Apr 7, 2007
Growers Await EPA’s Decision about Guthion

It’s going to be more difficult and more expensive to control worms in apples, blueberries and cherries if proposals made by the EPA June 9 take effect. The final decision is expected in early October and will be made by Jim Gulliford, assistant administrator in EPA’s Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances.

He and a few other EPA administrators were still gathering information after the official comment period ended Aug. 8. He came to Michigan Aug. 24, where he met with growers and the state’s university entomologists, and then headed to Washington state for similar meetings.

“I thought they were listening,” said Denise Yockey, director of the Michigan Apple Committee.

But others thought that before the June decision and were disappointed.

In June, EPA said that remaining uses for azinphos methyl (Guthion) would end in 2007 for some crops, 2010 for others. It gave growers and others until Aug. 8 to respond to the proposed phase-out, and by all indications, there were a lot who responded – representing the interests of growers, environmentalists and farm workers.

In publishing the proposed final phase-out of azinphos methyl, EPA said: “After consideration of the risks and benefits … as provided in the IREDs (Interim Reregistration Eligibility Decisions), EPA is proposing that the remaining uses of azinphos methyl be phased out according to the following schedule: almonds, pistachios, walnuts, Brussels sprouts and nursery stock in 2007, and apples/crabapples, blueberries, cherries, pears and parsley in 2010.

“EPA is also proposing certain additional risk-mitigation restrictions and activities, including larger buffers, reducing annual application rates and eliminating the few remaining aerial uses.”

The agency also made proposals that will make it harder to use phosmet (Imidan) because of longer reentry intervals.

James Cranney Jr., with the U.S. Apple Association, said that, after the June decision, USApple coordinated with the companies that manufacture the pesticides, with other organizations with affected commodities, with USDA and with “allies on Capitol Hill.” They organized a “strong response” to the decision and encouraged growers to direct comments both to EPA and to their congressmen.

“We hope that EPA will be a little more reasonable” before it implements the proposals as final rules, Cranney said.

USApple had argued prior to June that there is no need for EPA to decide now what it will do in four years. Why not make the decision at the end of a four-year phase-out period followed by a review of the risks and benefits? Clearly, Cranney said, EPA didn’t consider the risks “acute,” since it allowed a four-year phase-out.

“We thought we had made a good case,” Cranney said in June. “EPA can’t predict what will happen in that time.”

He also argued that alternative chemicals have not yet been accepted in the protocols for exporters, and growers will have much greater difficulty managing the alternative chemicals. It means more work monitoring the orchards – application timing is critical, complete coverage is essential and the new chemistries are three times as expensive, he said.

Cranney gave Gulliford credit – he said he wanted to hear from stakeholders, and he went to the field to listen. In Michigan, Michigan State University (MSU) entomologists Mark Whalon, Larry Gut, Dave Epstein and Peter McGhee arranged a tour for Gulliford in late August, during which apple and tart cherry growers spoke to him directly. A number of Michigan apple growers had already responded in writing during the comment period.

Gulliford brought several EPA people with him – entomologist Nikhil Mallampalli, analyst Katie Hall and Region 5 administrators Margaret Guerriero and Barbara VanTil.

Besides the university entomologists, Michigan representatives included Phil Schwallier and Amy Irish-Brown from MSU, Brian Rowe from the Michigan Department of Agriculture, and Denise Yockey.

Growers included Jim Koan, an organic apple grower, cherry growers Dave Smeltzer and Mike Van Agtmael, and apple growers Steve Thome, Joe Klein Sr. and Jr., Joe Rasch and Mike Wittenbach, president of the Michigan State Horticultural Society.

Whalon is most concerned about the dismal prospects for tart cherry growers if they have to work without azinphos methyl. In working with nine progressive growers this year, he said, two of them were not able to control plum curculio using “reduced risk” chemicals and had to “bail out” with azinphos methyl. Failure to find effective control of plum curculio could destroy the tart cherry industry in Michigan, he said. Growers cannot meet the zero tolerance level FDA sets for larvae in fruit without an organophosphate insecticide like azinphos methyl – and no such chemical exists among the alternative chemistries.

Azinphos methyl kills on contact – very important, since plum curculio adults don’t eat, they just lay eggs. It also kills young larvae in the fruit, providing a broader window of protection.

Whalon acknowledged that azinphos methyl’s impact on aquatic organisms is “very significant, very negative,” but also said that there has not been even one incident report for either blueberries or tart cherries, even though both fruits are grown close to bodies of water.

The reduced risk chemistries are not less impacting on natural enemies, he said, and, in the case of residues on fruit, are more impacting on consumers. This could have a dramatic effect. Growers in other countries could continue to use azinphos methyl and export fruit to the United States without fear that residues will be detected at any level, or even be a cause for concern.

The reduced risk chemistries cost from three to six times as much as the organophosphate materials.

Not only does it place a tremendous financial burden on growers, “growers are very nervous about how they are going to be able to control these (internal feeding insects). It will be a problem for them, and a lot more expensive,” Cranney said.

Rufus Isaacs, MSU small fruit entomologist, said blueberry growers face similar hurdles to those of cherry and apple growers and urged them to make their views known to EPA during the comment period.

“Grower organizations and universities will be making comments on these proposals, but grower voices carry a lot of weight with EPA,” he said.

“They (administrators at EPA) are interested in the economic impact of the proposals both for domestic and export markets, the relative effectiveness of alternative controls, and why restriction on application by air, within 100 feet of water bodies or on u-pick fields might have negative impacts on blueberry farming.”

The EPA proposals call for a three-day reentry interval for blueberries – the shortest of all crops retaining the use, as all others are either seven or 14 days – label amendments for buffer zones around houses and occupied dwellings and elimination of phosmet in u-pick fields.

For azinphos methyl in blueberries, complete removal in 2010 would be preceded with a reduction in the maximum annual use to one pound of active ingredient per acre per year, an increase in reentry interval to 14 days, label amendments for buffer zones around houses and occupied dwellings, 100-foot buffer zones around bodies of water, elimination of use in u-pick operations, elimination of aerial application and a requirement that data on workers be gathered after application.

Growers should know soon whether their views had any impact on the EPA administrators.




Current Issue

On-farm AI: Water, farm, labor research guide decisions

Data collection tool expands farm management

Carmel Valley winegrapes: Parsonage Village Vineyard

IFTA Yakima Valley tour provides orchard insights

IFTA recognizes tree fruit honorees

Pennsylvania recognizes fruit industry professionals

Fresh Views 40 Under 40

see all current issue »

Be sure to check out our other specialty agriculture brands

produceprocessingsm Organic Grower