present
supply,
even more pesticide
lnazards than domestic
produce.
We offer
short survey of some aspects of
this
pesticide
use and regulation
as an illustrative
example
of the general situatlon.
Feseha Woldu of the Rachel Carson staff
the work of untangling
the EPA printout
of
registered
for citrus
fruits.
did much of
pesticides
S h i n X - e . qA . B n i g g ' s
Second
Copyright
@
Edi.tion
fOOO by Rachel
Carson Council,
Inc
Covett: pontnaLt bu,st ct( Rache,L Canton by IJna Ha.nbunq, NaLLctna(Pontnai-t Gatlenql . Photctctnaph by ShLnIe q A. Bn Lgg.t
Rachel Carson Council,
Inc
8 9 4 0 J o n e s 1 1 1 .1l R o a d
Chevv Chirse, llD 20815
f
or
orange,
J.ime, kumquat,
--
reference
to
dicofol
and ethylene
dibromide
It did not matter,
said the man from Rohm and Haas,
pestici-de dicofol
that their
was being sprayed generously
crops, because we
on Southwestern U.S. cotton and citrus
do not eat cotton,
and 90 percent
of the chemical stayed
in the outer peel of citrus
fruit,
"which is not used for
The July 8, 1985 meeting of the Environmental
food."
Protection
Agency's Sci-entific
Advisory Panel on pesticides
EPA specialists,
was attended by the usual mlxture of
the
industry
Panel itself,
conand people from the pesticide
Aside from a reporter
cerned with the topi-cs of the day.
from a trade journal,
I could see no one else representing
-- a common situation.
At the time for
the general public
pub11c comment, therefore,
that citrus
I rose to insist
peel is indeed used for food.
lt{armalade and candied peel
food
aslde,
recipes
for lemon, 1ime, or orange ffavored
amount of the "zest
specify
that the cook add a certain
is needed, and may
fruit
of the lemon" or whichever
other
the outer,
explain
more clearly
that this
means grating
is
flavoring
Commercjal citrus
colored part of the peel.
flavored
outer peel in the
made from this
intensely
ol1y,
is an oi1 soluble
form of citrus
Since dieofol
oi1s,
product,
ce]1s
in the oi1-fi1led
it does indeed concentrate
is
How much of thls may be released as fruit
of the pee1.
to mingle with the juice
and thus remain
squeezed for juice,
juice?
This may be thought
concentrate
in fresh or frozen
desirable,
enhancing the flavor.
I tried
After
to find out whether prothe hearing,
may either
remove some of
cessing of peels for citrus
oil
remain.
or concentrate
them, but questions
the contaminants
Citrus
From the U.S. Department of Agriculture
and Tropical
a
in Winter Haven, Florida,
I received
Fruits
Laboratory
copy of the Food and Drug Admi-nistration's
"Good ManufacPractices
il{anua1" and the forms used by i-nspectors
turing
quoting the
plants,
processing
and a letter
of citrus
Servlce offlcial,
Florida
Fruit
and Vegetable Inspection
aI1
Dr. M. Dougherty,
assuring that the state monitors
products
in the state,
and they have not found
manufactured
The inspections
level.
any residues
above the FDA tolerance
gas-liquid
include
chromatograph
analysi.s for pesticides
In the general
known to be used on crops in the state.
rules
for plant
inspection
the emphasis is on sanitation
common to al1 food processing,
with much washing of fruit,
withj-n peels.
oils
though this would not necessarily
affect
Inspection
in bins is mainly concerned with
of raw fruit
and decayed
removing damaged fruit,
washing bins 1f iuice
with anythlng
fruit
has adhered to them, and a preoccupation
sentence
A disconcerting
that
coufd attract
fruit
f1ies.
seasons when
says, "Frequent
spraying
is necessary during
may be
What pesticides
t l r e D t t c t . t o p h L . L af 1 y i s n u m e r o u s . "
I
from the
used?
How much exposure to pesticides
results
ttreatments'
various
and how
during
storage
and shipping,
is the frui-t
often or adequately
checked between E{rower
state
and consumer, may depend on horv manl' jurisdictions,
done
are involved.
and federal,
Testine is of necessity
on a sampling basis.
More distqrbing
corunents came from the person at USDA's
to whom I first
cltrus
laboratory
spoke on the telephone.
processed in
I[hi]-e they could send information
on citrus
Florida,
trees
this was less relevant
Their citrus
now.
in
had been so widely
damaged by disease and freezlng
years that much of the
recent
and products
fresh frult
now come from other
with no
countries,
BraziT,
largely
telling
what pesticides
and methods they use in countries
with minimal pesticide
regulation.
If you check the fine
print
juice,
you may find the
on labels of frozen cltrus
Florida
Brazil-.
source as Florida,
and Brazil,
or just
of fruit
Can lnspection
and products
at time of
importing
deal with the problem?
Florida
says they sample
products
each lot of all
made in the state,
but Federal
sampling is done on a more
random basis.
And without
knowing which pesLicides
can be only
lo look for,
testing
a stab in the dark.
o utL
thn-ee
airn.t
Our inquiry
has three purposes:
to alert
consumers
pee1s, to provide
to possibl,e hazards 1n the use of cltrus
some insight
into
the procedures
and assumptions of EPA
as it resporrds to its pesL icide registrarion
and testing
obligations,
and to illustrate
L h c s c w i t h t w c - ri m p o r L a n t
recent investigations
of dlcofol
and ethylene dibromide.
