FUNGICIDES BACKGROUND PAPER
SPECIAL PESTICIDE REVIEW DIVISION
OFFICE OF PESTICIDE PROGRAMS
September 16, 1980
-------
tforfco tsso
NOTE TO MARCIA WILLIAMS
SUBJECT: Regulatory Actions on Fungicides - proposed
plan dated July 10, 1980
I appreciate your sending over the proposed plan for
addressing the fungicide problem prior to PD/2-3.
While the plan does make considerable sense in terms
of a detailed investigation of qll available fungicides,
it does not adequately address the problem which I
wanted to present to Steve when PD/2-3 on the EBDC's
goes forward for decision. What I want tc do in that
"document is to discuss from a user standpoint some
specifics »**"** "tftffi r>y afi gmg> fmn^e±A^ fiqy apot^er, the" Current
geographical pattern Q£ nsag«5 y^d the extent to .which
.may be possajaj.e given the
TeSSwledge we have today *""* gq°'e__of._tSi
of rgfKTPT-pg ai^ ±ungici.d(p« F^om ths BPUgkBtT" T5ese~are
twofold,, the ecnomic losses which might be occassioned
jw inability to ct?mrT*"l ^^^gng »*»*3 'secondly • • f the CBn^dJiSnt? have
developed an overview paper on this subject which I
received at the October 1979 Tripartite meeting in
Ottawa and which I distributed to divisions. Finally,
some interviews with state officials, 'extension people
and USBA personnel ought to shed some additional
light on this subject in a very short period of time,
as might discussions with members of the Food Processors
Association, particularly Duncan Carter of DelMonte.
-------
the Plan sugg--^eTon
what I need now IB ^^^p^ing. Please get
with more analysis ™,^*;o|lL^ating such a document
''
the .EBDC decision document
Ed Johnson
-------
FUNGICIDES BACKGROUND PAPER
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE
Fungicides are being Impacted more heavily by the RPAR process than any other
major class of pesticides regulated under FIFRA. More than 90t of the annual
usage of the organic fungicides is acrounted for by twelve RPAR and ore-RPAR
chenncajs. This situation creates a complex regulatory risk/benefit decision
making environment under FIFRA. Major substitutions among chemicals would
take place depending on which regulatory scenario applies. Almost an unlimited
number of regulatory scenarios are possible, each having differing impacts 1n
terms of exposure and risk to human health and the environment and in terms of
economic impacts on users and consumers-
This report provides an overview of RPAR and non-RPAR fungicides and their
importance in various usage sectors,, particularly the agricultural sector „
heavily impacted by fungicide RPAR's. The report addresses the pesticide
regulatory implications of cancellation n-P pro-BPflp anri qpAR chemicals in a
general way for the major »g«» c-it-a rat-agories of fungicides in agriculture.
such as foliar vegetal »*, *™Hts and nuts ^ etc- In the first portion of the
document, a review is made of the major diseases or other- pest(s) , the
importance of pest damage, the extent of usage and the availability of
substitutes, the economic impact of non-availability of the chemicals,, the
health implications of food or feed product damage from fungal pests and the
implications for .integrated pest management. The second portion of the
document presents £ summary of the health effects associated with the fungicides
and indicates their RPAR status. The analyses for both these documents were
conducted on the basis of readily available information and are presented
primarily in matrix form in order to most expedltiously bring issues into
focus „
The paper helps provide background on the context of upcoming, decisions on
individual RPAR's or groupings of RPAR's. It does not provide the detailed
analysis necessary to support those individual decisions..
BACKGROUND
Fungicides will account for about 120 million pounds of active ingredient used
in 1980, or about 10 percent of total pesticides used. Slightly less than
half of those fungicides will be used in agriculture to treat soil, foliage,
seeds, and harvested fruits and vegetables. Their use is widespread"and
important to agriculture in every part of the country, but they are
particularly important in areas such as the Southeast where the warm, humid
climate intensifies fungal disease problems. Fungicides may be used at every
stage of growth to protect first the seed, then the plant, and eventually the
harvested fruit or vegetable from attack. In some cases, several fungicides
exist which are effective against the same disease on a certain crop, in other
cases only one may be available which is effective in preventing a disease
that could result in extreme losses.
-------
-2-
Currently, there are 12 compounds with fungicide uses under RPAR or pre-RPAR
review. Together these 12 compounds account for about 90% of all organic
fungicides used in the agricultural sector. The EBDC's (under RPAR) alone
account for 35% of the organics used. The regulatory action which is being
considered for some or all of these fungicides (and possibly others), will
have significant economic impacts, particularly, in those cases where no or
less effective alternatives are available. The following discussion highlights
the conclusions reached in the accompanying background documents regarding the
impacts.
SUITABILITY OF ALTERNATIVES
In general, the RPAR compounds are more suitable to their intended purpose
than available alternatives. If all the RPAR compounds were cancelled, major
disruptions in disease control programs would occur in the following areas:
1) Some disease conditions exist for which the RPAR
chemicals are uniquely suited. Loss of that group of
fungicides could result in increased severity of those
diseases.
2) Currently available alternatives are generally less
effective than the RPAR compounds, so 1t may be necessary
to increase the frequency nf apnlieation of the other
compounds if they are to be relied upon for treatment
and cor
3) For the most part the RPAR group of fungicides have a
mode of action which is more effective in fighting
resistant pathogens. Management of resistant pathogens
will be difficult with only the curr*"*]? aya-Mahi»
non-RPAR alternatives.
