Ruben Brown's illegal pesticide operation has resulted in jail time for him and has cost taxpayers millions of dollars. On January 20, Brown, a 62-year-old retired butcher from Bellwood, began a 2-year prison term. He pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge last summer of misusing methyl parathion in violation of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). During his sentencing in federal court, Brown said, 'I didn't mean to cause all this, but it happened. I'm sorry.'

As reported in the April and August 1997 issues of IPR, the influence of Brown's operations will continue for quite some time. At press time, the following numbers of residents and homes have been affected.

Total residential locations sampled

Environmental (house itself sampled)	896 residences
Biological (urine samples from residents)	488 residences
Households qualifying for relocation	99 households
% of bio-sampled qualifying for relocation 21% % of bio-sampled requiring quarterly monitoring 53%

Costs

The US-EPA expects this project to cost $12 million before it is over. Thus far, work from local, state, and federal scientists, technicians, and others has cost taxpayers $8.2 million. The EPA has set aside an additional $3.8 million to complete the project.

Educational efforts

As the cleanup continues, efforts are under way to assure this kind of situation never happens again. As soon as the problem was recognized, University of Illinois Extension began working hard to educate residents. Using a proactive approach, Extension is teaching urban residents how they can control cockroaches effectively using Integrated Pest Management (IPM) methods. This approach will make them less likely to accept the illegal use of a pesticide in the future. To accomplish this goal, Extension has developed educational programming in cockroach management in cooperation with US-EPA, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease (ATSDR), Safer Pest Control Project, School of Public Health, and Illinois Department of Public Health (IDPH).

Thus far, we have created or contributed to the following:

• Provided updates on our webpage: www.aces.uiuc.edu/~pse/
• Produced fact sheets
• Cleanup Information-How to Decrease the Amount of "Cotton Poison" in Your Home
• While You Wait-How to Decrease the Amount of "Cotton Poison" in Your Home
• How to Get Rid of Roaches
• Rhonda Ferree was interviewed on WICD-TV Channel 15, Champaign
• Added material on this incident and other urban-misuse cases to the Illinois Commercial Pesticide Applicator Training Program
• Produced a variety of news releases
• Created a cockroach-management flipchart for use by Extension paraprofessionals
• Provided train-the-trainer programs on cockroach management

These educational efforts will continue well into the future. Additional train-the-trainer programming on cockroach management is planned. These trainers will exponentially spread the word on the proper ways to manage cockroaches, thereby assuring that illegal products are never again used. To help trainers, demonstration toolkits are needed, containing a caulking gun, caulk, clothes pins for reclosing food packages, screening, duct tape, bait stations, and other items. These toolkits will be used by trainers to demonstrate cockroach IPM through sanitation, caulking, and proper insecticide use. Work is in progress to find funds for this important educational aid.

(Rhonda Ferree and Phil Nixon)

Development of a "Smart Sprayer" for Site-Specific Weed Management

Farm sustainability and protecting water quality are two major goals of current agricultural research. Farmers in the United States applied about 1.2 billion pounds of pesticides in 1995, representing a significant portion of the variable costs of agricultural production. At numerous sites, concentrations of these herbicides in ground and surface water have exceeded federal health levels. Public concerns about health risks associated with herbicide residues have increased as more cases of herbicide-contaminated water supplies have been reported.

Typically, foliar herbicides are broadcast on an entire field without regard to the spatial variability of the weed population in the field. This practice results in areas with no or few weeds being sprayed and receiving just as much herbicide as areas with high weed populations. Obviously, if a sophisticated application-delivery system were developed that applies herbicide where weeds exist and shuts off where there are no weeds, herbicide use could be reduced or herbicides placed more effectively. This practice would result in a lower environmental burden and increase agricultural profitability. Selective spraying, spot spraying, or intermittent spraying are different names attached to this method of herbicide application.