Dlcofol
is a close chemical relative
of DDT; both
for the lethal
degrade to DDE, the chemical
responsible
for the neareggshelJ--thinning
Lhat has been responsible
of such birds as the ba'ld eag1e, peregrine
d.LcodoX,e x t j n c t i o n
falcon,
and brown pelican
in much of North America before
the ban on DDT in \972.
DDT also degrades to dicofof.
A
1972 study cited
in Calvin
f our. volume "llletabolism
Menzie's
of Pesticides"
is as sood or better
indicated
that dicofol
a precursor
The environmental
of DDE as is DDT.
impact of
DDT, on birds
was a principal
and many other creatures,
for many decades, and its
reason for its ban.
It persists
for the fatty
of anima1s means that it
affinity
tissues
accumulates in the bodies of animals and results
in much
in
food chains.
It is thus a lons-term
bioaccumulation
hazard to us and our fellow
crea"tures, especiallv
those
us at the top of food chains.
like
Its immediate toxicity
effect,
comes from its nerve-poisoning
but it was also
shown to cause cancer in mammals.
After
the ban, bjologist.s
r i ' c - . r cp l r : a s e d t o f i n d t h a t
DDT levels
in animals iLnd in soil
ancl w:rter were decreasing
or
steadilv.
By 1983, howcver, stuciies shorved continuing
1n the southincreasing
Levels in birds,
bats, and fish
come from illegal
Could this
western Unj-ted States.
use
Mexico) or from airborne dust?
of DDT (stil1
ava11ab1e in
dicofol
A more 1ike1y source rvas discovered:
in common use
and cotton crops, contained consldin the area, for citrus
erable
amounts of DDT, from about 9 to 15 percent.
Whv
DDT not applied?
conta'ining
had the 7972 ban on products
officiils
in 1957. Agriculture
Dicofol
was reglstered
may
surel-y knew by lb72
have known then of the DDT; EPA experts
was present,
according to William
the DDT contamination
A.
jn achieving
the DDT ban.
instrumentaI
Butler,
the lalyer
IVhen the dicofol
case came up 1983, he wrote to EPA to
point out that the 7972 ruling
should still
apply, and
ruling
a1-1 they needed to do was lnvoke the earlier
and
The fact
that
they had not
the market.
take dj-cofo1 off
ingredients'
listed
DDT or its kin among the 'active
on
by others
the 1abel may account for its being overlooked
for action.
responsible
al-1 this
but EPA rvas sti11
time,
lt as a new case.
EPA chose, horvever, to treat
learned the excuse given for
Dr. Butler
subsequently
Because the presence
to be marketed.
havj-ng allowed dicofol
it somehow did not
ki-n was 'unintentionaf
of DDT and its
pests,
and so by defiagainst target
Though active
count.
In
a t i ' av g' f, a i l u r e
n
i+inn
to liSt
On the 1abel was sOmehow
4LUf
llrLrurr
lega11y
or at least
in fact,
construed
to make them inactive
of
reality
and the clear intent
Biological
unaccountable.
t l-ro
I orv
inara
!
a^lrq
! Y q * t
I I rz
4 J
i qnnrerl
In October,
1984, EPA proposed to cancel registration
nf rlinofnl
whinh uas identi fied as a health and environbut also for
mental hazard not only for its DDT content,
DDE, DDD, and tetrachloro-DDT
it contains,
the related
all
causing serious
adverse effects
on human and emvironmental
they could
health.
Rohm and Haas objected,
claiming
that
reduce the
content
of DDTr (the collective
name for all
four unwanted contaminants)
to 0.1 percent by July 1987.
This would suffice,
they claimed,
to reduce damage to an
endurable
1evel,
since it was about the same as the background leve1 in the areas.
Wh11e EPA did not agree that
risk/
problems, they made the required
this
would solve all
to
benefit
balance and decided that the economic benefits
growers exceed the risk
to environment
and consumers at the
0.1 percent 1eve1. Their formulas for equating possible
are
farm profits
with overall
environmental
degradation
complicated
Risks are mostly
and inevitabty
arbitrary.
Dicofol
borne by others
than those who gain the benefits.
but
is used to ki11 mites,
not only on cotton and citrus,
(including
on turf
lawns),
seed crops, stone and pome fruits'
figs,
vegetabl es, smal I -truits,
t r e e n u L s , r , n i n t, g r e e n h o u s e
crops,
and agricultural
house plants,
and in commerclal
of the
buildings.
account fot 67 percent
Cotton and citrus
U.S. use, however, estimated by EPA aL 2 to 2.5 million
pounds when the ban was proposed,
In Apri1,
1985, EpA ruled that
of dicofol
be reduced, to 2.5 percent
levelsofDDTr
by June 29,
were to
r.986, and
3
the fi.rst
to 0.1 by December 1988.
Rohm and Haas failed
products
deadline,
and their
were taken off the market ti11
in
they were able to comply, but other
firms had no halt
production.
By August 1987, Rohm and Haas were back, and
they and other producers
were able to show EPA by March 31,
1988, that they could meet the December 31 date for 0.1.
The 2.5 products may be sold until
December 31, and used
March 31, 1989, after
until
which all must be down to 0.1.