4) RPAR fungicides are less phytotoxic and more compatible
with other pesticides. Use of the non-RPAR alternatives
will likely cause injury to the cfops and reduce the~
.qua MTV otjnany harvested crops.
5) Some established IPM programs feature RPAR compounds. Those
programs will have to be reworked and there may be disruptions
if no substitute is readily available.
IMPACT OF CANCELLATIONS
Yield/Quality Losses - Crop yield and quality would be adversely affected if
we cancelled the fungicides under RPAR and pre-RPAR review. Losses would vary
depending on the crop and the region where it is grown and would likely be
more severe on a local basis rather than an overall crop basis. In general,
major disruptions would occur in the production and marketing of fruit and
vegetables.
-------
-3-
Economic Impacts of Cancellation - Estimates indicate that for the first year,
if RPAR and pre-RPAR fungicides were no longer available, the growers would
lose approximately $5r65Q+ million or about 10% of the values of the crops
in Jiazfl. These grower impacts would vary by region, although all
regions would be affected. Individuals in the east coastal areas umnin ho
hardest hit r with the Southeast suffering the greatest losses, since the
climatic conditions there tend to intensify the incidence of diseases which
are most destructive to fruits and vegetables. The West would suffer less
losses in production than the East, but heavy reliance on protective post-harvest
treatments of fruits and vegetables to protect them from spoilage during
shipping and marketing would mean the impacts would still be significant.
While absolute losses would be large for the Midwest, relative losses would
tend to be lower because while all the seeds for their field crops are treated
with fungicides, the vast acreages cultivated would moderate the percentage of
crop value lost.
If the $5.6 billion of economic impacts were passed on directly to the consumer
without being absorbed or added to by the marketing chain, it would mean that
the per capita increase in price of the crops of concern per year would be
$£5. Such an approach is very conservative. More realistic estimates would be
significantly higher. Food prices would actually be expected to go MP by over
Health Impacts of Fungicide Cancellation - Health effects related to the loss
of all or selected fungicides are relatively subtle and not readily determlnable.
For the most part the health impact would take the form of changes in human
nutrition or relate to poisonings due to mycotoxins in diseased crops.
Health effects related to food purity would also be affected because reduced
fungicidal effectiveness would increase the number of fungal parts present in
the food.
In the event of loss of more efficacious RPAR and pre-RPAR fungicides, use of
other less effective pre and post harvest fungicides would result in lower
quality produce. Nutrition would suffer because consumers would have less
fresh produce available and because they would become more dependent on
processed food which is inherently lower in nutritional value than fresh.
Lessened ability to store produce over one or more seasons would also impact
on general nutrition.
The use of less efficacious non-RPAR fungicides could result in incidences of
human poisonings due to the presence of mycotoxins in produce infected with fungi.
To date, mycotoxins of human consequence have been reported to occur in two
important food crops. The extent of mycotoxins in other crops is not immediately
known.
Loss of all fungicides would markedly increase the impacts outlined above.
-------
IPM Implications - While IPM strategies can be developed which emphasize a
reduction in fungicide use - it appears to be unlikely that the use of
fungicides will be eliminated through IPM.
Current IPM strategies generally combine the use of fungicides with the use of
genetically desirable stock or special cultural practices and biological
controls to attain effective control. Even in combination with those strategies
a certain number of fungicide applications appear to be necessary to control
plant diseases effectively. It does not appear that IPM strategies will offer
an alternative to fungus control much beyond that which is already being
demonstrated.
Regulatory Implications - Reviewing and regulating fungicides on an individual
basis can create complications. Single fungicides or even groupings of
fungicides create benefits with respect to the suitability and availability of
their alternatives. Reviewing them on a one-by-one basis can distort the
benefits of any single fungicide or group of fungicides so that the actual
economic impact of cancellation is not accurately conveyed. This is demonstrated
by the fact that the Preliminary Benefit Analysis for EBDC's Indicates total
impacts to be approximately $150 million or 1-2JS of the total economic benefit
of fungicides - a seemingly minor contribution considering it accounts for
almost 205C of fungicide use. Benefits for the chemicals remaining will
increase disproportionately after a particular fungicide is cancelled.
Health Effects - Actions on most of the RPAR'd or pre-RPAR'd fungicides were
initiated on the basis of chronic health effects such as mutagenicity,
oncogenicity or teratogenicity. Data gaps exist for the non-RPAR chemicals
listed in the report but it is generally assumed that those fungicides will
eventually also be associated will similar chronic health effects.
New Chemicals Outlook - Generally new fungicides product research has declined.
Fungicide manufacturers are cautious about developing alternatives because of
the indecision about fungicides under RPAR, and because research funds have
been diverted to the defense of older registrations. The limited market for
disease control chemicals also means that available research money is largely
devoted to the development of herbicides and insecticides. Currently new
fungicides tend to"be developed by foreign countries.
Only a few fungicides are presently within the registration process. Of
those, several appear to be promising due to their broad spectrum of activity.
/ynnnq these are pidomll and EGA 64251 which are active against major vegetable
and fruit diseases- Both compounds, however, are subject to the rapid development
of fungal resistance due to their mode of action.
-------
-5-
SUMMARY & CONCLUSIONS
In general, the RPAR chemicals are more suited to their Intended purposes than
available alternatives. RPAR chemicals are generally broader spectrum than
the available alternatives and their cancellation would result In major
disruptions in disease control programs for nearly all major crop groupings.
