Number 139, 192 ISSN 0962-0069, New York's Food and Life Sciences Bulletin "Now York Stato Agricultural Exporimant Staton, Geneva, A Division ofthe New York State Collage of Agriculture and Life Sciences ‘A Statutory Cologe of tho Stato University, at Corel University, thaca A METHOD TO MEASURE THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF PESTICIDES J. Kovach, C. Petzoldt, J. Degni}, and J. Tette IPM Program, Cornell University, New York State Agricultural Experiment Station Geneva, New York 14456 ‘ACurrent address: Cornell Cooperative Extension, Lewis County, Lowville, New York 13367 Introduction and Background For several years, increased attention has been focused on integrated pest management (IPM) programs and altemative ‘methods of pest control to reduce pesticide use in agricultural systems because of food safety issues, ground water contamina- tion, and increased environmental awareness. By definition, PM isapest management strategy that uses a combination of methods (sampling, thresholds, forecasts, biological and cultural controls, etc) to manage pests without solely relying on chemical pesti cides to produce a safe, economic crop. If, however, no other control measure is effective in preventing pest damage, a chemi- cal pesticide is recommended. In past IPM programs, pesticides ‘were generally chosen based on ther efficacy or cost rather than ‘omtheir potential environmental impact. Although some growers and pest management practitioners take intoaccountthe effect of the pesticides on the applicator or beneficial natural enemies such as predatory mites when making pesticide recommenda- tions, no formal method was available to assist them in making ‘environmentally based pesticide choices. Because there is no ‘easy method to assess pesticide impacts, each individual had to rely primarily on their own judgment to make these decisions. Some growers (organically approved growers) felt that only natural pesticides should be used in agricultural production sys- tems because they are naturally occurring and are perceived to be less harmful to the environment. Other growers felt that any pesticide registered by the United States Environmental Protec- tion Agency (US EPA) and used according tothe label must be environmentally safe, Inaddition, IPM programs throughout the country use various methods (number of sprays, the amount of active ingredient or formulated product used per acre, dosage equivalents, etc.) to quantify pesticide use and environmental impact to compare different pest management strategies or pro- rams, None of these methodsestimate the environmental impact of specific pesticides. Because ofthe EPA pesticide registration process, there isa ‘wealth of toxicological and environmental impact data for most Pesticides that are commonly used in agricultural systems, How- ever, these data are not readily availabe or organized in amanner that is usable to the IPM practitioner. Therefore, the purpose of this bulletin is to organize the published environmental impact information of pesticces into a usable form to assist growers and other IPM practitioners make more environmentally sound pes- ticide choices. This bulletin presents a method to calculate the environmental impact of most common fruit and vegetable pes- ticides (insecticides, acaricides, fungicides and herbicides) used in commercial agriculture. The values obtained from these calculations canbe used to compare different pesticides and pest ‘management programs to ultimately determine which program or pesticide is likely to have the lower environmental impact. Methods Extensive data are available on the environmental effects of specific pesticides, and the data used inthis project were gathered {froma variety ofthe sources. The Extension Toxicology Network (EXTOXNET), a collaborative education project between the environmental toxicology and pesticide education departments of Comell University, Michigan Statc University, Oregon State University, and the University of California, was the primary source used in developing the database (Hotchkiss etal. 1989). EXTOXNET conveys pesticide-related information on