The misapplication of crop-protectant products is a major concern in the application industry. One form of misapplication is spray drift. Unfortunately, when crop protectants are applied, there is always a chance some will escape from the target area. Drift is of concern because it removes the chemical from the intended target, making it less effective; and the chemical is deposited where it is not needed and often not wanted. The second concern is generally the most critical because the pesticide becomes an environmental pollutant in the off-target area. Off-target deposits can injure susceptible vegetation, damage wildlife, injure people, and contaminate air and water supplies. Problems can result when carelessly applied pesticides, especially herbicides, drift and cause damage to economically or aesthetically important crops. In all cases, there will be an added expense to the process of applying the crop-protectant materials.

Although drift cannot be eliminated completely, the use of proper equipment and application techniques can maintain drift deposits within acceptable limits. The initial recommendation for drift control is to read the pesticide label. Instructions are given to insure the safe and effective use of pesticides with minimal risk to the environment. Chemical company surveys indicate that a large percentage of drift complaints involved application procedures known to be "off-label."

There are two ways that chemicals move downwind to cause damage: particle and vapor drift. Vapor drift is associated with the volatilization of herbicide molecules and their movement off-target, making it independent of the application. Particle drift is the off-target movement of spray particles formed during application. The amount of particle drift depends mainly on the number of small "driftable" particles produced by the nozzle. Although excellent coverage can be achieved with extremely small droplets, decreased deposition and increased drift potential limit the minimum size that will provide effective pest control. To gain better information about minimizing spray drift, the Spray Drift Task Force (SDTF) was organized in 1990. The task force, made up of 38 major agricultural chemical companies, pooled funds (about $18 million) to conduct standardized research and collect data that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US/EPA) could use to formulate product label language regarding application methods to reduce spray drift. Twenty-one studies generated 40 reports in the application areas of aerial, airblast, ground, and chemigaton. After completion of the research, another goal of the SDTF was to disseminate to the spray-application industry the information gathered from the research. With better knowledge regarding the causes of spray drift, better decisions are possible about spraying crop protectants and, one would hope, minimizing spray drift.

The National Coalition on Drift Minimization (NCDM) was organized in 1995 to help meet the educational goal of the SDTF. The coalition membership is comprised of representatives of the USEPA, state lead agencies, USDA/CRES, applicators, product manufactures and distributors, private applicator interests, American Association of Pesticide Safety educators (AAPSE), American Association of Pest Control Officials (AAPCO), National Agricultural Aviation Association (NAAA), Agricultural Retailers Association (ARA), and university agricultural engineers. NCDM meets every 3 months, typically in Washington, DC. Bob Wolf, from the University of Illinois Pesticide Applicator Training Team, serves on the coalition and is chair of the education subcommittee. Other subcommittees for the NCDM are the regulatory and technology subcommittees. To date, all the subcommittees have been active in strategizing ways to help minimize spray drift. The regulatory subcommittee collected drift-enforcement data from several states. The data collected provided valuable information on the status of spray drift nationally. The committee is planning a second similar survey in late 1998. Eventually, the information gathered will help determine positive outcomes in the educational efforts of the NCDM. The technology subcommittee is currently collecting information regarding new spray technology to help focus future coalition educational efforts.

The education subcommittee has completed a survey to assess the status of drift education in each state. The survey also was used to determine what types of educational training materials were available for use in drift-education programs. As a result of what was learned in the drift-education profile, the coalition has decided to establish a national drift-education curriculum to help guide the development of a series of educational programs that will facilitate the dissemination of spraydrift-minimization information. The first educational program from the NCDM is a video, entitled the Straight Talk About Minimizing Spray Drift--A Guide for Applicators. The video, directed by Bob Wolf, is about 25 minutes long and is designed to inform those involved in the application of crop-protection products about the importance of the spray-drift problem. The video also covers the technical aspects of spray drift, using a spray-drift demonstration table to highlight the influence of nozzle type, pressure, and wind on spray drift.