Major economic impacts as a result of cancellation would be felt throughout
the country as yields declined, with the hardest hit being individuals in the
Southeast. Effective alternatives are generally other RPAR'd fungicides, and
trends in new fungicide R & D do not offer much promise for new alternatives
in the immediate future.
-------
FUNGICIDES:
An Overview of Health Effects
Information Currently Available
Special Pesticide Review Division
Office of Pesticide Programs
September 16, 1980
-------
INTRODUCTION
Fungicides are being more heavily affected by the RPAR process than any other
major class of pesticides regulated under FIFRA.
Twelve major fungicides are or will be reviewed by OPP. Nine fungicides (six
of which are EBDC's) are currently in the RPAR process and another three have
been accepted for pre-RPAR review. In addition, another major fungicide has
been referred for pre-RPAR based on oncogenicity data. There are still other
pesticides not considered major fungicides but registered for fungicidal uses
which are also in the various stages of the RPAR process. Cadiurn, sodium
pentachlorophenol, and thiophanate are some examples.
Even for the remaining fungicides identified in this paper, there is reasonable
probability that as data gaps are filled, information will indicate some or
most of them present adverse affects to man or the environment.
Attachment I lists the major fungicides addressed in this report and summarizes
the current toxicity information and regulatory status.
Attachment II summarizes this information and presents it in tabular form to
correspond to the eighteen (18) use-site categories presented in the BFSD
portion of this report. This chart can be used to assess the health problems
identified with the alternatives available for each use.
-------
ATTACHMENT 1
MAJOR FUNGICIDES USED IN AGRICULTURE
Fungicide
Toxicity and Regulatory Status
Information
Benomyl1
Cadmium
Captafol (Difolaton)*
Captan*
Chlorothalonil*
1. PD-2/3 issued on 8/22/79; mutagenicity,
teratogenicity, and reduction in
spermatogenic activity, chronic
risk criteria were exceeded; point
mutagen risk was rebutted on
insufficient evidence; New study
indicates chemical is an oncogen.
2. RPAR issued 10/26/77 based on
oncogenicity; mutagenicity,
teratogenicity and fetoxicity.
3. Accepted for pre-RPAR review on
7/14/78; data suggest chemical
meets risk criteria for mutagenicity
and teratogenicity; indicated data
gaps-oncogenicity, mutagenicity,
neurotoxicity; many existing
studies in data base done by
IBT.
4. PD 1 issued 8/16/80; triggers are
oncogenicity and mutagenicity; may
have other chronic effects;
insufficient data to draw terato-
genicity conclusion; indicated
data gaps - subacute and chronic
toxicity.
5. Rejected for pre-RPAR review on
9/13/77; rereferred because of
recent (1978) NCI study positive
for oncogenicity; appears to be
neurotoxicity data gap; contaminant
residue (HCB) on food is a
presumed carcinogen.
-------
-2-
6. Coppers*
a. Copper naphenates
6.
b. Copper Sulfate and other
inorganic copper salts
7. 1,3 Dicloropropene
8. Dinocap (Karathane)*
9. Dodine* -
10. EBDC's
a. Amobam*
b. Mancozeb*
7.
8.
9.
10.
a. No adverse toxicity data
available indicative of possible
trigger for RPAR criteria;
appears to be a number of gaps
in chronic data base.
b. No adverse toxicity data
available indicative of possible
trigger for RPAR criteria;
appears to be a number of gaps
in the chronic data base.
Accepted for pre-RPAR review
11/7/77 based on mutagenicity;
potential carcinogen.
Has a very close structural
similarity to Dinitrophenol
(DNP), a well-known catarac-
togenic agent and uncoupling
agent of the oxidative
phosphorylation of ADP to ATP
in cellular metabolism; data
gaps include the following
studies - oncogenic, mutagenic,
teratogenic, neurotoxicity
and reproductivity; questions
on cataract formation
and margin of safety need to
be addressed.
Much available data is old;
data gaps - teratology, possible
second oncogenic study.
RPAR issued on 8/10/77;
an oncogen and teratogen,
probably on the basis of ETU,
the degradation product common
to all EBDC's.
RPAR issued on 8/10/77;
an oncogen and teratogen,
probably on the basis of
ETU, the degradation product
common to all EBDC's.
-------
-3-
c. Metiram*
d. Nabam*
e. Maneb*
f. Zaneb*
11. Fenaminosulf
12. Ferbam*
13. Folpet (Phaltan)*
14. Hexachlorobenzene (HCB)
c. RPAR issued on 8/10/77; an
oncogen and teratogen, probably on
the basis of ETU, the degradation
product common to all EBDC's.
d. RPAR Issued on 8/10/77; an oncogen
and teratogen, probably on the
basis of ETU, the degradation
product common to all EBDC's.
e. RPAR Issued 8/10/77; an oncogen
and teratogen, probably on basis
of ETU, the degradation product
common to all EBDC's; acutely
toxic to wildlife and aquatic
species when used on cranberries.
f. RPAR Issued 8/10/77; an oncogen
and teratogen, probably on basis
of ETU, the degradation product
common to all EBDC's acutely toxic
to wildlife and aquatic species
when used on cranberries.
11. Currently non-RPAR, referred to
SPRD; potential mutagen.
12. Existing tox data Is old,
Incomplete and generally of
little or no value; potential
neurotoxlcity problem; certain
literature "indefinite" with
respect to carcinogenic potential;
data daps - acute dermal and
inhalation toxicity, mutagenicity,
and dermal and eye irritation and
oncogenicity.
13. Accepted for pre-RPAR on 10/31/77
on basis of teratogenicity; other
tests indicate possible oncogen
and mutagen under some conditions;
chemical structure very much like
that of captan.