Research has shown that variation within weed populations does exist. If herbicide could be applied in a spatially varying manner based on weed population, less herbicide would be needed. Due to the potential benefit of selective spraying, much work has been done to develop a variable selective sprayer. Primary challenges are to sense weeds and discriminate between weeds and crop plants, crop residue and soil. Most of the research effort has been directed to these challenges. When the presence of weeds is correctly detected, another challenge involves making the decisions of whether or not to spray and of how much herbicide to spray. When these decisions are made, another challenge is to place the proper amount of chemical at the proper location. Currently, enabling technology is available, making selective spraying a possibility. The technology uses machine-vision sensing, which was not feasible only a few years ago. The price of couple-charged device (CCD) sensors, which are at the heart of most videocameras, is dropping dramatically with the rapid market growth in digital cameras and videoconferencing equipment. At the same time, computer-processing capabilities continue to increase, while the price of computing power continues to drop.

Another enabling technology is a relatively new solenoid-activated valve that fits into the nozzle fitting and can be pulsed on and off at a rapid rate. By varying the duty cycle of a square-wave input, the flow rate of the nozzle can be varied continuously and independently of variations in droplet size.

Due to the potential benefits of a selective sprayer, research has been initiated in the Department of Agricultural Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Development of the "smart sprayer" was started in the spring of 1997, sponsored by the Illinois Council on Food and Agricultural Research (C-FAR). The objectives of this project are

1. To develop new precision pesticide-application technology, a "smart sprayer" for real-time, site-specific herbicide application.
2. To develop a knowledge-based and environmentally adaptive automatic application decision-making system for the smart sprayer.
3. To evaluate quantitatively both the environmental and the economical benefits of the smart sprayer and to explore other practical uses of the smart sprayer.

A prototype smart sprayer was built in 1997, and limited testing and evaluations have been conducted. Test results of the first prototype show promise. Crop plants were correctly detected 44 to 51% of the time, and weeds were correctly detected 66 to 87% of the time, with a sprayer ground speed of 4 miles per hour.

To improve the performance, researchers in the Department of Agricultural Engineering are now working on a new version of the smart sprayer. The real-time, machine-vision weed-sensing system will be able to estimate weed size and population as functions of position in the field. The variable-rate nozzle will be able to change the spray-application rate on the go. Our goal is for the new smart sprayer to be a system capable of applying herbicides to weeds and weeds only, resulting in reduced use of herbicides, at an equal or higher level of weed control as achieved with conventional sprayers.

With the availability of a sprayer such as this, questions are generated that require an interdisciplinary effort to find answers. The knowledge of agricultural engineers, agricultural economists, weed scientists, and agrichemical experts must be brought together to develop the high-performance expert system required for a smart sprayer. When fully developed and made available, the smart sprayer will be a great benefit for producers by increasing agricultural profitability and for society by reducing environmental damage.

(Lei Tian, Assistant Professor, Department of Agricultural Engineering)

Eight agricultural chemical manufacturers have combined forces to promote safety during the handling and application of carbamate and organophosphate insecticides, through a joint effort called "Safety: Apply It First." American Cyanamid Co., Bayer Corp.,

Cheminova Agro, FMC Corp., Makhteshim-Agan, Novartis Crop Protection, Rhone-Poulenc Ag Co., and Valent USA Co. started "Safety: Apply It First" to reach applicators with important safety reminders regarding handling carbamate and organophosphate insecticides.

All "Safety: Apply it First" campaign efforts will urge dealers, applicators, and growers to promote safe handling and application of chemicals. Free safety-awareness cab kits will support this effort. The kits, which should be carried in application-equipment cabs, include safety-reminder stickers for the cab and pesticide hopper boxes, signs for the spray boom, and sealable bags for temporarily storing clothing if it becomes contaminated. The free safety kits are available by calling (800)233-1909.

(Rhonda Ferree, mailing from "Safety: Apply It First")

FQPA

At a recent meeting in St. Louis, the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996 was the focus of the US-EPA, USDA, and Extension specialists from around the country. Although you may not have heard much about this legislation, it addresses a number of issues that will affect the way pests are managed in both agricultural and non-agricultural settings. For an overview of the FQPA, please refer to the August 1996 (vol. 9, no. 3) and November 1997 (vol. 10, no. 4) issues of this newsletter. The principal goal of the Act is to reassess the risk on all existing pesticides by the year 2006. To accomplish this task, the EPA has prioritized all active and inert ingredients into three groups:

Group 1: 33% of all current pesticide tolerances and exemptions will be reassessed by August 1999. This group includes all organophosphates, carbamates, organochlorines, probable carcinogens (called ?B1s? and ?B2s?), possible carcinogens (called ?Cs?), and high-hazard inert ingredients.

