Agnet Dec. 11/03 -- II
Bt corn
growers follow the rules
Biotechnology
important for Africa's farmers
Prolonging
the EU biotech dance
GM crops:
misleading reports harm our prospects
EU food
agency to assess safety of three more GMOs
Study
examines genetically modified corn in livestock
It's flu
season for houseplants, too: Tips to keep your houseplants healthy
Gating of
the rapid shade-avoidance response by the circadian clock in plants
Ontario
family sues province, local officials over road salt damage to farm
Rapid ID
system separates wheat from the chaff
Bitertanol,
Chlorpropham, Cloprop, Combustion Product Gas, Cyanazine, et al.; Proposed
Tolerance Actions
Spiroxamine;
Notice of filing a pesticide petition to establish a tolerance for a certain
pesticide chemical in or on food
Alkyl
(C10-C16) Polyglycosides; Notice of filing a pesticide petition to establish a
tolerance for a certain pesticide chemical in or on food
Pesticide
products; Registration applications
Diazinon;
Notice of receipt of requests to voluntarily cancel certain pesticide products
how to subscribe
Bt
corn growers follow the rules
December 11, 2003
Gainesville Times
http://www.gainesvilletimes.com/news/stories/20031211/localnews/15453.html
Via AgBioView at www.agbioworld.org
Billy Skaggs, Hall County Extension Agent, writes that according to results of
an annual survey required by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and cited
in this story, 92 percent of U.S. Bt corn farmers met regulatory requirements
for management refuge size, while 93 percent met refuge distance requirements,
an increase from 87 and 82 percent reported respectively in 2000 when the survey
began.
These results, the story says, demonstrate the vast majority of farmers growing
Bt corn borer resistant corn are adhering to management requirements.
EPA requirements established in 1999 obligate growers to plant at least a 20
percent refuge, or corn that does not contain a Bt gene, for controlling corn
borers. Also, every Bt cornfield must be located within one half mile of a
refuge.
In certain corn or cotton areas of the South, growers are required to plant at
least a 50 percent corn refuge. These management refuge requirements were
enacted to help prevent corn insect pests from developing resistance to Bt
technology.
More than 550 growers responded to the survey conducted during the 2003 growing
season among Bt corn users in the Corn Belt and Cotton Belt. The survey was
conducted by an independent research firm for the Agricultural Biotechnology
Stewardship Technical Committee, in conjunction with the National Corn Growers
Association.
The recent Compliance Assurance Program is another factor that has contributed
to increased awareness of management in the grower community. Introduced by the
seed industry in response to EPA requirements in 2002, the program was developed
to further inform growers about the management requirements and how to implement
them on their farms.
Under the program, registrants of Bt corn borer resistant corn must conduct
on-farm visits with growers to check for management refuge compliance. Growers
who do not meet their management refuge requirements in two consecutive years
can be denied access to Bt corn borer resistant corn in the third year.
"We're clearly seeing the fruits of this comprehensive education effort and
will continue to work hard to meet our industry's stewardship responsibility
around this technology. Being good stewards benefits our customers, industry and
agriculture," said Dick Crowder, CEO and president of the American Seed
Trade Association
Not only did the majority of survey respondents indicate they were aware of
management requirements, but 94 percent of Bt corn growers said they received
enough information to implement a refuge properly in 2003, which is 20
percentage points higher than 2001 survey results.
What's more, the survey indicates that 72 percent of growers who used
insecticides regularly before the introduction of Bt corn borer resistant corn
(four or five of the previous five years) decreased their insecticide use to
control corn borers.
Biotechnology
important for Africa's farmers
December 10, 2003
AllAfrica.com
Colleen Flanagan
http://www.africabiotech.com/news2/article.php?uid=45
Via AgBioView at www.agbioworld.org
More cowpeas, cotton, corn and soybeans, grown by African farmers for the world
market -- that is only one of the possibilities if Africans make use of
biotechnology to increase crop yields, participants heard at a panel discussion
December 9 in Washington.
