hort.net Seasonal photo, (c) 2006 Christopher P. Lindsey, All Rights Reserved: do not copy
articles | gallery of plants | blog | tech blog | plant profiles | patents | mailing lists | top stories | links | shorturl service | tom clothier's archive0
Gallery of Plants
Tech Blog
Plant Profiles
Mailing Lists
    Search ALL lists
    Search help
    Subscription info
Top Stories
sHORTurl service
Tom Clothier's Archive
 Top Stories
New Trillium species discovered

Disease could hit Britain's trees hard

Ten of the best snowdrop cultivars

Plant protein database helps identify plant gene functions

Dendroclimatologists record history through trees

Potato beetle could be thwarted through gene manipulation

Hawaii expands coffee farm quarantine

Study explains flower petal loss

RSS story archive

RE: Chemical control of southern blight

> The product name is Montero and is to be introduced in time for the
> peanut crop in 1999. This would be an ag. chemical and most likely
> restricted use meaning you need an applicators license to 
> purchase. Just
> a reminder, the label is the law and must be obeyed.

Dan, as a pesticide professional, I appreciate your reminder that registered
pesticides should only be used in approved situations, i.e., the particular
use MUST be listed on the label.  Otherwise, you put your health, our
environment, and your crop at risk.  

If memory serves me correctly, two years ago, a food manufacturer had to
pull millions of dollars of an oat-based cereal from supermarket shelves
because the oats used in the manufacture had been fumigated (pre-milling)
with Dursban (chloropyrifos, or chloropyrifos ethyl), rather than Reldan
(chloropyrifos methyl).  Reldan is more volatile than Dursban, and
therefore, is safer to use as an insect fumigant.  It's an industrial roach
/ fly / ant spray.  Dursban is slower to volatilize, therefore it lasts
longer, and was much more likely to remain in the food product after
milling.  Regardless, the Dursban application was not an approved use, and
therefore, the product that was in contact with the non-approved use was not

Technically, the same concept would apply to any ornamental application.
Sale of hostas on which pesticides have been applied in a non-approved use
would be illegal.  In this case, if the Montero label does not include
"ornamentals" as an approved use, you should not use it on hostas.  

The correct procedure to get an expanded label into a minor crop (and
"ornamentals" are generally bundled together as one "crop") would be to
petition the EPA as a grower group.  The USDA maintains a division (IR-4)
whose primary function is to manage the studies that enable the registration
of pesticide uses on minor crops.  IR-4 is headquartered at Rutgers, New
Brunswick, NJ.  If the hosta growers group were to contact the IR-4 folks,
you could probably get a label extension for Montero (or its active
ingredient) into ornamental uses.  

Richard A. (Rick) Grazzini, PhD
Centre Analytical Laboratories
State College, PA 16801 USA
814-231-8032: voice
814-231-1580: fax
rickg@centrelab.com: e-mail
http://www.centrelab.com/ : website
To sign-off this list, send email to majordomo@mallorn.com with the

 © 1995-2017 Mallorn Computing, Inc.All Rights Reserved.
Our Privacy Statement
Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index