14. Accepted for pre-RPAR based on
mutagenicity, oncogenicity and
teratogenicity.
-------
-4-
15. Methyl Bromide
16. PCNB*
17. Sodium Phetachlorophenol
18. Thiophanate-Methyl
19. Thiram*
15. Referred to SPRD based on mutagenicity
data. Review of data by HED
indicates RPAR trigger is hit.
16. RPAR issued on 10/20/77 on basis
of meeting the oncogenicity risk
criteria; test indicate that HCB,
a contaminant of PCNB, may
induce oncogenic and reproductive
effects.
17. RPAR issued on 10/17/77; on basis
of teratogenicity and fetotoxicity.
New study indicates chemical is
an oncogen.
18. RPAR issued on 12/7/77 based on
mutagenic trigger; significant
local reduction in earthworm
populations; both triggers rebutted;
new oncogenic information received
on metabolite, MBC, which is also
present in benomyl; additional
mutagenic testing required.
19. Accepted for pre-RPAR on 11/8/77
on basis of teratogenicity;
possible neurotoxicity data gap.
The asterisked fungicides comprise considerably more than 90% of the total
annual percentage of fungicides used in the production of food and fiber.
-------
SUMMARY OF HEALTH EFFECTS DATA FOR FUNGICIDES
USED ON POME FRUITS (APPLES, PEARS)
A. Use: Foliar
B. Major Diseases: Scab, powdery mildew, rusts, fire blight, summer diseases,
leaf spots.
C. Major Recommended Fungicides:
II
Fungicide
Suitability Regulatory Status
Current Toxicity
Information
RPAR
EBDC
Benomyl
Captan
1-1-1 RPAR issued;
PD 2/3 in final
draft
2-1-1 PD 2/3 issued
on 8/22/79
2-2-1 PD 1 issued on
8/16/80
Oncogen, teratogen
toxic to wildlife
Oncogen, mutagen,
teratogen
reproductive
effects, other
chronic effects
Oncogen, mutagen
PRE-RPAR
Captafol
Folpet
1-2-2
1-2-2
Pre-RPAR
Pre-RPAR
Accepted as potential
mutagen and teratogen
Accepted as potential
teratogen; possible
oncogen and mutagen
NON-RPAR
Sulfur
Dodine
2-3-3
2-2-1
Non-RPAR
Non-RPAR
Toxicity data available
No adverse toxicity
data available
-------
Fungicide
I/
-2-
Suitability Regulatory Status
Current Toxicity
Information
Dinocap 1-3-1 Non-RPAR
Coppers 3-1-3 Non-RPAR
Streptomycin 1-3-1 Non-RPAR
Oxyteracycline 1-3-1 Non-RPAR
Terramycin 1-3-1 Non-RPAR
Dithiocarbamates 2-1-2 Non-RPAR
Potential cataractogenic;
No adverse toxicity
data available
Toxicity data available
Toxicity data available
Toxicity data available
Potential neurotoxicity
problem
— All suitability assignments are taken from BFSD Document presented in
in Appendix 1.
-------
SUMMARY OF HEALTH EFFECTS DATA FOR FUNGICIDES
USED ON STONE FRUITS (PEACHES, NECTARINES,
APRICOTS, PLUMS, PRUNES, CHERRIES)
A. Use: Foliar
B. Major Diseases; Brown rot, leaf curl, shot hole, green fruit rot, russet
scab, rust, powdery mildew
C. Major Recommended Fungicides:
Fungicide
RPAR's
Benomyl
Captan
Na PCP
Suitability Regulatory Status
2-2-1 PD 2/3 issued
on 8/22/79
1-2-1 PD 1 issued
8/16/80
3-3-3 RPAR issued
10/17/77
Current Toxicity
Information
Oncogen, mutagen,
teratogen, reproductive
effects, other chronic
effects
Oncogen, mutagen
Oncogen, teratogen,
fetotoxic
PRE-RPAR
Captafol
1-2-1
Pre-RPAR
Potential mutagen,
teratogen
NON-RPAR
Coppers
Dichlone
Sulfur
3-1-3
2-2-2
2-2-3
Non-RPAR
Non-RPAR
Non-RPAR
No adverse toxicity
data available
Toxicity data available
Toxicity data available
-------
-2-
Current Toxicity
Fungicide Suitability Regulatory Status Information
Dinocap 1-3-1 Non-RPAR Potential catarac^ogenic
Dithiocarbamates 1-2-1 Non-RPAR Potential neurotoxicty
problem
-------
SUMMARY OF HEALTH EFFECTS DATA FOR FUNGICIDES
USED ON CITRUS (ORANGES, LEMONS, GRAPEFRUIT)
A. Use: Foliar
B. Major Diseases: Brown rot gunmosis, greasy spot, melanose,
scab
C; Major Recommended Fungicides;
Fungicide
RPAR's
Suitability Regulatory Status
Current Toxicity
Information
Benomyl
2-2-1 PD 2/3 issued
on 8/22/79
Oncogen, Mutagen,
Teratogen,
Reproductive Effects
PRE-RPAR
Captafol
1-1-1
Pre-RPAR
Accepted as potential
mutagen and teratogen
NON-RPAR
Coppers
Oil Sprays
3-1-3
2-3-3
Non-RPAR
Non-RPAR
No adverse toxieity
data available
Toxicity data available
-------
SUMMARY OF HEALTH EFFECTS DATA FOR FUNGICIDES
USED ON TROPICAL FRUITS (BANANAS,
MANGO, PINEAPPLES, PAPAYA)
A. Use: Foliar
B. Major Diseases: Sigatoka disease of bananas, stem-end rots,
Phytophthora' blight and anthracnose of papaya, root and heart
rots.