Group 2: 66% of all current pesticide tolerances and exemptions will be reassessed by August 2002. This group includes any remaining group-1 substances, as well as any remaining possible carcinogens (Cs).

Group 3: 100% of all tolerances and exemptions will be reassessed by August 2006. This group includes biological pesticides and low-risk inert ingredients.

At the meeting, Stephen Johnson of the US-EPA Office of Pesticide Programs stated there is currently much discussion about how and when to apply the additional 10X safety factor to food for infants and children, as required by the legislation. He also indicated that more data (for example, residue from food, residential, lawn and garden, and drinking water) are needed to refine all assessments, particularly those of the organophosphate insecticides.

Leonard Gianessi of the National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy (NCFAP) expressed concern about loss of the organophosphate and carbamate insecticides on minor crops: "With cotton and corn uses making up over 80% of sales, the 60 minor crops that make up only 5% of sales may be ignored in the reassessment process." Dr. Gianessi went on to highlight a number of critical uses for these insecticides for which no acceptable alternative is available.

David Crow of Responsible Industry of Safe Environment (RISE) also noted that registrants have little time to submit the required data: "The EPA may have gone further than what Congress intended by using an overly conservative 'Risk Cup' approach." He predicted a backlash from Congress and stated that the EPA may yet have to compromise and permit decisions to slip beyond the August 1999 deadline. Dan Botts, a spokesman for the Florida Minor Crops Consortium, expressed his concern about the uncertainty with which the EPA will proceed to delete uses of these insecticides.

The meeting also included a variety of worthwhile breakout sessions. It was generally agreed that there was still time to educate growers and other groups about the implications of FQPA and to provide useful data to the EPA. Although some obstacles remain, it was clear that more time is needed to develop the required data, explore alternatives to pesticides that may be canceled, and prepare useful reports that would in fact be used by the EPA.

Inert ingredients

In the last issue of IPR (January 1998, vol. 11, no. 1), inert ingredients were discussed as part of the Consumer Labeling Initiative article. EPA's policy on inert ingredients has received a good deal of attention recently. Holly Knight recently published an article in the Journal of Pesticide Reform (summer 1997, vol. 17, no. 2) entitled "Hidden Toxic 'Inerts': A Tragicomedy of Errors." In addition, the Northwestern Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides (NCAP) and other coalitions recently submitted a rule-making petition to EPA asking that ALL ingredients be identified on pesticide labels. This petition and the Knight article can be viewed at http://www.efn.org/~ncap, or ordered by calling (541)344-5044.

In both cases, the EPA is accused of not paying enough attention to the inert ingredients included in pesticide formulations. Some of these "inerts" are themselves toxic, and a few of them recently have been shown to pose carcinogenicity hazards. The EPA has taken steps to address the issue of inert ingredients by encouraging registrants NOT to use "Inerts of Toxicological Concern" (inerts on EPA's "list 1"), and by requiring specific label warning statements when list-1 inerts are used in a pesticide formulation. Furthermore, the EPA is currently addressing the inerts issue via the Consumer Labeling Initiative and the tolerance and exemption reassessment process as just outlined.

The bottom line is that we must not forget how risk assessment works: Risk = toxicity + exposure. The toxicity of a particular chemical is not the end of the story: Your exposure to that chemical (for example, how much you eat, drink, contact) is equally important. This effect is true for ALL chemicals, not just active ingredients and inerts in pesticides. Even the caffeine in your cup of coffee or soda is toxic (its LD50 is 192, which is more toxic than most pesticides currently on the market), yet you likely don't think of it as a "risky brew," because your exposure is low. Risk assessment is complex and time-consuming and requires the EPA staff to prioritize its efforts, which it has done. The use of sound science and the best data to assess risk is in everyone's best interest.

(Bruce Paulsrud and Dave Pike)

Since 1990, the Illinois Department of Agriculture, along with United Agri Products/Richter, Cole Grower Service, Tri-Rinse, Agricultural Container Research Council, GROWMARK, and the Illinois Fertilizer and Chemical Association, has sponsored a pesticide-container recycling effort in Illinois.