the health and environmental effects of approximately 100 pesticides. ‘A second source of information used was CHEM-NEWS of CENET, the Corel Cooperative Extension Network. CHEM- ‘NEWS is a computer program maintained by the Pesticide Man- agement and Education Program of Cornell University that con- ‘ains approximately 310US EPA -Pesticide Fact Sheets, describing health, ecological, and environmental effects ofthe pesticides that are required for the reregistration of these pesticides (Smith and Barnard 1992). ‘The impact of pesticides on arthropod natural enemies was ‘determined by using the SELCTV database developed at Oregon ‘State (Theiling and Croft 1988). ‘These authors searched theliterature and rated the effect of about 400 agrichemical pesticides ‘on over 600 species of arthropod ‘natural enemies, translating all ppsticide/natural enemy response data toa scale ranging from 1 (0% effect) to 5 (90-10%). Leaching, surface loss poten- tials (runoff), and soil half-life data ‘of approximately 100 compounds ‘are contained in the National Pes- ticide/SoilsDatabase developed by the USDA Agricultural Research Conservation ‘veloped from the GLEAMS com- puter model that simulates leach- ing and surface loss potential fora large number of pesticides in various soils and uses statistical methods to evaluate the interac- tions between pesticide properties (Golubility, adsorption coefficient, and half-life) and soil properties (surface horizon thickness, organic matter content, etc.). The vari ablesthatprovided the bestestimate of surface loss and leaching were then selected by this model and used to classify all pesticides into risk groups (large, medium, and small) according to their potential for leaching or surface loss. Bee toxicity was determined tables by Morse (1989) in the 1989 New York State pesticide recommendations, which contain {nformationontherelativetox of pesticides to honey bees from laboratory an field testsconducted at the University of California, Riverside from 1950t0 1980. More than 260 pesticides are listed in this reference, In order to fil as many data ‘gaps as possible, Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) and technical bulletins developed by the agri- cultural chemical industry were also used when available, Health and environmental factors that addressed some ofthe common concems expressed by farm workers, consumers, pest management practitioners, and other environmentalists were evaluated and are listed in Figure 1. Tosimplify the interpretation of 2 the data, the toxicity of the active ingredient of each pesticide and the effect on cach environmental factor evaluated were grouped into low, medium, or high toxicity categories ‘and rated on a scale from 1 to 5, with one having a minimal impact on the environment or of alow toxicity and five considered to be highly toxic or having a major negative effect on the eevuonment. — ome maw Li geen ht fan || ret eg == | l= tion TT dectonin [4 deamon aiid ue Crnie Toxsiy | Tonete Sell “oes fren. HY] Som aoe ae | ce cea hikes iene sear Pr suena 1] uae ca 1 aEe Tanda 1) eeashate PH Sees, (att cn ent Arora |_| Pepe exety = ‘HaltLife Figure 1. A diagram showing the individual environmental factors that were evaluated in developing the environmental impact quotient of pesticides (EIQ) model.‘Table 1 lists the specific ratings for the individual factors evalu- ated, Allpesticides were evaluated using the samecriteriaexcept forthe mode of action and plant surface persistence of herbicides. Because herbicides are generally systemic in nature and are not normally applied to food crops we decided to consider tis class cof compounds differently, so all herbicides were given a value of | forsystemic activity. Thishas noeffecton therelativerankings within herbicides but itdoes make the consumer component of the equation for herbicides more realistic. Also, since plant surface persistence is only important for post-emergent herbicides and not pre-emergent herbicides, all post-emergent herbicides were assigned a value of three and pre-emergent herbicides assigned a value of one for this facto. ‘Table 1. The rating system