C. Major Recommended Fungicides:
Fungicide
Suitability Regulatory Status
Current Toxicity
Information
RPAR
EBDC's
Benomyl
1-1-1
2-1-1
Captan
Thiophanate
Methyl
1-2-1
2-1-1
PD 2/3 in final
draft
PD 2/3 issued
on 8/22/79
PD 1 issued
8/16/80
Notice of
Determination
issued, continued
registration allowed.
Oncogen, teratogen,
toxic to wildlife
Oncogen, mutagen,
teratogen,
reproductive
effects, other
chronic effects
Oncogen, mutagen
Potential mutagen
and oncogen
PRE-RPAR
Captafol
Chlorothalonil
1-2-1 Pre-RPAR
1-2-1 Referred for
Pre-RPAR
Potential mutagen,
teratogen
Potential oncogen
-------
-2-
Current Toxicity
Fungicide Suitability Regulatory Status . Information
NON-RPAR
Oil Sprays 2-2-2 Non-RPAR Toxicity data available
-------
SUMMARY OF HEALTH EFFECTS UATA FOR FUNGICIDES
USED ON SMALL FRUITS (GRAPES, STRAWBERRIES,
BLUEBERRIES, CRANBERRIES, BRAMBLES)
A. Use: Foliar and Soil Treatments
B. Major Diseases: Foliar/blueberries - bacterial canker and
mummyberry; cranberries - Guignardia blight and Lophodermium twig
blight; grapes - powdery mildew; strawberries - powdery mildew,
leaf spot, and anthracnose; all small fruits - botrytis fruit
rots and blights. Soil/strawberries - red stele, root rots,
Verticillium wilts.
C. Major Recommended Fungicides;
Fungicide
Suitability Regulatory Status
Current Toxicity
Information
FOLIAR
RPAR's
Benomyl
Captan
EBDC's
2-1-1 PD 2/3 issued
on 8/22/79
2-2-1
1-1-1
PD 1 issued
8/16/80
PD 2/3 in
final draft
Oncongen, mutagen,
teratogen, reproductive
effects, other chronic
effects
Oncogen, mutagen
Oncogen, teratogen,
toxic to wildlife
PRE-RPAR
Captafol
1-2-1
Pre-RPAR
Potential mutagen,
teratogen
NON-RPAR
Dichloran
1-3-2
Non-RPAR
Toxicity data available
-------
Fungicide
-2-
Suitability Regulatory Status
Current Toxicity
Information
Sulfur
Coppers
Biphenyl
Dodine
Ca Cyanide
Dithiocarbamates
2-3-3
3-1-3
1-3-3
1-3-2
1-3-3
1-2-1
Non-RPAR
Non-RPAR
Non-RPAR
Non-RPAR
Non-RPAR
Non-RPAR
Toxicity data available
No adverse toxic ity
data available
Toxicity data available
Toxicity data available
Toxicity data available
Potential neurotoxicity
problem
SOIL
PRE-RPAR
Methyl Bromide 1-1-3 Pre-RPAR
1,3-D, chloropropene 1-3-3 Pre-RPAR
Potential mutagen
Potential mutagen
and oncogen
NON-RPAR
Chloropicrin
1-1-3
Non-RPAR
Toxicity data available
-------
SUMMARY OF HEALTH EFFECTS DATA FOP. FUNGICIDES
USED ON NUTS (WALNUTS, ALMONDS, PECANS,
FILBERTS)
A. Use: Foliar
B. Major Diseases; Brown rot, walnut blight, shot hole, bacterial
canker, scab, downy shot, zonate leaf spot, powdery mildew
C. Major Recommended Fungicides:
Fungicide
Suitability Regulatory Status
Current Toxicity
Information
RPAR
Benomyl
Captan
EBDC's
Na PCP
2-2-1
1-2-1
1-2-1
3-3-3
-
PD 2/3 issued
on 8/22/79
PD 1 issued
8/16/80
PD 2/3 in
final draft
RPAR issued
10/17/77
Oncogen, mutagen,
teratogen, reproduct i ve
effects, other chronic
effects
Oncogen, mutagen
Oncogen, teratogen,
toxic to wildlife
Oncogen, teratogen,
fetotoxic
NON-RPAR
Coppers
Dichlone
Triphenyltin
Hydroxide
3-1-3
2-2-2
1-1-2
Non-RPAR
Non-RPAR
Non-RPAR
No adverse toxicity
data available
Toxicity data available
Toxicity data available
-------
-2-
Current Toxicity
Fungicide Suitability Regulatory Status Information
Dodine 2-2-1 Non-RPAR No adverse toxicity
data available
Sulfur 2-1-3 Non-RPAR Toxicity data available
Ziram 2-2-1 Non-RPAR Toxicity data available
-------
SUMMARY OF HEALTH EFFECTS DATA FOR FUNGICIDES
USED ON SOLANACEOUS (TOMATO, POTATO,
PEPPER, EGGPLANT)
A. Use: Foliar and Fruit
B. Major Diseases: Late blight, Early blight, Anthracnose, Leaf spots, Wilts,
Bacterial spot, Fruit rots
C. Major Recommended Fungicides:
Fungicide Suitability Regulatory Status
Current Toxicity
Information
RPAR
EBDC's
Captan
1-1-1 PD 2/3 in Final
Draft
3-2-1 PD 1 issued
8/16/80
Oncogen, teratogen,
toxic to wildlife
Oncogen, mutagen
PRE-RPAR
Captafol
Chlorothalonil
Thiram
2-2-1
2-1-1
Pre-RPAR
1-1-1 Referred for
Pre-RPAR
Pre-RPAR
Potential mutagen,
teratogen
Potential oncogen
Teratogen
NON-RPAR/SUITABILITY
Coppers 3-1-3 Non-RPAR