Speaking as part of a panel on "Biotechnolgy and African Agriculture,"
Professor Diran Makinde of AfricaBio was cited as saying that biotechnology
should be used as a tool to boost crop quality and improve agricultural
efficiency in Africa, and that as a result, costs would decrease and new niche
markets would be created, adding, "I want African farmers to be able to
access this technology and assess the benefits for themselves.?The story says
that Makinde's remarks came on the second day of the two-day Private Sector
Session of the third U.S.-Sub-Saharan Africa Trade and Economic Cooperation
Forum, held at the J.W. Marriott Hotel. Representatives of biotech businesses
from both the United States and Africa, as well as doctors and scientists, all
spoke to the benefits of including biotechnology in the range of methods used to
develop African agricultural products.
Such products could be exported from Africa as part of the AGOA (African Growth
and Opportunity Act) process, panelists said, but some also championed the
integration of more efficient fertilization products and irrigation systems.
Cyril Broderick, president of the International Society of African Scientists,
was cited as saying the full potential of biotechnology will never be realized
if "the basic needs of fertilization and irrigation in Africa" are not
addressed, adding, "Yields without adequate fertilization and irrigation
would be too low and not at all profitable. The benefits of biotechnology would
be undermined. Proper irrigation can extend growth throughout the dry season,
and fertilization can help with weed control."
Prolonging
the EU biotech dance
December 11, 2003
AgWeb.com
Dean Kleckner
http://www.agweb.com/news_show_news_article.asp?nodate=Y&file=AgNewsArticle_200312101533_5311&articleid=103885&newscat=TT
Via AgBioView at www.agbioworld.org
I look forward to a time when EU decisions regarding biotech foods are everyday
events rather than headline news. Apparently, that time is not quite here.
After five years of delay, deferment, duplicity, along with postponement and
procrastination, the European Union, at long last on December 8, took a vote on
the approval of a new biotech crop. Guess what - no surprises - the 3
"D's" and the 2 "P's" won once again. A committee of
experts, by a 6 to 6 vote with three abstentions, left it hanging.
For the record, that's closer than usual to approval. But, that tie vote sends
the controversy directly to the EU's Farm Ministers for a political vote within
90 days. And who knows, they may decide to their own version of the "3 D's
and 2 P's dance".
The crop in question is a biotech enhanced sweet corn that fends off pests and
resists herbicides. All the science-based testing and retesting that's been done
shows it to be safe.
Ironically, this decision to delay follows a separate decision a few days
earlier in which an EU food-safety panel determined that a type of biotech field
corn is "as safe as conventional maize." Science and reason are on our
side. There isn't a scrap of evidence suggesting that genetically enhanced food
is anything but perfectly safe to eat.
I've been saying that for years, and I fully expect to keep on saying it.
The evidence keeps pouring in.
My favorite recent example concerns the case of a fellow named Keith A. Finger.
Three years ago, he was one of the dozen or so voices denouncing StarLink
because he claimed an allergic reaction. Starlink was a biotech enhanced corn
that had found its way into taco shells. It had not yet been cleared for human
consumption although approval had been granted for non-food uses.
The enemies of biotechnology seized upon this incident with a ruthless passion.
They attempted to turn the incident into a major public-relations fiasco for
biologically enhanced foods. They didn't succeed, though they did land a few
good blows with their fundamentally bogus claims and it affected corn exports
for a little while.
One of their leading allegations was that biotech crops could trigger allergic
reactions in some people. Of course, there was no actual confirmation of this
ever occurring. In fact, just the opposite is happening. Science is getting ever
closer to eliminating food allergens by using biotechnology.
Yet a handful of complainers insisted that they were victims and sued the maker
of StarLink. Today, however, we have smoking-gun proof that StarLink didn't
cause so much as a sneeze.
According to a report in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, Keith
Finger is not allergic to StarLink corn.
I'll give the guy credit for agreeing to be tested at a hospital in Cincinnati.