used to develop the environmental impact ‘quotient of pesticides (EIQ) model. {= least toxic or least harmful, 5 is most toxie or harmful Mode of Action Toxicity to Fish-96 hr LCSO non-systemic ~1 > 10 ppm -1 all herbicides ~1 1-10 ppm -2 systemic -3 <1 ppm-3 ‘Acute Dermal LD50 Toxicity to Birds-8 day LCSO for rabbitsrats(mg/kg) 32000 -1 1000 ppm - 1 200- 2000-3 100-1000 ppm - 3 0-200-5 1-100 ppm - 5 Long Term Health Effects Title or none - 1 ityto Bees relatively non toxic - 1 possible -3 moderately toxic -3 sefinite 5 highly toxic -5 Plant Surface Residue Half fe Toxicity to Beneficials 1-2 weeks- 1 low impact -1 2-4 weeks-3 moderate impact -3 >4 weeks -5 severe impact - 5 pre-emergent herbicides - 1 [post-emergent herbicides -3 Soil Residue Half life Groundwater and TH/2 <30 days - 1 runoff potential T1/2=30-100 days -3 small -1 ‘T1/2 >100 days - 5 medium - 3 large -5 Inorderto further organize and simplify thedata,amodel was, ‘developed, called the environmental impact quotient of pesticides (EIQ). This model reduces the environmental impact information toa single value. To accomplish this, an equation was developed based on the three principal components of agricultural produc- tion systems: a farm worker component, a consumer component, and an ecological component. Each component in the equation is siven equal weight in the final analysis, but within each compo- nent, individual factors are weighted differently. Coefficients used in the equation to give additional weight to individual factors, are also based on a to 5 scale. Factors carrying the most weight ‘are multiplied by five, medium impact factors are multiplied by three, and those factors considered to have the least impact are ‘multiplied by one. consistent rule throughout the model is that the impact potential of a specific pesticide on an individual environmental factor is equal to the toxicity ofthe chemical times the potential for exposure, Stated simply, environmental impact ‘sequal to toxicity times exposure. For example, fish toxicity is calculated by determining the inherent toxicity of the compound to fish times the likelihood ofthe fish encountering the pesticide, In this manner, compounds that are toxic to fish but short lived have lower impact values than compounds that are toxic and long lived. The EIQ Equation ‘The formula for determining the EIQ value of individual [pesticides is listed below and is the average of the farm worker, consumer, and ecological component, EIQ=[CDT*S)HDT*P)+[(CHS+P)2*SY)+LH(PR) HD*S+PY/2°3)+(Z*PH3)4(BYPYS)}/3 DT = Dermal toxicity D= bird toxicity C= Chronic toxicity soil half-life SY = systemicity Z= bee toxicity ish toxicity B = beneficial arthropod leaching potential toxicity surface loss potential P= plant surface half-life ‘Farm worker risk is defined as the sum of applicator exposure (DT*5) plus picker exposure (DT*P) times the long term health ‘effect or chronic toxicity (C). Chronic toxicity of a specific pesticide is calculated as the average of the ratings from various long term laboratory tests conducted on small mammals. These tests are designed to determine potential reproductive effects (ability o produce offspring), teratogenic effects (deformities in tunborn offspring), mutagenic effects (permanent changes in hereditary material such as genes and chromosomes), and ‘oncogenic effects (tumor growth). Within the farmworker com- onent, applicator exposure is determined by multiplying the ‘dermal toxicity (DT) rating to small laboratory mammals (rabbits ‘orrats) times a coefficient of five to account forthe increased risk associated with handling concentrated pesticides. Picker expo- sure is equal to dermal toxicity (DT) times the rating for plant surface residue half-life potential (the time required for one-half fof the chemical to break down). This residue factor takes into account the weathering of pesticides that occurs in agricultural systems and the days to harvest restrictions that may be placed on certain pesticides. ‘The consumer component isthe sum of consumer exposure potential (C*(S+P)/2*SY) plus the potential ground water effects (D.. Ground water effects are placed inthe consumer component because itis more ofa human health issue drinking well contami- nation) than a wildlife issue, Consumer exposure is calculated as chronic toxicity (C) times the average for residue potential in soil and plant surfaces (because roots and other plant parts are eaten) times the systemic potential ratingof the pesticide (the pesticides ability to be absorbed by plants).