Dithiocarbamates 2-1-1 Non-RPAR
Dichloran 1-3-1 Non-RPAR
No adverse toxicity
data available
Potential neurotoxicity
problem
Toxicity data available
-------
SUMMARY OF HEALTH EFFECTS DATA FOR FUNGICIDES
USED ON LEAFY VEGETABLES (LETTUCE, SPINACH,
COLLARDS, CABBAGE, BROCCOLI, CAULIFLOWER,
CELERY, BRUSSEL SPROUTS)
A. Use: Foliar
B. Major Diseases: Leaf spots, Early blight, Late blight, Bottom rot,
Downey mildew, Blackleg
C. Major Recommended Fungicides:
Fungicide
Suitability Regulatory Status
Current Toxicity
Information
RPAR's
EBDC's
Captan
Benomyl
1-1-1
2-2-1
2-2-1
PD 2/3 in final
draft
PD 1 issued
8/16/80
PD 2/3 issued
Oncogen, teratogen,
toxic to wildlife
Oncogen, mutagen
Oncogen, mutagen,
teratogen, reproductive
effects, other chronic
effects
PRE-RPAR
Chlorothalonil
1-2-1 Referred for Pre-
RPAR
Potential oncogen
NON-RPAR
Coppers
2-1-3
Non-RPAR
No adverse toxicity
data available
-------
-2-
Fungicide
Dithiocarbamates
Dichloran
Analazine
Suitability Regulatory Status
2-1-1
Non-RPAR
1-3-1 Non-RPAR
2-3-2 Non-RPAR
Current Toxicity
Information
Potential neurotoxicity
problem
Toxicity data available
Toxicity data available
-------
SUMMARY OF HEALTH EFFECTS DATA FOR FUNGICIDES
USED ON SOYBEANS
A. Use: Foliar
B. Major Diseases: Pod and stem rots
C. Major Recommended Fungicides:
Fungicide
RPAR's
Benomyl
Suitability Regulatory Status
2-2-1 PD 2/3 issued
on 8/22/79
Current Toxicity
Information
Oncogen, mutagen,
teratogen,
reproductive effects,
other chronic effects
NON-RPAR_
Thiabendizole
Copper
2-2-1 Non-RPAR
3-1-2 Non-RPAR
Toxicity data available
No adverse toxicity
data available
Sulfur
3-1-2
Non-RPAR
Toxicity data available
-------
SUMMARY OF HEALTH EFFECTS DATA FOR FUNGICIDES
USED ON PEANUTS
A. Use: Foliar
B. Major Diseases: Leaf spots, rust, web blotch
C. Major Recommended Fungicides;
Fungicide
Suitability Regulatory Status
Current Toxicity
Information
RPAR's
EBDC's
Benomyl
1-1-1 PD 2/3 in final
draft
2-2-1 PD 2/3 issued
Oncogen, teratogen,
toxic to wildlife
Oncogen, mutagen,
teratogen,
reproductive effects,
other chronic effects
PRE-RPAR's
Chlorothalonil
Captafol
NON-RPAR's
Coppers
Sulfur
Triphenyltin
1-1-1
1-1-1
2-1-2
3-2-2
1-1-1
Referred
RPAR
Pre-RPAR
Non-RPAR
Non-RPAR
Non-RPAR
Potential oncogen
Potential mutagen,
teratogen
No adverse toxicity
data available
Toxicity data available
Toxicity data available
Hydroxide
-------
SUMMARY OF HEALTH EFFECTS DATA FOR FUNGICIDES
USED ON TOBACCO
A. Use: Foliar
B. Major Diseases: Blue mold
C. Major Recommended Fungicides:
Fungicide
RPAR's
Suitability Regulatory Status
Current Toxicity
Information
EBDC
1-1-1 PD 2/3 in final
draft
Oncogen, teratogen,
toxic to wildlife
NON-RPAR
Ridomil 1-1-1 Non-RPAR
Dithiocarbamates 2-1-1 Non-RPAR
Toxicity data available
Potential neurotoxicity
problem
-------
SUMMARY OF HEALTH EFFECTS DATA FOR FUNGICIDES
USED ON CEREAL CROPS (WHEAT, BARLEY, OATS,
RYE)
A. Use: Foliar
B. Major Diseases; Rust
C. Major Recommended Fungicides:
Fungicide
RPAR's
EBDC
Suitability Regulatory Status
1-1-1 PD 2/3 in final
draft
Current Toxicity
Information
Oncogen, teratogen,
toxic to wildlife
NON-RPAR
Coppers
Sulfur
3-2-2
3-2-1
Non-RPAR
Non-RPAR
No adverse toxicity
data available
Toxicity data available
-------
SUMMARY OF hTALTH EFFECTS DATA FOR FUNGICIDES
USED ON ORNAMENTALS (CUT FLOWERS, POTTED
PLANTS, BEDDING PLANTS, TREES)
A. Use: Foliage and soil treatments and plant dips
B. Major Diseases: Rust, wilts, blights, powdery mildew, root,
stem and corm rots
C. Major Recommended Fungicides:
Fungicide
RPAR's
EBDC's
Captan
Benomyl
Suitability
1-1-1
2-2-1
2-2-1
Regulatory Stat
PD 2/3 in final
draft
PD 1 issued
8/16/80
PD 2/3 issued
PCNB
1-3-1
on 8/22/79
RPAR issued
10/20/77
Current Toxicity
Information
Oncogen, teratogen,
toxic to wildlife
Oncogen, mutagen
Oncogen, mutagen,
teratogen.reproductive
effects, other chronic
effects
Oncogen, potential
reproductive effects
PRE-RPAR's
Chlorothalonil
Fenaminosulf
1-1-1 Referred for
Pre-RPAR
1-2-1 Referred for
Pre-RPAR
Potential oncogen
Potential mutagen
NON-RPAR
Coppers
