NPSEC News – November 30th, 2018
|
*|MC_PREVIEW_TEXT|*
|
This article was originally published by Michigan State University. The full story and link can be found at the bottom.
An online search for “GMO” returns more than 88 million results — a tangled mess of frightening images, dense data, skepticism, insulting comments and conflicting claims and counterclaims. For the average consumer, separating reputable sources from propaganda is tough, if not impossible.
What is a genetically modified organism, or GMO?
Even the answer to the question can be controversial.
At its most basic, genetic modification is the process by which changes occur in an organism’s genome. Nature is perpetually modifying the genetics of every organism in an effort to help the organism adapt to its changing environment.
“It’s important to understand that all organisms — not just those that are the basis of foods — are genetically modified in some way, shape or form,” says Brad Day, a professor and associate department chair for research in Michigan State University’s Department of Plant, Soil and Microbial Sciences. “They are genetically modified by persisting in the environment. Radiation from the sun can induce changes in the genome, for example…”
Read the full article here
This press release originally came from the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The original press release can be found here.
CONTACT: press@epa.gov
WASHINGTON (November 7, 2018) — Applications are now being accepted for the 2018 President’s Environmental Youth Award (PEYA).
The PEYA program recognizes outstanding environmental stewardship projects by K-12 youth, promoting awareness of our nation’s natural resources and encouraging positive community involvement. The PEYA program celebrates student leadership in service projects to protect the environment and keep our global community healthy. Winners of this year’s awards will be invited to a ceremony in Washington, D.C. in mid-2019, and have their project mentioned on EPA’s website.
EPA will select up to two winners in each of EPA’s 10 Regions – one regional winner for Grades K-5 and one regional winner for Grades 6-12.
All student projects must be sponsored by at least one adult over the age of 21. The application and eligibility information are available at: https://www.epa.gov/education/presidents-environmental-youth-award.
Applications are due February 1, 2019.
PEYA is an annual award administered by the Office of Environmental Education at EPA. Since 1971, EPA has recognized young people for protecting our nation’s air, water, land, and ecology. Each year the PEYA program honors a wide variety of projects developed by young individuals, school classes (kindergarten through high school), summer camps, public interest groups, and youth organizations to promote environmental awareness. Through environmental education and stewardship activities, students develop the critical thinking skills experience to make informed decisions and take responsible actions to address difficult environmental issues.
For more information, please contact PEYA@epa.gov.
For information on recent winners, visit: https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-honors-award-winning-environmental-education-teachers-and-students
|
The original article comes from Vegetable Growers News. The original link can be found here
Chlorpyrifos – sold under the trade name Lorsban – should be legal to use in fruits and vegetables for 2019. This insecticide is the main or only option for controlling key pests in crops including apples, asparagus, cabbage, cherries, transplanted onions, peaches, radishes, rutabagas, and turnips. Growers have expressed concern given a recent ruling by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals that, if it stands, will require the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to begin a Federal Insecticide Fungicide Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) process to revoke all label uses of this product.
In our recent communications with colleagues at the United States Department of Agriculture(USDA) and Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (MDARD), we learned that chlorpyrifos will remain available to use until legal proceedings are finished. This is expected to take time, especially since the EPA has asked for a rehearing of the case before all judges of the 9th Circuit Court.
Dave Epstein of USDA noted, “The 9th Circuit Court has not yet responded, and has given no indication when it will. I see no scenario where Lorsban will not be available for use in 2019, as any cancellation would have to undergo a FIFRA review, and that takes time.”
A contact at MDARD also noted that “even if the 9th Circuit decides not to rehear the case, it’s anticipated that the (Trump) administration will file an appeal with the Supreme Court. I don’t anticipate that this issue will be settled for some time and even if it is, I believe there will be a phase-out process rather than an [immediate] ban.”
It is, of course, impossible to predict exactly what will happen, but the best indications are that chlorpyrifos purchased this winter and spring will be available to use for 2019. We encourage you to keep updated at EPA’s chlorpyrifos website.
– Benjamin Werling, David Jones and Zsofia Szendrei, Michigan State University Extension
This article is by Ben Phillips and Craig Anderson, Michigan State University.
The Worker Protection Standard (WPS) is a regulation designed to protect farm workers from dangerous exposure to pesticides. A recent update in 2015 has aligned the WPS with most of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) provisions for using respirators. The revised WPS includes specific requirements for the use of respirators when using pesticide products under the Agricultural Use Requirements that requires the use of a respirator. This revision requires all those who mix, load and apply pesticides (including self-employed pesticide handlers) to have a medical evaluation, and annual fit-tests for each type of respirator required by the pesticide product label and annual training regarding the proper use of each respirator to be used by the handler. The medical evaluation must occur before the employee is fit tested or required to use the respirator in the workplace.