As shown in Table 1, over 850,000 agrichemical (1- and 2.5-gallon high-density polyethylene) containers have been collected in Illinois and recycled into useful products. All containers are inspected upon arrival at the recycling site: If they are not clean, they are rejected. The good news is that folks are doing a better job of cleaning their containers; over the years, the rejection rate has declined to 0.95%. Currently, most of the accepted containers are used to produce plastic pallets such as the Tiger Pallet. However, many new uses are being tested, such as fence posts, parking-lot stops, privacy-fence slats, and truck bedliners.

Why recycle pesticide containers? First, recycling simply makes more sense than landfilling; second, there are numerous collection sites around the state, making it easy to recycle; and, third, it is becoming more difficult to dispose of pesticide containers by other means. For example, since January 1, 1995, it is no longer legal to burn containers at agrichemical facilities in Illinois. In addition, landfill operators are becoming more reluctant to accept pesticide containers. Even if a person chooses to landfill used containers, they must first be properly cleaned. Certainly, the use of concentrated formulations and newer technologies such as water-soluble packaging, refillable-returnable containers, and direct-injection application systems will substantially reduce the number of pesticide containers handled in the future.

What about the future of this program? There will continue to be numerous collection sites throughout the state each summer; six will be open year-round. The University of Illinois Cooperative Extension Service (ICES) and the Illinois Department of Agriculture (IDoA) continue working together to increase public awareness of the recycling program and to instruct participants on how to prepare containers for recycling. In early 1997, ICES and IDoA created and distributed recycling posters and brochures to all agricultural pesticide dealers and retailers across Illinois. In addition, this program has been discussed and these materials distributed during both private and commercial Pesticide Applicator Training (PAT) in Illinois.

Table 1. Illinois Pesticide Container Recycling Program--Eight Years of Progress

Year	Collection Sites	Participants	Containers Accepted	Container Rejection Rate
1990	2	N/A	4,800	N/A
1991	17	N/A	9,900	N/A
1992	1	N/A	<3,000	N/A
1993	43	224	57,100	5.8%
1994	69	337	128,700	7.0%
1995	89	413	214,500	2.2%
1996	82	327	225,250	1.5%
1997	74	308	216,058	0.95%
Total	377	?	859,308	?

(Bruce Paulsrud, ICES; and Brad Beaver, IDoA)

Accent Gold (nicosulfruon/rimsulfuron/flumethsulam/clopyralid), DuPont

New four-way herbicide (the first of its kind), expects registration in 1998 for use on corn.

Cobra (lactofen), Valent

Added tank-mix use with Synchrony STS and Reliance STS on soybeans.

Expert (oxasulfuron), Novartis

Registration is expected in 1998 for postemergence broadleaf weed control in soybeans.

Field Master (glyphosate/acetochlor/atrazine), Monsanto

New three-way herbicide for use on corn as a preemergence burndown treatment.

First Rate (cloransulam-methyl), Dow Agro Sciences

New active ingredient for broadleaf weed control in soybeans.

Frontier (dimethenamid), BASF

Added tank-mix use with Banvel, Clarity, Conclude, Manifest, Marksman, or Rezult; for use on soybeans.

Frontrow (cloransulam-methyl/flumetsulam), Dow Agro Sciences New postemergence soybean herbicide.

Gauntlet (sulfentrazone/?presently unnamed?), FMC New broadleaf soybean herbicide.

Matador (quizalofop-p-ethyl), FMC

Postemergence soybean herbicide.

Sencor (metribuzin), Bayer

Added tank mix with Resource and Scorpion III, for postemergence use on field corn.

Skirmish (chlorimuron-ethyl), FMC

Postemergence soybean herbicide.

Strongarm (diclosulam), Dow Agro Sciences

New preplant-incorporated broadleaf herbicide for use on soybeans.

"Unless otherwise noted, adapted from Agricultural Chemical News, January 1998 and February 1998"

- Bruce Paulsrud

S-Metaloclor, Novartis

New formulation meant to control the same spectrum of weeds, at two-thirds the rate.