Part of thi,s arrangement to affow the manufacturers
dicofol
if brought to specifications
to continue marketing
from Rohm and Haas of $350,000 to help
was a contribution
now an
the peregrine
fafcon,
fund a program assisting
to increase its population'
endangered species in CAlifornia,
poisoned
Just how the money could compensate for a contj-nua1Iy
was not made cl-ear, since the idea must be to
environment
'background
The normal
original
ranpie.
to their
birds
return
poison even at the
DDT is zero, and a cumulative
l-evel'of
at the top
would continue
to concentrate
levef
O.f percent
ours and the falcon's.
of food chains,
by Laurie l{ott
expertlv
EPA's action was criticized
Resources Defense Fund'
Campbell of the Natural
and Faith
that the declsion
"is shocking" and that EPA and
stating
of Endangered Species in the Department of the
the Office
pressure,
and
Interior
"have backed down, due to registrant
use of a hj.ghly DDTr
novr propose to al1nw the continued
It also is shocking that the
contaminated pesticide.
of
findine
their
in modifying
agencies are so 'flexible'
The March' 1986 jeopardv
jeopardy to endartgered speeies.
f unding of a
f ails
to expli:.in lrorv the registrant's
opinion
program in one part of California
falcon
egg manipulation
j-n Texas, New trtlexico'
protect
of falcons
the populations
will
months before were
and elsewhere which OES had found iust
falcon
the peregrine
Furthermore,
threatened by dicofol.
not producing
is currently
California
population
in central
-- indeed EPA
It ls obvious
eggs able to hatcli in nature.
experts have admitted -- that the five year period proposed
pro.iect will
not be long
for the peregri-ne egg manipulation
persistent
and bioaccumulating
enough to overcome the highly
how can the
Fina1ly,
reproduction.
DDTr to a11orv natural
on the rate of recovery
agencies fal1 to address the effect
the brorvn
including
endangr:red species,
other
of several
and
wood storks,
pelicans,
bald e:rg1es, Everglade-s kites,
peregrine
-fa1c.ons Inentioned jn the tr'larch, 1986
Arctic
op in ion?"
recommended "We urge EPA and OES
thev
In conclusion,
to back dorvn on the
decisions
tentative
their
to reevaluate
p r e v i o u s l y p r o l t ( ) s e d b : r n . A n i m n r c dj a t e b a n o n D D T r r : o n t a m i n research
i s n e e t - l e <. 1 F u r t h e l ' n l ( ) r e , a f a s t . - t r a c k
itt-,d dicolol
djtrr.rlol iLsc:lf -- rvhich is
inio the imp:rcts of
ef fort
lc1at ed to DDT i tst-'I f :rnd probu.bly has
structurallv
closely
The dicofol
effect.s -- must immedi:rLe1r'begin.
simjlar
(-()ntintting tlse of a pesticide
procr:edings, by allowinfl
causing .jeoparclv to endangerecl spec j es if the regi strant
4
manipulatj-on
after-the-fact
agrees to pay for limited
of
Jay Hair of the
eggs, sets an unacceptabl-e precedent."
protests
made similar
Federation
National
\fildlife
to Lee
Hodef of Interior'
Thomas of EPA and Secretary
1986 proposed rule
followed
the April
These protests
oermissive
ruling
i-n
by EPA, but dici not deter the f inal
on the DDTr component,
concentration
N{iy. Irtstead of this
give a ful1
j-s, EPA might better
review to
serj,ous as this
it causes cancer in
s
h
o
w
s
,
c
h
a
r
t
o
u
r
A
s
dicofol
itself.
is high by oral ingesimmediate toxicity
its
test animals,
by whi-ch i-t
tion,
and up to very high for dermal toxicity,
skin and into the bloodgoes directly
through the intact
have yet to be made.
tests
itream.
Many important
an earlier
repeated
round
rvith dicofol
Our experience
(EDB).
At both the EPA and the FDA
with ethylene dibromide
fumigant in 1984, I also
of this
thq.Lene h e a r j . n g s o n c a n c e l l a t i o n
LbictrwLdze n c o u n t e r e d t h e c l a i m t h a t i t w a s n o t a p r o b l e m i n c i t r u s
I\tlyinsistence
peels because they "are not used for food. "
impression
made 1i-ttle
that peels are a food item apparently
are concerned. One
on EPA as far as other investigations
a personal
enough to raise
reacted
of the FDA offj-cials
of lemon peel in his martini,
question:
a twist
he liked
No one
synergism be?
and what mlght the EDB and alcohol
could say.
than that of dicofol.
is more complicated
The EDB story
in the United States in 1948, it
as a pesticide
Registered
for nemaLodes in soi1, on fresh
was a rvidely-used fumigant,
In 1975' the
and on stored grain.
fruits
and vegetables.
that EDB causes cancer.
determined
National
Cancer Institute
1977, when the long review
EPA did not take action until
evidence of carcinoprocess was started.
tr(ore conclusive
Document ln
genicity
was found, and EPA issued a Position
by 1983' This
in 1980 asking phase-out for grain and fruit
procedure
was going on as more and more evidence
lei,surely
Fi-na11y
and consumers accumulated.
c:tf bazard to applicators
its
own, and banned EDB as a soil
Flori,da did inspectionsof
Other states
because lt was found in groundwater.
fumlgant
in Septemfirm action
suit
and EPA took the first
followed
then
Florida
fumigant.