When using a pesticide for uses other than those covered in the Agricultural Use Requirements section of the label, the worker exposure is subject to the requirements of the OSHA Hazard Communication Standard, and either MIOSHA Part 700 or Part 451, including the need for respiratory protection. The Safety Data Sheet for a pesticide would indicate if you need a respirator for non-agricultural uses.
At this years’ Great Lakes Fruit, Vegetable, Farm Market and Greenhouse Growers EXPO, in Grand Rapids, MI, MSU Extension has invited the Great Lakes Bay Health Centers to perform these medical evaluations for growers and their employees who may need to use respirators, free of charge. In addition, Tom Smith, of the National Pesticide Safety and Education Center will be sharing space with the medical team to offer growers all of the resources they need to comply with the revised Worker Protection Standard. Respirator fit-testing will not be provided on site.
The EPA-approved medical evaluation forms are questionnaires that employees must fill out for a physician or other licensed health care professional (PLHCP) to review. The forms are available in English and Spanish. Forms will be provided on-site at EXPO, or can be downloaded and printed from the links above and brought to the EXPO. There will be two licensed health care professionals and two assistants on site to review the forms and provide medical clearances.
Sections 1 and 2 of Part A of the form are required by the law, and must be completed in private by the employee during normal working hours or at a time and place that is convenient for them. While the regulation does not require all of the following information, the employer must complete the following information for the health care provider:
*Not required, but the questions can be found in Part B, Section 2 of the medical form.
The health care provider may determine that additional questions about the respirator activities is necessary and/or a physical examination. These could include the questions in Part B, Section 1, a pulmonary function test (PFT), or electrocardiogram (ECG). However, the health providers at the Great Lakes EXPO will not be able to perform these tests on site. The most that may happen at EXPO is listening to lungs with a stethoscope and some discussion about the evaluation answers in Part A Sections 1 and 2. Employees may be recommended to seek physical examinations elsewhere.
The health care provider will give the employer and the employee a written medical determination (medical release) of the medical evaluation results. An employee cannot use a respirator until this written medical determination is received allowing such use. The determination will include the following information:
Once complete, employers must keep records of the medical determination listed above. It should not include any completed medical questionnaires or detailed notes from any additional medical examinations. That information is confidential and should not be in the possession of the employer.
For more information see:
FAQ regarding the New Worker Protection Standard – Part 1
FAQ regarding the New Worker Protection Standard – Part 2
Worker Protection Standard training requirements for growers
Vegetable pesticide series: Does it require a respirator?
From Mike Wierda, PSEP Director at Utah State University and NPSEC Treasurer.
This is a reminder of how PERC product sales through the NPSEC Store can benefit your PSEP
Note: These discounts are not mutually exclusive!
Thus, you can purchase PERC supplies at 5% off for your program(s) and then receive 5% of your total purchase back in your Revenue Sharing Check!
NPSEC tracks sales state by state and sends out Revenue Sharing Checks quarterly to PSEPs whose 5% revenue sharing total is ³ $100. Revenue Sharing Checks are sent as gifts! You don’t have to do anything to receive this money.
If you would like to help promote these products to encourage purchases in your state, you can add information and links to your sites or social media accounts. Below are a couple examples from Colorado PSEP:
The NPSEC Store includes descriptions of all products. Feel free to use this wording on your own pages if you wish. The current PERC products available are:
Feel free to contact NPSEC with any questions or concerns! Email: tomsmith@npsec.us
Phone: 517.202.3019
Cheers,
Michael R Wierda
Utah PSEP / NPSEC Treasurer
The original press release came from the EPA and can be found here. The following is copied over from that original press release date 10/31/2018.
Contact Information:
WASHINGTON – Today, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced that it is extending the registration of dicamba for two years for “over-the-top” use (application to growing plants) to control weeds in fields for cotton and soybean plants genetically engineered to resist dicamba. This action was informed by input from and extensive collaboration between EPA, state regulators, farmers, academic researchers, pesticide manufacturers, and other stakeholders.
“EPA understands that dicamba is a valuable pest control tool for America’s farmers,” said EPA Acting Administrator Andrew Wheeler. “By extending the registration for another two years with important new label updates that place additional restrictions on the product, we are providing certainty to all stakeholders for the upcoming growing season.”
The following label changes were made to ensure that these products can continue to be used effectively while addressing potential concerns to surrounding crops and plants:
The registration for all dicamba products will automatically expire on December 20, 2020, unless EPA further extends it.
EPA has reviewed substantial amounts of new information and concluded that the continued registration of these dicamba products meets FIFRA’s registration standards. The Agency has also determined that extending these registrations with the new safety measures will not affect endangered species.
*|MC_PREVIEW_TEXT|*
|
The original press release comes from the USDA. You can find a copy of that full release and contact information here.