Additional programs created to help support the NCDM's national drifteducation curriculum are available. A slide set, Minimizing Spray Drift (with guide, 20 slides), is available for shorter Pesticide Applicator Training programs. A second slide set, Spray Drift Management (with script, 49 slides), is available for use in a more detailed Extension or other drift-education program. Both programs are available for downloading on the World Wide Web. They may be accessed from the following address (Bob Wolf Homepage): http://www.age.uiuc.edu/faculty/rew/index.html

Both of these slide sets are PowerPoint programs (Version 97) and can be used to develop a slide set or make an on-screen presentation. In either case, the files may be adapted to the user's audience. Special animations are also possible, depending on the creative nature of the presenter. The guide and script are MS Word files (Version 97) and should be downloaded to support the slide sets.

The NCDM will continue developing educational programs to support the goal of minimizing spray drift. By increasing the educational efforts by, to, and for the application industry, it is hoped that the misapplication of crop-protection products, specifically spray drift, will not be as critical an issue as it is today. With less spray drift, the crop-protection industry will be able to maintain the use of many valuable crop-protection materials.

(Robert E. Wolf, Extension Specialist, Power and Machinery)

The Illinois Worker Protection Stakeholder Committee recently put together the following frequently asked questions about the Worker Protection Standard (WPS). Committee participants include the Illinois Farm Bureau, Illinois Department of Agriculture, Community Health Partnership of Illinois, and University of Illinois Extension. Hopefully, the answers will help clarify any points of confusion you may have concerning the WPS. However, if this issue is still muddy or the answer brings up another question, please contact Rhonda Ferree at (217)244-4397.

1. What is the Worker Protection Standard? The Worker Protection Standard is a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US/EPA) regulation, adopted by many states, that is meant to protect employees from possible harm from agricultural pesticides and to provide necessary information for helping employees protect themselves.
2. Who must comply with the WPS? Anyone who uses pesticides in the production of an agricultural plant on/in farms, forests, nurseries, or greenhouses and who employs pesticide handlers or agricultural workers must comply with the WPS.
3. The Worker Protection Standard was finalized in 1992, and educational and training materials were produced by a number of suppliers. How does a person know if educational and training materials are up-to-date? Is the University of Illinois planning to update training and educational material available to producers? Currently, all materials originally endorsed by the US/EPA for WPS training are still valid. University of Illinois Extension has no plans for a major publication to reflect the current status of the WPS. However, up-to-date information is maintained in two locations.
   • Illinois Agricultural Pest Management Handbook (revised yearly). Each year an appendix is included in this publication explaining the rule and any changes.
   • The University of Illinois Pesticide Safety Education webpage contains a document detailing the WPS (which reflects changes to the rule) and a resource guide detailing current EPA-approved training materials. The site is kept current. The URL is www.aces.uiuc.edu/~pse/.
4. What is a Restricted-Entry Interval (REI)? The restricted-entry interval (REI) is the time immediately after a pesticide application when workers cannot enter the treated area. REIs are typically found on pesticide labels under the heading "Agricultural Use Requirements" in the "Directions for Use" section. However, when a product has different REIs depending on the crop or the method of application, the REI is listed next to the crop or application method.
5. What constitutes a decontamination area? A decontamination site includes:
   • clean water (enough sufficient for routine washing and eyeflushing)
   • soap (any kind will do)
   • single-use towels (such as paper towels)
   • a clean coverall (if handlers are present)
6. Why must decontamination sites be kept up for 30 days after the application of a pesticide requiring them?

   In 1992, the rule required decontamination sites be kept up for 30 days after the application of a pesticide requiring them. The 30-day length was largely based on available data on pesticide-related poisonings from the 1980s and was meant as a risk-mitigation measure. The data showed that some residues could remain active that long and potentially contaminate workers. In 1996, this length of time was reduced to 7 days following the expiration of the REI of 4 hours or less, but it remains at 30 days for all other products.

