SEMIANNUAL REPORT SUMMARIZING THE REEVALUATION STATUS
OF PESTICIDE PRODUCTS DURING THE PERIOD OF
January 1, 2000 THROUGH June 30, 2000
California regulations require the Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) to investigate all reports of actual
or potential significant adverse effects to people or the environment resulting from the use of pesticides. If
an adverse impact occurred or is likely to occur, the regulations require DPR to reevaluate the registration of
Title 3, California Code of Regulations (CCR), section 6221, specifies the factors under which DPR may initiate
a reevaluation: (a) public or worker health hazard, (b) environmental contamination, (c) residue over tolerance,
(d) fish or wildlife hazard, (e) lack of efficacy,
(f) undesirable phytotoxicity, (g) hazardous packaging, (h) inadequate labeling, (i) disruption of the implementation
or conduct of pest management, (j) other information suggesting a significant adverse effect, and (k) availability
of an effective and feasible alternative material or procedure that is demonstrably less destructive to the environment.
Often, ongoing DPR reviews trigger a reevaluation. Reevaluation triggers also include state and county pesticide
use surveillance and illness investigations, pesticide residue sample analyses, environmental monitoring activities,
and information from other state or federal agencies.
When a pesticide enters the reevaluation process, DPR reviews existing data. DPR requires registrants to provide
additional data to determine the nature or the extent of the potential hazard or identify appropriate mitigation
measures, if needed.
DPR concludes reevaluations in a number of different ways. If the data demonstrate that use of the pesticide presents
no significant adverse effects, DPR concludes the reevaluation without additional mitigation measures. If additional
mitigation measures are necessary, DPR places appropriate restrictions upon the use of the pesticide to mitigate
the potential adverse effect. If the adverse impact cannot be mitigated, DPR cancels or suspends the registration
of the pesticide product.
This report complies with the requirements of CCR section 6225. CCR section 6225 requires DPR to prepare a semiannual
report describing pesticides evaluated, under reevaluation, or for which factual or scientific information was
received, but no reevaluation was initiated. The report contains two sections:
I. Formal Reevaluation - initiated when an investigation indicates a significant adverse impact has occurred
or is likely to occur (page - 2); and
II. Preliminary Investigations (Evaluations) - products or active ingredients for which DPR receives possible
adverse, factual, or scientific information, but no reevaluation has been initiated (page - 6).
I. FORMAL REEVALUATION - undertaken when investigations indicate that a significant adverse impact has occurred
or is likely to occur.
BRODIFACOUM - 33 Products
Brodifacoum is registered in California to control Norway rats, roof rats, and house mice in residential, industrial,
commercial, agricultural, and public buildings. Registrants formulate the product with a grain-based bait in pellets,
mini-pellets, and wax blocks.
On December 30, 1999, at the request of the Department of Fish and Game (DFG), DPR placed pesticide products containing
brodifacoum into reevaluation. DFG expressed concern that California's wildlife are exposed and adversely affected
by currently registered uses of the anticoagulant rodenticide brodifacoum.
Since 1994, DFG's Pesticide Investigations Unit has investigated 58 cases of possible wildlife exposure to anticoagulant
rodenticides. Residues of anticoagulant rodenticides were detected in 38 birds and mammals, and residues of brodifacoum
were identified in 31 birds and mammals, accounting for 82 percent of the anticoagulant exposures. Of the 31 individuals
in which residues of brodifacoum were detected, clinical signs of anticoagulant poisoning were observed in 10 to
20 percent. Eleven of the animals also carried residues of at least one other anticoagulant rodenticide in conjunction
with brodifacoum. Because wildlife typically retreat to dens, burrows, or unobtrusive roosts in the final stages
of anticoagulant poisoning, exposure of non-target wildlife to this compound may be more extensive. Most of the
birds and mammals exposed to brodifacoum were recovered from areas adjacent to urban development in Santa Clara,
Los Angeles, Ventura, Orange, San Benito, Alameda, and Contra Costa Counties.
On February 10, 2000, DPR and DFG staff met with representatives of the Rodenticide Registrant Task Force (RRTF)
to discuss the reevaluation of brodifacoum. In addition, individual registrants and the RRTF have submitted data
and information. That data are currently under review. During the course of the reevaluation, DPR and DFG plan
to identify the pathways that result in wildlife exposure to brodifacoum and curtail exposure through mitigation
COPPER NAPHTHENATE - 30 Products
Applicators use copper naphthenate as a fungicide and wood preservative to protect wood from fungal decay and insect
attack. DPR placed products containing copper naphthenate into reevaluation on December 28, 1995, based upon concerns
regarding use of the products indoors. DPR's Worker Health and Safety Branch received a number of reports of illnesses
following exposure to the indoor use of pesticide products containing copper naphthenate. The illnesses appear
to be associated with inhalation exposure resulting in nausea, dizziness, and headaches. In some cases, the structure
could not be occupied for an extended period of time following treatment.