Over the course of several days, he was fed StarLink corn, another kind of corn,
and a placebo. Neither the doctors nor their patient knew which food came on
which day. Finger was thoroughly examined for signs of an allergic reaction--and
none was found.
Finger certainly believed he was allergic. He just happened to be totally wrong.
Now he owes everybody an apology for raising such a stink over nothing. Of
course, I haven't heard him make one. In fact, he continues to insist that he's
allergic to StarLink.
It only goes to show that some people refuse to be convinced of certain things.
It's very hard to persuade the unpersuadeable. Changing their minds would
require them to renounce firmly but wrongly held beliefs. That's a tough thing
to do--but sometimes it simply must be done, such as when evidence demonstrated
beyond all doubt that the Earth wasn't flat and the planets revolved around the
Sun.
I think Europe may be going through this difficult mental process right now. The
continent is waking up to the realization that it ought to reject its
know-nothing posture of the last several years, but it hasn't really embraced
this idea as fully as it must.
This will take time--and probably more time than it should. But at least it
would be a start. As they say, the first step is admitting you have a problem.
GM
crops: misleading reports harm our prospects
Canberra Times
December 11, 2003
http://canberra.yourguide.com.au/detail.asp?class=features&subclass=science&category=feature&story_id=273323&y=2003&m=12
Via AgBioView at www.agbioworld.org
Dr Higgins, a principal research scientist at CSIRO Plant Industry, writes that
eight years ago he was in the fortunate situation of witnessing the introduction
of Australia's first commercially grown genetically modified crop, grown after
15 years of research.
Fortunate for three reasons. First, the insect-resistant GM cotton led to 50 per
cent less insecticide use where it was grown, an immense benefit for the
environment and local communities.
Second, the way the crop was introduced and managed, helping to turn the
industry into a sustainable one, earning Australia $1.5 billion in export
revenue.
Contrary to popular mythology, farmers embraced GM cotton and were not forced
into crippling licence agreements by agribusiness companies.
Higgins says that what really happened was an effort by growers, industry,
researchers and government to make sure everything - markets, crop management
and environmental safety - were in place before GM cotton was introduced.
Growers were required to adopt a management strategy to prevent insect
resistance, and this improved their farms' sustainability and profitability, for
example by about $300/ha in the 2001-02 season, a benefit that flows to local
communities.
Third, the care taken to bring in GM cotton made it possible to introduce
additional GM varieties, including RoundUp Ready herbicide-tolerant cotton and
Bollgard II, an insect- resistant variety expected to reduce insecticide use by
another 30 per cent.
Herbicide tolerance is a hot topic with the proposed introduction of GM
herbicide- tolerant canola, even though conventionally bred herbicide-tolerant
wheat and canola are available in Australia.
RoundUp Ready cotton has been grown for two seasons and is achieving its goal of
reducing the use of herbicides, including those that persist in the environment,
especially our waterways.
Higgins says that despite the best efforts of scientists involved, the results
of recent reports on the UK farm-scale trials were widely reported as GM crops'
harming the environment, especially wildlife diversity.
This was not the case and the reports were misleading, especially when
extrapolated to farming systems in other countries.
The trials were not primarily of GM crops; they were not specifically of the
impact of a GM trait. They were of the impact of adopting modern farming
practices, which could be achieved equally by non-GM crops such as
conventionally bred herbicide-tolerant crops.
Not surprisingly there were biodiversity impacts of changes in weed management
in the UK, particularly where weed seeds were an important food source
sustaining biodiversity which, unlike in Australia, relies largely on farms and
hedgerows.
Other research has been described as developing Frankenfoods, even though it may
involve no new genes, only "switching off" existing genes.
One example is CSIRO research into how to make food oil better for our health by
increasing monounsaturated fatty acids.
Higgins own research, modifying lupins, a valuable stock feed, with a sunflower
gene, enhanced protein quality, trials showing more efficient weight gain and
wool growth in sheep.
Independent medical research at the Australian National University to determine
any allergic reaction to the sunflower protein showed that, rather than causing
an allergic reaction, the lupins had a protective effect against asthma in mice.