‘The ecological component of the model is composed of | aquatic and terrestrial effects and is the sum of the effects of the chemicals on fish (F*R), birds (D*(S+PY2*3), bees Z*P*3), and beneficial arthropods (B*P*5). The environmental impact of pesticides on aquatic systems is determined by multiplying the chemical toxicity to fish rating times the surface runoff potential ‘ofthe specific pesticide (the ranoff potential takes intoaccountthe half-life of the chemical in surface wate) “The impact of pesticides on terrestrial systems is determined by summing the toxicities of the chemicals to birds, bees, and beneficial arthropods. Because terrestrial organisms are more likely to occurin commercial agricultural settings than fish, more ‘weights given to the pesticidal effects on these terrestrial organ- isms.. Impact on birds is measured by multiplying the rating of toxicity to birds by the average half-life on plant and sol surfaces times tes, Impact on bess measure by aking the peside ratings to bees times the half-life on plant surfaces times thee, Thee on beneficial arthropods determinodby aking the pesticide toxicity rating tobeneficial naturalenemiestimesthe half-life on plant surfaces times five. Because arthropod natural enemies spend almost all of their life in agroecosystem commu nities (while birds and bees are somewhat transient) their expo- sure 10 the pesticides, in theory, is greater. To adjust for this {increased exposure, the pesticide impacts on beneficial arthropods ismultiplied by five. Mammalian wildlife toxicity isnot included in the terrestrial component ofthe equation because mammalian exposure (farm worker and consumer) is already included in the ‘equation and these health effects are theresultsoftestsconductedon ‘mall mammals such as rats, mice, rabbits, and dogs. ‘fier the data on individual factors were collected, pesticides ‘were grouped by classes (fungicides, insecticides/miticides, and herbicides) and calculations were conducted for each pesticide. ‘When toxicological data were missing, theaverage foreachenviron- ‘mental factor within a class was determined and this average value ‘was Substituted for the missing values. Thus, missing data did not affect the relative ranking of a pesticide within a class. ‘The following tables list over 120 pesticides by chemical class, fungicides (Table 2), insecticides/miticides (Table 3), and herbicides (Table 4). The values of individual effects of each pesticide (applicator, picker, consumer, ground water, aquatic, bird, bee, beneficials), the major components of the equation (farm worker, consumer, and ecological) and the average EIQ value are presented in the tables. The tables also include the factorsin the evaluation process that contained missing data. Less, ‘confidence should be placed on the EIQ values of pesticides that hhave many data gaps and more confidence placed on EIQ values with few or no data gaps. Using the tables, comparisons of ‘environmental toxicity of a given weight (pounds, grams, etc.) of the individual active ingredients can be made within a class of ‘compounds. Field comparisons should not be made with these data, Other considerations, such as the percent of active ingredi- ent in a formulated product and the dose required to provide control, need to be assessed before the desirable or least to pesticide choice can be made in the field. ‘Table 2. The Environmental Impact Quotient (EIQ) values for some common frit and vegetable fungicides and nematicdes, on ne sepietnt Pout Canam Grand toute a “006241 10 50 bp aneovt so 450 50250 = 5s 700 «50 sartorn 45 180 nro 1s 0 1 250 » oper mri 4744 108 oe we ms ms 10 50 copper ses oie «ib got ea tenor ba 82 80 seer a7 mo 8D fwrarigroe A464 90180 ‘wero! 20 mo 50 