year 2011 EPA Issues Stop Sale Order to DuPont on Sale and Distribution of Imprelis Herbicide
WASHINGTON — The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) today issued an order to E.I. DuPont de Nemours (DuPont) directing the company to immediately halt the sale, use or distribution of Imprelis, an herbicide marketed to control weeds that has been reported to be harming a large number of trees, including Norway spruce and white pine. The order, issued under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), requires DuPont to stop the sale and distribution of Imprelis in the U.S. and outlines specific conditions to ensure that the removal of Imprelis from the market meets legal requirements...
Product registration suspensions under FIFRA section 3(c)(2)(B).
Note - for readability I truncated/reformat the data see link for original.
Product name Active ingredient Reg number Registrant name Suspension date
Acticide MBL 5505 1,2-Benzisothiazolin-3-one 67071-52 Lynn P. Tordo, M.S.
Acarosan Moist Powder Benzoic Acid 59820-4 Brazos Associates, Inc. Agent for Allegropharma Joachim Ganzer KG 6/10/2010
Benzyl Benzoate Miticide Technical Benzoic Acid 59820-5
Bissell Acarosan Dust Mite Powder Benzoic Acid 6297-6
Grubtox Lawn Grub and Insect Control Carbaryl 4-142
Bonide Sevin 5% Dust Insecticide Carbaryl 4-143
Bonide Sevin Garden Dust Carbaryl 4-413
Roebic Root ENDZ Copper Compounds 7792-5
Winter Tablets "W" Copper Compounds 3525-102
Best 4 Servis Brand DDVP 10 Pound Oil Solution 6/29/2012
Best 4 Servis Brand DDVP Emulsifiable Spray 6/29/2012
Technical Sodium Salt of 2,4-D (-16) 2,4-D 35935-19
Riverdale Sodium Salt of 2,4-D 2,4-D 228-123
Turf Builder Plus 2 W/S for Grass MCPA (2-methyl-4-chlorophenoxyacetic acid) 538-160
Scotts Lawn Pro Lawn Weed Control Plus Fertilizer MCPA (2-methyl-4-chlorophenoxyacetic acid) 538-218
Scotts Lawn Pro Weed N' Feed MCPA (2-methyl-4-chlorophenoxyacetic acid) 538-222
Naphthalene Acetic Acid 5887-169 Black Leaf Vitamin B1 Solution 6/29/2012
Naphthalene Acetic Acid 43905-1 Wood’s Rooting Compound 6/29/2012
Permethrin 15297-9 Bio-Groom Lasting Residual Action Repel-35 Insect Control Spray 6/29/2012
Permethrin 71280-6 Migratol BP-1 6/29/2012
Permethrin 71280-7 Migratol BPX-002 6/29/2012
ARI Piperonyl Butoxide 7754-51 ARI Yard & Patio Formula I 6/29/2012
Piperonyl Butoxide 72726-1 Poridon Equine Insecticidal Pour-On 6/29/2012
Prometon 10088-55 Non-selective Herbicide #3 6/29/2012
Prometon 10088-83 Prometon 12.5% Herbicide Concentrate 6/29/2012
Prometon 10807-146 Weed-a-cide Concentrate 6/29/2012
Prometon 10807-206 Misty Weed-a-cide CF 6/29/2012
Agent for BioDerm Lab. Pyrethrins 15297-1 Bio-Groom Flea & Tick Shampoo for Dogs & Cats 6/29/2012
Pyrethrins 15297-7 Bio-Groom Flea & Tick – 14 Residual Spray with Lanolin Shampoo 6/29/2012
Pyrethrins 15297-14 Bio-Groom Flea & Tick Pyrethrin Dip Conc. For Dogs & Cats 6/29/2012
Pyrethrins 15297-17 Bio-Groom Flea & Tick Pyrethrin Spray 6/29/2012
Pyrethrins 15297-19 Bio-Groom Ear Mite Treatment 6/29/2012
Pyrethrins 29909-1 Rid Flea and Tick Shampoo Concentration for Dogs and Cats 6/29/2012
Pyrethrins 29909-2 Cardinal Flea and Tick Shampoo for Dogs and Cats 6/29/2012
REPCO-TOX Space Spray Insecticide Resmethrin 10807-101
Fog Kill Oil Base Insecticide Resmethrin 10807-107
Aqua-Kill Insecticide Resmethrin 10807-110
True Stop Insecticide Rotenone 74343-1 Stet Acquisition, Inc. 2/19/2011
Rotenone 6458-5 Rotenone Resin for Manufacturing Use Only 6/29/2012
Bonide Kleenup Grass & Weed Killer, Ready To Use Sodium Acifluorfen 4-433
Thiram Technical Thiram 8236-2
Last edited by cerezha; 07-18-2013 at 03:17 AM.