7. If a grower provides Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) to workers and handlers but they take the PPE off when unsupervised and become overexposed to pesticides, who is liable? The rule clearly states that the grower is liable to assure compliance of the WPS. In a letter dated October 7, 1994, from Lynn Goldman, assistant administrator, Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances, this issue was addressed. Dr. Goldman stated that "it is essential for employers to take an affirmative role in assuring that PPE is worn. Employers can achieve compliance by using reassignment of duties, nondiscriminatory discipline or discharge when employees refuse to wear required equipment." Hands-on training serves an important role here to assure individuals understand the importance of PPE to reduce pesticide exposure through proper PPE selection, use, and maintenance.
8. When is Personal Protective Equipment required? Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) is required for pesticide handlers and early-entry workers as shown on pesticide labels. The requirements for each type of employee are different and found in separate areas on a label. PPE for pesticide handlers will be in the "Precautionary Statements" section under the heading "PPE." PPE for early entry workers will be in the "Agricultural Use Requirements" section of the "Directions for Use." Remember that workers are allowed to enter areas during the REI (early entry) during only very restrictive situations.
9. Some new pesticides have a label that says the REI is 0 hours. Is this possible? Yes, the US/EPA has issued 0-hour REIs on some pesticides, as new healthexposure data becomes available. However, because very few products have a 0 REI, always check the label for the REI of the product(s) you are using.
10. What are the WPS posting requirements? There are two types of posting: field notification and central posting.

    First, field notification about pesticide applications is required only when your workers will be within 1/4 mile of a treated area during a pesticide application or while the REI is in effect. Most products allow worker notification EITHER orally OR by posting a field warning sign. However, you must provide double notification if the pesticide label has this statement in the "Directions for Use" section under the heading "Agricultural Use Requirements": "Notify workers of the application by warning them orally AND by posting warning signs at entrances to treated areas."

    Second, the most common error in WPS compliance is in providing information at a central location for employees. Data from Michigan found that about 50 percent of the producers had at least one element missing in this area, which requires:

• EPA WPS safety poster,
• name, address, and telephone number of nearest emergency medical facility,
• pesticide recordkeeping for ALL applications (kept for 30 days following the REI),
• product name, EPA registration number, and active ingredient(s),
• location and description of treated area,
• time and date of application, and REI.

(Answers compiled by Rhonda Ferree and reviewed by the Illinois Worker Protection Stakeholder committee)

It's been nearly 2 years since the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) was put into effect. One might think that the "dust would have settled" by now--it has not. In fact, things are just now getting interesting. In recent months, the EPA has been under fire by numerous agricultural and chemical industries complaining that the FQPA provisions are being implemented without the best available data and without adequate peer review. On April 8, 1998, Vice-President Gore sent a memorandum to EPA Administrator Carol Browner and USDA Secretary Dan Glickman to "reaffirm our commitments under the Act and to clarify how we plan to fulfil them." The memorandum addresses the following key topics: Consultation. EPA and USDA should establish an effective means of consultation with user groups, pesticide manufacturers, environmental and public health organizations, and others concerned about FQPA implementation, while meeting the requirements and timetables set forth in the Act.

Sound science and transparency. Gore stated that regulatory decisions should be based on the best science and data available. Furthermore, the EPA should continue to seek peer and public review of its methods and approaches for analyzing potential risk under the new law, particularly with respect to models, exposure scenarios, and use of scientific inferences. The goal is "transparency": Approaches and decisions must be fully communicated in a manner that facilitates informed review by all affected constituencies. Transition challenges. EPA and USDA should implement the FQPA in a way that ensures affected pesticide users and other affected constituencies will have the time, technical assistance, and support they need for transition to new and effective pest management strategies. USDA should devote appropriate resources to research and expand technical assistance in support of integrated pest management. EPA and USDA should streamline the process for responding to emergency pest management challenges.

Gore requested the EPA and USDA provide him with an initial report on implementation of this memorandum within 14 days (April 22, 1998). As this and subsequent reports are released, you can be sure we will summarize them in this newsletter. The bottom line is that there is no change in the FQPA: Vice-President Gore is simply requesting the EPA and USDA to work together to make sure the FQPA is implemented correctly and in a just manner. ALL the groups affected by FQPA must come to the table to ensure that the appropriate scientific processes and data are used and that correct decisions are made.

