APIS Volume 3, Number 8, August 1985

eZine lover (@eZine)

Published in 

APIS

 · 1 year ago

In this issue

• Pesticide Regulations--Employee's Right to Know
• African Honey Bee Introduction into California

THE REAL COST OF PESTICIDE USE

Many beekeepers tend to think that regulation of agricultural pesticides is a good thing because in the long run, it leads to less bee kill. However, when it comes to the use of chemicals in beekeeping for controlling wax moth or preserving equipment, all too often regulations are taken lightly or in extreme instances, ignored. This is dangerous practice because evidence of misuse can lead to prosecution and finally, to the elimination of a much needed chemical from the market place. Chemicals are important to beekeepers just like to other agriculturalists and the regulations that come with them must be viewed as part of the real cost of their use.

A big problem with agricultural pesticide and chemical regulation is apparent complexity. The rules are often perceived as so complicated that they cannot be followed at all, and so, may loose their effectiveness. Two recent publications by the Florida Cooperative Extension Service attempt to guide agriculturalists through the morass of regulations and should be on the "required" reading list of all beekeepers using agricultural pesticides for wax moth, disease and weed control, as well as preserving beehives. These should be available at your county Cooperative Extension Office.

Cooperative Extension Circular 618 is called Summary Guide to Regulation of Agricultural Pesticides, by M.L. Upchurch, M.T. Olexa and A.E. McMichael. This publication emphasizes federal laws and regulations which set nationwide standards under FIFRA, Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act. It is divided into eight sections: the label, private users, commercial applicators, storage and disposal, chemigation, transportation, employee safety and common laws governing pesticide use.

Predictably, the two longest sections in the publication deal with pesticide labeling, and storage and waste. All pesticides must be registered for use and periodically reregistered; the specifics of registration are listed on the label, as are instructions for use, storage and disposal. The label, together with any literature to which it refers, has the force of law. In other words, THE LABEL IS THE LAW. It is unlawful to detach, alter, deface or destroy the label. It is also unlawful "...to use any registered pesticide in a manner inconsistent with its labeling." To be consistent, a pesticide may be used according to instructions on the label and also:

1. At a dosage, concentration or frequency LESS than that specified on the label.
2. Against a target pest not specified on the label AS LONG AS the application to the crop, animal or site IS permitted by the label.
3. To Employ any method of application NOT PROHIBITED on the label.
4. To mix with a fertilizer WHEN the mixture is NOT prohibited.

Storage and disposal of pesticides and containers is also described. This is particularly relevant to Florida, where precious ground water can be so easily contaminated. Again, the user should follow instructions on the label. Besides FIFRA rules, pesticides also fall under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) as hazardous waste.

As hazardous waste, pesticide containers and inner liners are required to be disposed of only when "empty." A container or liner is empty if:

1. It has been triple rinsed with a solvent capable of removing toxic ingredient or of changing it chemically to a harmless material.
2. It is cleaned by another equally effective method.
3. A liner that completely protected the container has been removed.

Improper disposal is subject to civil and criminal penalties. A "small" generator of hazardous waste may not come under RCRA, but still must comply with FIFRA. "Small" is defined as less than one kilogram (2.2 lbs) of waste per month or less than 100 kilograms (220 lbs) of residue or contaminated debris resulting from the clean up of a spill.

Regulations Governing the Use of Agricultural Pesticides, Bulletin 212, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, authored by M.T. Olexa, A.E. McMichael and A.H. Daniels, treats pesticide regulations in much greater depth than the summary publication above. It consists of six chapters: Federal and Common Law Governing Pesticide Use, Storage and Disposal of Pesticides and Pesticide Containers, Water Pollution by Pesticides, Pesticide Usage and Farm Employee Safety, Pesticide Drift and Resultant Liability, Treated Seed. Each section has appended a number of references for further reading.

A large section of Bulletin 212 details rules concerning pesticide use and farm employee safety. According to the publication,

"...employers have other statutory and common law responsibilities to minimize the risks posed by pesticides to health and safety of their employees."

The primary federal law governing this is the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA). It applies to all persons (employers) engaged in a business affecting commerce; liberal interpretation by the courts has determined OSHA covers agricultural endeavors.

Although employees have a great deal of protection under OSHA, an injured party cannot sue the employer merely based on a violation of OSHA. Nevertheless, criminal and civil sanctions are provided for by the act and are based on whether "feasibly preventable hazards," are eliminated from the workplace. Again, this has been liberally interpreted by the courts and employers can be held accountable even if he/she didn't recognize a hazard existed or injury results from a "forseeable" negligence by an employee.

Beyond federal regulations, the state of Florida also has an employee right-to-know law, according to the latest issue of the Cooperative Extension Services, Safety Newsletter, written by W.J. Becker [Editor's note 5/11/1997--Mr. Becker has subsequently retired]. Basic provisions require the employer to:

1. Inform the employee of listed toxic substances in the workplace.
2. Make available upon written request, a form called a "Material Safety Data Sheet" which explains the properties and hazards of each listed toxic substance to which one might be exposed in the workplace.
3. Provide instruction, within the first thirty days of employment, and at least annually thereafter, on the adverse health effects of each listed toxic substance and what to do in case of emergency.
4. Notify the local fire department of the characteristics and location of each listed toxic substance regularly present in the workplace.