It's worth mentioning GM cotton in Australia because it is in stark contrast
with what's happening in canola and in the UK farm-scale trials.
Insect biodiversity is increasing in Australia's GM cotton, especially the many
"good" insects, as a result of decreased insecticide use and of
farmers' adopting integrated pest management (IPM).
IPM aims to reduce chemical use by combining knowledge of pest insects and the
good insects for biological control, with judicious use of chemicals and better
farming practices.
It's true that cotton and canola are quite different and should be treated as
such, and have been so treated by the Gene Technology Regulator.
Future GM plants will need also to be treated on a plant-by- plant basis, using
the national regulatory system to give a science-based assessment of risk.
What really stands out is the way in which growers and communities were
prepared, or not prepared in the case of canola, for GM plants.
Some of the many jigsaw- puzzle pieces that were essential to cotton's
introduction might have been missing for GM canola.
Like cotton growers, canola growers want to know whether they can sell a GM
crop, if crop performance can be guaranteed and whether a GM canola crop will
cause "contamination", a deliberately misused word that describes
something that occurs in nature: cross-pollination.
Without research, field trials and partnerships many of these questions won't be
answered.
Now the Greens have introduced a Bill to ban planting of GM crops in the ACT
and, should it be successful, may block field trials and affect research,
possibly forcing it out of the ACT.
GM cotton is showing that, as a tool, gene technology can contribute to
sustainable and profitable agriculture. Other research is showing gene
technology's potential for our health and well-being.
We must think carefully before reacting to gene technology and GM plants.
Farmers and the community cannot afford to let this technology be abandoned in
Australia.
EU
food agency to assess safety of three more GMOs
December 10, 2003
Reuters
BRUSSELS - Officials were cited as saying on Wednesday that Europe's top food
agency, keen to raise its profile on genetically modified organisms (GMOs),
plans to deliver its safety verdict on three more gene-spliced types early next
year.
With EU countries split down the middle on whether to lift their five-year ban
on new biotech foods and crops, the story says that the views of the European
Food Safety Authority (EFSA) are seen as key to the debate since it is
independent and non-political.
Last week, EFSA issued its first verdict on the safety of GM foods, giving a
clean bill of health to a modified maize type engineered by U.S. biotech giant
Monsanto, saying it was safe for human and animal consumption.
Now, EFSA specialists are assessing three other products - two maize types and
one oilseed rape, all from Monsanto. EFSA expects to publish its assessments in
January and February.
Study
examines genetically modified corn in livestock
December 11, 2003
Daily Nebraskan
Dakarai I. Aarons
http://www.dailynebraskan.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2003/12/11/3fd7f2961c958
Genetically modified corn has a number of benefits that are positive for
agronomy, but researchers at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln want to make
sure this corn won't have a negative impact on livestock.
Nebraska produces plenty of corn, but much of it is used as feed corn for
growing livestock, said Galen Erickson, a UNL assistant professor of animal
science and extension feedlot specialist.
"We wanted to make sure anything done to enhance the corn doesn't hurt the
use of it as feed," he said.
Researchers weren't concerned the genetically modified corn would cause damage
to the livestock's health, but did want to see if the corn would affect the way
the livestock developed, Erickson said.
To research this, feeding trials for cows and swine were conducted at the
university's agricultural and development center near Mead.
For cattle, four studies that lasted between 150 and 200 days each were
conducted. The researchers examined how much corn the livestock ate and how much
weight they gained.
Researchers also measured effectiveness -- how much corn the livestock needed to
grow to a desired size.
In each study, university researchers found there were no differences in the
livestock, Erickson said.
A similar conclusion was reached in a study of the effects of genetically
modified corn on swine by Phil Miller, a UNL professor of animal science.
The genetically modified corns used were Bt corn, which is designed to prevent
crop damage by rootworms, and Roundup Ready Corn, which is resistant to Roundup,
a herbicide.