(Bruce E. Paulsrud, Extension Specialist, Pesticide Applicator Training)

On August 4, 1997, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published the "Raw and Processed Food Schedule for Pesticide Tolerance Reassessment" notice in the Federal Register (vol. 62, no. 149). As described in the March issue of this newsletter, the EPA prioritized the reassessment process by sorting the pesticides into three groups. Among the other insecticides, herbicides, fungicides, and fumigants found in priority-group 1, it is the organophosphate insecticides that the EPA has focused a great deal of its attention specifically on. I believe this list to include all the organophosphate-insecticide active ingredients found on EPA's priority list 1: Acephate, Azinphos-methyl, Chlorpyrifos, Chlorpyrifos methyl, Diazinon, Dichlorvos, Dicrotophos, Dimethoate, Disulfoton, Ethion, Ethoprop, Fenamiphos, Fonofos, Malathion, Methidathion, Naled, Oxydemeton methyl, Parathion (ethyl), Parathion (methyl), Phorate, Phosmet, Profenofos, and Terbufos. The EPA is scheduled to complete reassessment of priority-group 1 pesticides by August 1999. In related news, the Pesticide Action Network North America Updates Service (PANUPS) reported on April 1, 1998, that "Novartis announced plans to reduce its line of insecticides from 26 to 11 active ingredients, ending the company's production of several older organophosphate pesticides (OPs), including dichlorvos, disulfoton, formothion, isazofos, monocrotophos and phosphamidon."

"Novartis believes its future marketing prospects for these products is limited, partly owing to market share erosion by generic brands and also because some countries have imposed bans or restrictions on their use."

(Bruce E. Paulsrud, Extension Specialist, Pesticide Applicator Training)

The annual report for the US/EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) for FY-97 was recently released. This 41-page booklet summarizes the office's myriad activities, such as FQPA, partnerships, reorganization, risk reduction, outreach, technology, and field and international activities.

This report includes a section on pesticide certification and training, including these highlights (I am including Illinois specifics in parenthesis):

• All states require commercial applicators to be recertified, generally every 3 to 5 years. (Illinois has a 3-year cycle.)
• In 1997, OPP established the Certification and Training Advisory Group that completely reviewed the requirements for certified applicators. (See IPR vol. 10, no. 1, page 5.)
• In 1996, over 81,000 private and 66,000 commercial applicators were certified; and more than 129,000 private and 121,000 commercial applicators were recertified. A total of about 950,000 private and 360,000 commercial applicators currently are certified nationwide. (At press, Illinois has about 26,982 private applicators; 7,700 commercial applicators; and 8,650 commercial operators.)
• In addition to traditional pesticide applicator training, the state Cooperative Extension Services initiate specialized training for various groups. (In 1997, Illinois Extension trained 8,149 commercial applicators and operators and about 8,600 private applicators. Illinois Extension does a variety of additional training, such as drift education, homeowner pesticide safety, and other pest training. For more detailed information see our website at www.aces.uiuc.edu/~pse/.)

A tear-out card titled "Pesticides At A Glance" includes the following:

• Number of active ingredients (ai): 865
• Number of tolerances: 9,500
• Pounds of pesticide ai's used in United States/year: 1 billion pounds
• Total U.S. pesticides sales/year: $9 billion
• Number of Certified Pesticide Applicators: 1.3 million

For additional information, contact the US/EPA, OPP, Communications Services Branch, at (703)305-5017.

(Rhonda Ferree; Illinois statistics provided by Sherri Powell, IDA)

Nation's Ag., LLC, a U.S. company specializing in registering generic sources of proven plant-protection products, has filed suit against the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US/EPA) and Novartis Corporation in its efforts to gain registration for generic metalaxyl technical fungicide. The suit also asks the court to declare invalid EPA's registration of Novartis's new mefenoxam products (Apron XL, Ridomil Gold, Subdue MAXX).

As reported in the August 1996 issue of this newsletter, Novartis (formerly Ciba) voluntarily canceled its long-standing metalaxyl registrations (Apron, Ridomil, Subdue) and began marketing mefenoxam, the most effective isomer ("component") of metalaxyl. The suit alleges that Novartis relied almost entirely upon metalaxyl safety data to support its safety claims for mefenoxam, yet the EPA now refuses to issue registration to Nation's Ag for technical metalaxyl because the EPA claims that metalaxyl and mefenoxam are not similar. Jim Thigpen, Nation's Ag president, agrees that there are differences between the two compounds, including water solubility, eye irritation, and oral toxicity, with metalaxyl being the safer of the two. In addition, Thigpen points out "there are no tolerances for mefenoxam residues on food or food items as required by law."

