1 •>, ,,nm»-ita' Prote-ii"" O'I'C* u' Pemcilf P'OO'-"ii (TS ''SBC Washington OC 20460 &EPA Pesticide Fact Sheet Name of Chemical. Command Reason for Issuance «ew chemical Date Issued: June ?o, 198- Fact Sheet Number: 9o.i BACKGROUND o This fact sheet addresses reports of phytotoxicity resulting from the use of Command, a herbicide manufactured by FMC Corporation. Conmand was registered oy tne Agency as a new chemical in February, 1986 for use on soyoeans to control a broad spectrum of broadleaf and grassy weeds. The herbicide is marketed as two end-use products; a 4EC (Reg. No. 2793053) and a SEC (Reg. Nc. 279-3054). o The Agency has a conplete data base for the chemical which shows very little potential for acute or long term health effects. However, because the adjuvants (inert ingredients) used in the formulated product can cause irreversible eye damage, the 6EC laoel Dears the signal word danger. o Phytotoxicity data indicate that sane desirable plants are sensitive to Command and some off-target injury could occur. Because of this potential for injury to non-target plants, statements regarding chlorosis or bleaching of sensitive plants growing in proximity of treated fields are declared on tne laoel. The Command product label states: "Sane desirable plants, including ornamentals (e.g., roses), trees (e.g. flowering and edible cherries), agronomic crops (e.g., small grains, alfalfa, sunflowers) and vegetables (e.g., lettuce, cole X crops, radish) are sensitive to Command herbicide. Foliar contact with spray drift or vapors may cause visual symptoms of chlorosis or bleaching to sensitive plants growing in the proximity of treated fielas. These symptoms are temporary. Extra caution is advised when spraying near desiraole plants found in residential or otner cormercial airicultura' clantincs." ------- —2— PHYTUTOXIC PROBW o The Agency has received numerous reports frc several midwestern states in Region V & VII of d nage to non—target plants when Cairgnand is applied to soybean fields as either a surface or soil incorporated treatment. Sane of this damage is beyond the proximity of the treated field. Apparently, the chemical quickly volatilizes and IrKves frai the treatment site to nontarget plants where it causes chlorosis (whitening) in plant foliage. This effect, in nost cases, appears to be temporary. Reports irc state officials indicate that the product was used according to label directions. DIETARY EXPOSURE PROFILE o C ivnand is not oncogenic or teratogenic. The Acceptable ily Intake is based on a NOEL of 100 pç n (4.3 u /kg/day) in a 2 year rat feeding study witr a safety factor of lOG. o Information suthutted by the registrant do not show any detectable residues in non—target crops such as leaty vegetables (lettuce, spinach, kale, rhuDarb, chinese cabbage), fruiting vegetables (peas, beans, tai atoes), root crops anc fruits. Residues have been detected at levels up to 1.4 ppn in alfalfa and pasture hay. o The registered use and tolerance on soybeans at 0.05 p uses 0.3% of tne AD. Even if every food item in the total diet had residues of .05 pçzr only approximately 3% of the ADI would be used. ------- —j— o The Agency does not have adequate data on the nature or magnitude in meat or milk fran residues in feec. However, metabolism studies in rats snow tna . Catinand was excreted rapidly (90-99% within 72 hours) with no significant retention in rats tissues. This, together with the structure of the chemical and other information indicate that signifi ant bioacc .unulation in edible tissues or milk is unlikely. EPA )SITICN o The Agency has worked with RIC, regional personnel and state officials to determine the scope of the problem. EPA will be reviewing additional in- formation as it becanes available and will be assessing this situation as to what can be done to address the off—target problem and related issues prior to the 1987 growing season. o Since residues were detected in alfalfa and hay, the Agency will be dig- cussing tne matter with the Food and Drug A iinistration. However, on the oesis of the available information, the Agency concludes that direct human consulTç)tion of the affected crops, or the feeding of affected forage iterr to animals, will not pose an unreasonable risk to the public. o Off-target movement of Ccznnand is not expected to cause any adverse health effects to persons in the vicinity of treated areas. (Contact Frank Sanders 557—1650 or Robert Taylor 557—1800) ------- |