250 tenn terse 80 40 te tem 20 40 8 see 30 80 (1 Meo oe tet Patan a4) 6 te Prt tose ‘ane aU Pg ea kes ‘oredone Fowat a © miele ae: cia aroma mo 0 10 (250 ‘0 720 #000 atmo a =e. mo 0 10 (250 180 woo | mots ssn sammie Oe we 22 10 m0 93 m4 2 sa ar ae 30 60 50 10 80 200 1 as aed Peren zo D0 150 mo 60m emia 9 Nes Mo me 6 nT oa 388 65k 34 "rae 250 75 1 80 30 6 680s a2 seus" Mee, a0 30 Ba? a0 4 ok a mal 50 50 36 10 8700 Dotan ‘ston mith ooal 10 279 «10 (90 wo 635 5002s o. fi 79 62 0 180 os 408 290 72H ° oe svi ms 70 99 90 90 350 280 tao wow = ae os ma 8 a7 99 30s 24389 342m ae hare 93 62 1 50 oa m2 4812? map 150200 39 108 so mio 730g tub vga 8 ~a2 a 1029849049746 003 ‘m=mutagenic, o-oncogenic, fish oxicity, d=bird toxicity, beneficial toxicity, zebee toxicity, half-life, pplant surface halflife, r=surface loss potential, I=leaching potential,‘Table 3, The Environmental Impact Quotient (EIQ) valves for some common frit and vegetable insecticides and miticdes. a ee ae eee ee a er aa ie line rae a ee. bow 75 75 90 50 39 900 30 164 45.0 40 524 ae bacoogl 0 60 40 «10250 800 150183. 26.0 50 83 Bacilus thuringiensis Oipel wo 20 40 20 82 60 30 (103 10 60 225 a sto aaa 0-200 «20180180187 120 30 ‘527 becepiond Fontes 60.0 120 24.0 «50 50800 180 18.4 720 230 694 — wee 95 36 400 «200 82 «63 67 (900 mt 60 452 = eee: 25 25 50 30 160 300 150 195 180 80 738 Sei, Ra a wh Sar RE Es ee a Saat ate, as eee “ Sea sae 1s 75 45 19 50 90 150 680 180, 55 980 eats Srgon 450 270 60 30 50 300 450 609 720 90 140.9 Comnnsal Teer 900 60 «60 «610 «250 270 9078 36.0 70 76 wheainite. am 50 30 3010250 90 48.0878 a0 40 988 sare fone: a7 15841 080d 190 S78 mo) e72 ee ate 250 «150120206960 45.0 86.0 40.0 m0 ee eae ‘tea 50 30 30 10250 9048.0 S78 80 40 1968 —_. as 35 75 30 30 250 300 90 188 45.0 60 ee 486 ane 50 1» «170 20 32 50 80176 60 a7 me (128 fd ae ‘Swracide 97.5 2255030150180 45.0 8 00 a0 98 693. Lenpsxrc’ 125 25125 10ND SD 1508S 250 135, 1955 58.0 - pee 450 90 30 10 80 30 150 207 54.0 40 477 352 hee 20 50 30 80) 50 15D 180135, 300 60 485 (282 a = 45.0 90 30 19 50 180 150 200 54.0 40 550877 aay * 50 a0 27) 610 80 O80 45.0 80 37 mo Ts wine. — em: 25 25 75 1 30 180 90 12 180 as 452 229 oxydereton-methyt Metayion —g9.9 698024. SO 50-800 270 OS 96.0 m0 126 | 628 * mane ‘Bopiaten’ wo 60) 8D 18 a7 90a 160 70 war 44g * —_ Soma e75 S25 70 10 250 300 450 681 1400 wai 1044 ‘Sanam, —- 25 75 78 1 20 90 45.0 618 200 as 08 564 mine om 2501508010 25.0 45.0 270 B76 40.0 109, 146 682 * nent oan wo 200 200 180177 120 30 67 39 - Hage i 03003080 150129 a0 80 529-83 3 eee ams eee m0 50) 1720 30 (185 900 a7 m7 8 ag i — oo Se wget aaie moat oat teem Eyles" “He 1 1 20 169 99 30 170 60 30 45.0 ——_ chemFan 45.0 900-3010 16D 8.080180 540 40 a0 er oe: m5 7 50 20 96 988 297 942 45.6 70 133 = fed Del = as 108402025 Oe BT RE 993 60 e168 baad aPeab 95 19 «S120 25 63 0100 m4 ry a8 — — 250 50 30 10 150 150 9.0 236 30.0 4.0 62.8 * e=reproductive effects, tteratogenie, m-mutagenic, oncogenic, fafish toxicity, bird toxicity, bebeneficials toxicity, z=bee toxicity, s=soil halflife, p=plant surface hal if, msurface loss potential, I=leaching potential‘Table 4. The Environmental Impact Quotient (EIQ) values of common fruit and vegetable herbicides. comersane ‘aetna Gra rand Agaic SS Sele Fern Semene gOS ie aD joni 450 270-60 90-10 W090 600 720 «90 8D «SES sctoten larg 27080300 Sd 2020 sector ee ee ee ee amenbmestanie Annie 59908 «DO sabe aume 75 48 45 50 90 90 00 0 wo 95 mao S92 > eraron Ben j59 90 G0 S000 DD 87am oma Mw 7545 G9 8030 wao go 5a tS ST Glennon Amen’ fps 2525 80D 30S SST rt cqunuine Sader 27434803087 Dt ple Rom 39 10 «208080 GO 30D OSD] wtonh, ‘taapon Dawn 225 SOTHO was Dora ours! gpg ODO Schober Cason sp 8020 BO DD 290180 Semayiemy Art 5] 120 GO 3D 88D Tob stare Kemer 95257580150 «9080S 8S ete Faun 5010 20 30 60 760 80 90183 siatnin’ —Sonoltn 2505.0 50 60 wo 00ND 30T amb fuartopiay —Fusinge 25.9350 1 150 60 510 400-14 emob symone Roundup 49g go 12 150 90 “3 WO 70743 aR aon tow sao 60 30 90 270 so 8080 ws Mora Bone 200120 1 30 60 so 92088 wretched wo 20 30 90 60 vo m0 7080) wrevbun —Seneor 580 50 30 270 so 0 80 wk eprops Dewi 72 50 30 80 wo 8a 20a sicowtirn Ascot 75k 50 38 60 oo 0 ow novazon ——Soleam™ 75 t5 50 90 80 wo 8085 ott expen Sutin 50020 w 90 90 wo 2 080? enon Gash tag 7.8 250 270 ree ee ee es pout Grammere 450 270 1201150380 eo 0720) puodinstaio Prom 95287519250 OD vo 5055 Pranmedon Spinald 754545 1D 20S a) 55S OT pronamife Kerb 4690] tO S19 240100740 38D tb mrpmine leat! 4590 ota BO. rr a razon Pann 5013 880 mo 6070250180 matrd satongim Peat 503020238 0 80a, since Pines? 