In February 1996, DPR discussed its concerns regarding copper naphthenate with the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (U.S. EPA). Based upon DPR's information, U.S. EPA decided that indoor use of copper naphthenate was of
national concern and, therefore, best addressed by U.S. EPA. U.S. EPA met with representatives of the Naphthenate
Salts Research Task Force (Task Force) to discuss this issue. In October 1996, the Task Force sent U.S. EPA a
mitigation proposal. U.S. EPA responded to the Task Force's proposal in December 1996, after consultation with
DPR. U.S. EPA and DPR found certain elements of the proposal to be acceptable; however, the proposal needed further
In January 1997, U.S. EPA received a letter stating that the Task Force would not be supporting continued indoor
use of copper naphthenate. In March 1997, the Task Force submitted amended labels to both U.S. EPA and DPR for
products registered to the three basic manufacturers of copper naphthenate. The manufacturers revised the labels
of their products to delete all indoor uses and to add the statement "For Exterior Use Only." In addition,
a statement has been added requiring the use of respirators during prolonged or frequent use of the product. Task
Force members also added a toll free number and the statement, "In case of medical questions, emergencies,
or accidents involving this product, call 1-800-XXX-XXXX," to the labels of their products. DPR reviewed
the amended labels and sent comments to U.S. EPA.
Registrants have amended the labels of 28 of the 30 currently registered copper naphthenate products to prohibit
use indoors, to require the use of a respirator during prolonged or frequent use, and to add a toll free telephone
number for use in case of emergencies or accidents. The registrant of the remaining two products did not amend
the labels of the products because the company is no longer producing any new product with those labels. DPR has
agreed to continue the registration of the two remaining products for one additional year to allow the registrant
time to sell remaining stocks of the products. DPR concluded the reevaluation of copper naphthenate on March 29,
CYFLUTHRIN - 52 Products
The pesticide active ingredient cyfluthrin is a non-systemic pyrethroid insecticide registered for use on numerous
field, fruit, and vegetable crops, including citrus. In addition, DPR registers pesticide products containing
cyfluthrin for use on lawns and ornamental plants, animals, and around industrial, institutional, agricultural,
and household structures.
DPR initiated the reevaluation on May 8, 1998, based on its investigation of a May 1997 outbreak of respiratory
irritation reported among orange harvesters exposed to residues of cyfluthrin in Tulare County and other pesticide
illness reports related to cyfluthrin. As a part of the investigation of the Tulare County incident, DPR's Worker
Health and Safety Branch conducted two separate inhalation-monitoring studies in orange groves during orange harvest.
DPR determined that, since dust and pollen are a part of the normal working environment, something different in
the work environment led to the worker's respiratory irritation symptoms. DPR feels that the application of cyfluthrin
to the citrus groves close to harvest led to the respiratory symptoms experienced. DPR compiled the results of
its monitoring study in "Health and Safety Report, HS - 1765."
As a part of the reevaluation, DPR required cyfluthrin registrants to submit the results of an inhalation irritation
threshold study. In mid-September 1998, the basic manufacturer of cyfluthrin submitted the results of several
studies and journal articles concerning the respiratory irritation of cyfluthrin. On October 29, 1998, DPR met
with the basic manufacturer to discuss the cyfluthrin reevaluation. At that meeting, DPR agreed to review the
submitted studies and journal articles before deciding whether to require additional data. After reviewing the
data, DPR determined that, although limited in scope, the data could be used to generate a no-effect level for
risk assessment. The study was limited by the constraints of the Human Subjects Committee. The Human Subjects
Committee would not permit a double-blind study to be carried out on human subjects.
In May 1999, the Agricultural Reentry Task Force commenced a study to assess exposure to workers from cyfluthrin
residues in a treated orange orchard. The study monitored air levels and observed the levels of dermal exposure
to workers harvesting oranges. DPR expects preliminary results of the study to be available in the third quarter
DIPHACINONE - 2 Products
DPR registers products containing the active ingredient diphacinone for use in and around homes, agricultural,
and industrial buildings, and in sewers to control Norway rats, roof rats, and house mice. DPR currently registers
51 products containing diphacinone. Of the currently registered products, 49 are intended for end use and contain
0.2 percent or less diphacinone. Containing one percent and two percent diphacinone, the two remaining products
are concentrates intended for use in the formulation of end-use rodenticides. DPR initiated a reevaluation of products
containing one percent or more diphacinone based on its review of acute toxicity data recently submitted to support
the registration of a one- percent diphacinone product. DPR found the submitted acute dermal toxicity and primary
dermal irritation studies to be unacceptable. Without acceptable acute toxicity studies, DPR was unable to determine
whether the precautionary statement currently on the label of the product adequately identifies acute toxicity
hazards. After a search of the database, DPR determined that no acute toxicity studies are on file to support
the registration of a two- percent diphacinone product. Without the results of acceptable acute toxicity studies,
DPR cannot determine whether the precautionary statement currently on the product label adequately identifies acute
In the fall of 1998, the two registrants submitted several acute toxicity studies. DPR reviewed the data submitted
to support the one- percent diphacinone product and determined that an acceptable rabbit acute dermal toxicity
study was still needed. In July 1999, the registrant submitted the results of a new acute dermal toxicity study.