Normally, using herbicides would kill the corn crop and cause unwanted weeds,
Miller said.
The two trials, which lasted about 14 weeks, examined carcass characteristics
and swine performance.
People have an interest in genetically modified products, and they want to know
whether using the products makes any difference, Miller said.
Before conducting the studies, the researchers thought the genetically modified
crops wouldn't make a difference, but doing studies brings a measure of
evidence, he said.
"(The study) demonstrates that in our production system, there were no
differences," he said.
It's
flu season for houseplants, too: Tips to keep your houseplants healthy
December 11, 2003
American Phytopathological Society ?Press Release
St. Paul, MN - While houseplants don't get the flu as we know it, the winter
months can make them more susceptible to a variety of diseases. To keep indoor
plants healthy, the following are some tips offered by plant doctors from The
American Phytopathological Society.
Although plants have been grown in homes for thousands of years, it hasn't been
without a few problems, states A. R. Chase, professor emeritus, Mid-Florida
Research and Education Center, University of Florida. "Plants didn't evolve
in our homes which means they don't naturally adapt to the environmental
conditions that occur there, especially during the winter heating season,
"she said.
But, Chase states, there are a few simple things that you can do to keep your
houseplants healthy during the winter months.
* Inspect a plant before you buy it. Don't buy plants with leaves that are dried
and brittle, have spots, or are yellowing or wilting. Look carefully for mites,
mealybugs, scales, and aphids, which can resemble plant parts. These pests often
hide underneath leaves or on the leaf stems and may move when disturbed.
* Put a new plant in a separate room away from other plants for a while. This
helps to prevent infecting your other plants with anything brought in on your
new plant. If the plant still looks healthy after three or four weeks in its new
home, you can move it.
* Be sure your plant pot has good drainage. Excess water drowns roots and
encourages root rot.
* Make sure your plant gets what it needs. Not all houseplants are alike and
many vary considerably with regard to moisture, temperature, and fertilization
needs.
* Clean the foliage. Dust and dirt can interfere with a plant's natural
processes. Every few weeks, clean your plants by wiping the leaves with a damp
cloth or by putting them in the shower or sink and rinsing with lukewarm water.
* Avoid temperature extremes. Placing plants near large windows, radiators, or
furnace vents often creates more extreme temperatures than people realize and
plants can tolerate.
* Be careful about moving plants. For example, do not place a plant in a sunny
south window if it has been grown in a less bright location, otherwise a white
to brown burning of the leaves may occur.
* Don't mist your plants; it promotes disease. Use a humidifier or place pots on
a bed of wet gravel if more humidity is needed.
The American Phytopathological Society (APS) is a non-profit, professional
scientific organization dedicated to the study and control of plant diseases,
with 5,000 members worldwide.
Gating
of the rapid shade-avoidance response by the circadian clock in plants
December 11, 2003
Nature 426, 680 - 683
Michael G. Salter*, Keara A. Franklin* & Garry C. Whitelam
Department of Biology, University of Leicester, Leicester LE1 7RH, UK
* These authors contributed equally to this work
Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to G.C.W (gcw1@le.ac.uk)
http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v426/n6967/abs/nature02174_fs.html
The phytochromes are a family of plant photoreceptor proteins that control
several adaptive developmental strategies. For example, the phytochromes
perceive far-red light (wavelengths between 700 and 800 nm) reflected or
scattered from the leaves of nearby vegetation. This provides an early warning
of potential shading, and triggers a series of 'shade-avoidance' responses, such
as a rapid increase in elongation, by which the plant attempts to overgrow its
neighbours. Other, less immediate, responses include accelerated flowering and
early production of seeds. However, little is known about the molecular events
that connect light perception with increased growth in shade avoidance. Here we
show that the circadian clock gates this rapid shade-avoidance response. It is
most apparent around dusk and is accompanied by altered expression of several
genes. One of these rapidly responsive genes encodes a basic helix?oop?elix
protein, PIL1, previously shown to interact with the clock protein TOC1 (ref.