Thigpen claims that this coordinated action by Novartis "essentially gives Novartis 10 years of monopoly by making it much more difficult and costly for an alternative supplier to obtain registration."

"This deprives the American farmer access to competitive products."

"There is much more at stake here than the future of metalaxyl," says Thigpen. "With the EPA now deciding how it implements the 1996 Food Quality Protection Act, the big question is whether the Agency can arbitrarily pick one product over another."

The article may be viewed at http://www.pathfinder.com/money/latest/press/PW/1998Mar27/3.html

(Bruce E. Paulsrud, Extension Specialist, Pesticide Applicator Training; adapted from PRNewswire, March 18, Knoxville, TN)

Three pest management handbooks are available. Each contains the University of Illinois Extension suggestions for the control of weeds, diseases, and insect pests for the commodities or areas covered. These handbooks help keep you up-to-date on new pesticides and other methods of control.

The Commercial Landscape and Turfgrass Pest Management Handbook 1998-1999 addresses pests associated with turf, trees, shrubs, flowers, and groundcovers, with professional suggestions for control provided. Its cost is $10. The Illinois Homeowners' Guide to Pest Management contains suggestions for homeowners and other residents to control pests associated with trees, shrubs, turf, flowers, groundcovers, vegetables, fruit, and houses. This book is intended to be revised in 3 years. Its cost is $8.

The 1998 Illinois Agricultural Pest Management Handbook contains suggestions for the control of pests in the commercial production of agronomic crops, livestock, and vegetable crops. It also contains information on noncrop weed control. Its cost is $20.

These publications may be ordered from University of Illinois, ACES Information Services, 1401-C7 So. Maryland Dr., Urbana, IL 61801, or by calling (217)333-2007 or (800)345-6087. Checks should be made payable to the University of Illinois. The shipping rate for orders under $25 is $2.50, and $4.00 for orders under $100 but at least $25. Call for discount prices when ordering 10 or more copies of a publication and for shipping rates on larger orders.

(Phil Nixon, Extension Specialist, Pesticide Applicator Training)

Nation's Ag., LLC, a U.S. company specializing in registering generic sources of proven plant-protection products, has filed suit against the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US/EPA) and Novartis Corporation in its efforts to gain registration for generic metalaxyl technical fungicide. The suit also asks the court to declare invalid EPA's registration of Novartis's new mefenoxam products (Apron XL, Ridomil Gold, Subdue MAXX).

As reported in the August 1996 issue of this newsletter, Novartis (formerly Ciba) voluntarily canceled its long-standing metalaxyl registrations (Apron, Ridomil, Subdue) and began marketing mefenoxam, the most effective isomer ("component") of metalaxyl. The suit alleges that Novartis relied almost entirely upon metalaxyl safety data to support its safety claims for mefenoxam, yet the EPA now refuses to issue registration to Nation's Ag for technical metalaxyl because the EPA claims that metalaxyl and mefenoxam are not similar. Jim Thigpen, Nation's Ag president, agrees that there are differences between the two compounds, including water solubility, eye irritation, and oral toxicity, with metalaxyl being the safer of the two. In addition, Thigpen points out "there are no tolerances for mefenoxam residues on food or food items as required by law."

Thigpen claims that this coordinated action by Novartis "essentially gives Novartis 10 years of monopoly by making it much more difficult and costly for an alternative supplier to obtain registration."

"This deprives the American farmer access to competitive products."

"There is much more at stake here than the future of metalaxyl," says Thigpen. "With the EPA now deciding how it implements the 1996 Food Quality Protection Act, the big question is whether the Agency can arbitrarily pick one product over another."

The article may be viewed at http://www.pathfinder.com/money/latest/press/PW/1998Mar27/3.html

(Bruce E. Paulsrud, Extension Specialist, Pesticide Applicator Training; adapted from PRNewswire, March 18, Knoxville, TN)

Bicep II Magnum/Bicep II Magnum Lite (s-metolachlor/atrazine/benoxacor), Novartis Dual II Magnum (s-metolachlor/benoxacor), Novartis
New formulations (1998 supply limited in Illinois).