EDB as a soil
ber 1983 in cancelling
spurring
stores,
in grain products in retail
found residues
A11 uses were
and EPA.
by other states
investigation
and fresh fruit
stopped or phased out for grain
eventually
though there were delays to accommodate the
and vegetables,
produce to the
affected
export
that
demands of countries
and who asked for time to devise other means
United states
pests'
EPA
forbidden
and other
fruit
flies
of controlling
ott EDB use on mangoes for a couple of vears'
was tapering
in 1984 '
grain products
In phasing out EDB-contaminated
h
u
m
an exg
a
p
s
i
n
c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
i
n
g
u
n
e
x
a
m
i
n
e
d
l
e
f
t
r
u
l
i
n
g
EPA's
said they would temporarily
posure.
When tr{r. Ruckelshaus
150-ppb on interon raw grains,
9OO parts per billion
tltor
and 3O ppb in
cooking,
further
requiring
mediate products
5
products,
ready-to-eat
f wondered what exposures might come
to people on hand while
the grain was being converted
from
one stage to another,
and the EDR was supposed to be evaporating.
How about the cook leaning
over a stove turning
pancakes while
At
the 1e.ve1 went down from 150 to 3O ppb?
the gathering
where these new rules
were announced, they
had no answer to the question.
6omQaLtelna.ilvaa
When it was definite
that EDB would be removed from
such as methyl
use, and other similarly
hazardous fumigants,
(EDC) would come under
bromide and ethylene dichloride
grain
and fresh
scrutiny
soon, other ways of protecting
fruit
Heat
and vegetables
were rediscovered
or proposed.
or cold at fevels
undamaging to the produce had been used
before EDB took over; their
feasibility
has been shown
again.
Though some countries
sti11
wanted the guarantee
against
fruit
i,nfestation
fly
the EDB was supposed to give,
those who have to handle the shipments realized
the dangers
to themselves,
and began to refuse to touch fumigated
shipments, speeding EPA's final- decisions.
t
I
In another example of superior
the botany
alternatives,
department of the Smithsonian fnstitution
that had used a
close relative
specimens,
of EDB to fumigate
herbarium
their
found that
results
at recognized
haza-rd to their
staff,
were just
as good from deep-freezing
the specimens.
For grains,
attention
has gone to ancient methods. In
has
Mediterranean
for thousands of years grain
countries
been puL into dry, air-tighL
containers,
usually
carved out
of stone and tightll'
.sea1ed.
f nsects put in with the
grain work toward the top for the soon exhausted oxygen and
When this
is
finally
die in the top ferv inches of grain.
use
scooped out, the rest is uninfested.
Current versions
metal air-tiplht
contaj-ners with oxygen removed and replaced
gases like nitrogen.
with non-toxic
Research into biological
o f B a . c i L . L u , st h u n i n a t e n , s i d
controls
has shown that
a strain
is effective
against some pests of stored grain.
tNl'La,t
? ?.5e in
ci,uuA?
Dicofol
and EDB are only two of a long list
of pesticides registered
Many have known
for use on citrus
crops.
serious
most have
effects
health;
on human and envlronmental
needed for complete
many data €iaps in the information
Whjle only a few are apt to be used on a given
cvaluation.
1ruit, we cannot know the ones used.
To suggest the posof pesticides
we provide the following
sibil ities,
list
computer I ist registc.red
for citrus
on EPA's current
fruits
stages of grolth, sLorage, and shipment against
atall
all
Converting thelr
recognized pests.
list
to an alphabetical
sequence of common nilmes pror,'ed m()re compf icated
than
Different
expected.
chemical names were given for many
of one infTredienL, more. than rvas useful
esters and salts
h e r e , a n d s o m e . n a m e s r v c , . r en o t o n E P A ' s o f f i c i a l
list
of
names that may be usc'd on fabels.
EPA does not guarantee
list
that this
is up-to-date
as far as regulatoly
action
goes, either.
EDB had not been removed, nor had toxaphene, *
6
*in
1988
in 1982.
Others are in the same kind of offcancelled
again, on-again process as dicofol.
Two character j-st j-c s indicate
whether a pestici-de. rnay
juice.
A pesticide
i.^ ann, be found in the peel or the pulp and
can be fixed
in the oily
outer citrus
that is oil-soluble
o,!,,^.0 peel, while a water-soluble
material
may come up through i
product
Some versatile
the plant and into pulp and juice.
Our list
does not show degrees of solubilj-ty
may do both.
possible
but just
indicates
which may vary considerably,
in the fruit.
destination
made of living
organisms, speciallzed
Pesticides
bacto act on
for examDle, must remain intact
teria
or fungi,
t2rset
nests
so cannot be solubfe
in thelr
carrier
subsfor a pesticide
not directly
It is also possible
tance.
be dissol-ved in another
or water to first
in oil
soluble
in oi1 or water,
so that
solvent which is in turn soluble
could be found in parts of the fruit
the pesticide
not anticipated
list.