4). Furthermore PIL1 and TOC1 are both required for the accelerated growth
associated with the shade-avoidance response.
Ontario
family sues province, local officials over road salt damage to farm
December 10, 2003
From a press release
TORONTO -- A southwestern Ontario family is suing the county they live in and
the province over environmental damage they claim is due to road salt.
Julius and Margaret Abonyi of Embro announced Wednesday that they have filed
legal action against Oxford County and the Environment Ministry.
The claim, filed Nov. 26, alleges toxic runoff from a neighbouring county-owned
storage yard for road salt has been polluting their farm for several years.
?xford County should clean up the mess it has made, and the provincial
government should take responsibility for enforcing its own laws,?Rick Smith,
executive director of Environmental Defence Canada, said Wednesday in announcing
the lawsuit.
?esting clearly shows that road salt is polluting the Abonyis?farm. It should be
cleaned up immediately.?
The Abonyis have been fighting the county since 1992, when they first noticed
dying trees and other dead vegetation, as well as runoff from the yard? salt
piles draining onto their farm.
Environment Ministry testing revealed elevated salt levels on the Abonyis?farm
and in a nearby creek, said Elizabeth Chiu of Environmental Defence, a
charitable environmentalist group.
The ministry advised the county that the contamination went against the
Environmental Protection Act and the Ontario Water Resources Act.
The county was to assess the extent of the damage and develop a plan to clean it
up.
The county did neither, and the ministry took no further action, the Abonyis
allege.
The Abonyis are hoping the courts will order the county to stop the pollution
and clean up their property.
They are also seeking damages because the contamination has cost them the
agricultural use of their land and a planned commercial fishing operation.
?his has been a long and frustrating fight for us,?said Margaret Abonyi. ?ut the
county needs to understand that they must follow the law and stop the pollution
that is contaminating our property and damaging the environment.?
Rapid
ID system separates wheat from the chaff
December 11, 2003
Australia CSIRO Press Release
Ref# 2003/224
http://www.csiro.au/index.asp?type=mediaRelease&id=prVarietyID
CSIRO Plant Industry has developed a simple high-throughput testing system that
accurately identifies wheat and barley varieties.
"Accurate identification of wheat and barley varieties provides assurance
of quality for products that require different grain characteristics, like
bread, noodles and beer," says Dr Kevin Gale, CSIRO Plant Industry.
"This is vital in maintaining Australia's export reputation in product
standards."
The variety ID system tests leaf or grain samples using a panel of DNA markers.
Each marker gives a 'yes' or 'no' result. The pattern of results generates an
individual 'bar code' for each variety.
"Every wheat plant's DNA is distinctive and we can use the results of an
individual plant to match its barcode with a specified variety," says Dr
Gale.
Designed to be simple and very accurate, even for very closely related
varieties, the system can easily process hundreds of samples in a day,
outperforming previous tests in accuracy and throughput.
"The test will allow the grains industry to confidently supply markets like
Japan that require malting barley shipments to be essentially pure with respect
to a specified variety," says Dr Gale.
"Variety testing also helps ensure end-point royalties are paid on improved
new varieties, giving breeders the resources to keep producing better varieties
of wheat and barley for farmers and consumers into the future."
The wheat variety ID test is licensed by Agrifood Technology.
The wheat and barley ID systems have been developed with Graingene (a joint
venture between CSIRO Plant Industry, the Grains Research and Development
Corporation, AWB Ltd and Syngenta) and ABB Grain Ltd.