Celebrity (nicosulfuron/dicamba), BASF
New broadleaf, postemergence herbicide combination for use on corn.

Cobra (lactofen), Valent
Label changes include tank mixes with Synchrony STS and Reliance STS on soybeans for broadleaf control. Adding suppression of white mold on soybeans.

First Rate (cloransulam-methyl), Dow AgroSciences
New soybean herbicide.

Python (flumethsulam), Dow AgroSciences
New formulation for use on corn.

Python (flumethsulam), Dow AgroSciences
New formulation for use on corn.

Regent (fipronil), Rhone Poulenc
New soil-applied insecticide registration on corn to control corn rootworm and European corn borer.

Roundup Ready Crops
Monsanto's prediction for Roundup Ready crops planted in the United States in 1998:

Soybean--70 million acres

Corn--600,000 acres

Yield Gard corn--12 million acres

BollGard cotton--5.5 million acres

Monsanto will charge a technical fee of $18/unit for Roundup Ready corn seed this spring.

Dekalb will have 750,000 to 800,000 acres of Roundup Ready corn to market this spring.

Spirit (primisulfuron-methyl/prosulfuron), Novartis
New postemergence corn herbicide.

Zinc Phosphide Pelleted Bait, Haco
Registered for use in conservation-tillage corn to control small rodents.

Unless otherwise noted, adapted from Agricultural Chemical News, March 1998, April 1998

- Bruce Paulsrud

Agnique, (alcohol ethoxylate), Henkel Corp.
New mosquito larvicide and pupicide to use on water.

Bicep II (atrazine/metolachlor), Novartis
Deleting use on roadsides, due to costs.

Kelthane MF (dicofol), Rohm & Haas
Adding use on pecans and non-crop areas.

Unless otherwise noted, adapted from Agricultural Chemical News, March 1998, April 1998

- Bruce Paulsrud

Lannate (methomyl), DuPont
Deleting registration on greenhouse food crops, due to costs.

Pentac (dienochlor), Novartis
Cancelling all registered uses of this product.

Momentum (2,4-D/triclopyr/clopyralid), Riverdale
New turf herbicide formulation.

Novartis
Repackaging its entire line of turf and ornamental products to help customers better identify each product category. Color-coded packages are as follows: herbicides--blue, fungicides--red, insecticides--yellow, and plant-growth regulators--green. (American Nurseryman, March 15, 1998)

Penncozeb (mancozeb), Elf Atochem
Supplemental labeling includes use on Christmas trees and other conifers to control needle cast, pine gall rust, and Scirrnia brown spot. Vegetable/Fruit

Agri-Mek (avermectin), Novartis
Adding control of Colorado potato beetle in potatoes.

Checkmate OLR (pheromone), Concep
New pheromone product for use in stone fruits to disrupt mating of the omnivorous leaf roller.

Dual 8E (metolachlor), Novartis
Deleting use on stone fruits, tree nuts, nonbearing grapes, and citrus; due to costs.

Dursban (chloropyrifos), Dow AgroSciences
Deleting registration on popcorn and carrots, due to costs.

Eagle (myclobutanil), Rohm & Haas
Adding use on backyard fruit trees to control powdery mildew, rusts, brown rot blossom blight, and apple scab on stone fruits, apples, and grapes.

Ridomil Gold (mefanoxam), Novartis
Adding use on cole crops, clover, and grasses.

Select (clethodim), Valent
Adding tank mix with Stinger and Betamix for use on sugarbeets. (Rhonda Ferree, unless otherwise noted, adapted from Agricultural Chemical News, March 1998, April 1998)

- Rhonda Ferree

Novartis
The company is phasing out dichloros, disulfoton, formothion, isazofos, monocrotophos, and phosphamidon--all of which are organophosphate insecticides.

Ronilan (vinclozolin), BASF
New extended granule formulation in water-soluble bags.

Unless otherwise noted, adapted from Agricultural Chemical News, March 1998, April 1998

- Bruce Paulsrud