992040 BB 2 20908218 teat Sibr 42068 ws oS aan Totun 525751925080 ab eb ene = ea Trego “MS 65 83 at 62s. a a eT) + ecteproductve effects, tteatogenic, m=mutagenic, o-oncogenic, ffish toxicity, ébind toxicity, bebeneficials toxicity, z=bee toxicity, s=soil half-life, plant surfoce halflife resurface lss potenti EIQ Field Use Rating ‘Once an EIQ value has been established for the active ingredi- nto each pesticide, field use calculationscan begin. To accurately ‘compare pesticides and pest management strategies, the dose, the formulation or percent active ingredient ofthe product, and the frequency of application of each pesticide needs tobe determined. ‘To account for different formulations ofthe same active ingredient and differentuse pattems, simple equation called the EIQFiel4 Use Rating was developed. This ating iscalculated by multiplying the EIQ value for the specific chemical obtained inthe tablesby the per- ‘cent active ingredient in te formulation by the rate per acre used (usually in pints or pounds of formulated product). EIQ Field Use Rating =E1Q x % active ingredient x Rate With this method, comparisons of environmental impact between pesticides and different pest management programs can be mack. For example, if several pesticides canbe used against a particular ‘est, which pesticide isthe east toxic choice? Table 5 shows an «example comparing the environmental impact of three insecticides: 6 aching potential ccarbaryl(Sevin SOWP),endosulfan (Thiodan SOWP), and azinphos- methyl Guthion 35WP). Although carbaryl has lower EIQ (22.6) than endosulfan (40.5) or azinphos-methyi (43.1, itmay take more oft provide equivalent contol. For example, 6 Ibsfacre of Sevin may provide the same level of contol ofa certain pest as 3 Ibslacre of Thiodan or 2.2 bs/acre of Guthion. In this situation, Guthion ‘would have the lowest EIQ Use Rating (33.2) and would be the least toxic choice. Thiodan (60.8) would be the second choice and Sevin (678) would be the last. ‘By applying the EIQ Field Use Rating, comparisons can be ‘made between different pest management strategies or programs. ‘To compare different pest management programs, EIQ Field Use Ratings and number of applications throughout the season are determined foreach pesticide and these values are then summed to determine the ttl seasonal environmental impact of the particular strategy. Table 6 compares the theoretical environmental impact of several different pest management approaches that have been used, inesearch projects to grow ‘Red Delicious’ applesin New York. In, this example, a traditional pest management approach to growing ‘Red Delicious’ apples that does not rely heavily on pest monitoring‘methods wouldresultinatotal theoretcalenvironmentalimpactof938 than the other strategies primarily due to the larger quantities of due to pesticides. An IPM approach that incorporates pest monitoring _sulfurrequired and more frequent applications neededto provide the methods, biological control, and least oxic pesticides would have an same level control of apple scab in his variety. By using the EIQ eavironmental impact of only 182. The organic pest management model, it becomes possible for IPM practitioners to rapidly estimate “approach, which uses only naturally occuring pesticides, wouldhavea the environmental impact of different pesticides and pest manage- theoretical environmental impact of 1799 according to the model. ment programs before they are applied resulting in more environ- The environmental impact ofthe later approach i so much larger mentally sensitive pest management programs being implemented, ‘TableS, Anexample showing the EIQ field use rating of three different insecticides to detcrmine which pesticide should be theleastioxicchoice. Material EIQ. ai Rate EIQ field use rating _ Sevin SOWP (carbaryl) 26 0.50 60 678 ‘Thiodan SOWP (endosulfan) 40.5 0.50 30 608 Guthion 35 WP (azinphos-methy!) 