Bitertanol,
Chlorpropham, Cloprop, Combustion Product Gas, Cyanazine, et al.; Proposed
Tolerance Actions
December 10, 2003
[Federal Register: (Volume 68, Number 237)]
[Page 68806-68813]
[DOCID:fr10de03-23]
40 CFR Part 180
[OPP-2003-0265; FRL-7330-8]
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
SUMMARY: This document proposes to revoke certain tolerances and tolerance
exemptions for residues of the fungicide and insecticide
dinocap; insecticides combustion product gas, ethion, formetanate hydrochloride,
nicotine-containing compounds, polyoxyethylene, and tartar emetic; herbicides
chlorpropham, cyanazine, and tridiphane; fungicides bitertanol,
1,1,1-trichloroethane, and triforine; and the plant regulators cloprop and
4,6-dinitro-o-cresol because these specific tolerances are either no longer
needed or are associated with food uses that are no longer current or registered
in the United States. Also, EPA is proposing to modify certain ethion tolerances
before they expire. The regulatory actions proposed in this document contribute
toward the Agency's tolerance reassessment requirements of the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) section 408(q), as amended by the Food Quality
Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996. By law, EPA is required by August 2006 to
reassess the tolerances in existence on August 2, 1996. The regulatory actions
in this document pertain to the proposed revocation of 61 tolerances and
tolerance exemptions. Because three tolerances were previously reassessed, 58
tolerances/exemptions would be counted as reassessed toward the August, 2006
review deadline.
DATES: Comments, identified by docket ID number OPP-2003-0265, must be received
on or before February 9, 2004.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted electronically, by mail, or through hand
delivery/courier. Follow the detailed instructions as provided in Unit I. of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joseph Nevola, Special Review and
Reregistration Division (7508C), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave, NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (703) 308-8037; e-mail
address:nevola.joseph@epa.gov.
Spiroxamine;
Notice of filing a pesticide petition to establish a tolerance for a certain
pesticide chemical in or on food
December 10, 2003
[Federal Register: (Volume 68, Number 237)]
[Page 68904-68908]
[DOCID:fr10de03-78]
[OPP-2003-0385; FRL-7337-6]
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice.
SUMMARY: This notice announces the initial filing of a pesticide petition
proposing the establishment of regulations for residues of a certain pesticide
chemical in or on various food commodities.
DATES: Comments, identified by docket ID number OPP-2003-0385, must be received
on or before January 8, 2004.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted electronically, by mail, or through hand
delivery/courier. Follow the detailed instructions as provided in Unit I. of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary L. Waller, Registration Division (7505C),
Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (703) 308-9354; e-mail
address:waller.mary@epa.gov.
Alkyl
(C10-C16) Polyglycosides; Notice of filing a pesticide petition to establish a
tolerance for a certain pesticide chemical in or on food
December 10, 2003
[Federal Register: (Volume 68, Number 237)]
[Page 68908-68911]
[DOCID:fr10de03-79]
[OPP-2003-0362; FRL-7335-5]
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice.
SUMMARY: This notice announces the initial filing of a pesticide petition
proposing the establishment of regulations for residues of a certain pesticide
chemical in or on various food commodities.
DATES: Comments, identified by docket ID number OPP-2003-0362, must be received
on or before January 9, 2004.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted electronically, by mail, or through hand
delivery/courier. Follow the detailed instructions as provided in Unit I. of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James Parker, Registration Division (7505C),
Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (703) 308-0731; e-mail
address:parker.james@epa.gov.
Pesticide
products; Registration applications
December 10, 2003
[Federal Register: (Volume 68, Number 237)]
[Page 68896-68897]
[DOCID:fr10de03-75]
[OPP-2003-0380; FRL-7336-1]
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice.
SUMMARY: This notice announces receipt of applications to register pesticide
products containing new active ingredients not included in any previously
registered products pursuant to the provisions of section 3(c)(4) of the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide
Act (FIFRA), as amended.
DATES: Written comments, identified by the docket ID number OPP-2003-0380, must
be received on or before January 9, 2004.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted electronically, by mail, or through hand
delivery/courier. Follow the detailed instructions as provided in Unit I. of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Waller, Registration Division (7505C),
Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number (703) 308-9354; e-mail
address: waller.mary@epa.gov.
Diazinon;
Notice of receipt of requests to voluntarily cancel certain pesticide products
December 10, 2003
[Federal Register: (Volume 68, Number 237)]
[Page 68897-68901]
[DOCID:fr10de03-76]
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice.