Afl rve can claim is that some of
on this
grown under the
rnay be found in cj-trus fruit
the foflowing
Some sources offer
today.
usual commercial conditions
or otherwise
fruit,
whether ca11ed 'organic'
untreated
such contaminants.
sai-d to be free of all
HAZARDSTO HUN{ANAND ENVIRONI\'IENTALHEALTH OF DICOFOL AND
ETHYLENE DIBROMIDE
DICOFOL
immediate (sca1e of very high,
human/mammalian toxicity:
high, medium, and 1ou) oral:
medium to high; dermal:
inhalatlon
?
medium to very high;
long-ter-n:
carcinogen;
data lacking
on nerve damage,
birth
other chronic exposure studies
defects,. mutations,
to birds
immedjate toxicity
adverse effects:
environmentbl
changes;
medium; long-term:
eg6rshe11 thinning,behavior
cumulative.
fish:
lower reproduction
and viability.
J
)
ETHYLENE DIBROT{IDE
:hi1
immediate:
oral:high;'dermal
human/mammalian toxicity:
inhalat ion :high.
mutagen; reduced sperm count, egg
long-term: carcinogen;
teratogen;
fertillty;suspect
damage to liver,kidneys,
eyes, heart., pancreas, spleen,
1ung, Depression o
skin,
sensitizing
nervous system; potentlal
central
allergic
synergism wlth disulfiram,a
drug and pesti-cide.
toxic
adverse effects:
environmental
high, damages reproduction;
' aquatic
organisms' :medium
volatile
highly
Both may persist
-rater:
dicofol
to bir'
immediate toxicity
fish:
medium to high; othe
for many months;ED!:
14 years
un to 4 vea.r's jn soj.l-.
in
sterile
common or
chemical name
P E S T I C I D E S R E G I S T B P . E D FOP, CITRUS FRLIITS
cornmon or
chemical
name
solubiiity
o 11
rvat er
acephate
a ldi carb
aldoxycarb
al lethrin
amobam
az inphosmethyl
Eac,LLLu's
tpheanLcu.t
Baci,LLul
tlunengLenti's
v . hut stalz'L
benorny 1
biphenyl ( diphenyl )
borax
boric acid
bromacil
buty), amine
cacodylic
acid
calcium thiosulfate
capt afol
captan
carbaryl
carbo furan
chlorobenzilate
chl or ine
chlorop icr in
chlorpyrifos
copper (meta11ic)
copper ammonium
carbon at e
copper carbonate
copper hydroxide
copper oleate
copper oxychloride
coppor oxychloride
sul-f ate
copper salt
of
I aLty and res i n
acids
copper sulfate
copper sulfate
monohydrat e
cottonseed oi1
cryolite
cubd resins
cupric oxide
cuprous oxi de
cvcl ohexane
cyhexut i n
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
X
x
x
common or
chemical name
solubi 1ity
oi1
wa.ter
cytogen
2,4-D
2,4-DB
da1 apon
dazomet
di az inon
dicamba
dichloben i 1
dichlone
dichloropropane
dichloropropene
x
dicofol
dimethoat e
dinocap
x
dlnoseb
x
dioxath i on
x
diphacinone
disodium methanearsenate (DSMA)
di su1foton
diuron
endosuf fan
endr in
EPTC
EPN
essential
X
oils
ethanol
x
eth i on
x
ethoprop
X
ethylene
ethylene
dibromide
eth5rlene dichloride
ethylene glyco1
et rldi azol
fenamiphos
fenbutatin
oxide
fenoxycarb
fensul fot h ion
ferbam
fluazi-fop
but;71
x
fol pet
formet anat e
hvdroc'h 1or i de
fosetvl
al uminum
1 1 1 1 ' c ' e rlo
HinluteLh
thctmp.towii
imazal i I
kerosenc'
x
X
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
l-ime sulfur
I indane
mal ath 1on
maleic hydrazide
maneb
met a1dehyde
metalaxyl
meth idathion
methi-ocarb
methomyl
methoxychlor
methyl bromlde
methyl parathion
methyl chloride
metol ach lor
MGK 264
mevinphos
mexacarbate
monocrotophos
monosodium methane(IUSI\IA)
arsonate
nabam
naphtha (heavY,
aromat ic )
napht hal ene
acid
acetic
n o nrnn
r r s y ^
x
x
x
X
X
x
X
x
X
Y
x
x
solubility
rvater
oi1
q m i rl o
v y E , r , 4
q v
nicot ine
nitral in
norflurazon
oxadiazon
oxamyl
oxydemeton methY)
oxyf luorfen
oxyth ioquinox
paraquat
dichloride
^^--+hi^d r ,r r r u
var
rr
x
x
x
x
x
x
X
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
X
X
x
x
X
x
common or
name
chemical
s o l u b i 1i t Y
water
oi1
permethrin
petroleum oils
phenylphenol
phosmet
Phqtophtttonn
c.Anc;pdlrcnn
pine oil
piperonyl
butoxide
polybutene
propanoic
acid
putrescent
whole
egg solids
pyrethrin
resmethrin
rotenone
RqaruLa6pecLo6a
Sabad&Ia
slmazine
sodium cacodylate
sodium carbonate
sodium cyanlde
sodium hypochlorj-te
sodium-ophenylphenat e
soybean oi1
su1 fur
terbacil
t et raf idon
th i abendazo 1e
thi ram
toxaphene
t r i chlorfon
t ri chloroethane
ami-ne
t riethanol
trifluralin
xy 1ene
zlnc sulfate
zineb
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
is found ln
action
SOME SOURCES: the record of regulatory
Special Review Decision
a succession of EPA publications:
stages,
at critical
Documents, facl sheets and press releases
and
hearings of the Science Advisory Panel for pesticides,
and EDB'
them, on dicofol
to support
bac\eround
materials
as did various
much of the story,
The press follolved
in NelV l{exico
journals,
Examples: "DDT:Recent contamlnation
and Alexander Krynitsky
lnd Arizona?" by Donald R. Clark,Jr.,
in €nvinc.tnment for June 1983; "DDT in the 1980s: You l'lay
in Tho
Be Using it
in Your Yard" by Richard E. Bonney, Jr'
The ReLiving
E L n d r l u a n t e t L . L ' 4 ,A u t u m n 1 9 8 5 ; a n d " D i c o f o l :
1984'
NCAP Newl, Fall
o f D D T " b v l t '.l O ' B r i e n ,
incarnation
I
8
MORE HIDDEN HAZARDS:
THE FLORIDA LEAD ARSENATE
Barely had we published
of this
the first
edition
booklet
than new word came of an even more astonishing
exanple showing EPA's regulatory
health
of public
dlsregard
and concerns.
