this magnitude would virtually eliminate phosmet as a 

 pest-management option for many crops. The regis- 

 trant and other meeting participants raised objections 

 to some of the assumptions EPA used to compile the 

 worker exposure assessment and presented informa- 

 tion as to how the assessment could be refined further 

 during the risk-mitigation phase. 



Occupational exposure is regulated under FIFT^A 

 (Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act), 

 not FQPA. As such, EPA is obligated to consider the 

 benefits of a particular material when assessing its risk. 

 Attendees reiterated to the EPA panel the importance 

 of phosmet in existing IPM programs, its relatively low 

 acute toxicity, its low impact on many beneficial spe- 

 cies, the lack of viable alternative pest-management 

 options, and the uncertain effects of potential replace- 

 ment products on the crop ecosystems for consider- 

 ation in determining the re-entry interval. EPA should 

 release their risk-management recommendations by late 

 May to early June. 



Dimethoate - Dimethoate (Cygon) is currently in 

 phase five of the review process since the release of 

 the revised risk assessment and technical briefing in 

 mid December. As with methyl parathion, this mate- 

 rial has not been an important tool for producers in the 

 Northeast but according to USDA surveys, dimethoate 

 is applied to 35% of the total U.S. apple acreage and is 

 labeled for approximately 40 other food crops. 



Despite its widespread usage, EPA is not concerned 

 with aggregate risk from diet or drinking water. Worker 

 exposure and ecological issues seem to be their main 

 concern. The registrants, U.S. Apple Association, and 

 EPA currently are discussing methods to reduce this 

 risk in tree fruits by utilizing increased the require- 

 ment for personal protective equipment, decreasing the 

 maximum seasonal rates per acre, and lengthening re- 

 entry intervals for high contact activities such as hand 

 thinning, summer pruning, and harvesting. 



Chlorpyrifos - Chlorpyrifos (Lorsban) is some- 

 what in limbo in stage four of the review process. The 

 public-comment period following the preliminary risk 

 assessment ended December 27, and EPA currently is 

 reviewing any new information that may have been 

 put forth in preparation for releasing their revised risk 



assessment. No date has yet been set for the technical 

 briefing, but it should occur sometime in late March. 

 After that event, there will be another 60-day public- 

 comment period, and then EPA will have up to 60 ad- 

 ditional days to compile the final risk-mitigation pro- 

 posal. 



Diazinon and malathion - Both of these materi- 

 als have just begun the review process. EPA has shared 

 their first-tier risk assessments with the registrants for 

 error comments only. Preliminary risk assessments 

 have yet to be released for public review. 

 It is clear that EPA is making deliberate progress in 

 implementing the legislation passed in August 1996. 

 Initial review of the OP's should be completed by the 

 third quarter of this year. The focus will then shift to 

 the next two priority groups of pesticides: carbamates 

 (Benlate, Topsin, Sevin, Lannate, Vydate) and poten- 

 tial carcinogens (Captan, mancozeb, Polyram), many 

 of which are prominently used in commercial fruit pro- 

 duction. 



To date, with a few notable exceptions, dietary is- 

 sues have played a secondary role to worker-exposure 

 concerns in assessing the OP's. This may change in 

 the future as EPA looks at cumulative risks associated 

 with materials that have similar modes of action. In 

 September 1999, the Scientific Advisory Panel agreed 

 with EPA's intention to group certain carbamate pesti- 

 cides with the OP's when assessing cumulative risk. 

 Placing more materials in the same "risk cup" could 

 reduce substantially the number of labeled uses that 

 could be retained and still satisfy the requirements of 

 the FQPA. Cumulative risk assessments have not been 

 a part of the registration process in the past, and EPA 

 has been working on the protocols needed to carry out 

 this aspect of the legislation concurrent with their ini- 

 tial reviews of individual compounds. 



It is uncertain how the FQPA will ultimately af- 

 fect commercial agriculture, but it undoubtedly will 

 change our pesticide-usage patterns. With the in- 

 creased restriction on uses of older compounds, we 

 must strive to keep up with the introduction of new 

 and innovative pest-management options. Change is 

 the only constant. 



**sl^ *^ ^^ *^ 

 ^^ •Pf>» tf^ #^ 



14 



Fruit Notes, Volume 64 (Number 3), Summer, 1999 