43.1 035 22 33.2 ‘Table 6. Theoretical environmental impact of different pest management strategies used to grow "Red Delicious’ apples in New York. Traditional Pest Management Strategy Material EIQ Total Rubigan EC 23 z CCaptan SOWP 28.6 0.50 287 Lorsban SOWP 52.8 0.50 158 Thiodan SOWP 40.5 0.50 61 Guthion 35WP 4a 035 66 Cygon 48, 74.0 0.43, 191 Omite 6EC 42.7 0.68 16 Kelthane 35WP 29.9 035 47 Sevin SOWP 22.6 0.50 34 “Total environmental impact O38 Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Strategy Material EIQ ai Dose Applications Total ‘Nova 40WP) az 0.40 0 4 20 Captan SOWP 28.6 0.50 3.0 1 43 Dipel 2x 135 0.06 1s 3 4 Sevin SOWP 2.6 0.50 3.0 1 34 Guihion 35WP 43a 0.35 2.2 2 66 ‘Total environmental impact 167 Organic Pest Management Strategy Material EIQ ai Dose Applications Total ‘Sulfar 55 0.90 6 7 1720 Rotenone/pyrethrin 25.5 0.04 12 6 B Ryania 55.3 0.001 38 2 6 Total environmental impact 1799Conclusion ‘The Environmental Impact Quotient has been used to orga- nize the extensive toxicological data available on some common fruit and vegetable pesticides into a usable form for field use. It addresses a majority of the environmental concems that are ‘encountered in agricultural systems including farm worker, con- sumer, and wildlife, health, and safety. By using the EIQ Field ‘Use Rating, IPM practitioners and growers can incorporate envi- ronmental effects along with efficacy and cost into the pesticide decision-making process. IPM programs can also use the EIQ ‘model as another method to measure the environmental impact of different pest management and pesticide programs. As newer biorational pesticides are marketed with lower EIQ values and ‘more emphasis is placed on biologically-based IPM practices, the EIQ field use ratings will continue to decrease and eventually these ratings may some day approgch zero, resulting in an envi- ‘onmentally neutral or benign agricultural production system. Acknowledgments ‘The authors would like to thank D. A. Ruz, W. G. Smith, J. W. Gillette, R. Mungari, J. VanKirk, and D. Pimentel for their valuable inputand discussions on the developmentof thisconcept ‘and J. Nedrow for help in collecting and organizing the data. We would also like to thank K, M. Theiling for sharing the details of her database. Literature Cited ‘Smith, W. G and J, Barnard. 1992. Chem-News Profiles, Pesticide Management and Education Program, CENET, Comell Cooperative Extension Electronic Information Network, Comell University, aca, NY. Hotchkiss, B.E., J. W. Gillett, M. A. Kamrin, J. W. Witt, and ‘A. Craigmill. 1989. EXTOXNET, Extension Toxicology "Network, A Pesticide Information Project of Cooperative Extension Offices of Comell University, The University of California, Michigan State University and Oregon State University, Comell University, Ithaca, NY. ‘Morse, R. 1989. Bee Poisoning, In the New York State Pesticide Recommendations 1989 edition, The Chemicals-Pesticides Program, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY. 28-30. ‘MSDS Reference for Crop Protection Chemicals 1990/91. Chemi ccal and Pharmaceutical Press, John Wiley & Sons, New York, National Pesticide/Soils Database and User Decision Support System for Risk Assessment of Ground and Surface Water Contamination. 1990. Soil Conservation Service Water Qual- ity/Quantity Technical Ref. 10: 23-29. Theiling, K-M. and B.A. Croft. 1988. Pesticide Side-Effects on ‘Arthropod Natural Enemies: A Database Summary. Agricul- ture, Ecosystems and Environment, 21: 191-218, ‘he continuation of sch equality of porn. 'uisthe poi of Cell Unive atively to suppor equality of educational opportunity. No peson sal be denied Admission wo any edcatioal program of sev or be nied employment on the basis of any legally prohibited Aisciminaton volving, batt imited esac factors as race, oor, ceed, eigion rainal rene origin, 2, Age or handicap. The Unversity is commited to the maintenance of afinmaive acon programs which will sue