A report
reached the National
Coalition
Against the Misuse of Pesticides
(NCAMP) that in Florida
the grapefruit
rrere sprayed with lead arsenate,
not a
proctuct to be found on the list
we vere given. The practice
had gone on for many years, however. The purpose was not
todefend
against pests or to improve the crop, but simply
to permit greater profits
bynakinA the fr:uit taste sweet
sooner and so be marketable a couble of months earlier
than normal.
NCAMP's summary of the situation
in 1988 follows
on
page 11.
After
this 1ead, prominent stories
followed
in
the national
press, and all
at once action folloved:
the
sole producer of lead arsenate in the country withdrew it
frorn registration,
rather
than supply EpA vith
the required
asked for j-n
Irgqltt and safety data rhey had, b-1ired1y,
1986.
But EPA, by failj_ng to take emergency action
that
could have removed the remainlng
supply-from
the market,
let the producer sel1 all
of it
for-bontinulng
use on the
grapefrui-t
as long as it
lasted.
The estj-rnated amount of
80,000 to 100,000 pounds was thought to be about a Ewo-year
supply.
Was this
total
correct?
How much more may havl
been in the hands of users or distributors
alreadyi
Since
EPA just continued
the lengthy review process begun in 197g,
it is stil1
1ega1 for growers to use lead arsenaie on their
grapefruit
until
a final
decision
document on the whole
class of inorganic
arsenic products is issued.
At the time
of the 1988 revelation,
EpA sti11 labored under the o1d
FIFRA provision
requiring
them to pay for the remaining
stock, and for its disposal.
After
December 1988, hovever,
this was not so, and EPA's budget would not have suffered
frorn i-nvoking the suspension piocedure,
which takes a
product off the market at once.
The long concellation
process now lacks this economic justification.
paymenrs
to those left
holding
the bag are made through a Federal
Judgment Fund.
EPA is thus now freer
to rnake objective
rulings.
Old habits may die s1owly.
Had the rernaining
stock of lead arsenate been removed by January, 1989, ie
could have been spared two remaining seasons oi its use.
Nor has this use been confined to early fa11, we later
found.
Whenever available
crop was shorr oi the market
demand, the "quick sweetening" procedure vas used.
Even
if you avoided September abd October grapefruj_t,
you were
not protected.
The history
of EPA dealings with inorganic
arsenicals
shows a remarkably hesitant
approach to poisons whose health
implications
are clear to most laymen.
Hazards of arsenic
have been known from ancient
times, and modern studv has
10
Pesticidesand You
News from the National Coalition Acainst the Misuse of Pesticides(NCAMP)
EPA AIIousllse of StacksAfter Cancellation
C.t taminates Grapefruit, EPA Stands By
I,.aa ets"""t"
while the nation has tuhed its at'
tention to d,u ssmval of lead trom
dnntrng water, paint, and g"*rini,
u|
Florida citrus growe.
"* ".-u,,y
Dlyinq a lead and ar*nrc.on,.tng
in
no;ji
up
is
tumint
tt"t
i-ti.tde
srapefruit and trapefut ptoa*"
ivhv?8*aurthrsrureriarauowsRoi.
ida'qrcwer to begin roketing
""i'
sap€fruir a fuil rwo montns eartier
ihanwouldotherui*bepo5sible.Ui.
