ALAR*: WHAT IS ITS ROLE IN NORTHEASTERN APPLE PRODUCTION? 



W.J, Bramlage, D.W. Greene, W.R. Autio, 

 F.W. Southwick and W.J. Lord 

 Department of Plant and Soil Sciences 



The Alar* issue has dominated the thinking of the U.S. apple industry 

 in 'ecent months. This is an emotional as well as a crucial issue, and a 

 ban age of claims and counterclaims has emerged. Our attempt here is to 

 ana yze the role of Alar* in Northeastern apple production, to provide a 

 fouidation for planning future directions. 



BACKGROUND 



On August 28, 1985 the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced 

 its intent to cancel registration for daminozide (Alar*). This action was 

 reviewed on September 26, 1985 by an independent 7-member Scientific 

 Advisory Panel, which concluded that while there are some questions about 

 the tumor-causing potential of Alar*, available scientific evidence does not 

 support EPA's intention to cancel its registration. New tests have been 

 initiated, but it will likely be years before reliable data can be evalu- 

 ated. 



EPA's concern is with Alar* residue in edible plant tissue, and espe- 

 cially the presence of its breakdown product, unsymmetrical dimethyl hydra- 

 zine (UDMH), which may be carcinogenic. Since Alar* can break down and 

 release UDMH when heated, particular attention is now being directed at pro- 

 cessed apple products and especially apple sauce. However, even EPA in its 

 original statement conceded that there is no imminent concern because poten- 

 tial concentrations of Alar* and UDMH are so extremely small. Rather, the 

 concern is the impact of many years of consumption of these materials on 

 food products. 



Uniroyal, manufacturer of Alar*, has vigorously defended its use on 

 food crops, especially use on apples which accounts for 75? of its total 

 use. On November 12, 1985, the U.S. Department of Agriculture formally 

 opposed EPA's proposed cancellation of food uses for Alar*. Apple industry 

 representatives have also been very active in pointing out EPA's underesti- 

 mate of economic impacts that cancellation would have. Locally, the 

 Northeast Regional Environmental Public Health Center has judged the EPA's 

 assessment of risk from use of Alar* to be invalid. Given the critical 

 reactions to its initial statement, EPA has been negotiating with Uniroyal 

 to try to find a mutjally acceptable position on Alar* until the results of 

 further tests become available. 



However, EPA is not the only government agency with jurisdiction over 

 labels for chemicals. Departments of Health and Agriculture in individual 

 states may also restrict use of chemicals within their boundaries. There 

 has been an effort by the Departments of Health in twelve states to take a 

 unified approach to the use of Alar*, and as of this writing, no state has 

 taken unilateral action, although intense activity is occurring in these 

 agencies and no one can predict what positions they will ultimately take. 



*Trademark 