Key Section from Page 3 of Attachment:
IPM FOCUS AREAS
A primary goal of the National IPM Road Map is to increase adoption and efficiency of effective, economical and safe pest management practices through information exchange and coordination among federal and non-federal researchers, educators, technology innovators and IPM practitioners, including pesticide applicators and other service providers. Pesticide safety education that teaches pesticide applicators sound safety and stewardship practices in the safe and efficacious use of pesticides is an important component of IPM programming across focus areas.
Production Agriculture
The priority in this focus area is the development and delivery of diverse and effective pest management strategies and technologies that fortify our nation’s food security and are economical to deploy, while also protecting public health, agricultural workers and the environment.
IPM experts, educators, practitioners and stakeholders expect pest management innovations will continue to evolve for food, fiber and ornamental crop production systems that improve their efficiency and effectiveness. IPM practices that prevent, avoid or mitigate pest damage have reduced negative impacts of agricultural production and associated environments by minimizing impairments to wildlife, water, air quality and other natural resources. Fruits, vegetables and other specialty crops make up a major portion of the human diet and require high labor input for production. Agricultural IPM programs help maintain high-quality agricultural food and fiber products, and coupled with pesticide safety and stewardship practices, help protect agricultural workers, consumers and the environment by keeping pesticide exposures within acceptable safety standards. Agricultural IPM programs also extend to and consider pest management in areas beyond production field borders, to places that can harbor or serve as a source of agricultural pests such as adjacent roadsides, rights-ofway, ditches, irrigation canals, storage and processing areas, compost and mulch piles and gravel pits.
Natural Resources
Our nation’s forests, parks, wildlife refuges, military landscapes and other natural areas, as well as our public land and water resources, are under constant pressure from endemic pests and aggressive invasive species. Invasive pests diminish habitat quality by out-competing native species for resources, reducing biological diversity, richness and abundance; impairing grazing lands for livestock and foraging habitats for wildlife; and degrading or impairing many other uses of public lands, waters and natural areas. Americans value, and spend large amounts of time, in natural and recreational environments like lakes, streams, parks and other open spaces. Protecting the ecosystem functions, aesthetic standards and values of natural resources and recreational environments is as important as protecting public health and safety. IPM practices help minimize the adverse environmental effects of pest species on our natural areas. As we move into the future, commonly used and accepted metrics are needed to quantify the impact of IPM programs and practices in these environments.
Residential, Structural and Public Areas
For the general public, the greatest exposure to pests and control tactics occurs where people live, work, learn and recreate. IPM programs for schools and public buildings are excellent examples of successful education and implementation programs designed for institutional facilities. Priorities in this area include enhanced collaboration and coordination to expand these programs to other public institutions and infrastructure. Residential and commercial environments require different tools and educational materials than schools, and multifamily public housing structures present particular challenges, including addressing pest issues for people who are unable or unauthorized to manage pests themselves. Expanding IPM programs in these areas would reduce human health risks posed by pests and mitigate the adverse environmental effects of potentially harmful pest management practices. Preventing and controlling bed bug and cockroach infestations in multifamily and public housing and other built environments is a high priority.
Original Release
WASHINGTON, October 24, 2018 – The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced today the first update since 2013 of the National Road Map for Integrated Pest Management (IPM).
The update culminates a yearlong review by the Federal Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Coordinating Committee (FIPMCC), a joint effort that is coordinated by the Office of Pest Management Policy in the Office of USDA’s Chief Economist with representatives of all federal agencies with responsibilities in IPM research, implementation, or education programs. These agencies include Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Department of the Interior (DOI), and Department of Defense (DoD).
Integrated Pest Management (IPM) is a science-based, sustainable decision-making process that uses information on pest biology, environmental data, and technology to manage pest damage in a way that minimizes both economic costs and risks to people, property, and the environment.
The National Road Map for Integrated Pest Management (IPM), first introduced in 2004, is periodically updated to reflect the evolving science, practice, and nature of IPM. The Road Map provides guidance to the IPM community on the adoption of effective, economical, and safe IPM practices, and on the development of new practices where needed. The guidance defines, prioritizes, and articulates pest management challenges across many landscapes, including: agriculture, forests, parks, wildlife refuges, military bases, as well as in residential, and public areas, such as public housing and schools. The Road Map also helps to identify priorities for IPM research, technology, education and implementation through information exchange and coordination among federal and non-federal researchers, educators, technology innovators, and IPM practitioners.
The USDA’s Office of Pest Management Policy (OPMP) is responsible for the development and coordination of Department policy on pest management and pesticides. It coordinates activities and services of the Department, including research, extension, and education activities, coordinates interagency activities, and consults with agricultural producers that may be affected by USDA-related pest management or pesticide-related activities or actions. OPMP also works with EPA on pesticide and water pollution issues and represents USDA at national and international scientific and policy conferences.