"Unless otherwise noted, adapted from Agricultural Chemical News, January 1998 and February 1998"

- Bruce Paulsrud

Scotts

The company has purchased Livingston Horticulture?one of the largest homeowner-products and horticulture companies in England?for $80 million.

Zeneca

Zeneca Agrochemicals paid $500 million to acquire the worldwide chlorathalonil (Bravo/Daconil 2787) business and distribution rights to four newly introduced products (fosthiazate nematicide, fluazinam fungicide, and flazasulfuron and nicosulfuron herbicides) from ISK Biosciences. (Ag Consultant, February 1998)

"Unless otherwise noted, adapted from Agricultural Chemical News, January 1998 and February 1998"

- Bruce Paulsrud

Benlate (benomyl), DuPont

Added use on conifers, wheat, and many seed treatments.

Bravo (chlorothalonil), ISK

Due to IR-4 Project, added use on 12 new ornamental plants.

Fol-R-Fos 400 (mono + di potassium salts of phosphoric acid), UIM Agrochemicals

Registration approved, to control Phytophthora and Pythium diseases in ornamentals and bedding plants, Phytophthora in conifers, and Pythium in turf.

Fusilade (fluazifop-butyl), Zeneca

Due to IR-4 Project, added use on ajuga.

Meta Systox R (oxydemeton-methyl), Gowan

Due to IR-4 Project, added use on spruce trees.

Oxyetracycline, Novartis

Due to IR-4 Project, added use on non-bearing pears.

Penncozeb 80 (mancozeb), Elf Atochem

Added use on Christmas trees, to control needle cast, pine gold rust, and Scirrha brown spot.

"Unless otherwise noted, adapted from Agricultural Chemical News, January 1998 and February 1998"

- Bruce Paulsrud

Agri-Mek (avermectin), Novartis

Added control of Colorado potato beetle.

Ammo (cypermethrin), FMC

Added use on many Cruciferi and leafy crops.

Freshgard 25 (SOPP), FMC

EPA received the request to delete several uses from the label.

Funginex (triforine), American Cyanamid

EPA received the request to delete several uses from the label.

Kocide LF (copper hydroxide), Griffin

Added use on blueberries, table beets, mustard greens, turnip greens, garlic, dill, ornamentals, and quince; use as a seed dressing on wheat and barley; and use in the greenhouse and shadehouse.

Kryocide (cryolite), Elf Atochem

Added use on kohlrabi and eggplant, and deleted use on mustard.

Monitor (methamdiophos), Bayer/Valent

EPA has notified the registrants to terminate use on all crops except potatoes and cotton.

Pyramite (pyridaben), BASF

Registration is expected in 1998 on grapes, strawberries, and stone fruits.

Select (clethedim), Valent

Added tank-mix use on sugarbeets, with Stinger and Betamix/Betanex.

Vydate (oxamyl), DuPont

Deleted use on nursery-grown straw-berries, and added use on mint.

Weedar 64 (2,4-D), Rhone Poulenc

Added use on apples, pear, stone fruit, and nut orchards.

(Unless otherwise noted, adapted from Agricultural Chemical News, January 1998 and February 1998)

Table 1. Illinois Pesticide Container Recycling Program--Eight Years of Progress

Year	Collection	Participants	Containers	Container sites accepted rejection rate
1990	2	N/A	4,800	N/A
1991	17	N/A	9,900	N/A
1992	1	N/A	<3,000	N/A
1993	43	224	57,100	5.8%
1994	69	337	128,700	7.0%
1995	89	413	214,500	2.2%
1996	82	327	225,250	1.5%
1997	74	308	216,058	0.95%
Total	377	?	859,308	?

Caption for the illustration:

Smart sprayer: The real-time weed-sensing system is able to estimate weed size and population as functions of position in the field; and the variable-rate nozzle can change the application rate on the go.

The development and/or publication of this newsletter has been supported with funding form the Illinois Department of Agriculture.

"Unless otherwise noted, adapted from Agricultural Chemical News, January 1998 and February 1998"

- Rhonda Ferree

Subterfuse (hydramethylnon), American Cyanamid

New formulation for control of subterranean termites.

"Unless otherwise noted, adapted from Agricultural Chemical News, January 1998 and February 1998"

- Bruce Paulsrud