protection
ng"n.y
Environmenrat
dcumentsobtarnedbvNcer"lrsrro*
wide u*of this matsial amongnorila
t,gn or anv eriergencv
;;;;;;;J;;
Agenq achon to Protrct aon,u-"ti
whrle rhe prachceof addrnSlcad "ni
t'"' u"*" una"l
li*;:.'i;
A;r;ti
"s*ial Review" at EPA for ten yea;'
and manufacturersbeganprtasingoi
ftom
ol&".n"t ti isee, t*"ent i"potts
used ., . gro*lh
mtly
hogjend
chictos
"""u'ii-^;'t'iiu,'tL
stlmul'nt
ln
th€hetbicid€usotelcium-mteon
turf' the tuntlcide us ot sdtum
rF
r"g"rly allowable mreongraF'ttll"-1T$tn'"'of
grcm
'lnaer Ene's d*nic icid on cotlon rnd oltr
r"*it iii"J *lip"riiit
toiseed tnallttr*e*3'theAgencyis
legaltoteraneis2btirehigher-(lbbi
orcmed aboutthe levelsof dsic to
aitl;;il; il; ,h;;il;i;i"*iit
whichthepublicsexPosed
i,ig*ii"ttid-ppul"iarmti-6-hiehet
EPAhisokmroitepstowamthe
ilil"r;il#-;;ir""erorrop-iJii
public rhat Roridr gaFhuirs Nv
iJl:i',iTtt;;;!U1t91ry;'Acthe hurdouschemicals and
Lntain
ildioie
n|A
in
EPI
airlSiiar" a"o
iNte.di!@ntinuingrlengihvleview
iilllii'i#i"*r;--"1t1t"a.,9U"**
Grinotuici^pt"tta
ati-*rugierrr70ppb)thanthJ;;i;;;;i;i-tii.i
f,Jorerupilieottoda*mreanured
il;^s:;il;t-""411-11a]l;;
-thu
yeat'
the ProPosed drinling uP $trtime next
tugher
w;ter studard ot l0 PPI-.T31 '' -t
rently found in gaPefruit luice at an
a"erite teuelof 70-ipb'-7-tirm above
the ^i* rcomended -":lf.,l"u"l tn
water' ln 'ddltron'.graPefruil rinds'
whichontain thehighestleedsof lead'
!E fed to attle'
g,ollll:::{*
FiJiIiinai.","t'ur
""",H:ffi,nffiU$"tlliff:
u'^a**ra-*1-T{tl
"i.J[Tl""i"ll""J;1'il:!tJJ":H;?""Jv'itipf
-'Tff
toa
propoel Accordins
rro undeirtre
;^:#;;; ;* LE sro*i'io
sy'*i
cau* braindarugc,newous.
and symptons diff rfllt to
digrdets,
from the common coldl
distinsish
m level
otlnr'itg wateiOilice^official'
of lead rntestion-is^ete'
InaM"arch'lgSSintemlEPAdcu-
bvNclYl'
mentobtained
tt
;;;*s areespalatl'rn:1o"o the
tlii *itttout tftu'u*of leadreMte
sitive to this metal Arrnic cau*sL
io*
ii""J" ttru' *au"ty -*otiJ
ii
verenervoussy5temdiorders'ano
- tbeo; 'u* tn$"e' "T" m
t t "l l il 'i "otnu.' pg et "tpf l":i1i '"i "i f* o f
k iadl n c y , t l u " ' a n o o ' J l a
sasttointestrn
; v s t e m t o x i nl t r s a l e a k n o w n n u # i
to '"o':t:'"li:ildg
ililtt;;i
lii
.un.,o,,tt'"ptu'"tr"
.'u..,nogun,
deth
f,iJ*g
"'Ji'
srlie' in thef"ii:"
Chem.of Avon Park,Florrda'hass
Dlied rts cuslomcrs*'rt' "nougn oiii"
^aterral to trcat 150{n to :tr'uro at'ei
this vear. while EPA maintarnsp"ot
totrJ x""'p*r"a t:-Tll'::i: P'"d*ing gt"p"ttit u"t"u* it would still bea
pioi"it""*ilp-T-;^r?,31,"*""'"'
f ron
This excerPt
June 1966 newstheir
bv
r
e
P
r
i
n
t
e
d
i
s
letLer
R:iT:;: itit:l
t:l:"
iil;,i:lti;: Bi;:o'^
,,.",:^,1,'l,r,'.il;";ii::"1"',::Tf:
ft"m;. -$^"fr.;h"ilT:
;"";il;'i;;ilr;i'
nrcunl
Asai nst Misuse of
.lTiJl]i""'ii
a":'
i" orp",n'i
uoi'
::
l".iiall"universit{
Fro'i9j i,T: il$l;';;tr*1!:#::Jil'"iffi
market,a
ruminilF
9f
:]'ii:
','$
:T"31"f:
ff [il!iff:fj".T[
lffj ;iUiC;n*mffi
i;;;';;;;i'ir,"iong"*
throughthcncxt two*til.t-1"]il^;assistin the devclopmcntor an ailemd'
rE u*s rn most deae
oldesrDesticides,
is
ii* i,il. ph6; out. The Agency
iS'.il: ;;;;;
ff":':*:l ;11",1":i:Tlff
r""au*'ir"'but
loro^rv
Grapefruit SafetYQuesfloneo
ttnrta
sffitr#ffiHfiHtr#*:
i^B
nPl,J.ti*
in GtnrsHit
onChemical
Lsd Arsen&
Flrm AtlouedtoUseUpStochof Potentilltl Hamrhus
Bv Mkttd W.ifoC
i-EYH
ci@tcd .!d iirt
;;;Fb.td.;r.&tdu
dl d il b bcin3
drntci
tt ihc cP$ .o' 'Y-'
Asditrt
h 'r'bL 8nF
rre lod sidc
1t
shovn us evidence of longterm dangers not suspected in ti_mes
past. Lead toxicity
is more recenily
known, but with all
of
the publicity
on danage from exposure to leaded paint
and
gasoline,
and leaching
frorn lead in plumbing or pottery
glazes,
few people can be unarrrare.
.So we hive cbmbinei
two serious and well-known poisons, both of which accumulate
in the body, and surreptitiously
introduced
then into a
highly
recommended food.
Lead arsenate
became popular
in
the 19rh century, when efficacy
in killing
pests was the
sole ai-m, and effects
on people and othei non-target
species
were unnoticed.