"Considering the real-time nature of the Beesource Beekeeping Forums, it is impossible for us to review all messages . . . Any user who feels that a posted message is objectionable is encouraged to contact us immediately by Report Post icon or by email (email@example.com)."
I’m really not that serious
Big dawg, you site the mistakes in one direction but not the other, How about Salt, its bad for you, no wait, good,,, or HOrmone replament, its requred, oh wait it causes cancer, or global cooling in the 70.s, global warming now. the list of scince thats bad goes BOTH ways pretty much equaly,,, why? because its not real science its like dr. lou's report... garbage in, garbage out.....
Real world testing is being done on a huge scale.. and unfortunatly the results are in... Mybees are fine, despite being in the most heavily chem treated areas... and CCD here in the midwest, is non existant.....
I don't know about you, but I don't want my children or my bees to be used as lab rats by the pesticide industry!
Regarding your bees, I'm really glad that so far they seem to be ok. However, if your neighbor has smoked for 20 years and has not yet developed lung cancer, does that constitute proof that smoking doesn't cause lung cancer?
Of course it doesn't.....
Notice this is a real citation.
By the way, the DuPont product was not banned because they failed to do any required testing. In fact DuPont had already pulled the product from the market before the EPA took any action. It was a lawn treatment herbicide that happened to kill some trees. Some idiots at DuPont failed to do non required testing that any sensible scientist would do. I am sure the guilty parties no longer work at DuPont. The EPA action was a mere formality after the fact to get the registration off the books so they did not waste their resources monitoring a dead product. If EPA did not do this they would waste taxpayers money every year on reviews.
As Dawg has so nicely explained I do not have CCD as I have no pesticide exposure in spite of the fact that I and neighbors under my conditions all see sudden die offs or dramatic declines in bee populations of strong colonies in both winter and summer. We see these declines without a lot of dead bees in front of the hive or in the hive. And if you catch it before all are dead you generally find a live queen. But obviously this is an entirely different problem and I hope it does not strike the rest of you. It is discouraging to see a double deep with three or four supers packed with bees go to a partial frame or two frames in a month in summer or over the winter. Thus I will not further waste my time on this CCD topic. Why should I waste my time? I do not have CCD.
I notice a funny thing. All the anti GMO and anti pesticide types are under pseudonyms. I wonder what it is they fear? The truth perhaps? When I sent reports to EPA I had to sign my real name to a statement that the data in the report was generated in compliance with all good laboratory practices on risk of jail sentences if I were not telling the truth. I feel anyone who wishes to say I lied should sign a real name or shut up. I have been project manager for an Ag Chem development product. I killed that product due to adverse findings after we had spent over $20 million on development studies. What actual experience do the nay sayers have? One of them thinks crop rotation is the solution! Incredible! Tell that to the guy growing rhubarb or apples or any of hundreds of other crops that are perennials. Did you know there is work underway to generate a perennial corn? Or tell that to the guy who has late blight on his crop. It is called late blight for a reason. It takes a while each year for the spores to get here from central America. The truth is the only sustainable crop rotation system that does not require large external inputs of nutrients, fuels and labor compared to modern Ag is slash and burn. Are we going to feed the worlds population farming land one year out of 25? Some other pseudonym claims 2,4 D killed his bees when "A honey bee acute toxicity study indicated that 2,4-D is practically non-toxic to the honey bee" according to the EPA. Citation:
Obviously this guy has CCD. To bad he did not take one minute to look up facts. But I suppose facts do not count.
Has the Chem industry made mistakes? Sure they have. The tiny amount of 2,3,7,8 tetrachloro dioxin in agent orange was one of them. That tiny trace does not mean the active ingredients were a problem. Another mistake was PCBs. DDT was not a mistake. Every accusation that lead to its ban has been proven false. It should rightfully be on the market today, except no one is going to spend about $50 million or so on lab testing to get a new registration as it is not going to be profitable. Instead we murder millions of people each year by malaria as there is no reasonable substitute for DDT in malaria control.
Bottom line is I trust the US EPA (which did not exist when agent orange and PCBs were commercialized) a lot more than I trust the opinion of a bunch of people who know nothing at all about Ag or pesticide regulation and who hide behind pseudonyms.
Last edited by Barry; 07-18-2013 at 09:58 AM.
Big dawg, While I understand your point you guys (your not the only one by any stretch) Fail to understand what your talking about. Seed coatings by and large represent the next step in tech. What the REPLACE is the real key. they replace a ton of post emergence spraying. allow better yields, and control a large number of pest.
You guys seem to think this stuff just started... Hardly... this is just a new revalation, and unfortunatly some people have to much time on their hands... so they sit around and proselytize on topics they really don't understand or have any knowledge of. You won't hear a peep out of me on spotted owls... no clue... not my area.... Seed coatings.... Well they are around me in levels you can't even comprehend. and most years. crop dusting is a dead art.... coup sprayers can be bought cheap, and a lot of real problem pest are at least for the moment under control all done with guys with more brains and heart on the subject than than you can appreciate.