SUMMARY: In accordance with section 6(f)(1) of the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), as amended, EPA is issuing a notice of
receipt of requests by registrants to voluntarily cancel the registrations for
all of their outdoor non-agricultural end-use products containing diazinon [O,O-diethyl
O-(2-isopropyl-6-methyl-4-pyrimidinyl) phosphorothioate]. EPA intends to grant
these requests by issuing a cancellation order at the close of the comment
period for this announcement, unless the Agency receives substantive comments
within the comment period that would merit its further review of these requests.
It is EPA's intent that the cancellation of the outdoor non-agricultural end-use
products will be effective on December 31, 2004. The Agency requests public
comment on these voluntary cancellation requests, and is providing a 180-day
comment period. DATES: Comments on the requested registration cancellations must
be submitted to the address provided below and identified by docket
identification (ID) number OPP-2003-0305. Comments must be received on or before
June 7, 2004.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephanie Plummer, Special Review and
Reregistration Division (7508C), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (703) 305-0076; e-mail address:
plummer.stephanie@epa.gov.
Agnet is produced by the Food Safety Network at
the University of Guelph and is sponsored by the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture
and Food, Plants Program at the University of Guelph, Agricultural Adaptation
Council (CanAdapt Program), AGCare, Canadian Council of Grocery Distributors,
ConAgra Foods, Inc., Pioneer Hi-Bred Limited (Canada), Ag-West Biotech, Inc.,
Monsanto Canada, Meat and Livestock Australia, National Pork Board, Pew
Initiative on Food and Biotechnology, Syngenta Seeds, Inc., Council for
Biotechnology Information, Canadian Animal Health Institute, Croplife Canada,
Syngenta Seeds Canada, Inc., Canadian Food Information Council, Saskatchewan
Agriculture, Food and Rural Revitalization, JIFSAN, National Cattlemen's Beef
Association, National Food Processors Association, Ontario Agri-Food
Technologies, Institute of Environmental Science and Research, Ltd., BC Ministry
of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, Feedlot Health Management Services, Syngenta
Crop Protection, Ontario Corn Producers' Association, DuPont Canada, Inc.,
Office of Consumer Affairs, Burger King, Sobeys Ontario, McCain Produce Inc.,
Canadian Institute for Food Inspection and Regulation, Canadian Wheat Board,
National Meat Association, Seminis Vegetable Seeds, Ontario Soybean Growers,
Bunge, Ltd., UC Davis Biotechnology Program, Consumer Federation of America
Foundation, Optibrand, University of Idaho Department of Microbiology, Molecular
Biology and Biochemistry, Tactix Government Consulting, Inc., Plant Bioscience
Ltd., CanAmera Foods, Hospitality Institute of Technology and Management, Inc.,
Hartono and Company, Agri Business Group, Inc., and Global Public Affairs.
To subscribe to the html version of Agnet (subscription is free), send mail to:
listserv@listserv.uoguelph.ca
leave subject line blank
in the body of the message type:
subscribe agnet-L firstname lastname
i.e. subscribe agnet-L Doug Powell
(replace agnet-L with agnettext to subscribe to the text version of agnet)
To unsubscribe to the html version of Agnet, send mail to:
listserv@listserv.uoguelph.ca
leave subject line blank
in the body of the message type:
signoff agnet-L
(replace agnet-L with agnettext to unsubscribe to the text version of agnet)
For more information about the Agnet research program, please contact:
Dr. Douglas Powell
Associate Professor
dept. of plant agriculture
University of Guelph
Guelph, Ont.
N1G 2W1
tel: 519-824-4120 x54280
cell: 519-835-3015
fax: 519-763-8933
dpowell@uoguelph.ca
http://www.foodsafety.ksu.edu
The Food Safety Network's bilingual toll-free line for obtaining food safety
information: 1-866-50-FSNET (1-866-503-7638)
archived at "http://131.104.74.73:96/agnet-archives.htm