3-1-3
Non-RPAR
No adverse toxicity
data available
-------
-2-
Current Toxicity
Fungicide
NON-RPAR
Streptomycin
Oxycarboxin
Dinocap
Sulfur
Dichloran
Terrazole
Suitability
1-3-1
1-3-1
1-3-1
2-1-3
2-2-1
1-3-1
Regulatory Status
Non-RPAR
Non-RPAR
Non-RPAR
Non-RPAR
Non-RPAR
Non-RPAR
Information
Toxicity data available
Toxicity data available
Potential cataractogenic
Toxicity data available
Toxicity data available
Toxicity data available
-------
SUMMARY OF HEALTH EFFZCTS DATA FOR FUNGICIDES
USED ON TURFGRASS
A. Use: Foliar
B. Major Diseases: Dollar spot, brown patch, Helminthosporium
diseases, snow molds, pythium blight, rusts
C. Major Recommended Fungicides:
Fungicide
Current Toxicity
Suitability Regulatory Status Information
RPAR's
EBDC's
Benomyl
Cadi urns
PCNB
Thiophanate
Methyl
1-2-1
2-2-1
2-3-1
2-2-2
2-2-1
PD 2/3 in fin
draft
PD 2/3 issued
on 8/22/79
PD 1 issued
10/26/77
RPAR issued
10/20/77
Notice of
Determination
issued; continued
registration allowed
Oncogen, teratogen,
toxic to wildlife
Oncogen, mutagen,
teratogen, reproductive
effects, other chronic
effects
Oncogen, mutagen-
teratogen, fetotoxic
Oncogen, potential
reproductive effects
Potential mutagen and
oncogen
PRE-RPAR
Chlorothalonil
1-1-1 Referred for Pre-
RPAR
Potential oncogen
NON-RPAR
Anilazine
2-1-1
Non-RPAR
Toxicity data available
-------
-2-
Fungicide
Terrazole
Chloroneb
Improdione
Th iophanate-ethyl
Cycloheximide
Mercuries
Suitability Regulatory Status
Current Toxicity
Information
2-3-1
1-3-1
1-3-1
2-2-1
1-2-2
1-3-2
Non-RPAR
Non-RPAR
Non-RPAR
Non-RPAR
Non-RPAR
Non-RPAR
Toxicity data available
Toxicity data available
Toxicity data available
Toxicity data available
Toxicity data available
Toxicity data available
-------
SUMMARY OF HEALTH EFFECTS DATA FOR FUNGICIDES
USED ON FRUIT CROPS FOR POST HARVEST DISEASES
A. Use: Post harvest treatment
B. Major Diseases: Post harvest fruits rots
C. Major Recommended Fungicides:
Fungicide
Suitability Regulatory Status
Current Toxicity
Information
RPAR
Benomyl
Captan
NON-RPAR/SUITABILITY
Thiabendazole
Biphenyl
Na OPP
2-Aminobutane
Dichloran
Chlorine
Sulfur Dioxide
2-1-1
. 2-2-1
2-1-1
2-1-1
2-2-1
2-1-1
1-3-1
2-1-1
1-3-2
PD 2/3 iss
PD 1 issued
8/16/80
Non-RPAR
Non-RPAR
Non-RPAR
Non-RPAR
Non-RPAR
Non-RPAR
Non-RPAR
Oncogen, mutagen
teratogen, reproductive
effects, other chronic
efects
Oncogen, mutagen
Toxicity data
Toxicity data
Toxicity data
Toxicity data
Toxicity data
Toxicity data
Toxicity data
available
available
available
available
available
available
available
-------
SUMMARY OF HEALTH EFFECTS DATA FOR FUNGICIDES
USED ON VEGETABLES
A. Use: Seed and seed piece treatment
B. Major Diseases: Pre and post-harvest damping off, seed
piece rots
C. Major Recommended Fungicides:
Fungicide
Suitability Regulatory Status
Current Toxicity
Information
RPAR
Captan
EBDC's
1-1-1
1-1-1
PD 1 issued
8/16/80
PD 2/3 in
final draft
Oncogen, mutagen
Oncogen, teratogen,
toxic to wildlife
PRE-RPAR
Thiram
2-1-1
Pre-RPAR
Teratogen
NON-RPAR
Thiobendazole
Streptomycin
2-2-1
2-3-2
Non-RPAR
Non-RPAR
Toxicity data available
Toxicity data available
-------
SUMMARY OF HEALTH EFFECTS DATA FOR FUNGICIDES
USE ON FIELD CROPS (PEANUTS, COTTON, RICE
CORN, SOYBEANS, SUGAR BEETS) AND CEREAL CROPS
A. Use: Seed treatment
B. Major Diseases: Field crops - pre and post emergence damping off; Cereal
crops - smuts, seedling diseases
C. Major Recommended Fungicides;
Fungicide
Suitability Regulatory Status
Current Toxicity
Information
RPAR
PCNB
Captan
EBDC's
1-3-1
2-3-1
2-2-1
RPAR issued
10/20/77
PD 1 issued
8/16/80
PD 2/3 in
final draft
Oncogen, potential
reproductive effects
Oncogen, mutagen
Oncogen, teratogen,
toxic to wildlife
PRE-RPAR
Thiram 2-2-1 Pre-RPAR
Hexaclorobenzene 1-3-1 Pre-RPAR
Teratogen
Oncogen
NON-RPAR
Terrazole
Carboxin
Dichloran
2-3-1
2-3-1
2-3-1
Non-RPAR
Non-RPAR
Non-RPAR
Toxicity data available
Toxicity data available
Toxicity data available
-------
SUMMARY OF HEALTH EFFECTS DATA FOR FUNGICIDES
USED ON VEGETABLES AND PEANUTS (TOMATO,
PEPPER, EGGPLANT, CRUCIFERS, BEANS)
A.