In time, orchard owners found that areas
repeatedly
sprayed with lead arsenate would no longer grow
young frui-t trees,
whose roots were too short to reachbelow the contaminated soi1. More recently,
people who
used calcium arsenate on lawns against soil
found
lnsects
that they had soll
so toxic and sterile
that the desj-red
turf was itself
defeated.
A S U M M A R YO F E P A R E V I E W O F I N O R G A N I C A R S E N I C
1978:
1981:
1984:
1986"
1987:
1988:
1990:
story.
market
titute
EPA issued the first
revierr document, giving what
they knew about these products,
and what data was
required
from the producers to obtain re-registration.
This covered wood and non-wood uses, on the grounds
of causing cancer, birth
defects,
and rnutations.
Soon
the reviev
was expanded to include
the alsq very
serious irnmediate poisoning
('acute,
effecfs
asopposed to rchronic!
in toxicological
terrninology)
Second document issued,
stating
preli.minary
intent
to cancel the wood-preservative
uses.
Final cancellation
of some vood uses was announced..
EPA finally
asked the sole U.S. producer of lead
arsenate
to submit the required
data.
The withdrawal
from registratlon
by the producer fo1lowed,
and the
sale of remaining stocks to users.
EPA stated intent
to cancel non-wood uses, but put
off action
on lead arsenate,
registered
as a tgrowth
(to protect
regulator'on
grapefruit
those sti11 using
it up?), calclum arsenic as a turf
(on
pesticide
lawns frequented by children
and pets?),
and sodium
arsenate as a fungicide
on grapes (vineyard
vorkers
have long been clted as typical
victims
of occupational
arsenic poisoning),
and arsenic acid on cotton
and okra being gro\{n for seed.
EPA said the final
cancellati.on
would be issued in
Apri1. Thlswas then postponed to summer, then late
in the year, finally
until
early 1990.
May 10, EPA insisted
that the final
cancellation
would be in the Federal Register
in a week or rwo.
As we go to the prlnter,
t.his remains a continued
Readers can carry on the researcl.r: what is on the
now? What has happened to the arsanilic
acid subsand how toxic
is 1t? And note --
NONE OF' THIS AFFECTS THE ORGANIC ARSENIC PESTICIDES.
t2
A NEII SIDELIGHT ON CITRUS PEELS
Insecticides based on constiLuents of citrus peels
diPs' sPrays'
are increasingly
on the narket as anti-flea
and shampoosfoi pets.
Many plants develop their ovn
c h e m i c a l d e f e n s e s - a g a i n s g i n s e c t p e s t s ' a n d s o m e - m a yb e
Little
data
extracted to use in cornmercial pesticides'
such elements lrom citrus has been on
on the principal
t o m a m m a l sg a v e
that the low oral toxicity
record,'.*""pL
(
G
R
A
S
)
r
ating frorn the
s
a
f
e
"
a
s
"
g
e
n
e
r
a
f
i
y
re-ognized
the
Veterlnarians have found
Food ind Drug'Adminf"t..tiotr.
less reassuring effects frorn use of these flea treatments'
D-li-monene and lina1oo1 are the materials i-n question.
Cats have been found to be extremely sensitive to some nonbased on crude citrus extracts
EPA-registered insectlcides
and some cats have died after routi-ne dippi-ng at the labe1
The products are i11ega1r,of course' but
concentration.
Even
unti-l detected'
mav come on the mark;t sporadically,
d-limonene can cause
products using purified
fn6 t"gistered
listlesslv)
and recumbency (lying.around
6i a"pt""iion
;;;";
have caused
Excessine ippl:-"ations
lasting for several days.
tenpw
i
t
h
l
o
w
b
g
*
V
s
h
i
v
e
r
i
n
g
t
r
e
m
o
r
s
'
m
u
s
c
l
e
salivation,
(see Hooser, S'S': D--limonene'
and staggerinS.
T oxLc,ologo
. l il S ^ 4 "i iir^ui f" i " o, o i , a n d
oil extracts,
citius
of North
"
t
r
r
t
E
cl-1^nics
Veterinary
cl,-u,"eoZl,
D;G;,-init
ectect PeaLLctt(ea,
o(
t0 ,2, tniarcn iOOO) Refertnces in the Jarruary L990 Rzgi,stu'1
A,";;i.;;
of occur
n
s
r
i
r
u
t
e
N
a
r
i
o
n
a
l
C
t
u
i
e
a
L
'
S
u
b
^
t
a
n
c
e
,
5
"
,
c
,
6
iiii-titiiia
Safety and Health' cite Japanese studies showing
lp.ii."?f
in mice'
firttr defects and damage to reproductive systens
disturc
h
a
n
g
e
s
,
b
e
h
a
v
i
o
r
l
a
l
a
1
s
5
and rabbits,
;;;;;
91eep
netabolic damage (1ow temperature) and. spastic
;;;;;";
These studles often uied exposure by injection
p.i"iy"l".
j'nhalation routes '
than the usual oral , derrnal, or
i"ttt.i
but the effects echo those in the cats mentioned above'
studies from the 1960s
Nati-onal Cancer Institute
tsuspect carcinogen' category, but
place d-limonene in the
hows a positive
a c u r r e n t t e s t ' j u s t b e i n g p t t rt ct ia" rt tcei nd o, g es n
"
result for rats: unqualified
MaY 1990