The employee has the right to:

1. Know the characteristics of the listed toxic substances in the workplace.
2. Obtain a copy of the "Material Safety Data Sheet" for each listed toxic substance.
3. Refuse to work with a listed toxic substance, under specified circumstances, if not provided a copy of the Material Safety Data Sheet for that substance within five working days after making a written request.
4. Instruction, within the first thirty days of employment, and at least annually thereafter, on the adverse health effects of each listed toxic substance, how to use each substance safely and what to do in case of emergency.
5. Further information about the properties and hazards of listed toxic substances from the Toxic Substances Information Center.
6. Protection from discharge, discipline or discrimination for having exercised any of these rights.

According to Dr. Becker, the Florida Right-to-know is simply good safety management in its requirements to inform, educate and train employees in the safe use of toxic substances. In addition, informing the local fire department of the location and characteristics of toxic substances on your property is important routine business practice.

In order to determine what is classified as a toxic substance, call or write the Toxic Substances Information Center, 2551 Executive Center, Circle West, Tallahassee, FL 32301-5014, ph 800/367-4378. Ask for the current toxic substance list, a copy of the law and the poster which soon will be required to be posted in areas where pesticides are being applied. This costs you nothing (an 800 number is toll free), but could save you a bundle!

AFRICANIZED HONEY BEES IN CALIFORNIA

The first established colony of Africanized honey bees was found last month in California. This appears to be a "minor" incident in terms of Africanized honey bees; one established nest does not necessarily an invasion make. Of more concern and not readily reported by national media is that the Africanized colony could have associated with it the Asian mite, Varroa jacobsoni. This is the real reason for concern by California authorities. Reports are sketchy at present, but it seems the bees were brought into California in a shipment of oilfield equipment. The fact that the nest was found underground, that a rabbit was attacked and that the bees absconded when asphalt was dumped into the nest entrance indicate Africanization.

Official identification suggested the bees were over ninety percent Africanized. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) action plan calls for eradication by a combination use of bait hives and elimination of all feral colonies within a 400 square mile area surrounding the site. In addition heavy sampling of managed colonies in the area is called for; about nine thousand managed colonies will be sampled.

This first find has been sensationalized by the press as you have no doubt been aware. This may be a blessing in disguise because it is also sensitizing many political and regulatory officials about possible adverse publicity when the bees do arrive. We are seeing a lot of activity in Mexico; authorities there now realize that the bee is very close to their border. A working group in Florida has also been established to formulate strategy which will complement the APHIS action plan.

Should your as a beekeeper be contacted by the press, it is extremely important that reliable information be provided. If you feel unable to respond, refer them to someone else who can or refuse to comment. It should be emphasized this is the only find of an established colony of these bees in the United States and the infestation is 3000 miles from Florida. This state has never had an infestation and the Plant Protection and Quarantine Personnel at all ports of entry are constantly on the lookout for possible introduction of Africanized honey bees.

The sting of the Africanized honey bee is no more toxic than that of European honey bees, but the degree of defensiveness exhibited by colonies of Africanized honey bees is usually far greater than the European bees presently found in the United States. In all references to these bees, the term "killer" should be avoided--it does a disservice to the industry and to the bees themselves by suggesting these insects only exist to attack people. The terms African or Africanized are much more preferable.

Extensive background information on Africanized honey bees is readily available to the press. A partial bibliography follows:

• Anonymous. 1972. Final Report, Committee on African Honey Bee, National Academy of Science Press, Washington, D.C.
• Collins, A.M., T.E. Rinderer, J.R. Harbo and A.B. Bolten. 1982. Colony Defense by Africanized and European Honey Bees. Science 218:72-74.
• McDowell, R. 1984. The Africanized Honey Bee in the United States: What Will Happen to the U.S. Beekeeping Industry?, USDA Agricultural Economic Report number 519, Economic Research Service, Washington, D.C.
• Stibick, J.N.L. 1984. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Strategy and the African Honey Bee. Bulletin of Entomological Society of America. Vol 30, No. 4, Winter, pp 22-26.
• Taylor, O.R. 1977. The Past and Possible Future Spread of Africanized Honey Bees in the Americas. Bee World 58 (1):19-30.

Sincerely,

Malcolm T. Sanford
Bldg 970, Box 110620
University of Florida
Gainesville, FL 32611-0620
Phone (352) 392-1801, Ext. 143 FAX: (352)-392-0190
http://www.ifas.ufl.edu/~entweb/apis/apis.htm
INTERNET Address: MTS@GNV.IFAS.UFL.EDU
©1985 M.T. Sanford "All Rights Reserved