Instead we want to listen to a bunch of Hack scientist who run goofy experiments and are funded by dubious sources. and use that same claim for the guys at Bayer, and Monsanto etc...... you guys want to claim Superior ground, using the same argument you use to discredit Bayer and Monsanto you would see you don't have a claim.
I worked in AG many years on equipment.... and with seed suppliers... I know the way they work and think... and yes there are probably a few bad apples, but as a whole, I would and do trust them with the worlds food supply these guys feed there families also with this stuff......is seed coating were killing off bees in any serious numbers the results would be obvious and products would be pulled........
It's an example of drawing a false conclusion based upon faulty assumptions and faulty logic.
There's no doubt that the CCD syndrome is real and unlike anything bees have seen before in terms of scale and frequency. There's also no doubt that (so far) it is effecting a small percentage of hives--perhaps less than 1% of hives. But HIV effects far less than 1% of the population, and yet obviously it is still deemed to be a serious health problem. Why do some get HIV and other's do not? We don't know for sure, but clearly more research is needed.
Why do some hives in agricultural areas suffer from CCD and others do not? We simply don't know yet. But to say that "my hives are in an intensive agriculture area and I'm not experiencing CCD, therefore Ag chemicals are not causing CCD" is a statement based upon faulty logic and it is therefore erroneous.
I agree with gmcharlie. seed treatments are a great leap forward from arial spraying. Not only the reduced environmental contamination, but also the ensuring the accurate dosage of the pesticide is applied.
CCDThere's also no doubt that (so far) it is effecting a small percentage of hives--perhaps less than 1% of hives.
We were going somewhere until you got anthropomorphic on me. Humans vs. insects, doesn't work.But HIV effects far less than 1% of the population, and yet obviously it is still deemed to be a serious health problem.
Great question! That IS the question. What is your answer to it?Why do some hives in agricultural areas suffer from CCD and others do not?
Most are not saying this, certainly not me. You and others are saying because it is happening to some, therefore, we should treat everyone the same way. Ban this or that across the board. Demonize this or that company.to say that "my hives are in an intensive agriculture area and I'm not experiencing CCD, therefore Ag chemicals are not causing CCD"
No, a lot of people are simply voicing their OPINIONS and supposition--not facts.
You can use any example you want, HIV, smoking, whatever. It's basic scientific theory--trying to determine causality.
Several people here have said "hey, there's tons of corn fields around my hives and I don't get CCD, so all the arm-waving about neonics and CCD is wrong!"
Obviously, that's faulty logic, these folks are making a false assumption about causality. It's really pretty simple. It's basic scientific theory.
"As an observation of a correlation does not imply causation, it is necessary to use inductive reasoning from particular observations in order to strengthen (through observed reproducibility) or disprove hypotheses about causal relationships." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality#Science
Saying that "my bees are in an intensive ag area don't have CCD, therefore Ag chems don't cause CCD" is like saying that "my sister ate lots of carrots and got cancer, therefore carrots cause cancer." It's a false correlation based upon assumptions--not facts.
I agree that in general systemic pesticides CAN be better than previous methods like crop-dusting. But shouldn't we find out what the real causal factors of CCD are? There is crystal clear research showing negative impacts to pollinators from neonics--even at sub-lethal levels. Perhaps the structure of the neonics can be altered to be less harmful to non-target species like pollinators. Perhaps the dosage can be lowered to be less harmful to pollinators--when one kernel of systemic-treated corn seed has enough poison to kill 100,000 bees, one does have to wonder about the levels needed to treat the pests and ask questions about an over-reliance upon pesticides and an over-application of pesticides. While "stacking" i.e. providing treatment for multiple pests at the same time is good for companies who sell pesticides, maybe we shouldn't be unnecessarily using poisons that we don't need to use ....Maybe, geneticists can develop systemics that will only impact the target species--certainly the RNA interference products are headed in that direction.
Clearly, more research should have been conducted before neonics were put on the market. Clearly, we need 3rd party verification of the data to prevent conflicts of interest. Clearly, there are more questions than answers right now about neonics and the unintended consequences of their use.
You are making faulty assumptions and using those to make a case for causality--a case that favors the pesticide industry.
Most people who smoke, don't get lung cancer, some people who don't smoke do get lung cancer. Most people who work around asbestos don't get lung cancer, some people who don't work around asbestos do get lung cancer. That doesn't in any way alter the fact that smoking and asbestos cause lung cancer. It's basic scientific theory on causality.......more often than not what we think we know by observation, isn't actually born out by the facts once sufficient research is conducted.
The simple truth is we don't yet know what, if any role that neonics is playing in CCD. However, there is a mounting pile of evidence to suggest that neonics DO have a negative impact upon pollinators.