DPR found the data to be acceptable. On December 27, 1999, DPR accepted an amended label for this product.
After reviewing the data submitted to support the two percent diphacinone product, DPR determined that an acceptable
rabbit acute dermal toxicity study and a dermal irritation study were still needed. In August 1999, the registrant
submitted the result of two new studies. DPR found the data to acceptable and approved an amended label for the
product in June 2000. DPR is drafting a final notice to conclude the reevaluation of diphacinone.
Pesticide applicators commonly use chlorpyrifos to control insect pests in and around the home. On May 17, 1985,
the Department of Health Services (DHS) submitted a study entitled An Assessment of the Hazard from Pesticide Absorption
from Surfaces. DHS's assessment addresses the home-use of pesticides. DHS found that use of the products might
pose an acute hazard due to inhalation, dermal absorption, or ingestion exposure. At the request of DHS, DPR placed
products containing chlorpyrifos for general home use into reevaluation on June 27, 1985.
In 1987, in response to the reevaluation, the basic manufacturer of chlorpyrifos submitted the results of indoor
exposure studies. The studies were reviewed and did not raise immediate concerns. In May 1998, DPR informed registrants
that it was initiating the risk assessment process for all pesticide products containing the active ingredient
chlorpyrifos, including those used in and around the home. On January 20, 2000, DPR issued a notice to registrants
identifying the definitive toxicity and exposure studies, and critical endpoints/no effect levels being used in
the chlorpyrifos risk assessment. DPR expects to complete its risk assessment of chlorpyrifos in the third quarter
In a separate action, U.S. EPA announced on June 8, 2000 that it had reached an agreement with the manufacturer
of chlorpyrifos to eliminate its use for nearly all-household purposes. Under the agreement, registrants will
no longer sell pesticide products containing chlorpyrifos for indoor residential use after February 1, 2001. Retail
sales of these products will be prohibited after December 31, 2001. Use of existing stocks of chlorpyrifos is
allowed to continue until exhausted.
II. PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATIONS (EVALUATIONS)
DPR conducts preliminary investigations on products for which DPR or other state or county agencies have identified
possible hazards. As a result of evaluation, the investigations may lead to formal reevaluation.
BioBrom C-103L is labeled for use as a microbiocide in industrial cooling systems, paper mills, and metalworking
cutting fluids. In compliance with Food and Agricultural Code (FAC) section 12825.5, the registrant of BioBrom
C-103L submitted an adverse effect disclosure. The registrant submitted the results of a dermal sensitization
study, which indicated that exposure to the product, could result in sensitization in some persons. In response
to DPR's concerns, the registrant submitted an amended label to U.S. EPA. After U.S. EPA approval, the registrant
submitted the amended label to DPR. The product label has been amended to add a dermal sensitization warning statement.
BLUE CHIP GERMICIDAL CLEANER
Blue Chip Germicidal Cleaner is labeled for use in hospitals to clean hard surfaces such as floors, walls, woodwork,
and equipment. In compliance with FAC section 12825.5, the registrant of Blue Chip Germicidal Cleaner submitted
an adverse effect disclosure. The registrant submitted the results of an eye irritation and an inhalation study.
The data indicate that the product is Toxicity Category II for acute inhalation hazard and Toxicity Category I
for eye irritation. The product label does not adequately identify either toxicity hazard. U.S. EPA must approve
amendments to pesticide product labels before they can be accepted by DPR. Therefore, the registrant submitted
an amended label to U.S. EPA. In September 1999, U.S. EPA required the registrant to make numerous additional
changes to his product label. In December 1999, the registrant resubmitted an amended label to U.S. EPA. The
registrant does not expect a response from U.S. EPA until July 2000.
MALATHION - 3 Products
In reviewing the acute toxicity database for products containing malathion, DPR's Medical Toxicology Branch determined
that three malathion products might not bear an appropriate signal word and precautionary statement. Data on file
with DPR indicate products containing 57 percent malathion are toxicity Category II for acute dermal toxicity and
primary eye irritation. DPR considered placing the products into reevaluation. However, the only way for registrants
to resolve DPR's concerns would be to amend the labels of their products. Since U.S. EPA must approve all label
amendments prior to their acceptance by DPR, we informed U.S. EPA of our concerns. Initially, U.S. EPA expressed
reluctance at amending the labels of individual malathion products and wanted to wait until all malathion products
finished the reregistration process.
However, in June 1999 U.S. EPA stated that, if the registrants of the malathion products voluntarily amended their
product labels to change the signal word and precautionary statement, U.S. EPA would accept the amended labels.
DPR informed the two registrants of our concerns regarding acute dermal toxicity and primary eye irritation.
One of the registrants agreed to conduct new acute toxicity studies. The results of the studies will be submitted
to DPR in July 2000.
For more information, please contact Ms. Ann Prichard, Senior Environmental Research Specialist in the Pesticide
Registration Branch, by e-mail at <firstname.lastname@example.org> or by telephone at (916) 324-3931.