Use: Soil Treatment
B. Major Diseases: Southern blight, stem canker, black scurf, wire stem
(vegetables), southern blight (peanuts)
Major Recommended Fungicides and Suitability;
Fungicide
RPAR's
Suitability Regulatory Status
Current Toxicity
Information
PCNB
EDBC's
1-2-1
3-1-1
RPAR issued
10/20/77
PD 2/3 in
Final draft
Oncogen, potential
-reproductive effects
Oncogen, teratogen,
toxic to wildlife
NON-RPAR's
Carboxin
2-2-1
Non-RPAR
Toxicity data available
-------
SUMMARY OF HEALTH EFFECTS DATA FOR FUNGICIDES
USED ON ROOT CROPS (ONION, CARROTS, BEETS,
TURNIPS)
A. Use: Foliar
B. Major Diseases; Leaf spots, Downey mildew, Neckrot, Blast
C. Major Recommended Fungicides:
Fungicide
Suitability Regulatory Status
Current Toxicity
Information
RPAR
EBDC
Captan
1-1-1 PD 2/3 in final
draft
2-2-1 PD 1 issued
8/16/80
Oncogen, teratogen,
toxic to wildlife
Oncogen, mutagen
PRE-RPAR
Chlorothalonil
1-1-1 Referred for
Pre-RPAR
Potential oncogen
NON-RPAR
Amilazine
Coppers
Dithiocarbamates
2-2-1 Non-RPAR
2-1-3 Non-RPAR
2-1-1
Non-RPAR
Toxicity data available
No adverse toxicity
data available
Potential neurotoxicity
problem
-------
SUMMARY OF HEALTH EFFECTS DATA FOR FUNGICIDES
USED ON CUCURBITS
A. Use: Foliar
B. Major Diseases: Downy mildew, Leaf Anthracnose, Gummy stem blight,
Powder mildew
C. Major Recommended Fungicides:
Fungicide
Suitability Regulatory Status
Current Toxicity
Information
RPAR
EBDC
Benomyl
.PRE-RPAR
Chlorothalonil
1-1-1
2-2-1
1-1-1
PD 2/3 in final
draft
PD 2/3 issued
on 8/22/79
Referenced for
Pre-RPAR
Oncogen, teratogen
Oncogen, mutagen,
teratogen, reproductive
effects
Potential oncogen
NON-RPAR
Dinocap
Analazine
Dichloran
1-3-2 Non-RPAR
1-3-2 Non-RPAR
1-3-1 Non-RPAR
Potential cataractogen
Toxicity data available
Toxicity data available
-------
SUMMARY OF HEALTH EFFECTS DATA FOR FUNGICIDES
USED SWEET CORN
A. Use: Foliar
B. Major Diseases; Helminthosporium leaf blights, Stalk and
ear rots
C. Major Recommended Fungicides:
Fungicide
Suitability Regulatory Status
Current Toxicity
Information
RPAR
EBDC
Captan
1-1-1 PD 2/3 in final
draft
2-2-1 PD 1 issued
8/16/80
Oncogen, teratogen,
toxic to wildlife
Oncogen, mutagen
PRE-RPAR
Chlorothalonil
1-2-1 Referred for
Pre-RPAR
Potential oncogen
-------
SUMMARY OF HEALTH EFFECTS DATA FOR FUNGICIDES
USED ON BEANS AND PEAS
A. Use: Foliar
B. Major Diseases: Bacterial blights, Rust, Powdery mildew, Leaf spots,
Downey mildew, Storage
C. Major Recommended Fungicides;
Fungicide
Current Toxicity
Suitability Regulatory Status Information
RPAR
EBDC's
Benomyl
Captan
1-2-1 PD 2/3 in final
draft
2-3-1 PD 2/3 issued on
8/22/79
2-3-1 PD 1 issued
8/16/80
Oncogen, teratogen
Oncogen, mutagen,
teratogen,
reproductive effects,
other chronic effects
Oncogen, mutagen
PRE-RPAR
Chlorothanil
2-2-1 Referred for Pre-
RPAR Review
Potential oncogen
NON-RPAR
Coppers
Sulfur
Dithiocarbamates
2-1-3
Non-RPAR
3-2-3 Non-RPAR
1-2-1 Non-RPAR
No adverse toxicity
data available
Toxicity data available
Potential neurotoxity
problem
------- |